Writing, Rewriting, and Overwriting in the Books of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets: Essays in Honor of Cynthia Edenburg (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium) 9789042940000, 9789042940017, 904294000X

Citation preview

WRITING, REWRITING, AND OVERWRITING IN THE BOOKS OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE FORMER PROPHETS ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF CYNTHIA EDENBURG

WRITING, REWRITING, AND OVERWRITING IN THE BOOKS OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE FORMER PROPHETS

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

EDITED BY THE BOARD OF EPHEMERIDES THEOLOGICAE LOVANIENSES

L.-L. Christians, J. Famerée, É. Gaziaux, J. Geldhof, A. Join-Lambert, M. Lamberigts, J. Leemans, D. Luciani, A.C. Mayer, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EXECUTIVE EDITORS

J. Famerée, M. Lamberigts, D. Luciani, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EDITORIAL STAFF

R. Corstjens – C. Timmermans

UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE

KU LEUVEN LEUVEN

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM CCCIV

WRITING, REWRITING, AND OVERWRITING IN THE BOOKS OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE FORMER PROPHETS ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF CYNTHIA EDENBURG

EDITED BY

IDO KOCH – THOMAS RÖMER – OMER SERGI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2019

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4000-0 eISBN 978-90-429-4001-7 D/2019/0602/91 Allrightsreserved.Exceptinthosecasesexpresslydeterminedbylaw, nopartofthispublicationmaybemultiplied,savedinanautomateddatafile ormadepublicinanywaywhatsoever withouttheexpresspriorwrittenconsentofthepublishers. © 2019 – Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CYNTHIA EDENBURG – LIST

IX

PUBLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII

Konrad SCHMID (Zürich) Wellhausen and the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History: Unearthing an Almost Forgotten Theory . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Jan Christian GERTZ (Heidelberg) The Compositional Function and Literary-Historical Setting of Deuteronomy 1–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Sara J. MILSTEIN (Vancouver) Will and (Old) Testament: Reconsidering the Roots of Deuteronomy 25,5-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

Richard D. NELSON (Columbia City, IN) Disorienting Rhetoric in Joshua 8,30-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

Angela Roskop ERISMAN (Brooklyn, NY) Caleb and the Territory of Judah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

OF

Thomas B. DOZEMAN (Dayton, OH) Bethel in the Wars of Ambush in Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21 105 Reinhard MÜLLER (Göttingen) The Redactional Framework of Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Christoph LEVIN (München) Debora und Jaël im Jahwekrieg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Nadav NAʼAMAN (Tel Aviv) Sources and Composition in the List of Minor Judges. . . . . . . . 161 Omer SERGI – Oded LIPSCHITS – Ido KOCH (Tel Aviv) Memories of the Early Israelite Monarchy in the Books of Samuel and Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Hannes BEZZEL (Jena) Noch einmal: ‫ויהי איש‬, 1 Samuel 1 und der Anfang des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Israel FINKELSTEIN (Tel Aviv) – Thomas RÖMER (Paris – Lausanne) Kiriath-jearim, Kiriath-baal/Baalah, Gibeah: A GeographicalHistory Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Jürg HUTZLI (Zürich – Lausanne) Priestly(-Like) Texts in Samuel and Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Nathan MACDONALD (Cambridge, UK) David’s Two Priests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Steven L. MCKENZIE (Memphis, TN) The Use of Wiederaufnahme in the Elijah and Elisha Stories . . 263 Gary N. KNOPPERS History as Confession? The Fall of Jerusalem and Judah in Deuteronomistic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Christophe NIHAN (Lausanne) Deuteronomic Alignment in Chronicles: Royal Reforms and the Elimination of Cultic Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Yairah AMIT (Tel Aviv) The Place of Ishmael in the Abraham Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Reinhard ACHENBACH (Münster) Narrative and Rhetorical Realisation or ‘Making Present’: Vergegenwärtigung in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 INDEX OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

INTRODUCTION

Cynthia Edenburg is one of the leading experts of the formation of the books covering Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets, commonly called “the Deuteronomistic History”. She has renewed our understanding of the process of how the narrative and legal traditions that are gathered in these books were written down for the first time before they were edited in several ways by the Deuteronomistic redactors. She provided new insight into these redactional processes by distinguishing several ways of revising a text. As Cynthia stated on several occasions, “redaction analysis must provide an adequate explanation of the considerations that led later scribes to change the shape of the text they received”1. In several publications Cynthia Edenburg presented the different ways of analyzing evidence for revisions in the biblical texts. These revisions can take place in different ways, especially in the three following main models: rewriting, overwriting and overriding. The first model is that an author or redactor (the distinction of those is often blurred) rewrites an older text in order to implement his own ideas, which leads him sometimes to omit passages of the source text that contain conflicting views. Material evidence for this kind of revision can be found in the Gilgamesh epic, but also in the rewriting of Assyrian annals. That Judean scribes adopted a similar method can be seen in the case of the book of Chronicles, which can be understood as a rewriting of the books of Samuel and Kings, or the rewriting of the Covenant Code in the Deuteronomic Law. More common however is the method of overwriting by integrating new passages into the text they edited with little attempt to harmonize the expansion with the older account. There are numerous examples for this technique in the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Bible. This is for instance the case in the Egyptian Book of the Dead whose different editions allow for easily identifying expansions by later scribes. In the Hebrew Bible there are numerous cases for this redactional technique, as for instance the overwriting in Exod 11,1-3, which interrupts the narrative in 10,21-29 and 11,4-8, 1. C. EDENBURG, Rewriting, Overwriting, and Overriding: Techniques of Editorial Revision in the Deuteronomistic History, in A. BRENNER – F.H. POLAK (eds.), Words, Ideas,Worlds:BiblicalEssaysinHonourofYairahAmit (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 40), Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012, 54-69, p. 55.

X

INTRODUCTION

resulting in the creation of a contradiction in the text2. A similar case is found in the insertion of the Rahab story in Joshua 2, which clearly was not originally introduced by Joshua 1 and contradicts the Deuteronomistic chronology of Josh 1,11 and 3,2. Edenburg calls the third editorial technique “overriding”. This method denotes the appending of new blocks of narrative without integrating them into the narrative strand of their Vorlage. Such a case is the addition of a second farewell speech of Joshua in Joshua 24, which overrides the Deuteronomistic junction of Joshua 23 and Judg 2,6ff.3. There are also Ancient Near Eastern parallels to this strategy, as one sees, for instance, in the addition of Tablet XII to the Gilgamesh epic, or in more recent time, the addition of Mark 16,9-20 to the Gospel of Mark, which is missing in the oldest manuscripts. Cynthia has demonstrated these different methods of editing and revising in several articles and book chapters, especially in her magnum opus on Judges 17–21, which is today not only the most important study of the last chapters of the book of Judges, but also a masterful introduction to the question of the formation and the composition of the so-called Deuteronomistic History. Judges 17–21, which reflects a complex redaction history, was added between the end of the book of Judges and the beginning of the history of the monarchy in the books of Samuel in order to override the portrait of Benjamin in the Deuteronomistic History. This editorial device leads the addressees not only to question the legitimacy of Benjamin but also to question the institution of the monarchy, which arose on Benjaminite soil4. Cynthia Edenburg also bridges gaps between different scholarly traditions. Of US origin she studied and teaches in Israel, but is fully conversant with European scholarship on the Deuteronomistic History and the Hebrew Bible. We are very pleased to offer to Cynthia this volume which reflects her influence on current scholarship and also the high appreciation she enjoys in the field. The majority of the contributions that are gathered in this volume pursue the question of the composition and revision of the books of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets. We are very thankful to all of our colleagues who agreed to contribute to this volume that will 2. According to Exod 10,28-29 the discussion between Moses and the Pharaoh is supposed to be the last encounter of both protagonists. Through the insertion of the divine speech in 11,1-3 there is now a contradiction between 10,28-29 and 11,4-8; the latter appears now as a new meeting between Moses and the Egyptian king. 3. C. EDENBURG, Joshua24:ADiaspora-orientedOverridingoftheJoshuaScroll, in HeBAI6 (2017) 161-180. 4. C. EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole:CompositionandPurposeofJudges19–21 (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 24), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2016.

INTRODUCTION

XI

become, so we hope, a state of the art volume on questions of redactional techniques and the Deuteronomistic History. Last but not least we would like to thank Professor Joseph Verheyden for having accepted this volume in the series BETL and Mr. Paul Peeters of Peeters Publishers for his efficiency in publishing this book. Our thanks also go to Robert Kashow, Brown University, for his help with the English editing of some papers. Our greatest thanks however go to Cynthia, for her scholarship, for her thinking out of the box, and for her true friendship. Mazel Tov, Cynthia! Ido KOCH – Thomas RÖMER – Omer SERGI

XII

INTRODUCTION

CYNTHIA EDENBURG – LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

1. How(Not)toMurderaKing:VariationsonaThemein1Sam24; 26, in SJOT12 (1998) 64-85. 2. Ideology and Social Context of the Deuteronomic Women’s Sex Laws(Deuteronomy22:13-29), in JBL 128 (2009) 43-60. 3. David, the Great King, King of the Four Quarters: Structure and SignificationintheCatalogofDavid’sConquests(2Samuel8:1-14; 1 Chronicles18:1-13), in K. NOLL – B. SCHRAMM (eds.), RaisingUp aFaithfulExegete:EssaysinHonorofRichardD.Nelson, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2010, 159-175. 4. Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership:SomePreliminaryObservations, in JSOT 32 (2010) 131-148. 5. NotesontheOriginoftheBiblicalTraditionRegardingAchishKing ofGath, in VT61 (2011) 34-38. 6. FromEdentoBabylon;ReadingGen2–4asaParadigmaticNarrative, in T. DOZEMAN – T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch: Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through2Kings (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011, 155-167. 7. King,Kingship,Kingdom:StudiesintheHistoryandHistoriography of Israel and Judah, Open University of Israel, 2011-2014 (Hebrew). 8. ‘OverwritingandOverriding’,orWhatIsNotDeuteronomistic, in M. NISSINEN (ed.), Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (20th Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament; VT.S, 148), Leiden, Brill, 2012, 443-460. 9. Joshua9andDeuteronomy,anIntertextualConundrum:TheChicken ortheEgg?, in K. SCHMID – R.F. PERSON (eds.),Deuteronomyinthe Pentateuch,Hexateuch,andtheDeuteronomisticHistory (FAT, II/56), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 115-132. 10. Rewriting, Overwriting, and Overriding: Techniques of Editorial RevisionintheDeuteronomisticHistory, in A. BRENNER – F.H. POLAK (eds.), Words,Ideas,Worlds:BiblicalEssaysinHonourofYairah Amit (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 40), Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012, 54-69. 11. C. EDENBURG – J. PAKKALA (eds.),IsSamuelamongtheDeuteronomists?CurrentViewsonthePlaceofSamuelinaDeuteronomistic

XIV

12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21.

CYNTHIA EDENBURG – LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

History (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 16), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. IISam21,1-14andIISam23,1-7asPost-ChrAdditionstotheSamuel Scroll, in U. BECKER – H. BEZZEL (eds.), Rereadingtherelecture? TheQuestionof(Post)chronisticInfluenceintheLatestRedactions oftheBooksofSamuel (FAT, II/66), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2014, 167-182. FromCovenanttoConnubium:PersianPeriodDevelopmentsinthe PerceptionofCovenantintheDeuteronomisticHistory, in G.N. KNOPPERS – R.J. BAUTSCH (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2015, 131149. Paradigm,IllustrativeNarrativeorMidrash:TheCaseofJosh7–8 and Deuteromic/istic Law, in C. BERNER – H. SAMUEL (eds.), The ReceptionofBiblicalWarLegislationinNarrativeContexts:Studies inLawandNarrative(BZAW, 460), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015, 123137. A Northern Provenance for Deuteronomy? A Critical Review, in HeBAI4 (2015) 148-161. R. MÜLLER – C. EDENBURG (eds.), Deuteronomy: A Judean or Samari(t)anComposition?PerspectivesonDeuteronomy’sOrigins, TransmissionandReception (= thematic issue of HeBAI 4/2 [2015] 145-229); with additional contributions by G.N. KNOPPERS – I. HJELM – M. KARTVEIT – A. SCHENKER. DismemberingtheWhole:CompositionandPurposeofJudges19–21 (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 24), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2016. W. DIETRICH – C. EDENBURG – P. HUGO (eds.), TheBooksofSamuel: Stories – History – Reception History (BETL, 284), Leuven, Peeters, 2016. ‘DavidReproachedHimself’:Revisiting1Sam24and26inLightof 2Sam21–24,in W. DIETRICH – C. EDENBURG – P. HUGO (eds.), The BooksofSamuel:Stories–History–ReceptionHistory (BETL, 284), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 469-480. Do the Pentateuchal Sources Extend into the Former Prophets? Joshua1andtheRelationoftheFormerProphetstothePentateuch, in J.C. GERTZ – B.M. LEVINSON – D. ROM-SHILONI – K. SCHMID (eds.), TheFormationofthePentateuch:BridgingtheAcademicCultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT, 111), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 795-812. 2 Sam 21–24: Haphazard Miscellany or Deliberate Revision?, in R. MÜLLER – J. PAKKALA (eds.), InsightsintoEditingintheHebrew

CYNTHIA EDENBURG – LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

22. 23. 24.

25.

26. 27. 28.

29.

30.

31.

XV

BibleandtheAncientNearEast:WhatDoesDocumentedEvidence TellUsabouttheTransmissionofAuthoritativeTexts? (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 84), Leuven, Peeters, 2017, 189222. LastWordsofDavid, in EBR 15 (2017) 852-853. Joshua24:ADiaspora-orientedOverridingoftheJoshuaScroll, in HeBAI6 (2017) 161-180. EnvelopesandSeams:HowJudgesFits(orNot)withintheDeuteronomisticHistory, in C. BERNER – H. SAMUEL (eds.), Book-Seams intheHexateuchI:TheLiteraryTransitionsbetweentheBooksof Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (FAT, 120), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, 353-369. Levite’s Concubine, in Encyclopedia of the Bible Online (2018), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter; from https://www.degruyter.com/ view/EBR/key_b70d99e3-39c4-451d-859c-efea7d64356a. Saul and David: Sources and Images, Open University of Israel, 2018 (Hebrew). BookoftheCovenant, in P. BARMASH (ed.), OxfordHandbookofBiblicalLaw, Oxford, Oxford University Press, forthcoming. R. MÜLLER – C. EDENBURG (eds.), TreatyandCovenant:Deuteronomy in Light of the Neo-Assyrian and Aramaic adê-Tradition (= thematic issue of HeBAI 8 [2019] forthcoming); with additional contributions by H.U. STEYMANS – W. MORROW – J. PAKKALA – J. LAUINGER. ConstructionofSelf-identitybyMarginalizinganImagedOther, in J. RO (ed.), History and Historicity: The Deuteronomistic History andItsContext (LHBOTS), London, T&T Clark, forthcoming. TheBookofJosiah,ortheBookofJoshua:ExcavatingtheLiterary History of the Story of the Conquest, in I. KOCH – O. SERGI – O. LIPSCHITS (eds.), FromNomadismtoMonarchy–30YearsLater, Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University, forthcoming. Wilderness,LiminalityandDavid’sRiteofPassage, in H. BEZZEL – R.G. KRATZ (eds.), DavidintheDesert:1Sam16–2Sam5 (BZAW), Berlin, De Gruyter, forthcoming.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE JOSIANIC EDITION OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY UNEARTHING AN ALMOST FORGOTTEN THEORY

I. INTRODUCTION It is unremarkable to say that Hebrew Bible studies is a discipline rich in hypotheses. The fact that it only offers a few widely-accepted hypotheses is the natural flip side of this discovery. One of the most successful of them is that of the “Deuteronomistic History”, which recognizes a coherent work of Deuteronomistic interpretation from the exilic period behind the books of Deuteronomy–2 Kings. It traces back its origins in essence to Martin Noth, who formulated the hypothesis in his “Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien” from 19431, and its validity has remained largely uncontested into recent scholarship. It is no less than 75 years old, surpassed in durability only by “Third Isaiah” (1892-1989), 1. Cf. the presentation of the history of scholarship by T. RÖMER – A. DE PURY, L’historiographiedeutéronomiste(HD):Histoiredelarechercheetenjeuxdudébat, in A. DE PURY – T. RÖMER – J.-D. MACCHI (eds.), Israëlconstruitsonhistoire:L’historiographiedeutéronomisteàlalumièredesrecherchesrécentes (MoBi, 34), Geneva, Labor et Fides, 1996, 9-120, here pp. 31-39; T. VEIJOLA, MartinNoths“ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien”unddieTheologiedesAltenTestaments, in ID., MosesErben:Studienzum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT, 149), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2000, 11-28; W. DIETRICH, MartinNothunddieZukunftdesdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerkes, in ID., VonDavidzudenDeuteronomisten:Studienzuden GeschichtsüberlieferungendesAltenTestaments (BWANT, 156), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2002, 181-198; U. RÜTERSWÖRDEN (ed.), Martin Noth – aus der Sicht der heutigen Forschung (BTSt, 58), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2004; C. LEVIN, Nach siebzigJahren:MartinNothsÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien, in ZAW 125 (2013) 72-92. Noth’s thesis is powerfully re-presented by E. BLUM, DasexilischedeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk, in H.-J. STIPP (ed.), DasdeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk (ÖBS, 39), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2011, 269-295, here p. 289; K. SCHMID, TheDeuteronomisticImageofHistoryasInterpretiveDeviceintheSecondTemplePeriod:Towardsa Long-TermInterpretationof“Deuteronomism”, in M. NISSINEN (ed.), CongressVolume Helsinki2010 (VT.S, 148), Leiden, Brill, 2012, 369-388. The present article is a revised and updated translation of my HatteWellhausenrecht?DasProblemderliterarhistorischenAnfängedesDeuteronomismusindenKönigebüchern, in M. WITTE – K. SCHMID – D. PRECHEL – J.C. GERTZ (eds.), DiedeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerke:Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in ToraundVorderenPropheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2006, 1943.

2

K. SCHMID

“Deutero-Isaiah” (1775- )2, and the “Priestly Document” (1869-3 or 1876-4). However, in the past several years, this hypothesis has emerged as the topic of discussion. Why? One can name an internal and an external reason. The external reason can be observed in the new departures within Pentateuchal scholarship over the last 40 years. They have placed the hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History in a considerably new light, which has, however, only become clear recently. In any case, a considerable majority of scholarship tends toward the opinion that Noth’s classical formation of the hypothesis can no longer be maintained today. It was conceived on the backdrop of an older pre-Deuteronomistic Tetra- or Hexateuch, which present scholarship no longer accepts as a presupposition. The internal reason arises as a result of the many observations, some of which emerged some time ago, by Gerhard von Rad5, Hans Walter Wolff 6, Helga Weippert7, the Cross school8, Norbert Lohfink9, Gottfried Vanoni10, André Lemaire11, 2. Cf. M. MULZER, DöderleinundDeuterojesaja, in BN 66 (1993) 15-22. 3. T. NÖLDEKE, Die sog. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs, in ID., Untersuchungen zur KritikdesAltenTestaments, Kiel, Schwers, 1869, 1-144. 4. Cf. the advance publication of J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition des Hexateuchs undderhistorischenBücherdesAltenTestaments, Berlin, Reimer, 31899, in Jahrbuchfür DeutscheTheologie 21 (1876) 392-450, 531-602; 22 (1877) 407-479. 5. G. VON RAD, Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den Königsbüchern (1947), in ID.,GesammelteStudienzumAltenTestament (ThB, 8), München, Kaiser, 1958, 189-204; cf. also before Noth, for example W. RUDOLPH, Der“Elohist”vonExodusbis Josua (BZAW, 68), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1938, pp. 240-244. 6. H.W. WOLFF, DasKerygmadesdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks, in ZAW 73 (1961) 171-186; = ID., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB, 22), München, Kaiser, 1964, 308-324. 7. H. WEIPPERT, Die“deuteronomistischen”BeurteilungenderKönigevonIsraelund JudaunddasProblemderRedaktionderKönigsbücher, in Bib 53 (1972) 301-339. 8. F.M. CROSS, TheThemesoftheBookofKingsandtheStructureoftheDeuteronomisticHistory, in ID., CanaaniteMythandHebrewEpic:EssaysintheHistoryofReligion ofIsrael, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1973, 274-289 and subsequently e.g. R.D. NELSON, TheDoubleRedactionoftheDeuteronomisticHistory (JSOT.S, 18), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1981; G. KNOPPERS, TwoNationsunderGod:TheDeuteronomisticHistoryofSolomonandtheDualMonarchies, Vol. I/II (HSM, 52-53), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1993-94, vol. I, pp. 51-52; with more detail on the history of scholarship: RÖMER – DE PURY, L’historiographie deutéronomiste (n. 1), pp. 47-50; M. AVIOZ, TheBookofKingsinRecentResearch(PartI), in CR:BS 4 (2005) 11-55, here pp. 14-16. 9. N. LOHFINK,KerygmatadesDeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks, in J. JEREMIAS – L. PERLITT (eds.),DieBotschaftunddieBoten:FSH.W.Wolff, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1981, 87-100. 10. G. VANONI, BeobachtungenzurdeuteronomistischenTerminologiein2Kön23,25– 25,30, in N. LOHFINK (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1985, 357-362. 11. A. LEMAIRE, Versl’histoiredelaRédactiondesLivresdesRois, in ZAW 98 (1986) 221-236.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

3

Iain Provan12, Mark A. O’Brien13, Baruch Halpern and David Vanderhooft14, Ansgar Moenikes15, Erik Eynikel16, Marvin Sweeney17, Thomas Römer18, Cynthia Edenburg19, and others on the necessity of a rather comprehensive 12. I.W. PROVAN, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate abouttheCompositionoftheDeuteronomisticHistory (BZAW, 172), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1988. 13. M.A. O’BRIEN, TheDeuteronomisticHistoryHypothesis:AReassessment (OBO, 92), Fribourg, University Press; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. 14. B. HALPERN – D.S. VANDERHOOFT, TheEditionsofKingsinthe7th-6thCenturies B.C.E., in HUCA 62 (1991) 179-244. 15. A. MOENIKES, Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des sogenannten Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, in ZAW 104 (1992) 333-348. 16. E. EYNIKEL, TheReformofKingJosiahandtheCompositionoftheDeuteronomistic History(OTS, 33), Leiden, Brill, 1996. 17. M.A. SWEENEY, KingJosiahofJudah,theLostMessiahofIsrael, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001. 18. T. RÖMER, TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory:ASociological,Historicaland LiteraryIntroduction, London, T&T Clark, 2007; ID., CultCentralizationinDeuteronomy12:BetweenDeuteronomisticHistoryandPentateuch, in E. OTTO – R. ACHENBACH (eds.), DasDeuteronomiumzwischenPentateuchundDeuteronomistischemGeschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, 168-180; ID., Entstehungsphasen des “deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes”, in WITTE et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerke (n. 1), 45-70; ID., DasdoppelteEndedesJosuabuches: EinigeAnmerkungenzuraktuellenDiskussionum“deuteronomistischesGeschichtswerk”und “Hexateuch”, in ZAW 118 (2006) 523-548; ID., DieAnfängejudäischerGeschichtsschreibungimsogenanntenDeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk, in J. FREY – K. ROTHSCHILD – K. CLARE – J. SCHRÖTER (eds.), DieApostelgeschichteimKontextantikerundfrühchristlicher Historiographie (BZNW, 162), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2009, 51-76; ID., DasDeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk(Deuteronomium–2.Könige), in T. RÖMER – J.-D. MACCHI – C.L. NIHAN (eds.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Die Bücher der Hebräischen Bibel und die alttestamentlichenSchriftenderkatholischen,protestantischenundorthodoxenKirchen, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2013, 291-307; ID., TheCaseoftheBookofKings, in D.V. EDELMAN (ed.), Deuteronomy–KingsasEmergingAuthoritativeBooks:AConversation (Ancient Near East Monographs, 6), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2014, 187-201; ID., DieErfindungderGeschichteimantikenJudaunddieEntstehungderHebräischen Bibel, in M. MEYER-BLANCK – L. SCHMITZ (eds.), Geschichte und Gott: XV. EuropäischerKongressfürTheologie(14.-18.September2014inBerlin) (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 44), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016, 37-57; ID., The‘Deuteronomistic’CharacteroftheBookofJeremiah:A ResponsetoChristlM.Maier, in H. NAJMAN – K. SCHMID (eds.), Jeremiah’sScriptures: Production,Reception,InteractionandTransformation (JSJ.S, 173), Leiden, Brill, 2017, 124-131. Cf. also E. AURELIUS, ZukunftjenseitsdesGerichts:Eineredaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch (BZAW, 319), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2003, p. 39 n. 67. 19. C. EDENBURG, II Sam 21,1-14 and II Sam 23,1-7 as Post-Chr Additions to the SamuelScroll, in U. BECKER – H. BEZZEL (eds.), Rereadingtherelecture?TheQuestion of(Post)chronisticInfluenceintheLatestRedactionsoftheBooksofSamuel (FAT, II/66), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2014, 167-182; C. EDENBURG – J. PAKKALA (eds.), Is Samuel amongtheDeuteronomists?CurrentViewsonthePlaceofSamuelinaDeuteronomistic History (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 16), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2013; C. EDENBURG, ‘OverwritingandOverriding’,orWhatIsNotDeuteronomistic, in NISSINEN (ed.), CongressVolumeHelsinki2010 (n. 1), 443-460; EAD., Joshua9and

4

K. SCHMID

differentiation in terms of content, language, and theological history within Deuteronomism in Deuteronomy–2 Kings (or partial contexts thereof, such as in the books of Kings). These observations render Noth’s thesis of a singleDeuteronomist rather improbable (see below n. 25). The attempts in the wake of Rudolf Smend20 to change the shape of the theory in minimal ways to separate Noth’s “Dtr” into “DtrH”, “DtrP”, and “DtrN” also do not appear to go far enough. Both reasons have led to the current situation, in which (a) the literary extent of Noth’s history and (b) its internal compositional stratification are up for debate. This does not indicate, however, that the concept of the “Deuteronomistic History” should be abandoned21. The clear linguistic idiom of Deuteronomism and the close kinship of the theologies subsumed under this term argue to the contrary. A pluralization of the term is therefore more desirable. The key to the Deuteronomistic question in the historical books of the Hebrew Bible probably lies in compositional, redactionhistorical, and theological-historical differentiations of the texts and text complexes designated as belonging to Deuteronomism. At the same time, the historical compositional horizon of such differentiations should initially be made as broadly as possible. From a historical perspective, basically the entire span from Esarhaddon22 to Matthew23 Deuteronomy,anIntertextualConundrum:TheChickenortheEgg?, in K. SCHMID – R.F. PERSON (eds.),DeuteronomyinthePentateuch,Hexateuch,andtheDeuteronomistic History (FAT, II/56), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 115-132. 20. R. SMEND, Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte, in H.W. WOLFF (ed.), ProblemebiblischerTheologie:FSG.von Rad, München, Kaiser, 1971, 494-509; = ID., DieMittedesAltenTestaments:GesammelteStudien, Vol. 1 (BEvT, 99), München, Kaiser, 1986, 124-137; ID., DieEntstehungdesAltenTestaments (Theologische Wissenschaft, 1), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1978, 4 1989, pp. 111-125; here p. 113 provides a short examination of Wellhausen. Cf. below n. 50. 21. Cf. the discussion by T. VEIJOLA, DeuteronomismusforschungzwischenTradition undInnovationIII, in TR 68 (2003) 1-44, pp. 24-41. 22. The Neo-Assyrian background of Deuteronomism can be seen as established. Cf. E.A. KNAUF, “WiekannichsingenimfremdenLand?”:Die“babylonischeGefangenschaft”Israels, in BiKi 55 (2000) 132-139, esp. pp. 136-137 (see the Neo-Assyrian texts in R. BORGER, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien [Archiv für Orientforschung, B 9], Graz, self-published, 1956, pp. 10-29); M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomyand theDeuteronomicSchool, Oxford, Clarendon, 1972, pp. 59-157; N. LOHFINK, CultureShock andTheology:ADiscussionofTheologyasaCulturalandSociologicalPhenomenonBased ontheExampleofDeuteronomicLaw, in BTB 7 (1977) 12-22; H.U. STEYMANS, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (OBO, 145), Freiburg/Schw., Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995; cf. the discussion in DE PURY etal. (eds.), Israëlconstruit sonhistoire (n. 1), pp. 92-93. 23. Cf. O.H. STECK, IsraelunddasgewaltsameGeschickderPropheten (WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1967, pp. 20-58; 290-316.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

5

and Luke24 is possible. From a literary perspective, no book in Genesis– 2 Kings can be excluded apriori from the discussion of Deuteronomism. Given these desiderata of differentiations in scholarship that have arisen from Noth’s thesis, if one looks back to the observations and judgments of Julius Wellhausen on the issue of Deuteronomism, which this contribution will seek to recall, then one can only ask with astonishment why Noth’s outline was accorded so much success. The same factor of Noth’s DtrH hypothesis that made it so attractive at the time of its formation and heyday are what today many sense as one of its weaknesses: Noth could name “one man”25 as the authorof this work who was not simply a collector or redactor26. As a result the Deuteronomist moved up to the level of J, E, and P, the authors of the Pentateuchal source documents. Noth’s hypothesis thereby postulates – ironically inthecontext ofitshistoricalscholarlyformation–a similarconception of the literary genesis of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History: They were essentially the works of authors. In the same way today, admittedly mutatis mutandis, one again presents their formation as similar: The compositional genesis of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History should be described as analogous, without conjecturing authors, but rather redactors. Noth’s interpretation in 1943, attractive at the time, offered two basic postulates that prepared an abrupt end to the preceding debate over Deuteronomism. First, Noth categorically denies the presence of Deuteronomism in Genesis–Numbers27 as part of his mono-authorial rather than multi-redactional interpretation of the Deuteronomist. He only allows for texts in Deuteronomy–2 Kings to be categorized as “Deuteronomistic”. Second, he locates all Deuteronomisms in the exilic period – as a direct result of his conjecture of one single author of the “Deuteronomistic 24. Cf. ibid., pp. 20-58; 222-239; T. RÖMER – J.-D. MACCHI, Luke, Disciple of the DeuteronomisticSchool, in C.M. TUCKETT (ed.), Luke’sLiteraryAchievement:Collected Essays (JSNT.S, 116), Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1995, 178-187. On the durability of Deuteronomism cf. also T. VEIJOLA, DieDeuteronomistenalsVorgängerderSchriftgelehrten: EinBeitragzurEntstehungdesJudentums, in ID., MosesErben(n. 1), 192-240; SCHMID, TheDeuteronomisticImageofHistory (n. 1). 25. M. NOTH, ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien:DiesammelndenundbearbeitendenGeschichtswerkeimAltenTestament, Halle, Niemeyer, 1943, p. 110. 26. Cf. above, nn. 6 and 9. 27. Cf. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (n. 25), p. 13: “[... I]n den Büchern Gen.-Num. fehlt jede Spur einer ‘deuteronomistischen Redaktion’, wie allgemein anerkannt ist”; see ibid., n. 1: “Dass es einzelne Stellen gibt, an denen der alte Text im deuteronomistischen Stile erweitert worden ist, wie etwa Ex. 23,20ff. und Ex. 34,10ff., hat mit Recht meines Wissens noch niemand für ein Merkmal einer durchgehenden ‘Redaktion’ gehalten”.

6

K. SCHMID

History” working shortly after the amnesty of Jehoiachin. Noth does not develop his thesis through an explicit discussion with a contrary position. One hears little about his opponents in the “Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien”, which only offers the passing remark: “Of late one has often considered a double ‘Deuteronomistic redaction’ of the books Josh– Kings. However, the conjecture of an initial, still preexilic redaction of Deuteronomistic style rests on the erroneous attribution of all sorts of elements of tradition to this first redaction that in reality belong to Dtr’s sources”28. It is probable that Noth had neither Kuenen nor Wellhausen in mind29, unless one would like to suggest that with “of late” he could also mean contributions that were already over half a century old. Noth was probably thinking of O. Eißfeldt, who posits such a double Deuteronomistic redaction in his editing of the books of Kings in E. Kautzsch, Die HeiligeSchriftdesAltenTestaments30. In sum, in 1943 Noth closed the discussion of a complex Deuteronomism that now has been revived on account of the pressure of the evidence of observations. As a result, present exegesis finds itself in a similarly peculiar and comfortable situation in which a look back before Noth also provides a look into the future. However, this retrospective look back should take place in a more criticalmanner and should play only a heuristic,rather than a normative, function. It is noteworthy from the history of scholarship that such a look back before Noth already took place in the 1970s. It carried with it considerable consequences – however for the American discussion rather than the European one31. At both the beginning and end of his essay The Themes of theBookofKingsandtheStructureoftheDeuteronomisticHistory (1973)32, 28. Ibid., p. 91 n. 1; cf. also p. 6 n. 2. See further the notes on Kuenen and Pfeiffer in M. NOTH, ZurGeschichtsauffassungdesDeuteronomisten, in Z.D. TOGAN (ed.), TwentySecondCongressofOrientalists. Vol. II: Communications, Leiden, Brill, 1957, 558-566, p. 564 n. 1-2. 29. Cf. the note in N. LOHFINK, ZurneuerenDiskussionüber2 Kön22–23, in ID. (ed.), DasDeuteronomium (n. 10), 24-48; = ID., StudienzumDeuteronomiumundzurdeuteronomistischenLiteraturII (SBAB, 12), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991, 179-208, p. 188 n. 41. 30. Vol. I, 41922, pp. 492-585, esp. 494: “Deuteronomist between 621 and 607 the composer of the books of Kings I 1–II 23,25a. Deuteronomist2 the composer of the continuation of the book of Kings II 23,25b–25,30, writing after 561”. [German original: “Dt der zwischen 621 und 607 schreibende Verfasser des Königsbuch I 1–II 23,25a. Dt2 der Verfasser der Weiterführung des Königsbuches II 23,25b–25,30, nach 561 schreibend”.] In his “Introduction”, O. EISSFELDT continues to show his sympathy for this view, but he becomes considerably more cautious (EinleitungindasAlteTestament, Tübingen, Mohr, 3 1964, pp. 380-381; 403). 31. Cf. on the Cross-School, above, n. 8. 32. Cf. TheThemesoftheBookofKings(n. 8), esp. pp. 275; 289.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

7

F.M. Cross references Kuenen33 and Wellhausen as the pivotal impulses. However, he simultaneously follows Noth in the almost complete separation of a non-Deuteronomistic Tetrateuch from a Deuteronomistic History34.

II. WELLHAUSEN’S DEUTERONOMISM Deuteronomism did not present one of Wellhausen’s central interpretive categories. He was still quite removed from the pan-Deuteronomism of the late 20th century35. One must read as far as p. 239 (ET: 231) in the “Prolegomena” before one first comes across the adjective Deuteronomistic in the description of the schema of the Judges from Judges 236: It is usual to call this later revision Deuteronomistic. The law which Jehovah has enjoined upon the fathers, and the breach of which He has threatened severely to punish (ii. 15, 21), is not indeed more definitely characterised, but it is impossible to doubt that its quintessence is the injunction to worship Jehovah alone and no other God37.

This “late” evidence of the adjective arises from the fact that Wellhausen saw Deuteronomism at work in the books of Judges and Samuel, and as especially prominent in the book of Kings. The Deuteronomistic editing in Judges38 and Samuel39 was already preceded by various overarching literary 33. Cf. A. KUENEN, Historisch-kritischeEinleitungindieBücherdesAltenTestaments hinsichtlichihrerEntstehungundSammlung, I/2, Leipzig, Schulze, 1890, pp. 90-96. 34. CROSS, TheThemesoftheBookofKings(n. 8), p. 289. 35. Cf. L.S. SCHEARING – S.L. MCKENZIE (eds.), ThoseElusiveDeuteronomists:The PhenomenonofPan-Deuteronomism (JSOT.S, 268), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, see on this VEIJOLA, Deuteronomismusforschung (n. 21), pp. 26-27. 36. For the following section cf. F. BLANCO WISSMANN, “Er tat das Rechte ..”.: BeurteilungskriterienundDeuteronomismusin1Kön12–2Kön25 (ATANT, 93), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2008. For Wellhausen’s terminology: “The difference between Deuteronomistic and Deuteronomic is one not of time only but of matter as well: Deuteronomy itself has not yet come to regard the cultus in this way as the chief end of Israel, and is much closer to the realism of the actual life of the people” (J. WELLHAUSEN, ProlegomenazurGeschichteIsraels, Berlin, Reimer, 31886, p. 292 = 61927 [repr. 2001], p. 278; ET: p. 280). 37. Prolegomena, 61927 (n. 36), p. 227; ET: p. 231. 38. “The revised form in which the Book of Judges found its way into the canon is unquestionably of Judæan origin, but the histories themselves are not such, … the historical continuity on which so much stress is laid by the scheme, is in no way shown in the individual narratives of the Book of Judges. These stand beside one another unconnectedly and without any regard to order or sequence” (Prolegomena61927 [n. 36], p. 228 [ET: p. 232] and p. 229 [ET: p. 234]). 39. WELLHAUSEN distinguishes three earlier literary units in Samuel(–Kings): 1 Samuel 1– 14; 1 Sam 14,52–2 Sam 8,18; 2 Samuel 9–1 Kings 2 (Composition [n. 4], p. 263).

8

K. SCHMID

complexes. The editing then appeared “partitioned in Judges, David (for this would be the fitting name for Samuel) and Kings”40 in order to connect the three books with the Hexateuch. Whether they all originate from the same hand or hands is unimportant; however, the contacts in the chronological-moralistic schema of the books of Judges and Kings are so striking that one must certainly assume it and then one can hardly exclude the book of Samuel that lies in between41.

There are other reasons for the fact that Samuel displays less affinity to Deuteronomism: It does not need to be highlighted once more that the systematic and continuous moralistic-chronological editing of the books of Judges and Kings can seldom be noticed in the books of Samuel. It should likely be explained by the cohesive detail of the material that was difficult to separate into schematic subjects. The fact that no offences against the Bamoth are expressed – which are also not the case in Judges – must be judged in light of the explanation given in 1 Kgs 3,2 that the high places were allowed before the building of the temple42.

With regard to the book of Kings, in the “Composition des Hexateuchs” Wellhausen presented the opinion – with explicit references to Ewald43 – “that the actual composition of the book of Kings had still taken place before the exile and only subsequently received an exilic or (if not and) postexilic redaction”44 (the “Prolegomena” is completely silent on this topic). By composition Wellhausen means the combination of preexisting individual narratives in a formulaic framework, whereby the former is completely reliant in terms of content on the latter: In the Israelite series one cannot understand Ahaz’s speech of judgment I 14 without 12,25ff., Elijah’s appearance in 17,1 without 16,29ff., the rebellion of Jehu in II 9 without 8,28f.; the conclusion of the episode begins directly with Ahab in connection to the previous narrative and is himself virtually replaced with Joram ben Ahab. The fact that the expansive depiction does not intrinsically have premises from the abridgement, so the abridger should be seen as the one who received it and who from

40. Ibid., p. 301. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid., pp. 262-263 (cf. Prolegomena, 61927 [n. 36], p. 242; ET: p. 245: “The comprehensive revision which we noticed in the Book of Judges has left its mark on the Books of Samuel too. As, however, in this case the period is short, and extremely rich in incident, and really forms a connected whole, the artificial frame- and net-work does not make itself so much felt”). 43. Cf. the reference in Composition (n. 4), p. 299 n. 1 to H. EWALD, Geschichtedes VolkesIsrael, Vol. I, Göttingen, Dieterichs, 31864, pp. 227ff. 44. Composition (n. 4), p. 298.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

9

the beginning put in his excerpts; that is, in other words, he is the actual composer of the book of Kings45.

So what results for Wellhausen from the placement of this Deuteronomistic composer of the book of Kings in the late-preexilic period? Even before the actual argument about its historical location, Wellhausen had in mind the following with regard to the judgments of the kings: The writer that formed this skeleton for the book of Kings is committed with heart and soul to the reformation of Josiah46.

The reason for this assessment is self-evident: The kings of the Northern Kingdom were evaluated negatively, while the kings of the Southern Kingdom receive limited censures when they allow the cult of the high places to remain in operation, which the incomparable Josiah then permanently abolished (cf. below, Section IV). This judgment of the content does not, however, mean eoipsothe contemporary composition for Wellhausen. He goes on first to discuss an exilic placement for the “skeleton”: After II 25 (= Jeremiah 52) one could think first of the end of the Babylonian exile, after the death of Jehoiachin, cf. ‫ כל ימי חייו‬25,30. All sorts of other verses appear to agree that presuppose the destruction of the kingdom of Judah, e.g. II 17,19.20; 21,10-15. (22,20?); 23,26.27, without even mentioned I, 8,46ss. However, upon closer observation, these verses are rather evidence for the fact that the original composition of the book of Kings took place before the exile and only subsequently did a further exilic or (if not, and) postexilic redaction come along. They are namely all of them, one cannot call them interpolated, but still subsequently interposed into the earlier Deuteronomistic work47.

Wellhausen found further reasons for this supposition in the internal layering of 2 Kings 17, whose basic text “views Judah, in contrast to Israel, as not yet exiled”48, in 2 Kings 22–23, whose “original purpose [was] rather to narrate how the threatened calamity was averted in the last hour by Josiah” – with reference to the historically unfulfilled and therefore 45. Ibid., p. 297: “In der israelitischen Reihe versteht man Ahias Strafrede I 14 nicht ohne 12,25ss., Elias Auftreten 17,1 nicht ohne 16,29ss., den Aufstand Jehus II 9 nicht ohne 8,28s.; der Schluss der Epitome setzt bei Ahab direkt an die vorhergehende Erzählung an und wird bei Joram ben Ahab geradezu durch dieselbe ersetzt. Da nun die ausführlichen Darstellungen nicht ihrerseits von Haus aus die Epitome zur Prämisse haben, so ist der Epitomator als derjenige anzusehen, welcher sie recipirt und darauf von vornherein seine Excerpte angelegt hat; d.h. mit anderen Worten, er ist der eigentliche Verfasser des Buches der Könige”. 46. Ibid., pp. 294-295. 47. Ibid., pp. 297-298. 48. Ibid., p. 298.

10

K. SCHMID

possibly contemporary pronouncement of a peaceful burial for Josiah in 22,20. Finally, he refers – in reliance on Kuenen49 – to the verses that use the formulation “until this day” (2 Kgs 8,22; 14,7; 16,6) and therefore still appears to presuppose the “existence of the Judean Kingdom”50. If one looks back over Judges, Samuel, and Kings from within Wellhausen’s interpretation, then according to Wellhausen, certainly the most important Deuteronomistic literary operations are seen in the drafting of the book of Kings in the Josianic period and then in its exilic revision. Deuteronomisms are also very prominent in the book of Judges according to Wellhausen, while the intervening book of Samuel cannot be excluded from the hypothesis of redaction. However, they took hold less often there. For Wellhausen – even with all the emphasis on Judges through Kings – one must bring Deuteronomism into conversation with the Hexateuch: The Deuteronomist, that is the author that inserted Deuteronomy into the Hexateuchal book of history, concurrently edited the latter from a Deuteronomic point of view; JE is affected much more than Q by this redaction51.

Examples appear to begin in Gen 26,5, then become “stronger … in Exodus after the departure from Egypt”52, in Exodus 13;16;19–24;32–34 as well as – prominent once again – in Numbers and Joshua. Even with all the emphasis on the pre-Priestly setting of Deuteronomism, Wellhausen concedes that scattered “retouches”, such as in the Masoretic redaction of the basic text of Joshua 20, to which the Vorlageof the LXX attests, show that “the tone of the Deuteronomists is imitated”53 also in the wake of Q. How should one critically evaluate this – here only sketched in short – interpretation of Deuteronomism by Wellhausen? One can especially maintain the following two conclusions by Wellhausen in the context of contemporary discussion: (1) From a literary perspective, Deuteronomism appears throughout Genesis–2 Kings. (2) From a historicalperspective, the Deuteronomists are spread out initially from the late preexilic period (Josiah) to the sphere before the Priestly Document (in Wellhausen: “Q”). However, they can also be observed until the time of the closing of the canon of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua 20)54. 49. Ibid.: “Kuenen a.O. p. 263”. Cf. more recently, but likely with too much reliance on this argument, J.C. GEOGHEGAN, “UntilThisDay”andthePreexilicRedactionofthe DeuteronomisticHistory, in JBL 122 (2003) 201-227. 50. Composition (n. 4), p. 301. 51. Ibid., p. 205. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid., p. 207, cf. pp. 132-133. 54. Cf. SCHMID, TheDeuteronomisticImageofHistory (n. 1).

11

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

If one bears these points in mind within the German-speaking discussion, then they are in large part within the realm of discussion, and perhaps even widely held. Onlythesuppositionofthelatepreexilicoriginsof Deuteronomism in the books of Kings, which in the German-speaking context has largely been limited to a separate existence within Catholic scholarship, forms something of an exception. Why has Wellhausen been unable to gain a hearing in this regard?

III. THE REJECTION OF WELLHAUSEN’S INTERPRETATION DEUTERONOMISM IN THE EUROPEAN DISCUSSION

OF

There is a certain irony in the geography of European, particularly German-speaking, scholarship on the Hebrew Bible that the greatest resistance to Wellhausen’s interpretation of Deuteronomism in the books of Kings came and still comes from his former domain of Göttingen. Wellhausen’s judgment that “The writer that formed this skeleton for the book of Kings is committed with heart and soul to the reformation of Josiah” has hardly received a hearing in Göttingen55. One reason could appear in the fact that the most fundamental affirmation of Noth’s thesis albeit with differentiations also arises from Göttingen: Smend’s consequential contribution to the von Rad Festschrift of 1971, “Das Gesetz und die Völker”, as well as its development in his “Die Entstehung des Alten Testament”56 distinguished three new “Deuteronomists”, but all have the same literary extent (Deuteronomy– 2 Kings) and the same historical location (middle of the 6th century BCE) as Noth’s “Deuteronomistic History”, thereby confirming his fundamental decisions. The problem of a double bind results. But since 1971 Göttingen scholarship on the Hebrew Bible has resolved this question entirely in favor of Smend rather than Wellhausen: Deuteronomism is from the outset exilic, stretching literarily from the beginning beyond the depiction of the Josianic reform as far as 2 Kings 25. The following discussion will address 55. However, in the German-speaking realm see for example the works by Römer (above n. 18) and H.-J. STIPP, Ende bei Joschija: Zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen EndederKönigsbücherbzw.desdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks, in ID. (ed.), Das deuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk (ÖBS, 39), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2011, 225-267; = ID., AlttestamentlicheStudien:ArbeitenzuPriesterschrift,DeuteronomistischemGeschichtswerkundProphetie (BZAW, 442), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2013, 391-439; cf. also ID., Remembering Josiah’s Reforms in Kings, in E. BEN ZVI – C. LEVIN (eds.), Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah (FAT, 85), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 225-238. 56. Cf. above, n. 20.

12

K. SCHMID

four examples from Göttingen that perpetuate this thesis, even though Wellhausen’s point of view must have actually been closer to their observations: Spieckermann 1982, Levin 1984, Kratz 2000, and Aurelius 2003. Spieckermann’s analysis of 2 Kings 22–23 from the year 198257 assumes Smend’s DtrH model as its basis for interpretation58. He determines a basic inventory in 2 Kings 22–23 that was present to the first Deuteronomistic redaction DtrH consisting of the discovery of the book (2 Kgs 22,1.3-5.[6.]7-12.13*.14.15*.16a.17b.18.19*.20*), the covenant (23,1.2-3*), and the reform (23,5*.6*.7.8a.10-11.12*.29-30). My concern here is not the persuasiveness or correctness of this analysis or its results, but simply the fact that according to Spieckermann this preexilic Vorlage in 2 Kings 22–23 should also have contained the following statements in 2 Kgs 22,1; 23,29-30: Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. His mother was called Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah from Bozkath (22,1). During his time Pharaoh Necho, the king of Egypt, went out to the King of Assyria on the River Euphrates. Then King Josiah went to oppose him, but he killed him in Megiddo, as soon as he saw him. And his servants carried him away from Megiddo dead, bringing him to Jerusalem and burying him in his grave. However, the people of the land took Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, and they anointed him and made him king in his father’s place (23,29-30).

These passages with their information on the age of the king at the time of his ascension to the throne, the length of his reign (for Judahite kings also the name of the king’s mother), the burial, and the succession are linked clearly with the formulae of the book of Kings. Furthermore, 22,1 is not a beginning nor is 23,29-30 a conclusion. Nevertheless, Spieckermann appears to consider his Vorlage– he speaks of a “report” (pp. 158-159 and often) – an independent contemporary narrative on Josiah’s reform. No possible connection with other contexts (or “sources”) of the books of Kings, which he at times presupposes59, is discussed further. Spieckermann’s 57. H. SPIECKERMANN,JudaunterAssurinderSargonidenzeit (FRLANT, 129), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. 58. Ibid.,p. 30. 59. On the discussion cf. for example C. HARDMEIER, UmrisseeinesvordeuteronomistischenAnnalenwerksderZidkijazeit:ZudenMöglichkeitencomputergestützterTextanalyse, in VT 40 (1990) 165-184; ID., KönigJoschijainderKlimaxdesDtrG(2Reg22f.)unddas vordtrDokumenteinerKultreformamResidenzort(23,4-15*), in R. LUX (ed.), Erzählte Geschichte:BeiträgezurnarrativenKulturimaltenIsrael (BTSt, 40), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2000, 81-145, pp. 87-88 and nn. 13-14; C. LEVIN, TheSynchronistic

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

13

sources in 2 Kings 22–23 concern a pre- and therefore non-Deuteronomistic Vorlageof DtrH. DtrH is the first Deuteronomist that shows a “shaping desire”60. Without the foundation of Smend’s model, Spieckermann’s work would likely have come to the conclusion of a different justification for a preexilic book of Kings, which would still in principle require testing of whether it could be classified as “Deuteronomistic”. The ancient Near Eastern annals in any case indicate the probability that annalistic notices and judgments of piety could belong together61. Instead, Spieckermann separates them from the start on composition-critical bases in the formulae; the chronological information concerning the reign would be source material and attributed to the earlier report of Josiah’s reform (22,1), Excerpt from the Annals of the Kings of Israel and Judah, in ID. (ed.), Re-Reading the Scriptures: Essays on the Literary History of the Old Testament (FAT, 87), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 183-193. See also AVIOZ, TheBookofKings (n. 8), pp. 16-17. Noth (ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien [n. 25], pp. 18; 74; 77) likewise reckons that Dtr used preexisting sources on the chronology of the monarchic period for his work, but he – in accordance with his interpretation of the Dtr as an “author” – does not assume that these sources as such can be literarily reconstructed. Cf. similarly E. WÜRTHWEIN, Die BücherderKönige1.Kön17–2.Kön25 (ATD, 11/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984, 21985p. 489 (“from DtrH in using the framing schema created by earlier sources” [“von DtrG unter Benützung älterer Quellen geschaffene Rahmenschema”]). An alternative model is formulated by A. JEPSEN, DieQuellendesKönigsbuches, Halle, Niemeyer, 1953; 21956; on this cf. C. HARDMEIER, Alfred Jepsens Konzeption zu den Annalen der KönigevonIsraelundJudaunddassogenanntedeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk, in GreifswalderUniversitätsredenNF 101 (2001) 33-39. 60. Juda (n. 57), p. 30. R.G. KRATZ, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des AltenTestaments:GrundwissenderBibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, p. 173, designates 22,1-2 and 23,28-30 as elements of the “annalistic framework of the basic document” (“annalistischen Rahmenschema[s] der Grundschrift”) of DtrG (which corresponds to DtrH), and 22,4-7.9+23,4a.11-12 configured within then as “source excerpts”, for 23,4a.11-12 manifestly linked in content to E. WÜRTHWEIN, Die JosianischeReformunddasDeuteronomium, in ZTK 73 (1976) 395-423, p. 417. In contrast is C. LEVIN, Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in ZAW 96 (1984) 351-371, p. 362, n. 45: “The ‘source’ that Würthwein ... in the end remains in possession of, is quite paltry. … The attribution of v. 4a to a source should clearly be refuted ... For vv. 11-12, however, I do not see how one should bring forward positive evidence. Alone the perspective of the content, which here could possibly be recognized as Assyrian influences on the Judahite cult of the 7th cent., is certainly insufficient”. One might however add that it does not suffice to completely exclude this point of view. 61. Cf. e.g. the source material in A.K. GRAYSON, AssyrianandBabylonianChronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources, 5), New York, Augustin, 1975, pp. 131-156 (Nr. 16 [BM 86379]: “Akitu Chronicle”; Nr. 17 [BM 35968]: “Religious Chronicle”; Nr. 18 [K 11261 + 11624, K 8532 + 8533 + 8534, 81-7-27, 117]: “Dynastic Chronicle”; Nr. 19 [Ass 13955 gv, VAT 14515]: “Weidner Chronicle”; Nr. 20 [BM 26472, BM 96152]: “Chronicle of Early Kings”); see on this the comparison with the royal judgments in M. LIVERANI, Israel’sHistoryandtheHistoryofIsrael (BibleWorld), London, Equinox, 2005, pp. 229-230; cf. also the assortment of texts in J.-J. GLASSNER, MesopotamianChronicles (Writings from the Ancient World, 19), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 212-239.

14

K. SCHMID

while only the specific judgment of piety (22,2) would go back to DtrH. However, the reason why the information on Josiah’s reign remains structurally equivalent to that of the other kings remains unexplained in this reconstruction. As a second example, one can take Levin’s essay on “Josiah in the Deuteronomistic History” from the year 198462. In this case a reverse line of argumentation confirms Smend’s thesis. According to Levin – and contra Spieckermann – there are nopre-Deuteronomisticsourcesin 2 Kings 22–23. Almost everything that the Bible can narrate about Josiah in 2 Kings 22–23, the report of the discovery of the book, covenant, and reform, is placed in the later literary history of the text afterDtrH, which itself is already exilic. Without a literary presentation of a Josianic reform, it naturally follows that no preexilic or exilic history prior to DtrH can reach its climax in that event. The earliest portions of the text in the report of the reform in 2 Kings 23 according to Levin is the note on the high places of v. 8a, which “admittedly” (“anerkanntermaßen”)63 go back to DtrH: And he brought all the priests from the cities of Judah and defiled the high places ‘where’ the priests had sacrificed, from Geba to Beer-sheba.

However, especially in light of Spieckermann’s work, with which Levin was familiar and cited in the same essay, the fact that one would “admittedly” attribute v. 8a to DtrH, though only in one place64, is an astonishing judgment65. Spieckermann calls attention in 2 Kgs 23,8a to the linguistic use in the notice, which is rather atypical for DtrH: (1) The nature of a traditional Deuteronomistic note on the high places appears with Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18,4: ‫“ הוא הסיר את־הבמות‬He removed the high 62. JoschijaimdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk(n. 60). 63. Ibid., p. 358. 64. Ibid., pp. 357-358 n. 22: “Most recently H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit, FRLANT 129, 1982, presented a detailed analysis of 2 Kings 22–23. He essentially retains Würthwein’s three-layer model, enlarging however the portion of the source at the expense of the Deuteronomist and the post-Dueteronomistic redaction [‘PD’]. In doing so, religious-historical rather than composition-critical perspectives were determinative. However, the in truth remarkable agreements with the religious terminology of the Assyrians do not outweigh the literary character of the reform report” [“Zuletzt hat H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit, FRLANT 129, 1982, eine eingehende Analyse von II Reg 22-23 vorgelegt. Er behält Würthweins Drei-SchichtenModell im wesentlichen bei, vergrößert jedoch den Anteil der Quelle zu Lasten des Deuteronomisten und der nachdeuteronomistischen Bearbeitung [‘PD’]. Dabei sind weniger literakritische als religionsgeschichtliche Gesichtspunkte leitend gewesen. Doch wiegen die in der Tat frappierenden Übereinstimmungen mit der religiösen Terminologie der Assyrer die literarische Beschaffenheit des Reformberichts nicht auf”]. 65. WÜRTHWEIN, 1.Kön 17–2.Kön 25 (n. 59), p. 457, for example attributes 23,8a to “DtrN”.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

15

places”. (2) The verb ṭm’“desecrate” used in 2 Kgs 23,8a is “primarily a word from the Priestly sphere of literature” (“primär ein Wort der priesterlichen Literaturbereiche”)66, which here concerns not only the abolition of the high places, but also profaning them forever. (3) In 23,8a the priests and not the people sacrifice, as in the remaining notices on the high places. (4) Only 2 Kgs 23,8a attests to “from Geba to Beer-sheba” as a boundary designation, which Spieckermann takes as an indication of the territory ruled by Josiah. Now Levin himself saw clearly enough that 2 Kgs 23,8a occupies a special status within the notices on the high places in the books of Kings: The contamination of the high places goes further than abolishing them … [it] precludes … further cultic use. By means of it [the contamination] “the Yahweh cult on these high places should be made impossible forever”67.

One should observe that it is not impossible by definition to interpret 23,8a in combination with the Deuteronomistic notices on the high places. However, if ascribed to an exilicDtrH, then a question arises: Why should DtrH narrate the enduringabolition of the high places by Josiah insuch a functionally pointed manner, when DtrH actually aims toward the destruction of Judah? This is aggravated by the fact that Levin limits the DtrH portions in the passage containing the basis of the judgment on Judah and Jerusalem within the classic DtrH model, the central passage on Manasseh of 2 Kings 21, to vv. 2a.3a.bβγ68. The result in 2 Kgs 21,2-3 is the following text: He did evil in the eyes of Yhwh (2a). He rebuilt the high places that his father Hezekiah had destroyed, and he worshiped the whole host of the heavens and served them (3a.bβγ).

If one reconstructs the DtrH text in 2 Kings 21 in this manner, then the catastrophe in the textual complex adopted by Levin for the final chapter of the books of Kings appears peculiarly unmotivated. Josiah had ended the cult of the high places permanently and rendered practices like those of Manasseh impossible forever, which according to Levin’s basic inventory of DtrH were not all that wicked. In this sense, 2 Kgs 23,8a does not fit well into such a reduced context of an exilicDtrH. 66. SPIECKERMANN, Juda (n. 57), p. 92 n. 125. 67. LEVIN, JoschijaimdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk (n. 60), p. 359 n. 26, with a citation from A. JEPSEN, DieReformdesKönigsJosia, in J. HERRMANN (ed.), Festschrift FriedrichBaumgaertelzum70.Geburtstag:14.Januar1958 (Erlangen Forschungen, A 10), Erlangen, Univ.-Bund Erlangen, 1959, 97-108, p. 103. 68. LEVIN, JoschijaimdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk (n. 60), p. 354 n. 12.

16

K. SCHMID

If the starting point of 2 Kgs 23,8a and the attribution to DtrH already had their problems, then questions also arise with regard to further conclusions. Levin continues: “If we take the notice of high places in v. 8a as a part of DtrH as the starting point, then at once it appears that the reform report does not contain any source at all, but totally and completely consists of the literarycontinuationsofthisredactionalnotice”69. This is not proven. Instead, “several examples”70 are listed for the supplemental character of 2 Kgs 23,4-20 on the assumption that its nature as “Cloaca maxima of the Old Testament”71 is already certain from the outset: “The assumption of a long-term and multilayered history of supplementation – the radical hypothesis of supplementation – is from the outset the only sensible solution in light of the state of 2 Kgs 23,4-20”72. Levin subsequently submits the result that 23,8a now represents the only scattered concrete detail of the judgment of piety in the Josiah framework that was directly connected to 22,1-2 and carried forward by 23,35a73. “One must become accustomed to the thought that there was actually nothing more to say about this king for the first Deuteronomistic redactor DtrH, who wrote only half a century after the death of Josiah”74. The religious-historical observations on the Assyrian background of the Josianic reform contributed by Würthwein75 and Spieckermann76 are not simply dismissed by Levin, but are subordinated to the compositioncritical interpretations (which one should note are not evidence) and subsequently eliminated. The price that Levin pays for the assumption of a DtrH without a Josianic reform is too high: One must nevertheless attribute the notice in 2 Kgs 23,8a to DtrH against the trajectory of content in what is by default an exilic DtrH theology (a starting point is certainly needed for the later composition-critical development into a well-formed report of a reform) 69. Ibid., p. 359: “Nehmen wir also die Höhennotiz v.8a als den Textanteil des DtrH zum Ausgangspunkt, zeigt sich alsbald, dass der Reformbericht eine Quelle gar nicht enthält, sondern ganz und gar aus den FortschreibungendieserredaktionellenNotiz besteht” (emphasis original). 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid., p. 357. 72. Ibid.: “Die Annahme einer langfristigen und vielschichtigen Ergänzungsgeschichte – die radikale Ergänzungshypothese – ist angesichts des Zustands von II Reg 23,4-20 von vornherein die einzig sinnvolle Lösung”. 73. Ibid., p. 363. 74. Ibid.: “Man wird sich an den Gedanken gewöhnen müssen, daß für den deuteronomistischen Erstredaktor DtrH, der nur ein halbes Jahrhundert nach dem Tod des Joschija geschrieben hat, über diesen König tatsächlich nicht mehr zu sagen war”. 75. Ibid., p. 362 n. 45. 76. Ibid., pp. 357-358 n. 22.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

17

and marginalize the religious-historical questions. However, as a result, the possibility of a preexilic Deuteronomistic History is set aside. The third example appears in Kratz. It is also quite surprising in his work why the Deuteronomistic basic document in Samuel–Kings does not end in 2 Kings 23. The formulae attributed by him to this basic work are not based on the destruction of Judah, but run toward the reform of Josiah. Kratz himself writes: The standpoint is clearly Judahite; the criterion for the assessments is the ‘sin of Jeroboam’, the abolition of the unity of kingdom and cult previously established by David and Solomon (1 Kgs 12–14), which makes Israel guilty per se, but evidently also affects Judah. What the ‘sin of Jeroboam’ has to do with Judah is said by the qualification regularly made about the kings who are assessed positively (apart from Hezekiah and Josiah): ‘Only the high places did not disappear, the people still slaughtered and offered incense on the heights’77.

Read impartially, this must lead to Wellhausen’s opinion: The writer that formed this skeleton for the book of Kings is committed with heart and soul to the reformation of Josiah78.

This is even more the case because Kratz, similar to Levin, only attributes vv. 1-2a of the Manasseh passage in 2 Kings 21 to his DtrH, also excluding the declaration of divine wrath in 23,26-27 and 24,2-4.20a. The Josianic reform in Kratz, whose analysis of 2 Kings 22–23 reconciles Würthwein, Spieckermann, and Levin with one another, remains present within the framework of a small anti-Assyrian “temple reform” (23,4a.1112). It is interesting, however, that the notice about the high places in 23,8a is missing for Kratz within his DtrH. However, this is problematic in terms of content because it is hardly possible that DtrH grants Josiah an unqualified positive judgment (22,1-2, according to Kratz DtrH), but at the same time remains silent about the high places and therefore implicitly allows them to remain, for also in Kratz’s reconstruction, they are reintroduced by Manasseh. However, the exclusion of v. 8a is thoroughly 77. KRATZ, Komposition (n. 60), pp. 164-165 (citation from R.G. KRATZ, TheCompositionoftheNarrativeBooksoftheOldTestament,London, T&T Clark, 2005, p. 161). The formulation is unclear: “Both [that is Hezekiah and Josiah] rebelled against the Assyrian overlordship. But for that reason we should not dispense with the notes about the high places in the case of the other kings of Judah – which beyond doubt sound lame. Without them the criterion for assessing the kings of Judah and the link which connects them to the kings of Israel would be missing” (Composition, p. 163). So is it that the notes on the high places only sound “lame” from a literary perspective but are an integral part of DtrH? 78. Cf. above n. 43.

18

K. SCHMID

consistent for a DtrH that is exilic from the beginning, since what results is an unspoken reason for DtrH why Judah and Jerusalem must already perish – Manesseh’s high places were not abolished – and it remains reasonable that the depiction aimed at this destruction from the beginning. As stated, this option remains problematic in light of the unreservedly positive evaluation of Josiah in this literary context. Josiah does not remove the high places in this reconstruction. Therefore, the following question arises: Why does Kratz dismiss Wellhausen’s outcome? An important, if not decisive reason for the extension of the basic Deuteronomistic text beyond 2 Kings 23 to 2 Kings 25 and its exilic placement arises for Kratz from his dating of the cult centralization in Deuteronomy 12 first to the exilic period in the wake of Hölscher and others. It would be a “bizarre and singular” program79, which as a theological ideal would first be historically plausible after the loss of the Jerusalem Temple as an antidote to the cultic and religious disorientation at that time. However, this historical judgment itself has difficulties in light of the comparable ancient Near Eastern parallel depictions, especially from the Neo-Assyrian period80. In addition one should consider that through the territorial decrease of Judah in the Hezekian period such a defactocult centralization already took place – neither is it “singular” in Judah. One therefore has the impression that Wellhausen was primarily avoided so that one could maintain a personal composition-critical decision with regard to the dating of cult centralization. The exilic beginning of Deuteronomism thereby remains intact. Finally the last example: The assumption of a first exilic Deuteronomism appears to play a central role in Aurelius’ recent analysis of the final seven chapters of the books of Kings. Aurelius disputes Vanoni81 on the 79. KRATZ, Komposition (n. 60), p. 137. A similar date is also reached by R.E. CLEMENTS, TheDeuteronomicLawofCentralisationandtheCatastropheof587B.C., in J. BARTON – D.J. REIMER (eds.), AftertheExile:EssaysinHonourofRexMason, Kampen, Kok, 1996, 5-25, p. 7 n. 4. 80. Cf. the references in K. SCHMID, ZurückzuWellhausen?, in TR 69 (2004) 314-328, here p. 322 to S. MAUL, DiealtorientalischeHauptstadt–AbbildundNabelderWelt, in G. WILHELM (ed.), Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch (Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 1), Saarbrücken, SDV, 1997, 109-124, p. 122; E. OTTO, Das Deuteronomium:PolitischeTheologieundRechtsreforminJudaundAssyrien (BZAW, 284), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999, pp. 350-351; further H. ALTENMÜLLER, Opfer, in Lexikon derÄgyptologie IV, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1982, 579-584, col. 579. Less helpful is P. PITKÄNEN, CentralSanctuaryandCentralizationofWorshipinAncientIsrael (Gorgias Dissertations Near Eastern Studies, 5), Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2003. 81. VANONI, Beobachtungen zur deuteronomistischen Terminologie in 2Kön 23,25– 25,30 (n. 10); cf. also E. ZENGER etal., EinleitungindasAlteTestament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1/1), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 52004, p. 197 (G. Braulik).

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

19

argument presented in support of the thesis of a double Deuteronomistic redaction in the books of Kings that the final four royal judgments (2 Kgs 23,23.37; 24,9.19) differentiate themselves from the previous ones and that 2 Kgs 23,32.37 are to be understood as generalized judgments82. He did evil in the eyes of Yhwh, just likehisfathershaddone (2 Kgs 23,32 = 37).

If Aurelius’ critique hit its target, it would have taken the foundation out from under Vanoni’s conclusion that a first Deuteronomistic redaction would only have reached as far as 2 Kings 23. However, Aurelius’ interpretation contradicts the evidence from the concordance. Among the parallel instances that come into question for 2 Kgs 23,32.37, there is only one in the books of Kings that corresponds to the plural use of “fathers” in 2 Kgs 23,32.37, namely 2 Kgs 15,9, for the Northern King Zechariah. He did evil in the eyes of Yhwh, just likehisfathershaddone; he did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, to which he seduced Israel.

Precisely here this formulation also makes particular sense, for in 2 Kgs 15,9 Zechariah is viewed asthefinalrepresentativeoftheJehu dynasty83. Analogously, 2 Kgs 23,32.37 addresses the Davidic dynasty as a whole. This likely explains the deviating formulations on Jehoiachin (“his father” 24,9) and Zedekiah (“Jehoiakim” 24,19), who could no longer be considered full-fledged representatives of the Davidic dynasty after Nebuchadnezzar’s accession to world dominion in the year 605 BCE84. 82. AURELIUS, Zukunft (n. 18), pp. 45-47. Cf. also T.C. RÖMER, Israels Väter: UntersuchungenzurVäterthematikimDeuteronomiumundinderdeuteronomistischenTradition (OBO, 99), Freiburg/Schw., Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, p. 284. 83. Cf. K. SCHMID, DasDeuteronomiuminnerhalbder“deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerke”inGen–2Kön, in OTTO – ACHENBACH (eds.), DasDeuteronomiumzwischenPentateuchunddeuteronomistischemGeschichtswerk (n. 18), 193-211, p. 203 n. 44; p. 206 n. 60; English translation: Deuteronomy within the ‘Deuteronomistic Histories’ in Genesis– 2Kings, in SCHMID – PERSON (eds.), DeuteronomyinthePentateuch,Hexateuch,andthe DeuteronomisticHistory(n. 19), 8-30, p. 25 n. 63. Cf. also AURELIUS himself, Zukunft (n. 18), p. 46 . 84. Cf. the corresponding termination of the Davidic dynasty in the fourth year of Jehoiakim in Jer 36,29-31, and the simultaneous transfer of world dominion to Nebuchadnezzar in Jer 25,1.9 (“Nebuchadnezzar, my servant”); on this see K. SCHMID, Buchgestalten desJeremiabuches (WMANT, 72), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1996, p. 226; ID., Nebuchadnezzar,theEndoftheDavidicRule,andtheExileintheBookofJeremiah,

20

K. SCHMID

With regard to Aurelius one might ask whether the evidence that the verdicts on kings after Josiah do not really set themselves apart from the preceding ones is really convincing. IV. WAS WELLHAUSEN ACTUALLY CORRECT? Turning again to Wellhausen, his judgment that the formulations of the content in the evaluations of the kings move toward a focus on the Josianic reform appears more plausible than Noth and Smend’s hypotheses that the first edition of the Deuteronomistic books of Kings extended to 2 Kings 25 from its beginning85. If one views the judgments on the kings once again as separate collections of the Northern and Southern kings, then the foundational support for Wellhausen’s perspective immediately emerges. The kings of the Northern Kingdom all receive negative marks because they universally adhere to the “sin of Jeroboam”. 1 Kgs 15,25-26 Nadab ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh and walked in the way of his father and in the sin in which he had ensnared Israel. 1 Kgs 15,33-34 ... Basha ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh and walked in the way of Jeroboam and in the sin in which he had ensnared Israel. 1 Kgs 16,8.13 ... Elah son of Basha began to reign over Israel in Tirzah ... because of all the sins of Basha and the sins of his son Elah that they committed. 1 Kgs 16,18-19 ... Zimri ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh and walked in the way of Jeroboam and in the sin that he had committed and in which he had ensnared Israel. 1 Kgs 16,25-26 ... Omri did evil in the eyes of Yhwh, and he did worse than all that had come before him. He walked completely in the way of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and in the sin into which he had ensnared Israel so that they angered Yhwh, the God of Israel, through their futile idols. in M.J. BODA etal. (eds.), TheProphetsSpeakofForcedMigration (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 21), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, 63-76 (critical of this understanding, H.-J. STIPP, NebukadnezzarunddieDavididen:KritischeLektüreeinerThesevonKonrad Schmid, in H. RECHENMACHER [ed.], In Memoriam Wolfgang Richter [Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, 100], St. Ottilien, EOS, 2016, 369-400). 85. Cf. also the references in SCHMID, Deuteronomium (n. 83), pp. 202-203. In VEIJOLA, Deuteronomismusforschung(n. 21), p. 7 and n. 193 it appears – in referring to Seebaß and Würthwein – oddly enough that the Deuteronomistic theology of “repentance” is a main conceptual argument against a preexilic placement of the “first Dtr”. However, this kerygma cannot – as was already noted with regard to Wolff (see n. 6) – be reckoned as a foundation stone of Deuteronomism, but instead belongs to its later interpretive history.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

21

1 Kgs 16,29-30 ... Ahab ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh, and he did worse than all that had come before him. And if it was a little thing that he walked in the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, he even took Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, the King of the Sidonians, as a wife and went and served Baal and worshipped him. 1 Kgs 22,52-53 ... Ahaziah... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh and walked in the way of his father and his mother and in the way of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who had ensnared Israel in sin. 2 Kgs 3,1-3 ... Joram ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh, but not like his father and his mother, for he removed the pillar of Baal that his father had made. But he clung to the sin in which Jeroboam, son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel and did not depart from it. 2 Kgs 10,28-31 So Jehu wiped Baal out of Israel. Only from the sin in which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel, Jehu did not turn aside, that is from the golden calves of Bethel and of Dan … But Jehu was not careful to walk wholeheartedly in the law of Yhwh, the God of Israel; for he did not turn aside from the sin in which Jeroboam had ensnared Israel. 2 Kgs 13,1 ... Jehoahaz ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh and walked in the sin in which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel; he did not turn aside from it. 2 Kgs 13,10-11 ... Jehoash ... he did not turn aside from all the sins in which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel. 2 Kgs 14,23-23 ... Jeroboam ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh and did not turn aside from the sin in which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel. 2 Kgs 15,8-9 ... Zechariah ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh like his fathers had done; he did not turn aside from the sin in which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel. 2 Kgs 15,17-18 ... Menahem ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh like his fathers had done; he did not turn aside from the sin in which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel ... 2 Kgs 15,23-24 ... Pekahiah ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh; he did not turn aside from the sin in which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel. 2 Kgs 15,27-28 ... Pekah... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh; he did not turn aside from the sin in which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had ensnared Israel. 2 Kgs 17,1-2 ... Hosea ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh, but not like the kings of Israel that had been before him. As the last king, Hosea (2 Kgs 17,1) constitutes something of an exception. Würthwein remarks, “This limitation on the negative verdict could

22

K. SCHMID

be connected with the fact that the kings who resisted Assyrian hegemony (in Judah Hezekiah and Josiah), were evaluated auspiciously by DtrH. It is also striking that Hosea is not accused of the “sin of Jeroboam” like his predecessors”86. It is likely that this variation is primarily motivated by the fact that from v. 7 onward Israel is introduced as the guilty subject, so that Hosea is exonerated. The thirteen kings of the Southern Kingdom after Rehoboam87 until Josiah instead generally receive positive evaluations, which – except for Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah – are each furnished with the limitation: “But the high places were not abolished, the people continued to offer sacrifices and incense on the high places”. Not part of this series – in the following marked in italics – are the six counterexamples from Abijah (1 Kgs 15,1-3), Joram and Ahaziah (2 Kgs 18,16-19.22-25), Ahaz (2 Kgs 16,1-4), Manasseh and Amon (2 Kgs 21,1-2.19-22), who are evaluated negatively. Viewed numerically, the positive and negative verdicts are almost equal. At the same time, it can be concluded in terms of the content that the negative judgments represent “exceptions”, for they arise on the basis of clearly identifiable, special offences: Joram and Ahaziah are related to the House of Ahab from the Northern Kingdom, which itself receives an especially negative evaluation on the basis of his marriage to Jezebel from Sidon. Joram and Ahaziah therefore fall victim as a result of their relational connection to the blanket verdict concerning the Northern Kingdom. (Rehoboam88 as well as) Abijah, Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon are culpable because of particular cultic iniquities and therefore could not receive positive evaluations. 1 Kgs 15,1-3 ...Abija(m)89...walkedinallthesinsthathisfatherbefore himhadcommitted,andhisheartdidnotbelongcompletelytoYhwh, hisGod,liketheheartofhisancestorDavid. 1 Kgs 15,11-14 ... Asa did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh, like his ancestor David ... But the high places were not removed; nevertheless, the heart of Asa belonged completely to Yhwh his whole life. 86. WÜRTHWEIN, 1.Kön17–2.Kön25(n. 59), p. 393. German original: “Diese Einschränkung des negativen Urteils könnte damit zusammenhängen, daß die Könige, die Widerstand gegen die assyrische Oberherrschaft geleistet haben (in Juda Hiskija und Joschija), von DtrG günstig beurteilt werden. Auffällig ist auch, daß Hoschea nicht der ‘Sünde Jerobeams’ bezichtigt wird wie seine Vorgänger”. 87. Rehoboam only receives a negative mark in the LXX (1 Kgs 14,22). The Hebrew text offers “Judah” as a subject in 1 Kgs 14,22, thereby anchoring the nation’s perspective from 2 Kgs 17,7-20 for the Southern Kingdom already at the beginning of the post-Solomonic royal history. Also worthy of mention is the positive evaluation of Solomon, restricted by the notice on the high places in 1 Kgs 3,2-3. 88. Cf. the previous note. 89. Cf. WÜRTHWEIN, DieBücherderKönige:1.Könige1–16 (n. 59), p. 184 n. 1.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

23

1 Kgs 22,41-44 ... Jehoshaphat ... walked completely in the ways of his father Asa and did not turn aside, doing what was right in the eyes of Yhwh. Only the high places were not removed; so the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the high places. 2 Kgs 8,16-19 ... Joram...walkedinthewaysofthekingsofIsrael,like theHouseofAhab,forthedaughterofAhabwashiswife,andhedid evilintheeyesofYhwh.ButYhwhdidnotwanttodestroyJudahfor the sake of his servant David, since he had promised to give him a lampbeforehispresenceforever. 2 Kgs 8,25-27 ... Ahaziah....walkedinthewayoftheHouseofAhaband didwhatwasevilintheeyesofYhwh,liketheHouseofAhab;forhe wasrelatedtotheHouseofAhab. 2 Kgs 12,1-2 ... Jehoash ... did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh his whole life long because the priest Jehoiada instructed him. Nevertheless, the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the high places. 2 Kgs 14,1-4 ... Amaziah ... did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh, but not like his ancestor David, but just like his father Joash had done. Only the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the high places. 2 Kgs 15,1-4 ... Azariah ... did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh, just like his father Amaziah had done; only the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the high places. 2 Kgs 15,32-35 ... Jotham ... did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh, just like his father Uzziah had done; only the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the high places. He built the upper gate on the Temple of Yhwh. 2 Kgs 16,1-4 ... Ahaz...walkedinthewaysofthekingsofIsrael,heeven made his son pass through the fire according to the abominable practiceofthenationsthatYhwhhaddrivenoutbeforeIsrael;healso sacrificedandofferedincenseonthehighplacesandonthehillsand undereverygreentree. 2 Kgs 18,2-5 ... [Hezekiah] ... did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh, just like his ancestor David had done. He was the one who removed the high places, broke down the pillars, and cut down the Asherah, and broke to pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until this time the Israelites had offered to it. … He trusted in Yhwh, the God of Israel, so that there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah before and after him. He held fast to Yhwh and did not depart from him; he kept the commandments that Yhwh had given Moses. 2 Kgs 21,1-3 ... Manasseh ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh, following the abominablepracticesofthenationsthatYhwhhaddrivenoutbefore

24

K. SCHMID

Israel.HerebuiltthehighplacesthathisfatherHezekiahhaddestroyed; he erected altars to Baal, made an Asherah like Ahab, King of Israel, had done, and worshipped the whole host of the heavens and served them. 2 Kgs 21,19-22 ... Amon ... did evil in the eyes of Yhwh like his father Manassehhaddone.Hewalkedwhollyinthewaythathisfatherhad walked,servingtheidolsthathisfatherhadserved,andworshipping them.HeabandonedYhwh,thegodofhisfathersanddidnotwalkin thewayofYhwh. 2 Kgs 22,1-2 ... Josiah .... did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh; he walked wholly in the way of his ancestor David and did not turn aside, neither to the right or to the left. Finally, the last four kings of Judah after Josiah receive thoroughly negative evaluations – in 2 Kgs 23,32.37 (“just like their fathers had done”) including – retrospectively – all their predecessors90, such that these last four judgments should, in contrast, clearly be attributed to a secondary redactional layer. 2 Kgs 23,31-32 ... Jehoahaz ... did what was evil the eyes of Yhwh, just as his father had done. 2 Kgs 23,36-37 ... Johoiakim .... did what was evil the eyes of Yhwh, just as his father had done. 2 Kgs 24,8-9 ... Jehoiachin ... did what was evil the eyes of Yhwh, just as his father had done. 2 Kgs 24,18-19 ... Zedekiah... did what was evil the eyes of Yhwh, just as Jehoiakim had done. This overarching evidence on the evaluations of the kings reveals a contour in the content (which itself might have a broader literary prehistory91) that progresses from the removal of the high places under Hezekiah in 18,4 to their re-introduction under Manasseh in 21,2, and finally to their permanentdesecration under Josiah in 23,8. On the contrary, the theological attempt to annul the accomplishments of the Josianic reform in the Manasseh passages of 2 Kgs 23,26; 24,3 as well as the blanket judgment of all the kings in the post-Josianic royal evaluations in 23,32.37 (cf. 24,9.19) are clearly secondary, even though it provides the natural reception of royal evaluations as the reason for the catastrophe. This reception would correspond to ancient Near Eastern royal ideology, which makes kings responsible for the welfare or destruction of the state. 90. Cf. on this above nn. 81-82. Critical on this is BLUM, DasexilischedeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk (n. 1), pp. 280-281. 91. Cf. above nn. 11-15.

WELLHAUSEN AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

25

This orientation toward Josiah in the evaluations of the kings in addition to the theme of the high places is also prepared by the David statements in the books of Kings, as noted especially by Gerhard von Rad92 whose contribution, much like that of Wellhausen, has received little attention in recent discussion. Von Rad points to 1 Kgs 11,13.32.36; 1 Kgs 15,4; 2 Kgs 8,19, which speak of the guarantee of the Judahite dynasty for David’s sake93 while the latter two verses are especially interesting because they concern the negative evaluations of Kings Abijah and Joram. However, the redaction-historical location of these verses are contested. Within the Smend model, they are generally assigned to either DtrN or DtrS94, since their content falls outside the judgment theology established by the basic document. Yet they do not for this reason fit with the expansions. Therefore, Würthwein for example classifies 1 Kgs 15,4 (concerning Abijah) as “a not always meaningful and thoughtful DtrN-addition that proceeds from an ideal image of David … and the inventory shows special interest in the David dynasty (cf. 11,13.32.34.36.38 and others)”95. Why recourse to rash exilic redactions should be more plausible than considering an inclusio between the ideal kings David and Josiah within the frame of a core of *Samuel–2 Kings 23 could at least be queried. The David-Josiah parenthesis is, on the one hand, clearly tangible in Samuel–Kings and, on the other, it counteracts the equally clear orientation toward a theology of judgment in the other “Deuteronomistic” portions of texts from 2 Kings 23– 25. The allocation of such verses to a basic Deuteronomistic text only reaching as far as 2 Kings 23 is hardly out of the question. These considerations cannot claim to demand the return to Wellhausen’s appraisal of Deuteronomism in the books of Kings on exegetical grounds. This would require more far-reaching investigations of the text, which would likely result profitably in the differentiation between the literaryextentof the first Deuteronomistic redactional activities and their historicalplacement96. This contribution intends solely to indicate 92. See above n. 5. 93. Cf. on this also N. LOHFINK, WelchesOrakelgabdenDavididenDauer?EinTextproblemin2Kön8,19unddasFunktionierenderdynastischenOrakelimdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk (1990), in ID., StudienzumDeuteronomiumundzurdeuteronomistischenLiteraturIV (SBAB, 31), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000, 11-34. 94. WÜRTHWEIN, 1.Könige1–16 (n. 89), p. 185: “einen jener nicht immer sinnvollen und überlegten DtrN-Zusätze, die von einem Idealbild Davids ausgehen ... und am Bestand der davidischen Dynastie besonderes Interesse zeigen (vgl. 11,13.32.34.36.38 u.ä.)”; cf. KRATZ, Komposition (n. 60), p. 192. 95. WÜRTHWEIN, 1.Könige1–16 (n. 89), p. 185. 96. The problem of the historicity of the Josianic reform and the composition-critical appraisal of its depiction in 2 Kings 22–23 are disputed. Cf. on one hand SPIECKERMANN, Juda (n. 57); C. UEHLINGER, Gab es eine joschijanische Kultreform?, in W. GROSS (ed.), Jeremiaunddie“deuteronomistischeBewegung” (BBB, 98), Weinheim, Beltz/Athenäum,

26

K. SCHMID

certain solidifications in European debates on Deuteronomism that do not have primafacieevidence on their side. Within the framework of the current Wellhausen renaissance, one might hope that his interpretation of Deuteronomism in the books of Kings would also receive stronger attention. If the option of the stronger differentiation of thefundamentalliterary extent of the “Deuteronomistic History” already experienced broader reception (Samuel–Kings, Deuteronomy–Kings, Exodus–Kings, Genesis– Kings), then it is a small step to at least analogously examining the possibility of further internal differentiations of Deuteronomistic texts in the books of Kings with similar intensity. While postulating a Deuteronomism in the books of Kings reaching literarily only as far as 2 Kings 23 (however one might date it) is uncommon in German-speaking Protestant exegesis97, familiarity in the history of scholarship does not present a scholarly criterion for the evaluation of historical hypotheses. [email protected]

Konrad SCHMID

1995, 57-89; W.G. DEVER, The Silence of the Text: An Archaeological Commentary on 2Kings 23, in M.D. COOGAN et al. (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: FS P.J. King, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1994, 144-168; M. ARNETH, Die antiassyrische ReformJosiasvonJuda:ÜberlegungenzurKompositionundIntentionvon2 Reg23,4-15, in ZAR 7 (2001) 189-216; N. NA’AMAN, TheAbandonmentofCultPlacesintheKingdoms ofIsraelandJudah, in UF 34 (2002) 585-602; W.B. BARRICK, TheKingandtheCemeteries: TowardaNewUnderstandingofJosiah’sReform (VT.S, 88), Leiden, Brill, 2002; R. ALBERTZ, WhyaReformlikeJosiah’sMustHaveHappened, in L.L. GRABBE (ed.), GoodKingsand BadKings:TheKingdomofJudahintheSeventhCentury (European Seminar in Historical Methodology, 5; LHBOTS, 393), London, T&T Clark, 2005, 27-46; cf. also above, n. 53; on the other side L.K. HANDY, HistoricalProbabilityandtheNarrativeofJosiah’sReform in2Kings, in S.W. HOLLOWAY – L.K. HANDY (eds.), ThePitcherIsBroken:FSG.Ahlström (JSOT.S, 190), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, 252-275; L. FRIED, The High Places(Bamot)andtheReformsofHezekiahandJosiah:AnArchaeologicalInvestigation, in JAOS 122 (2002) 437-465. Balanced discussions appear in B. GIESELMANN, Die sogenanntejosianischeReformindergegenwärtigenForschung, in ZAW 106 (1994) 223-242; as well as in M. PIETSCH, DieKultreformJosias:StudienzurReligionsgeschichteIsraelsin derspätenKönigszeit (FAT, 86), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2013. 97. The contrary holds true if one looks beyond their frame. Cf. – with all the divergences in the details – just those contributions mentioned in nn. 8-19, which could easily be multiplied.

THE COMPOSITIONAL FUNCTION AND LITERARY-HISTORICAL SETTING OF DEUTERONOMY 1–31

For more than half a century, the question of the compositional function and literary-historical setting of Deuteronomy 1–3 seemed to have been answered once and for all with the appearance of Martin Noth’s ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudienin 19432: Deuteronomy 1–3 were regarded as the introduction to a Deuteronomistic History extending to 2 Kings 25. Although the original extent and diachronic development of the Deuteronomistic History continued to be debated by Noth’s successors, Noth’s conclusions regarding Deuteronomy 1–3 were so firmly established that in 1982 Horst Dietrich Preuß could write: “Whoever says something

1. I wish to thank Stephen Germany for the translation of this updated and reworked version of my essay KompositorischeFunktionundliterarhistorischerOrtvonDeuteronomium1–3, in M. WITTE – K. SCHMID – D. PRECHEL – J.C. GERTZ (eds.), DiedeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerke:Redaktions-undreligionsgeschichtlichePerspektivenzur “Deuteronomismus”-DiskussioninToraundVorderenPropheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2006, 103-123. This topic is still a matter of ongoing debate, as was evident in the panel session entitled “Deuteronomy 1–3: The Beginning of History or the Introduction to a Separate Book?” at the SBL Annual Meeting in Boston 2017. I am grateful to Reinhard Müller for providing me with the text of his response to the papers presented there. 2. M. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitendenGeschichtswerkeimAltenTestament, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 31967; abridged ET: TheDeuteronomisticHistory, trans. E. Doull etal. (JSOT.S, 15), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 21991. For an overview of the more recent discussion, cf. T. RÖMER – A. DE PURY, L’historiographiedeutéronomiste(HD):Histoiredelarechercheetenjeux dudébat, in A. DE PURY – T. RÖMER – J.-D. MACCHI (eds.), Israëlconstruitsonhistoire: L’historiographiedeutéronomisteàlalumièredesrecherchesrécentes (MoBi, 34), Geneva, Labor et Fides, 1996, 9-120, pp. 31-39; W. DIETRICH, MartinNothunddieZukunftdes deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerkes, in ID., VonDavidzudenDeuteronomisten:Studien zudenGeschichtsüberlieferungendesAltenTestaments (BWANT, 156), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2002, 181-198; T. VEIJOLA, DeuteronomismusforschungzwischenTraditionund Innovation(III), in TR 68 (2003) 1-44; U. RÜTERSWÖRDEN (ed.), MartinNoth–ausder SichtderheutigenForschung (BTSt, 58), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2004; T. RÖMER, TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory:ASociological,HistoricalandLiterary Introduction, London, T&T Clark, 2007, pp. 13-43; ID., DasdeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerkunddieWüstentraditionderHebräischenBibel, in H.-J. STIPP (ed.), DasdeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk (ÖBS, 39), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2011, 55-88, pp. 55-60; A. SCHERER, NeuereForschungenzualttestamentlichenGeschichtskonzeptionenamBeispieldesdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks, in VerkündigungundForschung 53 (2008) 22-39; C. LEVIN, NachsiebzigJahren:MartinNothsÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien, in ZAW 125 (2013) 72-92.

28

J.C. GERTZ

today about Deut 1–3 must ... explain what else Deut 1–3 could be if not the introductory speeches to the DtrH”3. The times have changed. The storm that has been sweeping over the classic models for the formation of the Pentateuch has now also reached Noth’s Deuteronomistic History hypothesis. Long forgotten entities such as the Hexateuch or Enneateuch have reappeared, albeit in a different form compared to the time before Noth4. The evaluation of Deuteronomy 1–3, which was foundational to Noth’s theory, has been affected by these developments in a variety of ways. This unit stands prominently not only at the beginning of the Deuteronomistic History, whose existence is now in question, but is also connected with four overlapping literary works: (1) the book of Deuteronomy, which is marked off on the one hand by the colophon in Num 36,13 and the superscription in Deut 1,1-5 and on the other hand by the death of Moses in Deut 34,1-9; (2) the Pentateuch, which is marked off by the epitaph to Moses in Deut 34,10-12; (3) a Hexateuch created by the retrospective in Joshua 24; and (4) the overarching history in the books of Genesis through Kings. 3. H.D. PREUSS, Deuteronomium (EdF, 164), Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982, p. 77 (“Wer heute etwas zu Dtn 1–3 sagt, muß ... einleuchtend machen, was Dtn 1–3 sonst noch sein könnten, wenn sie nicht die Einleitungsreden zum DtrG sind”). 4. Cf. the quite varied recent arguments for a Hexateuch or Enneateuch in K. SCHMID, ErzväterundExodus:UntersuchungenzurdoppeltenBegründungderUrsprüngeIsraels innerhalbderGeschichtsbücherdesAltenTestaments (WMANT, 81), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1999, pp. 139-143; 162-165 (ET: GenesisandtheMosesStory: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. J.D. Nogalski [Siphrut, 3], Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2010); ID., Deuteronomywithinthe“DeuteronomisticHistories” in Genesis–2 Kings, in ID. – R.F. PERSON, JR. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch,andtheDeuteronomisticHistory (FAT, II/56), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 8-30; R.G. KRATZ, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, pp. 208-210; 215 (ET: The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. J. Bowden, London, T&T Clark, 2005, pp. 200-202; 206-207); ID., Derliterarische OrtdesDeuteronomiums, in ID. – H. SPIECKERMANN (eds.), LiebeundGebot:Studienzum Deuteronomium.FSL.Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, 101-120; ID., Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch, in J.C. GERTZ – K. SCHMID – M. WITTE (eds.), AbschiedvomJahwisten:DieKompositiondesHexateuch inderjüngstenDiskussion (BZAW, 315), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2002, 295323; J.C. GERTZ, MoseunddieAnfängederjüdischenReligion, in ZTK 99 (2002) 3-20; E. AURELIUS, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch (BZAW, 319), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2003; C. FREVEL, DieWiederkehrderHexateuchperspektive:EineHerausforderungfürdieThesevomdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk, in STIPP (ed.), Geschichtswerk (n. 2), 13-54; as well as the quite different theory of a post-Dtr Hexateuch redaction by E. OTTO, DasDeuteronomiumim PentateuchundHexateuch:StudienzurLiteraturgeschichtevonPentateuchundHexateuchimLichtedesDeuteronomiumrahmens (FAT, 30), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000; R. ACHENBACH, Pentateuch,HexateuchundEnneateuch:EineVerhältnisbestimmung, in ZAR 11 (2005) 122-154.

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

29

Thus, it is time to take up the question of “what else Deuteronomy 1–3 could be if not the introductory speeches to the DtrH” once again5. The search for an answer to this question begins with a brief review of Noth’s premises and arguments (I-III), followed by a discussion of the communicative form and literary function of Deuteronomy 1–3 within the context of the book of Deuteronomy (IV-V). My thesis is that Deuteronomy 1–3 can be described as a relectureof the preceding account of the wanderings in the wilderness. From the outset, this relectureserved to integrate Deuteronomy into a non-Priestly narrative extending at least from Exodus to Joshua6.

I. NOTH’S THESIS Noth’s thesis of the Deuteronomistic History is based on the premise that the Deuteronomist was “the author of a history which brought together material from highly varied traditions and arranged it according to a carefully conceived plan”7. In order to isolate the beginning of the narrative, Noth argued as follows8: Given its close connection to the preceding narrative (particularly the appointment of Joshua and the conquest of Transjordan), Joshua 1 cannot be the beginning of an independent literary work. The style of Joshua 1 clearly shows that these topics must have been introduced previously. However, according to Noth the connection between the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets cannot be explained by the earlier 5. An important impetus for the following discussion is found in KRATZ, Ort (n. 4); R. HECKL, MosesVermächtnis:Kohärenz,literarischeIntentionundFunktionvonDtn1–3 (ABG, 9), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004. 6. For a critique of the thesis proposed here, cf. T. RÖMER., Entstehungsphasen des “deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes”, in WITTE et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke (n. 1), 45-70, pp. 49-53; E. BLUM, Pentateuch – Hexateuch – Enneateuch? Oder: Woran erkennt man ein literarisches Werk in der hebräischen Bibel?, in T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID (eds.), LesdernièresrédactionsduPentateuque,del’Hexateuque etdel’Enneateuque (BETL, 203), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 2007, 67-97, pp. 90-94 (ET: Pentateuch–Hexateuch–Enneateuch?Or:HowCanOneRecognize aLiteraryWorkintheHebrewBible, in T.B. DOZEMAN – T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID [eds.], Pentateuch,Hexateuch,orEnneateuch?IdentifyingLiteraryWorksinGenesisthrough Kings [Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8], Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011, 43-71, pp. 64-67); ID., DasexilischedeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk, in STIPP (ed.), Geschichtswerk (n. 2), 269-295; E. OTTO, Deuteronomium1–11.Erster Teilband: 1,1–4,43 (HTK.AT), Freiburg i.Br. – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2012, pp. 293f. 7. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (n. 2), p. 10: “unter Verwendung überkommener Überlieferungen … nach einheitlichem Plane und in einer sachgemäßen Gliederung” (quote from ET: p. 26). 8. Cf. ibid., pp. 12-16.

30

J.C. GERTZ

proposals for a Deuteronomistic Enneateuch9, since there is no trace of a Deuteronomistic redaction in the books of Genesis to Numbers. Thus, for Noth, “We must look ... to the book of Deuteronomy for the beginning of Dtr’s work”10. This fits well with the fact that Deut 31,1-8 and Deuteronomy 34 contain elements of a narrative that is continued in Joshua 1. By extension, these elements connect back to Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy 1–3(4), which, according to Noth, “has nothing particular in common with the Deuteronomic law but is directly related to the Deuteronomistic history”11. All of this leads to Noth’s thesis that “Deuteronomy 1–3(4) is not the introduction to the Deuteronomic law but the beginning of the Deuteronomistic historical narrative and that this narrative begins therefore at Deut 1,1”12. According to Noth, this conclusion, reached through a sort of “method of subtraction”13, is supported by several other textual observations: (1) Deut 31,1 reaches back beyond the Deuteronomic law and its parenetic frame to Deut 3,23-29 in terms of both diction and content; (2) in Deuteronomy 1–3 Moses describes the preceding events as a historian and not, as in Deuteronomy 5–11, as a teacher, which links Deuteronomy 1–3 with the speeches in the Deuteronomistic History and distinguishes them from the core of Deuteronomy in chapters 4–26; and (3) the selection of events from the older tradition of the wilderness wandering serves the narrative interests of the Deuteronomistic History.

II. THE PREMISES OF NOTH’S THESIS Let us have a closer look at Noth’s arguments I have just outlined. Obviously, from our present point of view, we cannot accept Noth’s premises without testing them. The unity of the Deuteronomistic History 9. Ibid., pp. 12-13, with reference to J. HEMPEL, DiealthebräischeLiteraturundihr hellenistisch-jüdischesNachleben, Wildpark-Potsdam, Athenaion, 1930, p. 82; E. SELLIN, EinleitungindasAlteTestament, Leipzig, Quelle & Meyer, 61933, pp. 80f. 10. NOTH, ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien (n. 2), p. 13: “Der Anfang des Werkes von Dtr muß … im Buche Dtn. gesucht werden” (quote from ET: p. 28). 11. Ibid., p. 14: “gar keine spezielle Beziehung zum deuteronomischen Gesetze, wohl aber ein ganz unmittelbares Verhältnis zum deuteronomischen Geschichtswerk hat” (quote from ET: p. 29). 12. Ibid: “daß wir es in Dtn. 1–3(4) nicht mit einer Einleitungsrede zum deuteronomischen Gesetz, sondern mit dem Eingang des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes zu tun haben, daß dieses letztere also mit Dtn. 1,1 beginnt” (quote from ET: p. 29). 13. Cf. C. FREVEL, DeuteronomistischesGeschichtswerkoderGeschichtswerke?Die TheseMartinNothszwischenTetrateuch,HexateuchundEnneateuch, in RÜTERSWÖRDEN (ed.), MartinNoth (n. 2), 60-95, p. 86.

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

31

claimed by Noth has long been disputed with regard to its literary as well as its thematic and conceptual homogeneity14. Points of debate include the sequence of different Deuteronomistic redactions with different profiles and scope, the juxtaposition of different Deuteronomistic redactions of the individual books within the history as a whole, the existence of partial collections (some of which may have already undergone Deuteronomistic editing), as well as various combinations of these ideas. A common feature of these different modifications of Noth’s thesis is the increasingly held view that the texts that Noth cited as evidence for a unified history spanning from Deuteronomy to Kings – including Deuteronomy 1–3; Josh 1,1-9; 12,1-6; 23,1-16; Judg 2,11–3,6; 1 Sam 12,1-15; 1 Kgs 8,1453; and 2 Kgs 17,7-23 – hardly go back to a single hand but instead reflect a highly complex history of composition15. The continuous chronology that Noth reconstructed and cited as evidence for the unity of the Deuteronomistic History also proves to be a later element16. Yet the conclusion that “[i]nsight into the gradual growth of the Deuteronomistic redaction in (Deuteronomy;) Joshua–Kings removes the basis from Noth’s hypothesis”17 was at first held by only a handful of scholars18. This view, however, seems to have recently gained more acceptance, as is indicated by the shift away from speaking of a single Deuteronomistic History and towards multiple Deuteronomistic Histories within the Enneateuch19. But even where 14. For a brief but instructive overview of the discussion and the positions mentioned in what follows, cf. ibid., pp. 70-80 (with reference to further literature). 15. For this view, cf. KRATZ, Komposition (n. 4), p. 219 (ET: p. 216); FREVEL, Geschichtswerk (n. 13), pp. 77f. with n. 57. For the opposing view, see J. NENTEL, Trägerschaft und Intention des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks: Untersuchungen zu den ReflexionsredenJos1;23;24;1Sam12;1Kön8 (BZAW, 297), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2000 and the critique of the latter in VEIJOLA, Deuteronomismusforschung (n. 2), pp. 18-20. Here it should be noted that according to Nentel these interpretive texts stem from a very late redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (“DtrS”) and thus can hardly be used as an argument for the unity of a first edition of the Deuteronomistic History as postulated by Noth. 16. On this problem, see F.-E. FOCKEN, ZwischenLandnahmeundKönigtum:LiterarkritischeundredaktionskritischeUntersuchungenzumAnfangundEndederdeuteronomistischenRichtererzählungen (FRLANT, 258), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014, pp. 22-30; 223-226. 17. KRATZ, Komposition (n. 4), p. 219: “[d]ie Einsicht in das allmähliche Wachstum der deuteronomistischen Redaktion in (Dtn) Jos–Reg … der Hypothese Noths die Grundlage [entzieht]” (quote from ET: p. 216). 18. Cf. G. FOHRER, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Heidelberg, Quelle & Meyer, 12 1979, pp. 209-212; 248. 19. See esp. the brief overview in E. WÜRTHWEIN, Erwägungenzumsog.deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk:EineSkizze, in ID., StudienzumDeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk (BZAW, 227), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1994, 1-11. The proposals differ significantly in their details. Besides the evaluation of Noth’s hypothesis as an “error of scholarship” (“Irrweg der Forschung”) by KRATZ, Komposition (n. 4), p. 219 (quote

32

J.C. GERTZ

this conclusion is not (yet) in view, it has become clear that the disunity of the Deuteronomistic History and its complex history of composition has implications for the question of its beginnings. One need only think of Norbert Lohfink’s prominent theory of a Deuteronomistic conquest narrative in Deuteronomy 1–Joshua 24 (DtrL) dating to the time of Josiah20. Noth’s second premise – that no trace of a Deuteronomistic redaction in the books of Genesis to Numbers can be found21 – has also been questioned and cannot be maintained. While Noth himself conceded the existence of Dtr-style additions in the book of Exodus22, the amount of material ascribed to a Dtr-style redaction in the books of Genesis through Numbers has increased significantly, going as far as Erhard Blum’s thesis of a thoroughgoing “D-Komposition” in these books23. It is not necessary to list all of these Dtr-style texts here. In any case, it is no longer possible to postulate a clear redactional break between Numbers and Deuteronomy through the theory of a non-Deuteronomistic Tetrateuch24. Thus, Noth’s main objection to the earlier theory of a Deuteronomistically revised Enneateuch should be abandoned25. As a result, it must be seriously asked from ET: p. 216), the assumption of different “Deuteronomistic Histories” has also been adopted by those who continue to maintain Noth’s basic hypothesis. For example, RÖMER, Entstehungsphasen (n. 6), pp. 58f.; ID., History (n. 2), pp. 67-106, considers that the Deuteronomistic History began as a “Deuteronomistic library” in which earlier editions of the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua as well as of Samuel–Kings existed on separate scrolls and, although they were not edited by the same individuals, probably did stem from like-minded scribes and officials connected to the royal court in Jerusalem. Here, particular importance is ascribed to the book of Judges, which was inserted by a later Dtr redactor as a link between the (Dtr) Hexateuch and the (Dtr) historiography in 1 Samuel–2 Kings. On this, see FOCKEN, Landnahme (n. 16) as well as the similar observations by W. GROSS, Das Richterbuch zwischen deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch, in STIPP (ed.), Geschichtswerk (n. 2), 177-205. 20. N. LOHFINK,KerygmatadesDeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks, in J. JEREMIAS – L. PERLITT (eds.),DieBotschaftunddieBoten:FSH.W.Wolff, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1981, 87-100. 21. NOTH, ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien (n. 2), p. 13. 22. Cf. M. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 3 1966, pp. 32f. nn. 106.108.109.112.113. Among other texts, Noth mentions Exod 12,2427a; 13,1-16; 15,25b.26; 16,4bβ.28; 19,3b-9a(b); 32,7-14. 23. Cf. E. BLUM, StudienzurKompositiondesPentateuch (BZAW, 189), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1990. 24. On this point, cf. also SCHMID, Deuteronomy (n. 4), pp. 8-11. 25. Considering that the book of Exodus – unlike the book of Genesis – shows significant linguistic and thematic connections to the (multilayered) book of Deuteronomy, and also considering the arguments for a non-Priestly exodus narrative that is largely independent of the book of Genesis (cf. most recently J.C. GERTZ, TheRelativeIndependenceof theBooksofGenesisandExodus, in C. BERNER – H. SAMUEL [eds.], Book-Seamsinthe Hexateuch.I:TheLiteraryTransitionsbetweentheBooksofGenesis/ExodusandJoshua/ Judges [FAT, 120], Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, 55-72), one of the “Deuteronomistic Histories” could easily have begun with an earlier non-Priestly exodus narrative.

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

33

whether Deuteronomy 1–3 could only have served as the introduction to the Deuteronomistic History. The evaluation of this assumption will begin with Noth’s own observations on Deuteronomy 1–3 in support of his thesis.

III. AN EVALUATION OF NOTH’S TEXTUAL OBSERVATIONS Noth’s statement that Deut 31,1ff. connects back to Deut 3,23-29 in terms of language and content should not necessarily be understood as meaning that Deuteronomy 1–3; 31–34 and Joshua 1 originally constituted a self-contained text into which the Deuteronomic law was later inserted26. Once this is recognized, the connection loses much of its argumentative weight for Noth’s thesis – not to mention the fact that Deuteronomy 1–3; 31–34 are themselves literarily composite. The only thing that is certain is that the end of the address in Deut 3,2329 reminds the reader that, despite Moses’ entreaties, Yhwh refused to let Moses enter the land and instead instructed Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor. This requires a corresponding notice that Yhwh’s will has been enacted, which occurs in Deuteronomy 31–34 with the narrative of Moses’ appointment of Joshua, his view of the land, and his death. In contrast, it is not possible to conclude with certainty that Deut 31,1ff. presupposes Moses’ introductory speech in Deuteronomy 1–3. At the very least, it is possible to conjecture a Deuteronomistic base text in Deut 31,1.2a.7f.; 34,1-6*27 that made explicit reference to 3,23-29 only in later additions. In the base text, Moses realizes that he is too old to lead the people in the conquest of the land (31,1.2a) and thus appoints Joshua as his successor (31,7f.). After Yhwh allows him to view the land, Moses then dies (34,1-6). The necessary information here – Moses’ death outside the land and Joshua’s leadership in the conquest – is derived from Deut 34,5* and the narratives in the book of Joshua. In contrast, the fact 26. See esp. G. VON RAD, DasfünfteBuchMose:Deuteronomium (ATD, 8), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964, p. 33 and T. VEIJOLA, PrincipalObservationsontheBasic StoryinDeuteronomy1–3, in M. AUGUSTIN – K.D. SCHUNK (eds.), “WünschetJerusalem Frieden”:CollectedCommunicationstotheXIIthCongressoftheInternationalOrganizationfortheStudyoftheOldTestament,Jerusalem1986 (BEATAJ, 13), Frankfurt a.M. – Bern – New York – Paris, Lang, 1988, 249-259, pp. 253-255. Cf. L. PERLITT, Deuteronomium (BK.AT, V/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2013, pp. 33f.; KRATZ, Ort (n. 4), p. 110. 27. On this and on what follows, cf. KRATZ, Ort (n. 4), pp. 102-104. The term “Deuteronomistic base text” is not completely accurate, since Deut 31,1-6* most likely had a pre-Dtr account of Moses’ death as a Vorlage. Cf. KRATZ, Komposition (n. 4), p. 291 (ET: p. 283); GERTZ, Mose (n. 4), p. 9.

34

J.C. GERTZ

that Joshua is appointed at Yhwh’s command, which Deut 3,28 “recalls” with a look back to Num 27,12f. and forward to Josh 1,6, is known only by a later editor who adds this detail in 31,3-6. Noth’s second observation focused on the diction of Deuteronomy 1–3, which clearly distinguishes the first introductory speech from the parenetic speeches in Deuteronomy 5–11. This is indisputable, even though the historical retrospective – as a “paradigm for a history of faithfulness or faithlessness, salvation or destruction”28 – still has a parenetic flavor. Yet before evaluating the differing diction as evidence of textual growth, it should be asked what function such diction has within its literary context. I will return to this question further below. Suffice it to say here that regardless of the differences with the parenetic framework in Deuteronomy 5–11, the diction of Deuteronomy 1–3 does not allow these chapters to be closely connected to the other interpretive speeches within the Deuteronomistic History. A speech recounting past events that both the speaker and the audience have experienced is a “singular stylistic phenomenon”29 within Deuteronomistic literature. Noth’s third observation related to the selection of topics in Deuteronomy 1–3, which – according to him – was governed by the interests of the Deuteronomistic Historian. Of all the arguments derived from Deuteronomy 1–3, Noth seems to have given this one the greatest weight, although a brief evaluation of Noth’s most important observations reveals the ambiguity of the evidence: (1) According to Noth, Deuteronomy 1–3 gives an account of the conquest by the Transjordanian tribes in anticipation of their involvement in the conquest of Cisjordan as described in Josh 1,12-18. The literary connection is beyond dispute. However, Josh 1,12-18 probably did not belong to the most basic material in the chapter and thus cannot be used in reconstructing the earliest version of a Deuteronomistic conquest narrative30. (2) According to Noth, the detailed recapitulation of the story of the spies in Deut 1,19-46 serves to explain the conquest from the east (rather than from the south, as one might expect). 28. PERLITT, Deuteronomium (n. 26), p. 31 (“Paradigma einer Unglaubens- oder Glaubens-, einer Unheils- oder Heilsgeschichte”). 29. Ibid., p. 27 (“singuläre[s] stilistische[s] Phänomen”). 30. Cf. V. FRITZ, DasBuchJosua (HAT, I/7), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1994, pp. 30f. Here, a self-correction vis-à-vis the original version of this article is in order, since there the relationship between Deuteronomy 1–3 and Joshua 1–11 was not given sufficient attention. On this, cf. LOHFINK, Kerygmata (n. 20), pp. 92-100, who provides strong arguments for the conclusion that Deuteronomy 1–3 pointed ahead to the book of Joshua from the outset, as well as PERLITT, Deuteronomium (n. 26), p. 29 (without specifying the relationship to the book of Joshua). Ruth Ebach focused on this aspect in her paper presented in the panel mentioned in n. 1. I am grateful to her for providing me with a copy of the manuscript.

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

35

Yet this narrative function appears already in the non-Priestly story of the spies in Numbers 13f.* and is therefore not uniquely Deuteronomistic. Moreover, such an explanation is in fact only necessary if the aim was to harmonize (a) the narrative setting of Deuteronomy immediately prior to the entry into the land, (b) the conquest narratives in Joshua 1–12, and (c) the wilderness narratives in the book of Numbers. (3) According to Noth, the fact that Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy 1–3 begins with the Israelites’ sojourn at the mountain of God results from the need for a prominent starting point for the Deuteronomistic History. This is also questionable. The selection of such a prominent beginning exacerbates the challenge that the promulgation of the law at Sinai/Horeb and in Moab had to be painstakingly coordinated in the subsequent chapters of the book of Deuteronomy. The evidence can be interpreted quite differently, however, if the coordination of the promulgation of the law at Sinai/Horeb and in Moab was necessitated by the existing literary context that lay before the author of Deuteronomy 1–3. In this case, the geographical and literary connection between the mountain of God and Moab would be one of the central themes of Moses’ speech.

IV. DEUTERONOMY 1–3 AS A RELECTURE As is well known, almost all of the narrative material in Deuteronomy 1–3 also appears in Numbers 11–3231. Lothar Perlitt aptly described the significant differences between these two textual units and their diachronic implications: In the book of Numbers, the narratives are “scattered, orderless, mixed with legislative material, embedded in several non-Dtr layers, and rounded out with priestly materials. In contrast, in Deuteronomy 1–3 they are literarily compact, oriented geographically, adapted to each other through the form of the speech, and given a unified theological emphasis. If literary comparison has any meaning at all, then the following applies: The disorderly precedes the orderly, the diversity of forms precedes their unification, etc.”32. Indeed, the majority of 31. The exception – in addition to the so-called “antiquarian notices” – is Deut 2,18-23*, which is generally regarded as a later addition. Cf. (with slightly differing delimitations of the redactional material) PERLITT, Deuteronomium (n. 26), pp. 145-150; T. VEIJOLA, Das fünfteBuchMose:Deuteronomium.Kapitel1,1–16,17 (ATD, 8/1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, pp. 54-67; OTTO, Deuteronomium1–11 (n. 6), pp. 418-423. 32. L. PERLITT, Deuteronomium1–3imStreitderexegetischenMethoden, in N. LOHFINK (ed.), DasDeuteronomium:Entstehung,GestaltundBotschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1985, 149-163, pp. 160f. (“Dort sind sie verstreut, ungeordnet, mit legislativem Material vermischt, in mehrere nicht-dtr Schichten eingebettet und

36

J.C. GERTZ

scholarship assumes a direct literary connection between the two texts, with Deuteronomy 1–3 regarded as generally dependent on the texts in Numbers, although there are also cases in which the source textsin Numbers were later reworked in light of Deuteronomy 1–3. One example for a text from the book of Numbers that in its final form is influenced by Deuteronomy 1–3 is Numbers 13f. The composition of that narrative is complex and cannot be dealt with in passing, either in and of itself or in comparison to Deuteronomy 1–3. Here, it is sufficient to elaborate on the preceding observations regarding the bidirectional literary relationship as follows: Numbers 13f. combines non-P and P-like materials, although the existence of the classic Pentateuchal sources (including P) in Numbers 13f. is generally (and probably rightly) disputed. Notably, the most basic material in Deuteronomy 1–3 does not have connections to the P-like passages. Assuming that the author of Deuteronomy 1–3 has not performed his own source-critical analysis of Numbers 13f., he most likely knew only the non-Priestly version (in whatever form). This conclusion is admittedly complicated by the fact that the non-Priestly passages in Numbers 13f. are closely intertwined with the P-like texts. In order to explain this, some models reckon with a third source33. A very confident and elaborate reconstruction of the literary history of the respective passages has been conducted by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach34. Otto distinguishes two Dtr redactions – an earlier “Horeb redaction” and a later “Moab redaction” – followed by a Hexateuch redaction and a Pentateuch redaction. According to Otto, the Horeb redaction in Deuteronomy 5–11* reshaped the late pre-exilic program of reform in Deuteronomy 12–26; 28* into a speech by Moses at Mount Horeb in which Moses expounds the Decalogue through the laws in Deuteronomy 12–26. In the Moab redaction in Deuteronomy 1–3*, Moses recapitulates the people’s wandering from Horeb to the Plains of Moab, thus creating a bridge to the Deuteronomistic book of Joshua in Joshua 1–12*. schließlich priesterschriftlich arrondiert. In Dtn 1–3 dagegen sind sie literarisch komprimiert, geographisch orientiert, in der Redeform aneinander adaptiert und theologisch einheitlich akzentuiert. Wenn literarischer Vergleich überhaupt einen Sinn hat, dann gilt: das Ungeordnete geht dem Geordneten voraus, die Vielfalt der Formen geht deren Vereinheitlichung voraus – etc.”). 33. Cf. BLUM, Studien (n. 23), pp. 180f.; RÖMER, History (n. 2), p. 125 n. 32, who states cautiously: “It seems quite obvious that the Deuteronomists did not simply make up these accounts. But it is impossible to reconstruct and to locate these older traditions”. 34. Cf. R. ACHENBACH, DieErzählungvondergescheitertenLandnahmevonKadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs, in ZAR 9 (2003) 56-123; OTTO, Deuteronomium (n. 4), pp. 12-109; ID., Deuteronomium1–11 (n. 6), pp. 238-257.

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

37

This redaction consciously departs from P by shifting the promulgation of Deuteronomy from Mount Horeb to the Jordan and by having the generation that stood at the mountain of God die on account of its lack of faith in Yhwh’s promise. Here, the Moab redaction took up an earlier version of the story of the spies in Deut 1,19-46, which was later incorporated into Numbers 13f. by the Hexateuch redaction that was responsible for Numbers 10–32*. This redaction drew on Deuteronomy 1–3 as well as its narrative sources35. A look at the various reconstructions of a supposedly older version of the story of the spies, however, shows what is only to be expected: In light of the figures of Joshua and Caleb as well as the themes of conquest and the wilderness journey of “all Israel”, the story of the spies has a larger, “Hexateuchal” narrative horizon in view, which is decisive for the following understanding of Deuteronomy 1–3 as a relecture. Seen from the book of Numbers, Deuteronomy 1–3 could be characterized as a systematizing and even disruptive recapitulation within the narrative of the Pentateuch that serves to mark a distinct break with what precedes – in other words, the beginning of a new literary work36. Yet the initial impression of a literary break results mainly from the colophon in Num 36,13 and the later expansion of Deut 1,1-5 into a superscription to the book of Deuteronomy37, both of which are part of the separation of books within the Pentateuch. If these texts are left out of consideration, then the impression of a disruptive recapitulation of the preceding 35. Cf. OTTO, Deuteronomium 1–11 (n. 6), p. 171. Otto postulates a similar sourcecritical procedure by the redactors in the Sinai pericope, where, in his view, the later Pentateuch redaction (fourth century BCE) drew on the sources used by the Horeb redaction, namely, the Covenant Code from the eighth century BCE, which had already been used as a source for Deuteronomy 12–26 and which was first situated at Sinai – together with the Decalogue in Exodus 20 – by the Pentateuch redaction. One of the many assumptions that this theory requires is the view that the non-Priestly narratives in the book of Exodus draw on older material but are nevertheless post-Priestly. In my view, such a view cannot be maintained. On Exodus 32–34*, cf. J.C. GERTZ, BeobachtungenzuKompositionundRedaktioninExodus32–34, in M. KÖCKERT – E. BLUM (eds.), GottesVolkamSinai (VWGT, 18), Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlag, 2001, 88-106; M. KONKEL, SündeundVergebung:Eine RekonstruktionderRedaktionsgeschichtederhinterenSinaiperikope(Exodus32–34)vor demHintergrundaktuellerPentateuchmodelle (FAT, 58), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008; H. STOPPEL, VonAngesichtzuAngesicht:OuvertüreamHoreb.Deuteronomium5und 9–10unddieTextgestaltihrerFolie (ATANT, 109), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2018. 36. Cf. the well-known conclusion of Julius Wellhausen: “Denn Kap. 1–4 hat offenbar nicht den Zweck, an die vorhergehende Erzählung anzuknüpfen, vielmehr sie ausführlich zu recapituliren, d. h. zu ersetzen” (J. WELLHAUSEN, DieCompositiondesHexateuchsund derhistorischenBücherdesAltenTestaments, Berlin, Reimer, 31899, p. 193). 37. For a diachronic analysis of Deut 1,1-5 (and its difficulties), cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium (n. 26), pp. 1-24.

38

J.C. GERTZ

narratives by Deuteronomy 1–3 is undermined by the styling of the chapters as a retrospective speech by Moses within the narrative context of Deuteronomy38. Within the broader narrative of the Pentateuch, the anonymous narrator first recounts the events during the wilderness wandering in the book of Numbers and then refers to a speech in which Moses interprets these events in Deuteronomy 1–3. Thus, in the narrative world of the book of Deuteronomy, Moses is described as reminding his audience of events that he experienced together with them. In this way, Moses explains to the listeners their history. In contrast, the anonymous narrator of thebook addresses his readers. And just as Moses can assume that his listeners will remember events that they experienced together, so too can the narrator of the book assume that his readers have knowledge of other texts39. In this respect, the characterization of Deuteronomy 1–3 as a doublet, repetition, or the like fails already on the basis of the intentionally chosen form of communication in this section40. In the words of Jean-Pierre Sonnet, it is possible to describe Deuteronomy in general and Deuteronomy 1–3 in particular as “an act of communication about an act of communication”41. Thus, it seems more fitting to describe the relationship between the receiving text in Deuteronomy 1–3 and its reference text in the book of Numbers as a relecture, which also requires fewer assumptions about the diachronic relationship between the two texts. For the concept of relecture, reference can be made to the observations of Andreas Dettwiler on the Johannine farewell speeches42. Relectureis an 38. On this, cf. J.-P. SONNET, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (BIS, 14), Leiden – New York, Brill, 1997, pp. 9-40; see also the observations on the different “voices” and levels of communication in Deuteronomy in N. LOHFINK, DieStimmen inDeuteronomium2, in BZ 37 (1993) 209-235; ID., NarrativeAnalysevonDtn1,6–3,29, in E. BLUM (ed.), Mincha:FSR.Rendtorff, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2000, 121-176. However, I would give more emphasis to the connections with the larger Pentateuchal narrative than to the final separation of books and thus prefer to speak of a detailed introduction to a “book within a book”. 39. Cf. also N. LOHFINK, DarstellungskunstundTheologieinDtn1,6–3,29, in Bib 41 (1960) 105-134. 40. This was rightly noted already by A. DILLMANN, DieBücherNumeri,Deuteronomium und Josua (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch, 13), Leipzig, Hirzel, 21886, pp. 228231; cf. more recently KRATZ, Ort (n. 4), p. 109. 41. SONNET, Book (n. 38), p. 1. 42. Cf. A. DETTWILER, DieGegenwartdesErhöhten:EineexegetischeStudiezuden johanneischenAbschiedsreden(Joh13,31–16,33)unterbesondererBerücksichtigungihres Relecture-Charakters (FRLANT, 169), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995, pp. 4652, who is strongly influenced by O.H. STECK, ProphetischeProphetenauslegung (1993), in ID., DieProphetenbücherundihrtheologischesZeugnis:WegederNachfrageundFährten zurAntwort, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 127-204.

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

39

intertextual phenomenon in which the receiving text further develops – and thereby sheds new light on – its reference text. This results in a new overall understanding of both texts that presupposes a diachronic textual development and at the same time presents a new synchronic relationship between the two texts. Here, the receiving text assumes that the contents of the reference text are still fundamentally valid; thus, the receiving text was conceived as a form of reception from the outset. This model applies quite well to Deuteronomy 1–3. Within the context of the Pentateuch, the narrative of the wilderness wandering is co-present in Moses’ retrospective speech, such that we justifiably can speak of intertextuality here. The relationship between the reference text and the receiving text can be considered from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective: As part of the narrative of the Pentateuch, both texts can and must be read alongside each other synchronically, namely, as events and their interpretation. In such a reading, each text influences how the other text is understood. The receiving text clearly presupposes the reference text, if for no other reason than the fact that it is cast as a reminiscence of the events described in the reference text. At the same time, the receiving text influences how the reference text is understood. It certainly makes a difference whether the narrative of the wilderness wandering in the book of Numbers “merely” leads to the conquest of Transjordan and the death of Moses or whether this narrative serves to bring Moses, the Israelites, and the readers gradually closer to the place where Yhwh’s laws would be made known in full to the people. Yet the relationship between the reference text and the receiving text should also be considered diachronically, as Perlitt’s observations have made clear and as is indicated by the fact that the reference text contains additions that reflect an effort to coordinate it with the receiving text. The latter clearly still regards the reference text as valid, as is indicated by the fact that Deuteronomy 1–3 switches from an account by the anonymous narrator to a speech quoted by him. Within the narrative of the Pentateuch, this shift in perspective makes clear that Deuteronomy 1–3 is not a doublet or a replacement of what precedes. Moreover, the author of Deuteronomy 1–3 did not fulfill his aim through insertions in the book of Numbers itself or – if Deuteronomy 1–3 is regarded as the beginning of a new literary work – by simply omitting the content of the earlier narrative. Ultimately, the literary form of a retrospective speech by Moses that is quoted by the narrator of the book of Deuteronomy shows that Deuteronomy 1–3 was conceived as a reception of the reference text from the outset.

40

J.C. GERTZ

The appropriateness of the term relecture for Deut 1,6ff. is indirectly supported by the introduction to Moses’ speech. The notice in Deut 1,5, which is widely regarded as a later addition43, states: “Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses began to expound (‫ באר‬Piel) this Torah”. The meaning of the verb ‫ באר‬is particularly significant to the present discussion but is also philologically difficult44. If one follows 1QDM 2,8 and the ancient versions in understanding ‫ באר‬as “to expound, interpret”, then Deut 1,5 would be a back-reference to a preceding context: The narrator of Deuteronomy defines the speech of Moses that follows (‫ – )לאמר‬what Perlitt refers to as “the parenetically and historically framed ‘Law’”45 – as exegesis46. Thus, assuming that the commentary of the book narrator in Deut 1,5 indeed describes the historical reminiscence in Deut 1,6–3,29 as exegesis, this comes quite close to our concept of relecture47, although this understanding of Deut 1,5 admittedly remains a matter of debate. If the selfreferential quality of the expression ‫ את־התורה הזאת‬is considered with a view to the further references to the Torah or the “book of the Torah” in Deuteronomy as well as to the other attestations of ‫ באר‬in Deut 27,8 and Hab 2,2 and to the Akkadian verb bâru, then it seems likely that ‫באר‬ has an explicative function and can be translated as “to do something clearly”48. In contrast, the clearly attested postbiblical understanding of ‫באר‬ 43. Cf., e.g., PERLITT, Deuteronomium (n. 26), p. 20. 44. For further discussion, cf. ibid., pp. 22f. (with the translation “deutlich lehren / teach clearly”, “[rechtswirksam] bezeugen / testify [as legally valid]” and a detailed rejection of the translation “schreiben, aufzeichnen / write, record” proposed by S. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarkritisch und traditionskritisch untersucht (BZAW, 139), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1975, pp. 14f.); SONNET, Book (n. 38), pp. 29-32 (“make explicit, expound”); G. BRAULIK – N. LOHFINK, Deuteronomium1,5‫באראת־התורההזאת‬: „erverliehdieserToraRechtskraft“, in K. KIESOW – T. MEURER (eds.), Textarbeit:Studien zuTextenundihrerRezeptionausdemAltenTestamentundderUmweltIsraels.FSP.Weimar (AOAT, 294), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2003, 35-51 (with the proposed translation used in the title of the essay: “He gave this Torah legal validity”). 45. PERLITT, Deuteronomium (n. 26), p. 24 (“das paränetisch und historisch gerahmte ‘Gesetz’”). 46. On the significance of Deut 1,5 for the (self-)understanding of Deuteronomy, cf. also OTTO, Deuteronomium1–11(n. 6), pp. 302; 320; SCHMID, Deuteronomy (n. 4), pp. 16f. 47. Here, it cannot be objected that the preceding promulgation of the law (but cf. Exod 24,12) – particularly the combination of “story” and “law” in (Genesis;) Exodus– Numbers – is late and occurred only in connection with the concept of ‫ תורה‬from Deuteronomy. Decisive for understanding Deut 1,5 is the fact that the received connection of Deuteronomy to the rest of the Pentateuch makes every effort (1) to emphasize the agreement between the Deuteronomic law and the Sinaitic law and (2) to explain Deuteronomy as an exposition of the preceding revelation in the Pentateuch. 48. Thus BLUM, Pentateuch (n. 6), p. 86.

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

41

in the sense of “interpret” can be traced back to a reading of Deut 1,5 in the canonical context of the Torah49. The translation “Moses began to clearly expound this Torah” thus makes Deut 1,(1-)5 “a sort of ‘integrated title’ to the book that lies before the readers and also indicates what kind of book it is: a ‘Torah’, i.e., ‘instruction’”50. Nevertheless, this view has in its favor the fact that Deut 1,5 could have been added during the process of reworking Deut 1,1-5 into a superscription to the book of Deuteronomy (not to a Deuteronomistic History!). Yet even in this case, the understanding of Deuteronomy 1–3 as a relecture is appropriate, since – in light of the postbiblical understanding of ‫ – באר‬it “survived” the separation of books within the Pentateuch. The understanding of Deuteronomy 1–3 as relecture does not necessarily mean, however, that the process of reception took place within one and the same “book”. It is also conceivable that this process involved the creation of a new composition, such as in Chronicles, the book of Jubilees, or the Temple Scroll. Of course, in these cases it is not always clear to what extent the receiving text influenced the understanding of the reference text, creating a new “totality of meaning”51 as postulated in the model of relecture. Although the question of whether the relecture is within or outside the same book as its reference text is of somewhat lesser importance for an adequate understanding of the receiving text, I would still like to pose this question with regard to Deuteronomy 1–3 and to inquire into the function of the introductory speech from a composition-historical perspective.

V. THE LITERARY-HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE RELECTURE IN DEUTERONOMY 1–3 Deuteronomy 1–3 is a carefully composed speech that combines narrative artistry and an interest in the theology of history52. This can be seen not least through comparison with the reference texts in the book of Numbers. In terms of composition history, a decisive question is whether Deuteronomy 1–3 served from the outset to integrate Deuteronomy within 49. Cf. ibid. 50. Ibid.(“so etwas wie einen ‘integrierten Titel’ für das den Lesern vorliegende Buch, und gibt damit zugleich an, um welche Art von Buch es sich handelt: um eine ‘Tora’, d.h. ‘Lehre’”). 51. DETTWILER, Gegenwart (n. 42), p. 47 (“Sinntotalität”). 52. Cf. esp. LOHFINK, Darstellungskunst (n. 39); PERLITT, Deuteronomium (n. 26), pp. 26-34.

42

J.C. GERTZ

its present narrative context. An initial indication that this is the case can be found in Noth’s critique of the arguments against a new literary beginning in Deuteronomy 1–3, as was shown above: The abrupt beginning of an independent literary work through a speech by Moses in Transjordan that simultaneously presupposes knowledge of the wilderness narratives in the book of Numbers is opposed by the observation that Deuteronomy 1–3 seamlessly continues the preceding narrative. It is also notable that the connections between Deuteronomy 1–3 and the book of Joshua have frequently been understood as serving to integrate Deuteronomy into the surrounding narrative. In view of the preceding narrative, however, this is precisely what is denied. Doing so overlooks the fact that the textual references backwards and forwards in Deuteronomy 1–3 are equally strong. Thus, it is difficult to argue for a simultaneous connection with the book of Joshua and separationfrom the book of Numbers. Another argument against a separation from the book of Numbers is the description of Moses’ death in Deuteronomy 34, that on the one hand is always seen in connection with Deuteronomy 1–3 and on the other hand continues the narrative thread of the book of Numbers. More significant, however, is the redactional necessity of incorporating an originally independent Deuteronomy into its present narrative context: The basic redactional problem could have been the thematic, historical, and geographical coordination of the Deuteronomic law and its parenetic frame with the giving of the law at Sinai and its narrative context. The thematic coordination occurred through the later expansion of the original opening of Deuteronomy (Deut 4,45*; 5,1aα1; 6,4) with the Decalogue and its narrative frame in Deut 5,1–6,3*53, a unit which displays many structural parallels with Deuteronomy 1–3: This unit is once again a retrospective speech by Moses quoted by the narrator of Deuteronomy; once again Moses addresses Israel in the second-person plural and uses the first-person plural where necessary; and once again Moses recalls events that he experienced together with Israel and that were described in the 53. The arguments for identifying Deut 5,1aα2–6,3 as a later addition are well known (cf. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium [n. 31], p. 129 with further literature): In addition to the plural form of address instead of the earlier singular form it is the observation that Deut 5,1 anticipates the command ‫“ שמע ישראל‬Hear, Israel” from Deut 6,4. This fact, together with the modified Wiederaufnahme of the call to hear in 6,3 (‫ )ושמעת ישראל‬immediately before the ‫“ שמע ישראל‬Hear, Israel” in 6,4, strongly suggests that Deut 5,1a* (from ‫שמע‬ ‫ – )ישראל‬6,3 is an insertion. Thus, the earlier introduction in Deut 5,1aα1 (“Then Moses convened all Israel and said to them”) could have originally been followed directly by Deut 6,4. It was most probably preceded by Deut 4,45* (without ‫ )העדת ו‬as a superscription to the book, which was later expanded successively in vv. 46.47-49.

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

43

preceding Pentateuchal narrative, except this time the text refers to the promulgation of the Decalogue at Horeb. Thus, in Deut 5,1–6,3 the Decalogue is introduced as a quotation (more precisely: as a quotation within quoted speech). In this way, this section claims for itself a certain relationship to the literary setting of the original promulgation54. Here, the main point seems to be that the Moses of Deuteronomy 5 distinguishes between different parts of the law. One part is the Decalogue, which can be quoted as a known quantity, since, according to v. 4 and vv. 22ff., it is already known to those who hear Moses’ speech. The other part consists of the statutes and ordinances that Moses presents to the Israelites “today” (Deut 5,1), prior to the imminent entry into the land (Deut 6,1). In view of the broader context, there can be no doubt that these statutes and ordinances refer to the laws in Deuteronomy 12–26. Unlike the Decalogue, this part of the law has thus far been known only to Moses but not to the people, as is made clear by the back-reference to the Sinai pericope in Deut 5,22-31. The people know the Decalogue but do not yet know the laws revealed only to Moses55. If we follow the wording of Moses’ speech, this means that Moses received additional laws beyond the Decalogue, which he did not yet convey to the people. Thus, according to Deut 5,22-31, the statutes that begin in Deuteronomy 12 are those, which Moses has already received. In light of the references to Exodus 19–24, there can be no doubt that these statutes are those of the Covenant Code, which follows the Decalogue in the Sinai pericope. This means that the Covenant Code and its later reformulation – the Deuteronomic law – are equated with each other. Differences between the two texts, which, of course, did not go unnoticed to ancient readers, are mitigated by the fact that the interpretive promulgation of the Covenant Code first occurs in Deuteronomy. In fact, this identification of the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy while also maintaining their differences is only necessary if both legal corpora have been integrated secondarily within a single literary context. Thus, the back-reference to the revelation of the Decalogue in Deut 5,1–6,3 is part of the process of integrating Deuteronomy into its present narrative context. Moreover, the historical-geographical coordination of the revelation of the law at the mountain of God and its promulgation “beyond the Jordan, in the valley opposite Beth-Peor” – which is presupposed in Deut 5,1–6,3 54. Cf. the similar observations in KRATZ, Ort (n. 4), pp. 115f. 55. The only verses to depart from this idea are Deut 5,5* (except ‫ )לאמר‬and probably also 5,32f. Further additions are found in 5,24b.26.

44

J.C. GERTZ

and is essential for integrating Deuteronomy into its present narrative context – occurs in Deuteronomy 1–3. The narrator of Deuteronomy locates Moses’ speech – and with it the promulgation of the law – precisely where the wilderness wandering ends that is recalled in Deuteronomy 1–3. Moses’ speech itself begins with the departure from Horeb and culminates in the end of the wilderness wandering and the statement by the narrator about where Moses’ speech takes place. Here, the phrase “beyond the Jordan” (Deut 1,1*) is stated more precisely as “in the valley opposite Beth-Peor” (Deut 3,29). In Deut 4,46, the narrator of the book once again refers explicitly to this location “beyond the Jordan, in the valley opposite BethPeor” in order to introduce a second speech by Moses that refers back to the events at Horeb. The fact that in Deuteronomy 5 Moses stands exactly where he stood in Deut 1,1 prior to the retrospective of the wilderness wandering is thus not a sign of the incoherence of the text. On the one hand, the reminiscence of the wilderness wandering links the mountain of God as the place where the law was revealed to Moses and the plains of Moab as the place where it was promulgated and also interpreted56. The retrospective of the wilderness wandering is indispensable for this function. On the other hand, the narrative logic of Deuteronomy, according to which the Deuteronomic law was revealed already at Horeb, requires that the laws in Deuteronomy 12–26 come immediately after the retrospective of the revelation of the Decalogue. If the retrospective of the wilderness wandering were situated in the chronologically “correct” place, i.e., following the events at Horeb, it would disrupt this connection and would thus undo the deliberate coordination of Sinai and Horeb57. In addition, the statement about the change in generation in Deut 5,3 fits with the interpretation presented here. On the one hand, the “rhetorical conflation of generations”58 created by the direct address in Deut 5,3 (‫לא את־אבתינו כרת‬ ‫ )יהוה את־הברית הזאת כי אתנו אנחנו אלה פה היום כלנו חיים‬serves “to identify the intended recipients with the text-immanent recipients”59. The 56. This is why the retrospective does not begin with the exodus; against RÖMER, Entstehungsphasen (n. 6), pp. 50f. 57. The different parenetic additions in Deuteronomy 6–11 and the retrospective of Exodus 32–34 in Deuteronomy 9–10 disturb this concept. From a diachronic perspective, Deut 6,5–11,30 probably largely postdates the expansion of the original beginning of the book in Deut 4,45*; 5,1aα1; 6,4 (continued in 12,13ff.) with Deuteronomy 1–3* and 5,1– 6,3* (continued in 11,31–12,1.8-12*). 58. N. LOHFINK, Die Väter Israels im Deuteronomium (OBO, 111), Freiburg/Schw., Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, p. 20 (“rhetorische Generationenverschmelzung”). 59. STOPPEL, Angesicht (n. 35), p. 99 (“einer Identifizierung der intendierten Rezipienten mit den text-immanenten Rezipienten”). See also ibid., pp. 98-107 for a convincing

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

45

latter, however, are none other than the Israelites who listen to Moses in Moab. Through the rhetorical shift from the second-person plural to the first-person plural in vv. 2-4, they have been included in the covenant at Horeb, which remains valid even after the death of the first generation (Deut 2,14-17). In other words, the “rhetorical conflation of generations” also occurs on a text-immanent level. The Israelites who are addressed in Moab are spoken to as if they experienced the events at Horeb directly60. A special feature of the geographical references in Deuteronomy 1–3 noted by Raik Heckl underscores the narrative aim described above61. Deuteronomy 1–3 lists a series of waypoints but mentions only three places where the Israelites encamped: Horeb, Kadesh-Barnea, and the valley opposite Beth-Peor. Taken together, both Horeb and the valley opposite Beth-Peor are places from which the people are to set out to enter the land. Yet the initial departure towards the land fails as a result of Israel’s disobedience at Kadesh-Barnea (Deut 1,19-46), which forces the people to turn back toward the wilderness and the Sea of Reeds. From that point forward, the Israelites are constantly on the move for 38 years until they reach the valley opposite Beth-Peor on the eastern side of the Jordan. Thus, “the sojourn in Transjordan is a sort of ‘new version’ of the sojourn at Horeb. Transjordan serves as a stopover prior to the entry into the land, just as Horeb should have done”62. In my view, the overall evidence suggests that the relecture of the wilderness narratives in Deuteronomy 1–3 was created in order to incorporate Deuteronomy into its present narrative context. Of course, it is also conceivable that the literary links discussed here were initially purely intertextual (rather than intratextual)63. The strongest argument for the thesis refutation of the view of KRATZ, Ort (n. 4), pp. 112; 115 with n. 63; OTTO, Deuteronomium1–11 (n. 6), p. 294; PERLITT, Deuteronomium(n. 26), pp. 418f. that the theme of the succession of generations in Deuteronomy 1–3 and 5,2f. does not belong to the same level of composition. 60. Cf. STOPPEL, Angesicht (n. 35), p. 101. 61. Cf. HECKL, MosesVermächtnis (n. 5), pp. 354-358, with reference to P.D. MILLER, TheWildernessJourneyinDeuteronomy:Style,Structure,andTheologyinDeuteronomy1–3, in B.J. BERGFALK (ed.), To Hear and Obey. FS F.C. Holmgren, Chicago, IL, Covenant Publications, 1997, 50-68. 62. HECKL, MosesVermächtnis (n. 5), p. 356 (“[M.E.] steht damit der Aufenthalt im Ostjordanland dem Aufenthalt am Horeb als eine Art Neuauflage gegenüber. Das Ostjordanland stellt damit den Zwischenaufenthalt vor der Landnahme dar, wie der Horeb es hätte sein sollen”). 63. For this view, see BLUM, Pentateuch (n. 6), pp. 90-93 (ET: pp. 64-67), although he concedes that the styling of Deuteronomy 1–3 as a retrospective speech is “an important precondition for the possibility of the compositional integration of Deuteronomy into a comprehensive pentateuchal narrative” (ibid., p. 91: “eine wichtige Voraussetzung für die

46

J.C. GERTZ

that Deuteronomy 1–3 was originally conceived as the introduction to an independent literary work is certainly Deuteronomy’s presentation of itself “as an independent Torah”64 in the presumably later addition in Deut 1,565. Even here, however, the evaluation is less clear than it may seem at first glance. The presentation of Deuteronomy as Torah can be understood as an intermediate stage on the way to the Pentateuch in which Deuteronomy became “increasingly independent”66 or – more likely – as the legacy of an originally independent Deuteronomy, which, in the context of the Hexateuch, has a special place as the last words of Moses. Yet even if Deuteronomy 1–3 were originally the beginning of a literary work, this could not have been an absolute beginning67. Rather, these chapters should probably be thought of as the introduction to a new scroll spanning from Deuteronomy–Joshua within a Deuteronomistic library and which stood alongside a Moses-exodus-conquest narrative and a narrative of the monarchy in Judah and Israel and its prehistory in 1 Samuel– 2 Kings68. Regardless of which option one chooses, the addition in Deut 5,1–6,3 and the base layer of Deuteronomy 1–3 should not be separated too far in time and should perhaps even be attributed to a single hand69. In any case, the widely-followed objection of Timo Veijola that the latter scenario fails to explain why it is only in Deuteronomy 5 that the author suddenly returned to a retrospective of the events at Horeb decades after the people’s Möglichkeit der kompositionellen Einbindung des Deuteronomiums in eine übergreifende Pentateucherzählung”; quote from ET: p. 65). 64. Ibid., p. 92: “Selbstdeklaration des Deuteronomiums als Torabuch” (quote from ET: p. 67). 65. See n. 43 above. 66. KRATZ, Komposition (n. 4), p. 221: “zunehmend verselbstständigt” (ET: p. 220). 67. Cf. LEVIN, NachsiebzigJahren (n. 2), p. 89, who considers that Deuteronomy 1–3 served to create a break within an existing literary context. 68. Cf. RÖMER, Entstehungsphasen (n. 6), pp. 58f.; ID., History (n. 2), pp. 67-106, who proposes this for Deuteronomy–Joshua and Samuel–Kings. 69. The positioning of Deuteronomy 1–3 and 5,1–6,3 before and after the detailed series of superscriptions in 4,44–5,1 cannot be used as an argument against such a conclusion; against KRATZ, Ort (n. 4), p. 111. The only verses that lay before the author of Deuteronomy 1–3*; 5,1–6,3* were Deut 4,45* (without ‫ )העדת ו‬and the introduction to the speech in 5,1aα1. Deut 4,46 serves to incorporate the opening speech (cf. the Wiederaufnahme of ‫ בצאתם ממצרים‬from v. 45 in v. 46), while 4,47-49 are later. Within the framework incorporating Deuteronomy into its narrative context, Deut 4,45f. and 5,1 form the narratologically necessary break between Moses’ retrospective of the wilderness wandering and the promulgation of the law. The author who later added Deut 4,1-44 recognized this and thus marked off his addition with a corresponding reference to the preceding part of the speech (see Deut 4,1).

47

DEUTERONOMY 1–3

departure from there (1,6.19)70 can be resolved by the present observations on Deuteronomy 1–3 just as easily as by the assumption that Deuteronomy 1–3 must be the introduction to a Deuteronomistic History71. Universität Heidelberg Theologische Fakultät Kisselgasse 1 DE-69117 Heidelberg [email protected]

Jan Christian GERTZ

70. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium (n. 31), p. 129; see also PERLITT, Deuteronomium(n. 26), pp. 408f.; OTTO, Deuteronomium1–11 (n. 6), p. 239 and passim, who have used Veijola’s view as an argument against the thesis presented here. 71. The same applies to the theory that Deuteronomy 1–3 served to mark a book boundary that allowed Deuteronomy to be referred to as “Torah”. This idea only arose through the addition of the colophon in Num 36,13 and the reworking of Deut 1,1-5 as a book superscription, particularly through the addition of v. 5. For a different view, see KRATZ, Ort (n. 4), p. 113.

WILL AND (OLD) TESTAMENT RECONSIDERING THE ROOTS OF DEUTERONOMY 25,5-10

The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. John F. Kennedy, State of the Union Address, Jan. 11, 1962

It is a pleasure to contribute this essay in honor of Cynthia Edenburg. I had the good fortune of meeting Cynthia at an early phase in my career, and every time thereafter when we crossed paths, she reached out to me, always with warmth, candor, and her inimitable laugh. I submit this essay as a small token of appreciation to her for these gifts. *** The so-called “family and/or women’s law collection” embedded in Deuteronomy 21–25 has attracted considerable attention among scholars, including Edenburg’s illuminating study of Deut 22,13-29 in 20091. The magnetism of the block is understandable from multiple perspectives. From a comparative point of view, a number of the laws exhibit parallels with precepts in other Near Eastern law collections, enabling scholars to * I am grateful to Daniel Fleming for his crucial feedback on this argument at multiple phases in its development. I also appreciate the help of my research assistants at the University of British Columbia, Mari Choi and Nicole Tombazzi. Thanks are also due to Sophie Démare-Lafont and Lisa Cooper for their suggestions regarding secondary literature. 1. C. EDENBURG, IdeologyandSocialContextoftheDeuteronomicWomen’sSexLaws (Deuteronomy22:13-29), in JBL 128 (2009) 43-60; Edenburg notes the same for Deut 22,1329 specifically (p. 43). See also C. PRESSLER, TheViewofWomenFoundintheDeuteronomic Family Laws (BZAW, 216), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1993; A. ROFÉ, Family and Sex LawsinDeuteronomyandtheBookofCovenant, in Henoch 9 (1987) 131-159; E. OTTO, KontinuumundProprium:StudienzurSozial-undRechtsgeschichtedesAltenOrientsund desAltenTestaments (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana, 8), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1996; ID., Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW, 284), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999; S. MILSTEIN, MakingaCase:TheRepurposingof ‘IsraeliteLegalFictions’asPost-DeuteronomicLaw, in S. OLYAN – J. WRIGHT (eds.), SupplementationandtheStudyoftheHebrewBible(Brown Judaic Studies, 361), Providence, RI, Brown Judaic Studies, 2017, 161-181; B. WELLS, TheHatedWifeinDeuteronomicLaw, in VT 60 (2010) 131-146; ID., Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape: The Slandered Bride and FalseAccusationinDeuteronomy, in JBL 124 (2005) 41-72; and R.S. KAWASHIMA, Could aWomanSay‘No’inBiblicalIsrael?OntheGenealogyofLegalStatusinBiblicalLaw andLiterature, in AJSReview 35 (2011) 1-22.

50

S.J. MILSTEIN

assess both what is shared and distinctive about the biblical texts2. The laws deal with such provocative scenarios as a man’s unjust preferential treatment of one wife and son over another (Deut 21,15-17), a disloyal son whose behavior results in death (Deut 21,18-21), false accusations regarding a bride’s chastity (Deut 22,13-19), adultery (Deut 22,20-22), sexual assault with/without witnesses (Deut 22,23-29), marital restrictions for a two-time divorcee (Deut 24,1-4), and a man’s refusal to support his widowed sister-in-law(Deut 25,5-10). With their inclusion of direct speech/legal formulae (Deut 21,20; 22,14-17; 25,7-9), a range of “triangular” situations involving one man and two women or one woman and two men (Deut 21,15-17; 22,13-21; 22,22; 22,23-29; 24,1-4, and 25,5-10), and in certain cases, considerable level of detail (Deut 22,1319 and 25,5-10), these laws exhibit a literary character that is largely unique within the biblical collections3. Given their focus on marriage, divorce, adultery/rape, and widowhood, Alexander Rofé took the set to represent a tractate of women’s law that was secondarily incorporated into Deuteronomy, something akin to Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) Tablet A4. Eckart Otto likewise drew parallels between MAL A and Deuteronomic laws that he identified as belonging to a “Familienrechtsammlung”5. Recently, I have proposed that a handful of these texts are best understood as “model court cases” that played some sort of role in scribal education before their incorporation into the larger collection6. 2. See, e.g., EDENBURG, Ideology and Social Context (n. 1), pp. 48-56; OTTO, Das Deuteronomium (n. 1), pp. 203-217 (on the reception of MAL A in Deuteronomy); S. MILSTEIN, SeparatingtheWheatfromtheChaff:TheIndependentLogicofDeuteronomy22:25-27, in JBL 137 (2018) 625-643. 3. On the literary features of biblical law more broadly, see A. BARTOR, who celebrates what can be gained when we approach biblical law as narrative (ReadingLawasNarrative: AStudyintheCasuisticLawsinthePentateuch, Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2010). To this end, she focuses on the literary features of laws, such as the presence of the “lawgiver narrator”, the psychological life of the “characters” in the precepts, the representation of direct speech, and the effects of these phenomena on the reader. Biblical laws, she determines, are not neutral, lifeless statements but rather are deliberately constructed texts that demand to be read as “stories” (pp. 4-5). 4. For A. ROFÉ, this “reconstructed [biblical] tractate” includes the texts cited above along with Exod 22,15-16, the seduction of the unengaged virgin, and Exod 21,22-25, the injury of a pregnant woman during a fight (Deuteronomy: Issue and Interpretation [Old Testament Studies], London, T&T Clark, 2002, p. 172). 5. Otto sees both as evidence of legal reforms: “Wie die MAG.A hat auch die protodtn Familienrechtsammlung Züge eines Reformprogramms, das im Familienrecht das Privatstrafrecht zugunsten des öffentlichen Strafrechts einschränkt und die Rechte der Frau stärkt”. For OTTO, the “Familienrechtsammlung” includes Deut 21,15-21aα; 22,13-21a.22a.23.24a. 25.27.28f.; 24,1-4a; and 25,5-10 (DasDeuteronomium [n. 1], p. 217). 6. MILSTEIN, MakingaCase (n. 1). Specifically, I identify Deut 21,15-17; 22,13-19; 22,25-27; 24,1-4, and 25,5-10 as originating as “model cases”. The genre of “model court

WILL AND (OLD) TESTAMENT

51

Such a hypothesis, however, still leaves open the question of the inspiration behind these texts. Given their roster of family-oriented themes, it is plausible to consider that several of these texts have their origins in practical legal documents, such as marriage contracts, property divisions, and wills. Below, I adduce parallels between Deut 25,5-10 and wills from the Late Bronze Age city of Emar to demonstrate the potential of this claim.

I. PRIVATE LEGAL DOCUMENTS AT EMAR While we are largely lacking in practical legal documents from ancient Israel and Judah, cuneiform archives from other Near Eastern settings have yielded a wealth of practical legal documents that date from the third through the first millennia BCE. Closer to the time of biblical writing, the first millennium BCE presents considerable legal material from Babylonia and Assyria, but these documents may not provide the best analogies to practical law as it existed in Israel and Judah. Though more distant in time, second millennium BCE legal documentation from ancient Syria belongs to a cultural matrix that is broadly closer to the world of the Bible. The 14th-12th century BCE Hittite vassal city of Emar (modern-day Meskene, Syria, on the Euphrates River) is particularly rich, with twothirds of its 700+ published cuneiform tablets pertaining to legal matters, the bulk of which constitute private transactions7. The social and political setting of Emar was diverse and relatively decentralized, offering a view of law as practiced on a small scale, often without recourse to the authority of kings and their representatives. Though the population was West Semitic speaking, the tablets are predominantly written in Akkadian8. The diverse texts include land sales, adoptions, divisions of property, labor cases” is attested in Old Babylonian pedagogical contexts; for discussion, see M.T. ROTH, TheSlaveandtheScoundrel:CBS10467,ASumerianMoralityTale, in JAOS103 (1983) 275-282, pp. 279 and 282. 7. S. DÉMARE-LAFONT, Élémentspourunediplomatiquejuridiquedestextesd’Émar, in EAD. – A. LEMAIRE (eds.), Troismillénairesdeformulairesjuridiques(Hautes Études Orientales – Moyen et Proche-Orient, 48),Genève, Droz, 2010, 43-84, p. 43.The majority of the tablets were found in a structure designated “Temple M1”, which served as the archive, scribal school, and library of a prominent family of diviners (Y. COHEN, Public ReligiousSentimentandPersonalPietyintheAncientNearEasternCityofEmarduring theLateBronzeAge, in ReligionCompass 1/3 [2007] 329-340, pp. 329-330).These are in addition to another set of approximately 300 tablets, mostly legal documents, that were bought on the antiquities market but are evidently from Emar. 8. J. JUSTEL, WomenandFamilyintheLegalDocumentationofEmar(WithAdditionalDatafromOtherLateBronzeAgeSyrianArchives), in KASKAL11(2014) 57-84, p. 57.

52

S.J. MILSTEIN

contracts, manumission contracts, records of debts, marriage contracts, and wills9. Legal documents at Emar exhibit two radically distinct formats, what Daniel Arnaud first dubbed “Syrian” and “Syro-Hittite”, and what Sophie Démare-Lafont and Daniel Fleming have more recently distinguished as “Conventional Format” (CF) and “Free Format” (FF) 10. CF tablets, as the name implies, are more conservative in formulation and display links to older Babylonian practice, while FF tablets are marked by innovations in script, shape, and layout11. Unlike the Syrian/CF texts, which were drawn up by scribes employed by the local king, the scribes who drew up Syro-Hittite/FF tablets functioned completely outside of the local king’s social orbit12. Given the lack of overlap in onomastics across these two sets of tablets, Démare-Lafont and Fleming conclude that CF and FF represent not chronologically distinct sets of texts, as has been commonly assumed, but rather “coexisting legal alternatives” that were produced for distinct populations13. 9. For an excellent survey of the practical legal documents at Emar, see DÉMARELAFONT, Éléments (n. 7). The rarity of marriage contracts may suggest that most marital agreements were enacted orally. On the oral nature of Old Babylonian marriage documents, see S. GREENGUS, The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract, in JAOS 89 (1969) 505-532. While Paul KOSCHAKER argued that the contract (rikšatum) must have been written (RechtsvergleichendeStudienzurGesetzgebungHammurapisKoenigsvonBabylon, Leipzig, Veit & Comp., 1917, pp. 111-113), Greengus refuted it, noting that the separateness of agreementmaking and document-writing is indicated in Laws of Hammurabi (LH) §151, where it evidently connotes two different acts (p. 506). In a related discussion, M.T. ROTH likewise suggests that in the Neo-Babylonian period, marriage may not have always demanded a written contract. In her assessment of the available contracts from this period, she notes that the most important feature of the agreements was the transfer of the dowry (Babylonian Marriage Agreements, 7th-3rd Centuries BC [AOAT, 222], Neukirchener-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1989, pp. 26-27). 10. D. ARNAUD,Cataloguedestextescunéiformestrouvésaucoursdestroispremières campagnes à Meskéné-Qadimé Ouest, in Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 25 (1975)87-93; S. DÉMARE-LAFONT – D. FLEMING, AdHocAdministrationandArchiving at Emar: Free Format and Free Composition in the Diviner’s Text Collection, in Aula Orientalis 36/1 (2018) 29-63 and EmarChronologyandScribalStreams:CosmopolitanismandLegalDiversity, in Revued’Assyriologie 109 (2015) 45-77. 11. D. FLEMING, Reading Emar’s Scribal Traditions against the Chronology of Late BronzeHistory, in L. D’ALFONSO – Y. COHEN – D. SURENHAGEN (eds.), TheCityofEmar amongtheLateBronzeAgeEmpires:History,Landscape,andSociety.Proceedingsof theKonstanzEmarConference,25.-26.04.2006(AOAT, 349), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2008, 27-43, p. 28. A shared scribal practice across Syria-Mesopotamia is illuminated especially by the Late Bronze Age Mari archives; on this, see J.-M. DURAND, Unitéet diversitésauProche-Orientàl’époqueamorrite,in D. CHARPIN – F. JOANNÈS (eds.), Lacirculation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien (CRRAI, 38), Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations,1992, 97-128. 12. FLEMING, ReadingEmar’sScribalTraditions (n. 11), pp. 42-43. 13. DÉMARE-LAFONT – FLEMING, Emar Chronology and Scribal Streams (n. 10), p. 49.

WILL AND (OLD) TESTAMENT

53

The nearly 50 available Emarite wills are split evenly across the two types14. Most wills have male testators, though several are attributed to women15. The wills are intrinsically oral, with the document presented as a transcription of the direct speech of the testator before witnesses. Given that a number of them ensure special legal rights for women, it is possible, as Démare-Lafont considers, that their very existence in writing speaks to their deviation from common law16. CF wills open with the formulaic statement (with some variation) that “on this day” (ištuūmiannîm), PN1, son of PN2, “while of sound body” (inabalṭūtī/bulṭūtīšu), “caused his ‘brothers’ to be seated (ahhīšu ušēšibma). He decided the fate of the house (and) of his sons. He spoke as follows...” (šīmtibītīšumārīšuišīm kīamiqbi)17. The testator then specifies what he bequeaths to his wife and children, with larger portions typically allotted to the firstborn male18. As Josué Justel notes, the items specified for wives (e.g., animals, domestic 14. DÉMARE-LAFONT, Éléments (n. 7), p. 52; for the references, see JUSTEL, Women andFamilyintheLegalDocumentationofEmar (n. 8), p. 64. 15. DÉMARE-LAFONT, Éléments(n. 7), p. 53. Though it is not a will per se, JUSTEL cites in full a text in which a woman who takes a man as her husband, establishes him as her son’s father, provides property to her uncles, ensures money for her daughters’ dowries, and prevents future claims against the stipulations (WomenandFamilyintheLegalDocumentationofEmar [n. 8], pp. 60-61). Beyond its interest with respect to gender, this document is a good example of how practical legal documents do not fit neatly into our delineated categories of “marriage contract”, “adoption”, “will”, etc., in that they commonly include features that pertain to a range of legal matters. 16. DÉMARE-LAFONT, Éléments(n. 7), p. 53. JUSTEL likewise notes that the recording of legal cases in the ancient Near East usually reflects atypical situations (Women and FamilyintheLegalDocumentationofEmar [n. 8], p. 75). This comports with GREENGUS’ claim that written Old Babylonian marriage contracts were tied to special circumstances of adopted, manumitted, or other legally vulnerable people (Old Babylonian Marriage Contract [n. 9], p. 512). 17. See, e.g., D. ARNAUD, RecherchesaupaysD’Aštata,EmarVI:TextesSumériens etAccadiens(OBO, 20), Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985; henceforth EmarVI), 176, 180 (p. 193), 183 (p. 196), 188 (p. 202), and 189 (p. 202). The ubiquitous reference to “brothers sitting” is also featured in one Emar marriage contract and a division of property document (G. BECKMAN, TextsfromtheVicinityofEmarintheCollection ofJonathanRosen[History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs, 2], Padova, Sargon, 1996, pp. 80 and 118). My references to texts within these two collections follow their transliterations/translations. As DÉMARE-LAFONT notes, the “brothers” refers not to the testator’s own brothers but to a collective entity, as indicated by the expression LÚ-MEŠ which precedes it. In Munbāqa (= ancient city of Ekalte, north of Emar), the “Brothers” have a seal and intervene in private contexts, as at Emar (Éléments [n. 7], p. 54). On the entity at Emar, see C. WILCKE, AḪ,die‘Brüder’vonEmar: UntersuchungenzurSchreibtraditionam Euphratknie, in AulaOrientalis 10 (1992) 115-150; and N. BELLOTTO, ILÚ.MEŠ.aḫ-ḫi-a a Emar, in AltorientalischeForschungen 22 (1995) 210-228. 18. DÉMARE-LAFONT observes that while Syrian (CF) wills are primarily interested in property, Syro-Hittite (FF) wills are more concerned with people’s issues, such as adoptions and support for the wife (Éléments[n. 7], p. 53).

54

S.J. MILSTEIN

items, moveables) likely correspond to the contents of their dowries19. The children are often entreated to support – or serve – their widowed mother until her death20. Both sets of wills cover a range of hypothetical scenarios. As much as the wills offer protection to widows, they also tend to impose restrictions on their legal rights, evidently as a means of keeping the property in the family. In RE 8, for example, Abī-li’mu, son of Baya, states, “If my wife Abnu should go after a strange man, she shall place her garment on the stool and go where she pleases”21. Similar concerns regarding a wife giving goods to “an outsider” (nakru) or to a daughter marrying outside the family are elsewhere attested22. In RE 23, a man makes alternative arrangements for inheritance, should his son(s) and/or wife die without bearing sons23. In EmarVI 185, the testator stipulates that if his son becomes a widower, he must remarry and cannot leave the house24. Some wills include adoptions, with clauses ensuring that the adoptee support his parents, lest he risk forfeiting his inheritance25. In language typical of adoption contracts, RE 28 considers the consequences for a son who rejects his parents or for parents who reject their son, both of which are delivered as oral formulae (e.g., “You are not my father [and 19. JUSTEL, WomenandFamilyintheLegalDocumentationofEmar (n. 8), p. 64. He notes that nine wills attest to the husband also bequeathing other moveable property to his wife, known as kubuddā’u. 20. Ibid., p. 65. JUSTEL observes that the two types of contracts employ different terms for the care of the widow: Syrian/CF contracts feature wabālu(“to support”)while Syro-Hittite/FF contracts feature palāhu(“to serve/honor”, with connotations of fear and reverence, akin to the Hebrew root yr’). The same pattern is demonstrated across Syrian and Syro-Hittite adoption contracts. With respect to these documents, N. BELLOTTO notes that the former stresses the material aspect of the adoptee’s duties while the latter emphasizes the moral aspect (AdoptionsatEmar:AnOutline, in D’ALFONSO – COHEN – SURENHAGEN [eds.], TheCityofEmaramongtheLateBronzeAgeEmpires (n. 11),179-194, pp. 182-183). 21. BECKMAN, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar (n. 17), pp. 13-15. The “garment clause” is widely attested throughout the wills and other practical legal documents. 22. For the former, see ibid., pp. 27-28; for the latter, see ARNAUD, EmarVI (n. 17),176 (pp. 188-189). On the matter of marrying “a strange man”, see J. JUSTEL, ‘Seirádesnunda de mi casa ...’: Las relaciones de la viuda con otros hombres y su expulsión del hogar (NortedeMesopotamiaySiriaduranteelBronceFinal), in J.A BELMONTE – J. OLIVA (eds.), EstaToledo,aquellaBabilonia:ConvivenciaeinteracciónenlassociedadesdelOrientey delMediterráneoantiguos, Cuenca, Universidad de Castilla – La Mancha, 2011, 217-240. In addition to nakru, the West Semitic term ṣarrāruoccurs in nine documents at Emar and two at Ekalte. The Northwest Semitic term sarru is also attested (JUSTEL, Women and FamilyintheLegalDocumentationofEmar [n. 8], p. 66). The term za-ra-ri(as in BECKMAN, TextsfromtheVicinityofEmar [n. 17], p. 14) or sa-ar-ra(as in ARNAUD, EmarVI [n. 17], 188) is typically translated as “strange” or “stranger”, though some translate “criminal”, reading sarrāru as opposed to zâru (M. STOL, Women in the Ancient Near East, Boston, MA – Berlin, De Gruyter, 2016, p. 289 [n. 85]). 23. BECKMAN, TextsfromtheVicinityofEmar(n. 17), pp. 39-40. 24. ARNAUD, EmarVI(n. 17),185 (pp. 197-198). 25. DÉMARE-LAFONT, Éléments(n. 7), p. 56.

WILL AND (OLD) TESTAMENT

55

mother]”, “You are not my son”)26. In over twenty cases, the man protects his wives and daughters by pronouncing them “mother and father”, “male and female”, or in one case, “the male son”, legal fictions that granted them full capacity to manage the inheritance27. In RE 15, curses are sworn against whomever contests the agreement; other wills prohibit claims against the outlined stipulations28. The documents finally conclude with a list of male witnesses, the name of the scribe, and in some cases, seal impressions29.

II. THE LEVIRATE LAW (DEUT 25,5-10) IN CONTEXT I shall now present my own translation of Deut 25,5-10, together with discussion of its overlap with the testamentary language found at Emar. The law itself is concerned with the long-term fate of a man’s wife, limits on her marital capacities, (potential) progeny, and the destiny of his property (lit., “name”) after his death, precisely the subject matter of ancient Near Eastern wills. The close parallels with Emarite wills with respect to terminology, interests, and structure further suggest that Deut 25,5-10 is rooted in knowledge of analogous Israelite legal documents. 5

When brothers sit together, and one of them dies without a son ...

26. BECKMAN, TextsfromtheVicinityofEmar(n. 17), pp. 46-47. See also BELLOTTO, Adoptions at Emar (n. 20), p. 183. Oral statements whereby one family member rejects another are also widely attested in Old Babylonian marriage documents (in R. WESTBROOK, OldBabylonianMarriageLaw[AfO, 23], Horn, Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 1988; see, e.g., Meissner BAP 89 [p. 127], PRAK I B 17 [p. 129], TIM 5 1 [p. 132], and YOS 15 73 [p. 138]). 27. See, e.g., RE 15: “Now my wife Dagan-ni is father and mother of my household ... Now I have [in]stalled my two [daughters] Abī-namī and Išarte in female and [male] status” (BECKMAN, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar [n. 17], p. 27). See also RE 28 and RE 85 (ibid., p. 47 and pp. 107-108) and ARNAUD, EmarVI(n. 17),185 (pp. 197-198); for discussion, see R. WESTBROOK, Social Justice and Creative Jurisprudence in Late BronzeAgeSyria, in JournaloftheEconomicandSocialHistoryoftheOrient44 (2001) 22-43; repr. in B. WELLS – F.R. MAGDALENE (eds.), Law from the Tigris to the Tiber: TheWritingsofRaymondWestbrook, 2 vols., Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2009, 101125, pp. 123-124. This type of “gender transformation” is also attested at Nuzi and in Old Assyrian documents (DÉMARE-LAFONT, Éléments[n. 7], p. 55). 28. BECKMAN, TextsfromtheVicinityofEmar(n. 17), p. 28. In RE 85, a man prohibits his brothers from making a claim against his daughter’s inheritance (p. 108). 29. The witnesses appear to have been prominent citizens at Emar. Syrian-style documents present the king as first witness. The son and grandson of Li’mi-šarra, a member of the “First Dynasty” and the highest representative of Emar in an international affair involving the King of the Land of Hurri, are listed as principal witnesses in several documents (Y. COHEN – L. D’ALFONSO, TheDurationoftheEmarArchives, in D’ALFONSO – COHEN – SURENHAGEN [eds.], TheCityofEmaramongtheLateBronzeAgeEmpires [n. 11],p. 5); see also discussion in FLEMING, ReadingEmar’sScribalTraditions (n. 11), pp. 33-35; 42.

56

S.J. MILSTEIN

The initial clause ‫אַחים יַ ְח ָ ֗דּו‬ ִ֜ ‫ ִ ֽכּי־יֵ ְשׁ ֨בוּ‬is generally taken to represent a special situation whereby actual brothers lost their father, inherited his property, and chose to “dwell together” on undivided land30. It may be significant, however, that CF wills at Emar universally open with reference to the testator causing “his ‘brothers’ to sit” (RE 8, RE 15, RE 23, RE 28, RE 61, Emar VI 94, 176, 180, 181, 183, 188, and 189). Likewise, in Ruth 4,2 the narrator states that Boaz “took ten men from among the elders of the city and said, ‘Sit here’, and they sat” (‫וַ יִּ ַ ֞קּח ֲע ָשׂ ָ ֧רה ֲאנָ ִ ֛שׁים ִמזִּ ְק ֵנ֥י ָה ִ ֖עיר‬ ‫אמר ְשׁבוּ־ ֑ ֹפה וַ יֵּ ֵ ֽשׁבוּ׃‬ ֶ ֹ ‫)וַ ֣יּ‬. While the phrase ‫אַחים יַ ְח ָ ֗דּו‬ ִ֜ ‫ ִ ֽכּי־יֵ ְשׁ ֨בוּ‬in Deut 25,5 may well imply joint ownership among actual brothers, the combination of “brothers/men” and “sitting” also has evident associations with smallscale legal councils witnessing the transfer of persons and property. As such, its use in Deut 25,5 may reflect a relic of standard legal language. In addition to Emarite wills that include adoptions, several documents explicitly anticipate infertility, whether of the testator’s sons or wife (RE 15, RE 23, and 185). The concern likewise crops up in marriage contracts found at Elephantine, and in those cases, it is specifically the childless֔ ‫ֵוּב֣ן ֵ ֽא‬ ness of the testator and/or his wife31. Within the Bible, the phrase ‫ין־לוֹ‬ (“and he has no son”), with some variation, occurs also in Num 27,4 and 8, Judg 11,34, Eccl 4,8, and 2 Sam 18,1832. A similar phrase appears in an unprovenanced Hebrew letter from a widow to an official, in which the woman refers to her “childless husband” (’yšyl’bnm) in a plea to wrest 30. On this phenomenon, see esp. D. DAUBE, who likens the biblical situation to the Roman legal practice of erctononcito, or undivided ownership (ConsortiuminRomanand Hebrew Law, in The Juridical Review 62 [1950] 71-91). The division of land after the father’s death – evidently the standard practice – is referenced in LH §165 (“after the father goes to his fate, when the brothers divide…”), Laws of Eshnunna (LE) §§15-16 (“the son of a man who has not yet received his inheritance share [lit., who is not divided]”), and Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) A §25 (“her husband’s brothers have not yet divided”). All translations are after M.T. ROTH, LawCollectionsfromMesopotamiaandAsiaMinor (Writings from the Ancient World, 6), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 1997. MAL A §25 is particularly intriguing in the light of Deut 25,5-10, in that it also refers to a legal situation involving a childless widow and her husband’s brothers. In that case, however, the woman lives not on their property but rather in her father’s house. 31. See B28 and B41 in B. PORTEN (ed.), TheElephantinePapyriinEnglish:Three MillenniaofCross-CulturalContinuityandChange (Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and Civilisation, 22), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011, pp. 178-184 and 227-232. In these cases, the widowed wife merely has the “right” to her deceased husband’s property, whereas the widowed husband is said to “inherit” his deceased wife’s goods and property. The same pattern is attested in D3, an early Greek will found at Elephantine (see discussion ibid., p. 182). 32. B. KILHÖR notes that only Num 27,8 preserves exactly the same wording (Levirate MarriageinDeuteronomy25:5-10andItsPrecursorsinLeviticusandNumbers:ATest CasefortheRelationshipbetweenP/HandD, in CBQ77 [2015] 429-440, p. 432). The LXX instead features the gender-neutral term σπέρμα (“seed”).

WILL AND (OLD) TESTAMENT

57

her husband’s field away from her brother-in-law33. In all of the biblical and extra-biblical legal contexts, the reference to a sonless man signals an obstacle to the smooth and standard transference of land from father to son. ... the wife of the dead man will not [marry] a strange man outside [the family].

This restriction is almost identical to that stipulated in the Emar wills, where serious repercussions are pledged for the wife who marries “a strange man” (RE 8 and EmarVI176). Both the biblical text and the wills evidently have the same interest: to restrict the wife’s legal rights in order to keep the property in the family34. It is noteworthy that the text refers to the woman as ‫ת־ה ֵ ֛מּת‬ ַ ‫“( ֵ ֽא ֶשׁ‬the wife of the dead man”) as opposed to the more widely attested term “widow” (‫)אַל ָמ ָנ֥ה‬ ְ 35. In Widow’sRightsin UrIIISumer, David Owen attributes significance to a similar formulation in an Ur III text, which makes reference to “the wife of (the deceased) PN” as opposed to NU.MU.SU/almattu(“widow”)36. In his estimation, almattu denotes a woman without support while the retained epithet “wife of PN” indicates a woman with financial security37. G.R. Driver and J.C. Miles likewise distinguish the almattu, who has neither grown sons nor a fatherin-law, from two other classes of widows in the Assyrian laws: women with sons and inchoately married brides38. The difference between the 33. The translation “childless” follows E. BONS, KonnteeineWitwe dienahalāhihres verstorbenenManneserben?,inZAR4 [1998] 197-208, p. 200; and also J.A. WAGENAAR, Give in the Hand of Your Maidservant the Property…”: Some Remarks to the Second OstraconfromtheCollectionofSh.Moussaïeff,in ZAR5 (1999) 15-27, p. 18. The letter speaks to a rather similar situation to that which appears to underlie Deut 25,5-10: a man dies childless, and his brother is assigned a wheat field that evidently was promised to him. His widow then makes a case that she should be granted the field. Bons argues that the plea is for possession of the property, not merely the usufruct (pp. 203-208). Regarding dating, Wagenaar notes that the paleographic evidence points to a 7th-6th century BCE date while orthographic and stylistic features parallel those in postexilic writings (p. 15). The letter may, in fact, be a forgery, for the Hebrew is not entirely idiomatic. In ancient Hebrew, ’et is used with shama’ to designate the thing one hears, but never the person, for which we find l-, ’el, lqol or bqol. In addition, when one begins with the third person address ’adoni, the third person is supposed to be used for the suffix too, at least within the same clause. I thank Jan Joosten for pointing this out to me (personal communication). 34. The notion of marrying outside the family is also attested in Judg 12,9, where Ibzan of Bethlehem is said to have married off thirty daughters “outside” (‫וּצה‬ ָ ‫)ה ֔ח‬ ַ and to have brought in thirty women “from the outside” (‫ן־ה ֑חוּץ‬ ַ ‫)מ‬ ִ to marry his sons. 35. This term often appears alongside another vulnerable faction of society, the fatherless child (‫;)יָתוֹם‬ ֖ see, e.g., Exod 22,22.24; Deut 10,18; 14,29; and Lam 5,3. 36. D. OWEN, Widow’sRightsinUrIIISumer, in ZeitschriftfürAssyriologie 70 (1980) 170-184, p. 174 n. 18. 37. OWEN surmises that widows in Ur III may have had primary right of inheritance unless their husbands had stipulated otherwise in their wills (ibid., p. 175). 38. G.R. DRIVER – J.C. MILES, The Assyrian Laws: Edited with Translation and Commentary, Reprint of the Oxford 1935 Edition with Supplementary Additions and Corrections by G.R. DRIVER, Oxford, Clarendon, 1975, pp. 246-247.

58

S.J. MILSTEIN

two Hebrew phrases may likewise hold significance. In addition to the Deuteronomy reference, Ruth and Abigail are called not “widows” but rather “wife of PN” (or in one case with Ruth, “wife of the dead man”, Ruth 4,5), epithets that suit their long-term security in the hands of Boaz and David respectively. It is worth adding that there would be no reason to restrict the woman in Deut 25,5-10 from marrying “a strange man” unless she was otherwise expected to remain on the property. Ironically, her restricted rights serve as a signifier of her assumed protection. Her husband’s designate shall come to her and take her for himself as wife and support her.

The term ‫“( ָיְב ָמ ֙הּ‬her designate [in-law]”) is a hapaxlegomenon, suggesting that it represents a special legal designation as opposed to the more generic “brother-in-law” or “husband’s brother”, as it is typically rendered39. The feminine form of the word is attested only in Deut 25,7 and 9 and Ruth 1,15, and the related verb ‫ יבּם‬occurs only here and in Gen 38,840. The term is clearly tied to the role of the designated man; hence the (rather clunky) BDB definition, “to do the duty of a brotherin-law”. Most assume that the “duty” involves impregnation, with debate centering on the specific terms of the relationship41. It is possible that at an earlier phase, however, the term simply connoted obligatory protection. Within the wills, whenever wives are the object of a verb, the verb is linked to support or even servitude. The equally rare Akkadian cognate yaba/ āmum is attested only in a single context, but its use suggests a male’s legal obligation to care for a woman related to him by marriage, not to impregnate her. In an Old Babylonian letter, the speaker refers to a woman who no longer wants to live with her husband and instead opts to go with her children to the house of her yaba/āmum. Scholars have translated the ambiguous term alternatively as “brother-in-law” or “father-in-law”, though it is possible that it should be more generically understood as a 39. See, e.g., the JPS translation and NRSV; see also L. KOEHLER – W. BAUMGARTNER, ‫יבּם‬, in TheHebrewandAramaicLexiconoftheOldTestament(2 vols.), vol. 1, Leiden, Brill, 2001, p. 383. 40. The nominal form may also have a parallel in female form in a single Ugaritic text, which refers to the goddess Anat with the epithet ybmlilm, “the ybm of the thousand [gods]” (see M. BURROWS, The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage, in BASOR77 [1940] 2-15, pp. 6-7; see also “LIM” in K. VAN DER TOORN – B. BECKING – P.W. VAN DER HORST [eds.], DictionaryofDeitiesandDemonsintheBible, Leiden, Brill, 1999, p. 523). 41. G.W. COATS, e.g., argued that marriage was not necessarily required; rather, the widow only had the right to expect conception of a child (Widow’sRights:ACruxinthe StructureofGenesis38, in CBQ34 [1972] 461-466).E. NEUFELD translates the verb as “impregnate” (Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws: With Special References to General SemiticLawsand Customs, London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1944, p. 23).

WILL AND (OLD) TESTAMENT

59

designated male relative who provides security for his in-law in the case of a dissolved marriage42. The letter represents a particularly interesting case, in that theyaba/āmumis apparently obligated to his brother’s wife in the case of divorce, not (only?) premature death. The fact that the term yaba/āmum is provided, as opposed to a proper name, implies that this represents a designated legal role, though its paucity in documentation suggests a restricted set of circumstances. Although the Emarite wills do not prescribe levirate marriage per se, it is notable that in RE 15, a wife is to give her possessions to “whomever supports her among her deceased husband’s brothers”43. The general notion of a widow’s in-laws taking her into their household is attested elsewhere, however. As is widely observed, MAL A §30 and §43 and Hittite Laws §193 likewise refer to the transference of a widow into the care of her husband’s agnates44. In MAL A § 30, this protection is signaled by the legal term ahūzatu, defined as “a marriage-like relationship of dependency and protection between an unprotected female and the head of a household”45. If we take the biblical statement as the inverse of the preceding stipulation, the woman is expected not to marry a stranger but rather to wed her husband’s familial designate, with all of the security that such a marriage entails. 6

The firstborn that she bears will rise upon the name of his dead brother so that his name will not be wiped out from Israel. 7But if the man does not want to take his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law must go to the gate of the elders and say, “My husband’s designate refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he does not want to support me”. 42. With its ya-prefix, the term is evidently West Semitic. The AHw translates “Schwager” (III, jabāmum, 1565a) and the CDA translates “father-in-law” (yabamum, 440a). The CAD does not list it, for the volume I / J was published before publication of the letter. 43. BECKMAN, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar (n. 17), p. 28. For J. LUNDBOM, “the Babylonians and Assyrians attained the same end (as levirate marriage) by legitimating children of slave-wives and concubines and by adoption; therefore, they had no need of a levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy:ACommentary, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2013, p. 706); see also DRIVER – MILES, AssyrianLaws (n. 38), pp. 246 and 249-250. Though a different case and somewhat ambiguous, EmarVI(n. 17),183 ensures that each brother will enable the other to marry (i.e., presumably provide financial support toward that end): ahu anaahiaššatalīhuzu(“brother to brother may take a wife”) (ARNAUD, EmarVI[n. 17], 196). 44. As E. DAVIES notes, the emphasis on keeping the estate within the family is “conspicuously absent” from the so-called “levirate” Assyrian and Hittite laws (Inheritance RightsandtheHebrewLevirateMarriage,Part1,in VT31 [1981] 138-144, p. 142). 45. CAD A/1 s.v. ahūzatu, p. 217. The term in MAL is not restricted to obligations through marriage, however. In A §32, a father whose daughter is raped is to give her into the household of the (married) man who raped her (a similarly horrific scenario is represented in MT Exod 22,15-16/LXX 22,16-17 and Deut 22,28-29). The reasoning, however, is the same: as noted in the CAD, “a woman who has lost her protector by death or her value through rape is handed over to the head of a household who, as relative or culprit, must assume responsibility for her”.

60

S.J. MILSTEIN

With its double reference to Israel, the focus shifts in these two verses from the private to the public sphere. While v. 5 centers on the responsibilities of the designate to the woman, vv. 6-7 are now concerned with the offspring of the union and his ability to prevent his father’s “name” from being wiped out from Israel. The phrase “a name in Israel” would seem to have had no place in a private legal document; as such, if v. 5 is indeed rooted in testamentary language, vv. 6-7 may reflect the recasting of such content from a broader perspective. A similar pattern is present in Deut 22,19-21, where the private offense of adultery is reframed in the context of Israel: in the first case, the false accuser is punished for he “... brought a bad name upon a virginofIsrael”; in the counter-case, the woman is punished “because she committed a deliberate sin inIsrael”46. The concern with a lost “name” also surfaces in Num 27,1-11, where Zelophehad’s daughters make a plea to Moses that they should inherit their deceased father’s holding. The women’s concern, however, is set within the narrower context of the clan, not all Israel (v. 4): “Why should the ‘name’ (i.e., title) of our father be taken away from his clan, [just] because he has no son?” (‫ינוּ ִמ ֣תּוְֹך ִמ ְשׁ ַפּ ְח ֔תּוֹ ִ ֛כּי ֵ ֥אין ל֖ וֹ ֵ ֑בּן‬ ֙ ‫ם־אָב‬ ִ֙ ‫ ָ)ל ָ֣מּה יִ גָּ ַ ֤רע ֵשׁ‬47. 8

The elders of his town will summon him and speak to him; and [if] he stands his ground and says, “I do not want to marry her”, 9his sister-inlaw shall approach him in front of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and respond, saying, “Thus will be done to the man who does not secure (lit. ‘build’) his brother’s household”48. 10And his name in Israel will be known as “The house of the one whose sandal was removed”.

46. While vv. 20-21 are widely considered to represent a secondary addition, however, v. 19 would appear to belong to the original case. If the Israel reference in v. 19 is not an addition, it is possible that it merely reflects an idiom linked to the woman’s value (i.e., the “going rate” for a virgin in Israel) while its use in vv. 20-21 is tied to larger (and later) concerns regarding the purity of the land. As a corollary, one Emar document (RE 61) does make reference to a man divorcing his wife “like a daughter of Emar”, evidently a fixed divorce payment (R. WESTBROOK, EmarandVicinity, in ID. [ed.], AHistoryofAncientNear EasternLaw[2 vols.], vol. 1, Leiden, Brill, 2003, p. 670). 47. R. WESTBROOK has demonstrated persuasively that the “name” is tied to the right to inherit property, and is best translated as something akin to “title” (Propertyandthe FamilyinBiblicalLaw, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991, pp. 69-89, esp. 74-75); see also DAVIES, InheritanceRights (n. 44), p. 142. 48. Akkadian employs a somewhat similar phrase (epēšu bīta, lit., “to build a/the house”) with respect to the acceptance of a vulnerable individual into one’s household (CAD s.v. epēšu2cbītu). LH §191 states “If a man has adopted a small child, brought it up and accepted (it) into his household …”; and LH §148 makes reference to a man who must not abandon his ill wife: “She can stay (as long as she lives) in the household into which he had accepted (her)”.

WILL AND (OLD) TESTAMENT

61

The fact that the hypothetical woman is the plaintiff in the Deuteronomic text suggests that her wellbeing is at stake, not only the fate of her husband’s property. The inclusion of negative scenarios whereby one party refuses to fulfill the legal responsibilities entailed by his/her role is likewise a popular feature of Emarite legal documents, including wills, adoptions, and marriage contracts. The refusal to perform such duties is similarly represented by means of oral formulae, evidently statements uttered in legal contexts before witnesses: “You are not my father/mother”/ “You are not my son”49; “You are not my brothers”50; “I will not honor you”51. Marriage contracts at Elephantine likewise anticipate the potential dissolution of the marriage through verbasolemnia: “If PN1 says, ‘I hated my wife PN2 ... or if PN2 says, ‘I hated my husband PN1 …”52. In all of the negative scenarios outlined in the contracts, the anticipated rejections are followed by penalties, most commonly, the rejecter’s forfeiture of rights to his/her inheritance. If the Deuteronomic text indeed originated in a will, it is possible that such a source only made provisions in case of the designated man’s refusal to marry the widowed woman and thereby fulfill his legal obligation. The woman’s statement (“Thus will be done…”) and its aftermath (“And his name ... will be known as ‘The house of the one whose sandal was removed’”) is not unlike the concluding clauses of RE 15. While a number of wills prevent someone from contesting its claims, RE 15 goes a step further, promising divine punishment on any future claimants: “Dagan and Ninurta shall destroy whoever contests these words, as well as his progeny and his very name, and erect a stele before his house”53. In both cases, the lack of compliance results in permanently smearing the “name” and “house” of the dissenter: the very assets that the wills and law are designed to protect. 49. See, e.g., RE 25 and RE 28 in BECKMAN, TextsfromtheVicinityofEmar(n. 17), pp. 42-43 and 46-47. 50. ARNAUD, EmarVI(n. 17),181. 51. See BECKMAN, TextsfromtheVicinityofEmar(n. 17), p. 23. 52. See, e.g., B28 and B36 in PORTEN (ed.), TheElephantinePapyriinEnglish (n. 31), pp. 182-183; 210-211. The term “hate” is tied especially to unjustified divorce; for discussion, see A.F. BOTTA, HatedbytheGodsandYourSpouse:LegalUseof‫שׂנא‬inElephantine and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, in R.G. KRATZ – A.C. HAGEDORN (eds.), Law and ReligionintheEasternMediterranean:FromAntiquitytoEarlyIslam,Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, 106-128. Similar statements are attested at Emar; see WESTBROOK, Emar and Vicinity (n. 46), p. 670. TBR 75 considers the husband saying to his mother-in-law/ adoptive mother, “I divorce your daughter” (ibid.). Positive statements are also attested, e.g., in the event of adoption, the adopter would affirm, “He is my son” (ibid., p. 672). 53. BECKMAN, TextsfromtheVicinityofEmar(n. 17), p. 28.

62

S.J. MILSTEIN

III. CONCLUSION “If I should fall, my name will stand!” Gilgamesh to Enkidu in Tablet III of the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic

The repurposing of standard clauses in practical legal documents within codified law is potentially attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East. The Laws of Hammurabi (LH) §129 states that if a man’s wife is seized lying with another male, the two should be bound and cast into the water. While the specific combination of binding and drowning is unique to this case within LH, it is a common warning clause for brides in Old Babylonian marriage contracts. To cite one of numerous examples, a contract from Sippar dating to the reign of Ammi-ditana states, “If Sabitum says to her husband Warad-kubi, ‘You are not my husband’, they will bind her and cast her into the water”54. In addition, The Laws of Eshnunna (LE) §28 notes that if a woman is indeed a wife, the day she is seized in the lap of another man, she shall die, she will not live”55. The phrase “The day that X [transpires]”, followed by a penalty, is again frequent in the contracts: e.g., “The day that Shamash-nuri says to her mistress ...” or “The day she distresses Ahassunu …”56. It appears that Mesopotamian scribes who had firsthand knowledge of hypothetical clauses in marriage contracts logically recycled some of this terminology in the process of composing marital laws. Although indirect, the parallels between Deut 25,5-10 and Emarite wills suggest that a similar process of reuse may have transpired in Israelite/ Judahite scribal settings. This is especially suggested by the overlap in terminology between the levirate law and the Near Eastern wills in Deut 25,5. The combination of brothers “sitting”, the reference to childlessness, restrictions on the wife’s right to remarry, and stipulations for the wife’s protection by other family members are all regular features of Emar testaments. Yet from a broader perspective, the extended hypothetical scenario 54. R. WESTBROOK, OldBabylonianMarriageLaws(2 vols.), diss., Yale University, 1982, vol. 1, CT 48 50, pp. 161-162; see also pp. 130-131 (reconstructed); 165; 173-174; 204-206; 208; 220-222; 244-245; 247-248; and 251-252. Of the 45 Neo-Babylonian contracts that ROTH profiles, it is notable that 15 likewise preserve a clause pertaining to potential divorce (BabylonianMarriageAgreements [n. 9], pp. 12 and 15), and 10 make reference to punishment for adultery (e.g., “Should X be discovered with another man, she will die by the iron dagger”, pp. 37-38 etal.). 55. As WESTBROOK notes, a similar situation regarding a man catching his wife in flagrantedelicto is preserved in an undated text from Ur (UET 5 203). A certain Lugalme-ur-ur catches his wife in the lap of another and approaches the king; the king then puts the adulterous couple to the stake (OldBabylonianMarriageLaw, diss. [n. 54], vol. 1, pp. 265-266). 56. WESTBROOK, OldBabylonianMarriageLaw, diss. [n. 54], vol. 1, pp. 133 and 157.

63

WILL AND (OLD) TESTAMENT

that dominates the remainder of the text, whereby one party formally renounces his legal commitment and is penalized for it, also appears to be rooted in knowledge of practical legal texts. The anticipation in both the wills and Deut 25,5-10 of “worst-case scenarios” was neither pessimistic nor unrealistic, but rather mirorrs the general pattern of Near Eastern lawmaking whereby scribes supplemented base laws with additional hypothetical scenarios so as to cover more legal ground. While this mode in the law collections appears to have been largely scholastic, however, its use in the wills served a crucial and wholly universal purpose: to protect one’s family members from all foreseeable harm, even after one ceases to be living. By “repairing their roofs” in the blazing Mediterranean sun, certain savvy individuals managed to ensure both the security of their closest kin and the ultimate fate of their “names”: perhaps one of the only forms of immortality that humanity can reasonably attain. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada [email protected]

Sara J. MILSTEIN

DISORIENTING RHETORIC IN JOSHUA 8,30-35 I. RHETORICAL INTERPRETATION Rhetorical interpretation pays attention to the features marshaled in a text to influence the reader. To study a text’s rhetoric is to investigate interactions between the reader, particularly the ancient reader, and the words on the page, with the assumption that there is a degree of authorial purpose somewhere in the equation. The rhetorical critic analyzes the symbolic artifacts of discourse – in our case those of a text – used to communicate. Rhetorical interpretation is interested in what a text does, that is to say how it works when it is read closely by a linguistically and culturally competent and cooperative reader. It recognizes that literature is dynamic and has effects on readers/hearers. A text may change or reinforce attitudes, create enjoyment, encourage or inspire, disturb or challenge, teach, affect behavior. Sometimes it works to change the status quo or move against a mindset the reader may have. Sometimes it urges one to take action. It may condemn, urge repentance, or strengthen religious conviction. It may settle an argument or correct a misperception. Texts reorient priorities. All this is the provenance of the rhetorical critic. Rhetorical matters consist of lexical and grammatical issues, organizing arrangements and patterns, the intentions of various literary genres, along with narrative plot and structure. The scribal culture that produced the Hebrew Bible developed a rich tradition of chiasms, cross-references, flashbacks, repetitions, and allusions to help audiences follow written texts that were read aloud to them. Rhetorical readings investigate a text’s poetics. The rhetorical critic analyzes vocabulary, structures, mood, style, sentence and discourse syntax, and organization. She uncovers and describes metaphor and other literary devices, exposes repeated motifs, analyzes narrative structure and plot, allows a text’s various perspectives or voices to speak, and portrays a text’s treatment of its participant characters1. If historical criticism is author centered, rhetorical criticism is reader centered, or better text centered. Yet historical realities are not ignored. 1. Discussions of rhetorical criticism include D. PATRICK – A. SCULT, Rhetoricand Biblical Interpretation (JSOT.S, 82), Sheffield, Almond, 1990; P. TRIBLE, Rhetorical Criticism:Context,Method,andtheBookofJonah, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1994; R. MEYNET, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric (JSOT.S, 256), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

66

R.D. NELSON

Even though actual authors and tradents remain invisible, common sense dictates that rhetorical realities evidence authorial and editorial strategies. In my opinion, rather than offering a chronologically naïve, flat, final form reading, a rhetorically-oriented interpreter should seek to establish the earliest recoverable text as a way of getting as close as possible to the producers of the text and its early, pre-Common Era audiences. This is particularly true when a book has come down to us in recognizably different recensions, as is the case with Joshua. The study of a text’s rhetoric offers some moderate degree of objectivity in that rhetorical features are either empirically present or not2. The words on the page are objectively in front of us (acknowledging subjectivity in the text critic’s work) and provide all interpreters with a common ground. All readings must be tested against the details of the text. The words actually on the page are what count and these must be read thoroughly before turning to one’s response as reader (insofar as that sort of mental gymnastics is actually possible). Critical appreciation of the history that led to the configuration of the text we read today is also important for the possibility of proposing a cogent interpretation that other readers might reasonably be expected to share. Even though our understanding of that history is not “objective” (any more than any history can be), if nothing else it reminds us that what is before us is not a twenty-first century text. Modern concerns cannot simply be read off its surface without consideration of pre-modern cultural, linguistic, and historical realities. We are analyzing the rhetoric of an ancient text that operated in an alien culture long ago. Let us look at five elements of the rhetoric of Josh 8,30-35 as a gateway into thinking about how this text is likely to affect an audience. These are (1) placement, (2) structure, (3) plot and narrative, (4) themes of inclusivity and obedience, and finally (5) complication and disorientation. II. PLACEMENT Josh 8,30-35 appears in a striking location. It breaks into the sequence of events between Ai and the Gibeonites. Surprisingly, after this event on Mount Ebal, Joshua turns out to be still back at Gilgal in 9,6. The reader 2. Of course not everyone will appreciate the value of striving for objectivity. The history of interpretation demonstrates the ever-present danger of socially dominant interpreters imposing hegemonic, elitist meanings. Yet an honest attempt to elucidate less-than-completely subjective actualities about texts still seems a worthy goal. I mean that texts evidence empirical features that can be agreed upon by readers and that these particulars will generate only a finite number of potentially persuasive readings. Texts are indeed multivalent, but a given text cannot mean just anything.

DISORIENTING RHETORIC IN JOSHUA 8,30-35

67

who is thinking of strategic realities wonders how Shechem can be simply occupied without resistance or why Joshua immediately moves south leaving expected northern enemies unpacified. The pericope breaks the easy flow from 8,28-29 to 9,1 in that the topic changes suddenly from military matters to religious proceedings. In 9,3, the Gibeonites react directly to the victories against Jericho and Ai as though the events of 8,30-35 were invisible to them. And of course, the literal-minded reader who has Deut 27,2-8 (and 11,29-30) in view will be wondering why Joshua has waited until now to build this altar and arrange for this ceremony. Should not all this have taken place on the very day of crossing the Jordan? The uneasy position of Josh 8,30-35 is buttressed syntactically by a tenuous and approximate temporal connection to the preceding story. Initiating the unit with ᾿az plus an imperfect verb communicates “approximately the time when” with reference to the previously reported event (IntroductiontoBiblicalHebrew Syntax 31.6.3b; also Josh 10,12)3. The rhetorical impact of the arresting positioning of the Ebal pericope on early readers is demonstrated by the divergent textual locations of 9,1-2. These two verses appear in the MT after the Ebal/Gerizim narrative and in the Old Greek before it4. (4QJosha witnesses another text transmission reaction to the odd position of 8,30-35, the details of which cannot be pursued here)5. Josh 9,1-2 represents a transitional summary: as soon as the kings of the hill country, lowlands, and Mediterranean coast heard, they gathered to fight. What is striking in the Masoretic sequence is that 3. As historical critics, we recognize that the inherited pre-Deuteronomistic History structure of Joshua and geographic realities meant that it was not possible to report a literal obedience to Deut 27,2 at the moment of crossing. 4. Characterizing the situation as an insertion of 8,30-35 into two different places assumes apriori that this pericope is a late addition to the basic form of Joshua. This perspective is largely dependent on the unwarranted assumption that 8,30-35 as a whole appears in yet a third location in 4QJosha. 5. 4QJosha offers a rewrite of chapter 4 that incorporates public reading of the law book at a point before the Jordan crossing is completely over. The command of Deut 31,11-12, at least, is implemented at a transitional moment before circumcision. It is hardly certain, however, that anything of Josh 8,30-33 (altar building, sacrifice, inscribing stones, blessing ceremony) actually appeared in 4QJosha in the context of the crossing of the Jordan and before the circumcision episode. Only Joshua’s reading of the law is actually preserved (the last word of v. 34 and most of v. 35) with a plus specifying a Jordan locale. This is followed by a rewriting of 4,18 indicating that something involving the “book of the law” followed the removal of feet from the river and preceded a mention of the carriers of the ark. Joshua 8 is not preserved in 4QJosha after v. 14 (along with some words of v. 18 in a second hand). See E. TOV, LiteraryDevelopmentintheBookofJoshuaasReflectedinthe MT,theLXX,and4QJosha, in E. NOORT (ed.), TheBookofJoshua (BETL, 250), Leuven, Peeters, 2010, 65-85. Even if 4QJosha does indeed witness a recension of Joshua in which all the events of 8,30-35 take place on the day of crossing the Jordan, it still would represent a secondary “improvement” of the Masoretic and Greek textual traditions, each of which technically violate Moses’ command in Deut 27,2.4.

68

R.D. NELSON

what the kings hear about is most easily understood as the ceremonial activities that have just been reported, not recent Israelite military victories. It appears that Israel’s recommitment to the Mosaic law causes the enemy reaction, so that the locational rhetoric of the Masoretic sequence is highly theological. In the less difficult and thus secondary Greek sequence, it is made clear that it was hearing about Joshua’s victories that provoked the kings to warfare. OG thus avoids the striking notion that enemy kings were motivated by Israel’s commitment to the law rather than military concerns. The Greek recension recognizes that the summary statement of 9,1-2 would most naturally refer to hearing about Israel’s power and success, as is the case with 9,3 (the Gibeonites hear about Jericho and Ai and take action). The Greek sequence recognizes that the role of 9,1-2 is similar to the structural pattern represented by 5,1; 6,27; 10,1-2; and 11,16. In the Old Greek sequence, therefore, 9,1-2 summarizes the Ai campaign and 9,3 alone functions to introduce the Gibeonite incident. The ungainly sequence of MT thus represents the earliest recoverable text, awkwardly reporting the Gerizim/Ebal episode between Ai and the transitional verses 9,1-3. The MT order situates fulfillment of Deut 27,2-8 just as soon as the tactical situation created by the conquest of Ai permitted Israel access to Ebal and Gerizim. Indeed, syntax makes it clear that Josh 9,1-2 and 3-4 originally fit together as contrasting statements as in MT: when the kings heard, they did one thing; when the Gibeonites heard, they for their part did something different. This original connection between vv. 1-2 and 3-4 is also signaled by the emphatic, contrastive “they on their part” (gam-hēnnâ) in v. 4a7. OG wrenched this correlation apart to move 9,1-2 to before 8,30-35 and in the process broke up the structural unity of 9,1-2 and 3-48. This rhetoric of odd location highlights and emphasizes 8,30-35 by the fact of its isolation. The reader is steered into paying particular attention to this unit because Joshua’s actions feel disconnected from their context. Sensitized to the significance of the Ebal/Gerizim episode by this rhetorical situation, the attentive reader will notice some other matters raised by the odd location of this pericope. Obedience of and commitment to Mosaic 6. These structural elements organized the pre-DH book of Joshua. 7. NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition) translates this contrast nicely: “formed their own scheme”. Abbreviations for other English translations cited in this paper are ESV (English Standard Version), NAB (New American Bible), NIV (New International Version), NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society Version), NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), REB (Revised English Bible), and RV (Revised Version). 8. Masoretic tradition sets off 9,1-2 by pethuoth, perhaps evidencing a desire to separate what the kings heard from 8,30-35.

DISORIENTING RHETORIC IN JOSHUA 8,30-35

69

law at this juncture turns out to be the keystone in a thematic arch that begins with divine exhortations to Joshua to obey “all that Moses my servant commanded”9 and “this book of the law” in 1,7-8 (compare 8,31.33) and concludes with Joshua’s exhortation to Israel in 23,6-7 to obey “the book of law of Moses”, with special attention to the fraught question of the nations. Josh 1,8; 8,34; and 23,6 taken together emphasize obedience to “all that is written in the law”10. The contexts of 8,30-35 (Achan and Ai, Gibeon) and of Joshua’s exhortation of 23,7 both encourage the reader to think particularly of Deuteronomy’s demand to keep apart from alien nations and to destroy them (Deut 7,2-3 and 20,16-17). So far, Israel under Joshua’s leadership has obeyed Deuteronomy on occasion (Levitical priests carrying the ark [Deut 10,8], Passover, ḥērem at Jericho, taking down hanged corpses at sunset [Josh 8,29; Deut 21,22-23]). Yet Israel’s act of allowing Rahab’s family to survive raises disturbing questions. Josh 8,30-35 neatly divides the conquest stories into two acts. Its focus on obedience to the law of Moses comes between the consequences of Achan’s flagrant disobedience and the dubious outcome of the subsequent Gibeonite episode. On the one hand, the unit completes and rounds off Israel’s return to a commitment to obedience after the Achan episode, which transgressed the covenant of Yahweh (7,15). On the other hand, it prepares for a new dilemma offered by the Gibeonite situation and the human covenant that resulted (“covenant” appears five times in chapter 9). After the events of 8,30-35, the Gibeonites in 9,24 turn out to be surprisingly cognizant of Yahweh’s commands to “his servant Moses”. In 9,6 and 9 they are aware of the critical importance of a claim to be from a “distant country” (Deut 20,15), and the “make no covenant” principle of Deut 7,2. It is as though they have overheard Joshua reading the law! Moreover, something seems to have changed in Yahweh’s own approach to strict obedience after Josh 8,30-35. Yahweh had reacted harshly to the Achan incident, but now a covenant allowing the Gibeonites to live among Israel as a servile work force is passed over without divine comment or consequences. 9. Follows OG. MT expands to read “according to the whole law”. 10. Josh 1,7-8: “be strong and [very] courageous, being careful to do accordingtoall thatMosesmyservantcommanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left. ... This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth ... so that you may be careful to do accordingtoallthatiswritteninit”. Josh 8,31.33.34: “as it is writtenin [the book of] thelawofMoses ... justasMosestheservantofYahwehhadcommanded ... accordingto allthatiswrittenin[the book of]thelaw”. Josh 23,6 “be very strong to keep and to do all thatiswritteninthebookofthelawofMoses, turning aside from it neither to the right hand nor to the left”. MT precedes “law” in 8,31 and 34 with “the book of” in order to strengthen the cross reference and to coordinate more tightly with 1,8 and 23,6.

70

R.D. NELSON

III. STRUCTURE

AND

SYNTAX

Discourse analysis11 shows that the syntax of the passage describes three distinct elements, which are presented in a temporal sequence. • In the first unit (vv. 30-31), Joshua built the altar, the event being expressed by the temporal adverb ᾿az (“at that time”) plus an imperfect verb, followed by two waw consecutive imperfects describing sacrifice (Joshua built, then “they” sacrificed). • A second discourse element (vv. 32-33) starts with a waw consecutive, “he wrote”, which then leads into an exceedingly complex circumstantial clause (subject first and participle) about the ceremony. This clause describes who were standing, in what physical arrangement, how that arrangement relates to Moses’ command, and why they were standing (“to bless”). All these statements emerge from the single circumstantial participle ῾ōmdîm “standing”. • The third action of Joshua (vv. 34-35) is introduced by a temporal “and afterward” with a perfect verb (“he read”) and a clause indicating the relationship of this act of reading to Mosaic command. This leads into a subordinate lō᾿-hāyâ (“there was not”) circumstantial sentence concerning what was read and to whom. Joshua is the actor of each of the three head sentences: Joshua built, he wrote, afterwards he read. Thus, Joshua indeed obeys Deuteronomy, but his obedience does not exactly track the sequence or textual location of the commands themselves. Joshua’s three acts actually obey four commands of Moses, which appear in Deuteronomy in a different sequence. Moses first commanded writing on the stones (Deut 27,2-4, and then v. 8). Second, he commanded altar building and sacrifice (vv. 4-7). Third, he decreed the ceremony involving the two mountains (vv. 11-13). Moses’ fourth command, to read the law, appears at a textually distant point several chapters later (31,1112). When compared to this command sequence, Joshua’s sequence of obedience is disconcerting. First, Joshua builds the altar and sacrifice is performed. Second, he writes on stones, and the text’s grammar treats the two-mountain ceremony as a subset of this activity. Third, he reads the law. An internal bracketing structure is created by (ka)῾ӑšerṣiwwâmōšeh (“which Moses commanded”) at the very start of Josh 8,31 and in v. 35a. 11. See R.L. HELLER, NarrativeStructureandDiscourseConstellations:AnAnalysis ofClauseFunctioninBiblicalHebrewProse(Harvard Semitic Studies, 55), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2004.

DISORIENTING RHETORIC IN JOSHUA 8,30-35

71

This repeated element holds together Joshua’s three acts and helps unify his obedience to Deut 27,2-8.12-13 with his obedience to the textually distant Deut 31,10-12. The name “Moses” also functions as a sort of ideological glue in Josh 8,30-35, being used five times with reference to his acts of commanding and his law. Moses authorizes the law as “servant of Yahweh” (vv. 31.33). Moses is insistently the one who commands (vv. 31.33.35; something the Gibeonites know in 9,24). These unifying features communicate that Joshua is indeed obedient, even if the details of his actions are disconcertingly irregular. IV. PLOT AND NARRATIVE Cooperative readers strive to construe sequential events such as these into a narrative, and the actions performed by Joshua and Israel do generate a story of sorts. However, actual plots require a narrative problem that reaches some kind of resolution through the path of a sequence of reported events. But in 8,30-35 the narrative problem and solution are not explicit but only implicit. That is to say, the narrative problem does not actually appear in the text itself but is instilled in the consciousness of the reader by context. Israel’s predicament is incorporated into and embedded in the initial “at that time” of v. 30. This particle points back to the crisis of Achan and Ai. “At that time” thus raises the issue of how to obey the law in the context of past infidelity and the upcoming matter of the persistence of foreign peoples raised by chapter 9. “At that time” also promotes the topic of obedience in another way. As mentioned, the reader familiar with Deuteronomy is likely to expect Joshua to have performed the altar building and two-mountain ceremony on the very day the Jordan was crossed (Deut 11,29-30; 27,2). But he waits until the moment signified by “at that time”. How then is the law to be obeyed if it is not to be obeyed consistently and literally? After all, this seemingly noncompliant protagonist is none other than the heroic Joshua, who deviated from the law neither to the right nor to the left and exhorted Israel to do the same (Josh 1,7; 23,6)! In narrative terms, the previous directives of Moses loom behind everything. As the unfolding plot of Josh 8,30-35 moves through time, Joshua’s first two actions (first: building the altar; second: writing law plus the two-mountain ceremony) are governed by the introductory “at that time”. His third action of reading takes place explicitly “afterward”, which hints at a continuation of this practice into Israel’s future, as indeed Deut 31,10-13 requires (compare 2 Kgs 23,2). The people themselves have only a subsidiary role in the plot. They sacrifice and stand

72

R.D. NELSON

in position in the first two episodes, but play no active role in the third proceeding. If the reader sees the narrative problem as how to obey the law in the context of past infidelity and unanticipated future challenges, then Joshua’s final act of reading the law aloud achieves a sort of narrative climax in that it represents an effective communication of the law to everyone. This climax is achieved step by step. • In Joshua’s first act (vv. 30-31), the words of the Mosaic law are quoted, but only to the reader. • In the second act (vv. 32-33), the words of the law are inscribed for all to see but only for the literate to read. • But in the climax (vv. 34-35), Joshua reads everything aloud to everyone, even the illiterate masses (signaled by explicit mention of women and children). Effective communication is achieved completely, right up to the “blessing and curse” of v. 34 and not just as far as the blessing act of Josh 8,33bβ. In other words, the law is read all the way through to the end of Deuteronomy 28. The narrative problem of disobedience seems to be resolved in that now everyone knows the law and it has been publically inscribed. All have participated in a public ceremony of blessing involving the Levitical priests, the ark, and sacral mountains. Moses has been obeyed. Readers disturbed by past infidelity are urged to renew their allegiance to the law and thereby access divine blessing. But of course, this is by no means the whole story, and we shall see below that the text’s rhetoric simultaneously undermines any rigid demand for literal and slavish obedience. V. INCLUSIVITY AND OBEDIENCE The text exhibits a vocabulary of community completeness. Inclusivity may be seen in the repeated use of “all”, or “in the presence of” (lipnê and neged), and in the roster of women, children, and resident aliens. Less obvious indicators of inclusivity are the contrast between the list of elite leaders and “Israel” and the inclusive merismus of the opposing groups of “sojourner” over against “native born” in v. 3312. Totality is also signaled 12. Masoretic punctuation incorporates both inclusive pairs into v. 33aα: “all Israel and their elders and officers and their judges standing ... sojourner as well as native born”. Many translations move up “sojourners and native born” to near the beginning of the sentence in order to show that it defines “all Israel” (ESV NABRE NJPS NRSV). “Sojourners and native born” represent a stock vocabulary pair in legal texts (Exod 12,49, Lev 16,29, and so forth).

DISORIENTING RHETORIC IN JOSHUA 8,30-35

73

in this same verse by the contrast of those who are standing on either side of the ark over against the Levitical priests who carry it, and by the half and half division that totals up to a whole. It could not be clearer that absolutely every hearer/reader of this text is to pay close attention. On the surface a rhetoric of obedience seems straightforward. The imperatives of Deuteronomy are executed by obedient indicatives. “Joshua built ... they offered ... he wrote ... he read” compliantly echo the commands “you shall build ... offer ... write” and “read” (Deut 27,6-8 and 31,11). Israel takes its position in Josh 8,33aα in response to Moses’ command to “stand” (Deut 27,12, ῾md). What Moses commanded “at first” (Josh 8,33) transpires as Joshua acts “at that time” and “afterwards” (vv. 30.34). Three “footnotes” call readers’ attention to the commands of Moses (vv. 31a.33b.34a: altar, division ceremony, reading law). The three actions taken by Joshua are described in ways that emphasize obedience and deep attention to the law. Joshua builds the altar, and this is “just as Moses commanded” and as “written in the law of Moses”. A direct quotation of Deut 27,5a underscores scrupulous and literal obedience. The people (“they”) offer the commanded sacrifices. Obeying Deut 27,3, Joshua writes a copy of “the law of Moses” and does so in the presence of the people. Use of the word “copy” (better: “duplicate”) communicates that the law is transmitted completely and faithfully. Israel, emphatically as an all-inclusive body, fulfills its role in in the following ceremony, and does so (once again) “just as Moses ... commanded”. When attention shifts to another part of Deuteronomy (31,1112), the language of total obedience becomes insistent. Joshua reads “all the words of the law ... according to all that is written .... not a word of all Moses commanded”. Joshua does this in the presence of (neged) the inclusive “assembly” required by Deut 31,12 (“women … dependents ... resident aliens”). Obedience is also reflected more subtly in other ways, for example by the repetition of “he [Moses] wrote ... he [Moses? Joshua?] had written” (wayyitāb ... kātab) in Josh 8,32 and the definition of Levitical priests as those who carry the ark (picked up from Deut 10,8). Emphasis on early altar building techniques repristinates foundational loyalties. Public display of laws underscores their authority. The ark, already central to the crossing and Jericho conquest, but not part of Deuteronomy’s twomountain ceremony, materializes in Joshua to signal the physical presence of written law (compare Deut 10,5; 31,26) and open lines of communication with Yahweh (compare Josh 7,6). To summarize, at first blush the figure of Joshua seems to be a consummate example of compliance (Josh 1,7-8; 8,27; 11,2.15; 24,31), but closer attention to the rhetoric of 8,30-35 shows there is more to the story of appropriate fidelity than mere blind obedience.

74

R.D. NELSON

VI. GRAMMATICAL COMPLICATIONS AND READER DISORIENTATION The Mount Ebal text evidences striking ambiguities in grammar, something that leads the reader to question just what exactly is being reported and advocated. Moreover, when one checks back with the Deuteronomy texts being “obeyed” (something of course much harder for early readers than for us), items turn up missing, other items are added, and certain elements are emphasized or deemphasized. Let us first take up the shaky grammar issues, verse by verse. Verse 32 is puzzling at several points13. Does wrotethere mean in the neighborhood of the Ebal altar or there on the stones? NRSV and NJB opt for the second choice; NJPS, taking into account the Masoretic punctuation, seems less certain. Again, is the act of writing being done in the presence of the Israelites now (NRSV), emphasizing the public nature of the act? Or does the phrase beforeIsrael (NJB: “in their presence”; NJPS: “for” meaning “for their benefit”) refer to the original act of writing the law in the past? This second understanding would follow the “then Moses/ now Joshua” thought pattern of vv. 31 and 33. Yet again, was that duplicate of the law produced at some earlier time written by Moses (quite clearly the case with NJPS and NJB), or by Joshua (which is at least a possible way to understand NRSV)? The latter understanding would envision either a pleonastic, tautological repetition of v. 32aα or a reference to the king’s production of a “copy of the law” in Deut 17,18 intended as a royal hint14. Next, the final word of v. 33, “at first”, may be construed in three ways. Understood most naturally, it conveys that Moses commanded this action in the past (“commanded at first”; NJPS: “as of old”; NJB: “had originally ordered”). Or it could mean that Moses commanded the first blessing of the people (unrevised NAB: “on this first occasion”). Or perhaps the expression points to blessing the people first before cursing them (REB: “to fulfil the command of Moses the servant of the Lord that the blessing should be pronounced first”)15. 13. NRSV: “And there, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written”. NJB: “There, Joshua wrote on the stones a copy of the Law of Moses, which Moses had written in the presence of the Israelites”. NJPS: “And there, on the stones, he inscribed a copy of the Teaching that Moses had written for the Israelites”. MT word order and punctuation is “And he wrote there upon the stones [athnah] a copy of the law of Moses [zaqep qatan] which he wrote [zaqep qatan] before the Israelites”. LXXB (but probably not OG), omits “which he wrote” as tautological and confusing. 14. R.D. NELSON, JosiahintheBookofJoshua, in JBL 100 (1981) 531-540, pp. 535-536. 15. Compare RV: “that they should bless the people first of all” and Vulgate: sicut praeceperatMosesfamulusDomini.EtprimumquidembenedixitpopuloIsrahel(“just as

DISORIENTING RHETORIC IN JOSHUA 8,30-35

75

Again, the somewhat ambiguous prepositions used in the staging of the two mountain ceremony in v. 33 require the reader to puzzle things out. The lay participants are standing on opposite sides of the ark neged the priests. Does this mean rather generally “in front of” (NRSV), or more specifically “facing” (as NABRE NIV NJB NJPS)? In the latter case, each group must have their backs to one mountain and are looking past the ark to the other mountain. The sentence goes on to say that each half is standing ᾿el-mûl their respective mountain. When used geographically this denotes “opposite” (Exod 34,3; Josh 9,1; 22,11), and many translations opt for “in front of” (NIV NRSV), perhaps allowing the reader to think that the original command of Moses to stand “on” each mountain is being fulfilled16. But NABRE and NJPS have the people “facing” each mountain. Whatever one’s conception of the situation described may be, it must be admitted that the reader has to work hard to untangle things. Thus, the passage’s ambiguous grammar disorients the reader, and this atmosphere of confusion synchronizes with a more serious state of affairs. It turns out that what is described in Josh 8,30-35 actually undermines the surface affirmation of the book of Joshua that in all things Joshua obeyed whatever Moses commanded. Items are missing, items are added, and the emphasis shifts. The two centers of attention, what Joshua now does and what Moses once commanded, are never really brought together into sharp focus. For example, the reader is likely to be dazed by the unexpected and abrupt appearance of Ebal in v. 30. There is no mention of travel to there by Israel and Joshua, and when the reader reaches 9,6 they have returned mysteriously to Gilgal. The startling popup of Ebal and its altar functions to drive the reader to think back to Deuteronomy (perchance guided there by the allusion to Deut 21,22-23 in Josh 8,29). In v. 31, the sacrifice of burnt offerings lets the reader know that this is not merely a non-functioning altar like that of Joshua chapter 22 (vv. 23.2628). Josh 8,31 replicates the building and sacrificing of Deut 27,5-7 but skips any reference to the eating and rejoicing commanded there. Writing the law in Josh 8,32 rests on Deut 27,8, but the stones for writing make no sense without the background information provided by Deut 27,2-4.8. The bemused reader may toy for a moment with the absurd notion of inscribing on the rough, unworked altar stones, but the cross reference created by the quotation of Deut 27,5-6 indicates that the reader Moses, the servant of the Lord, had instructed. And first, certainly, he blessed the people of Israel”). 16. NJB tries to approximate Moses’ original instructions by translating “on the upper slopes of”.

76

R.D. NELSON

is expected to know the backstory of erecting other stones and plastering them (Deut 27,2-4.8). No culturally competent reader who knows about the difference between inscribed stele and altars constructed from stones would confuse the stones of 8,31 with those of 8,32 for long, but at least momentary disorientation may be expected. Whether Joshua actually obeys Moses’ command to erect and plaster is beside the point. The stress of the text in Joshua is actually on the completeness and authenticity of the duplicate “copy” and on the presence of the witnessing audience. “Very plainly” from Deut 27,8 speaks of the ongoing public accessibility of the law, but in Josh 8,32 the point of this phrase is instead Joshua’s compliance “in the presence of” Israel” (if one follows NRSV). Josh 8,33 purports to describe obedience “just as Moses ... commanded”, but actually radically transforms the two-mountain ceremony commanded in Deut 27,11-26. The Joshua text collapses together the command to write (Deut 27,2.8) with Moses’ instructions for standing in relation to the mountains (Deut 27,12-13), in the process skipping over Deut 27,9-10 and subordinating the ceremony itself to the act of writing the law. In Joshua, the division of the people is not by tribe but simply half and half. In Joshua, inclusivity is no longer created by complete tribal participation, but by including a range of leadership groups (compare Deut 29,9-10 [EV 10-11]), and a merismus of the citizens and sojourners who join the gathering. In Joshua, the divided halves do not seem to stand on the mountains, but apparently face them while at the same time facing the ark and the priests. In Joshua, the division is no longer for the purpose of blessing and cursing, but the upshot of the ceremony is blessing only. In other words, Ebal and Gerizim are no longer the stage of action, but merely a backdrop for it, and the mountains lose their importance and respective identities as one place for cursing and one place to blessing. The Levites no longer speak and the ritual curse list has disappeared. Now blessing is the only goal. Moses may have commanded things “at the first”, but Joshua is obeying only the spirit of his instructions and not their exact letter. Joshua’s “at that time” in v. 30 turns out to be very different from the “at first” of Moses pointed toward by v. 33. Faithful obedience turns out to be something different from slavish, literal conformity to what had been commanded. Josh 8,34-35 opens another new vista on the tension between command and obedience by linking Moses’ directive for periodic public law reading (Deut 31,10-12) to the Ebal/Gerizim ceremony. Joshua’s obedience omits from Moses’ command the festival of Booths, the seven-year timetable, and the place that Yahweh will choose. This radical authorial move retains the all-inclusive assembly of women, little ones, and sojourners from Deut 31,12 and the verbal root qhl (changed from verb

DISORIENTING RHETORIC IN JOSHUA 8,30-35

77

to noun)17. The topic of curse that was suppressed in Josh 8,33 reappears in v. 34 as a signal that all the law’s content is read. Verse 34 picks up the generalized “blessing and curse” phrase of Deut 11,26 and 29 as specifically those of the written law (that is, Deuteronomy 28). Paradoxically, although Joshua reads every single word, he obeys the actual, concrete words of Deuteronomy 27 and 31 only approximately. VII. RESULTS Josh 8,30-35 is entirely the product of scribal culture and impulses. In the process of bringing together authoritative texts, materials from different parts of the Deuteronomy tradition were conflated. An inclination to summarize created some confusion over altar stones and inscribed stones. An impulse to explain resulted in attempts to soften the staging confusion inherent in the two-mountain ceremony of Deut 27,11-13. Everything here goes back to authorial reflection on Deut 27,2-13 and 31,11-12. Nothing remains to represent any sort of independent tradition. A rhetoric of odd location highlights 8,30-35 by isolation. Structure shows that Joshua obeys Deuteronomy, but his obedience does not track exactly the sequence or textual location of the commands. The narrative problem raised by disobedience and the issue of surviving alien nations seems on the surface to be resolved in that now everyone knows the publically inscribed law and has submitted to it. The law has been effectively communicated to all. Vocabulary and repetition promote the topics of inclusivity and compliance. But closer attention to rhetoric shows that there is more to the story than blind obedience. Ambiguous grammar disorients the reader and oblique and incomplete obedience undermines the surface affirmation that Joshua obeyed Moses in all things. Items are missing, items are added, and the emphasis shifts. The rhetoric of Josh 8,30-35 inspires obedience to every word of the law, but at the same time communicates that a new context may mean that appropriate obedience requires something other than slavish replication. The reader is led to believe that Joshua obeyed the essential or fundamental matters of the commands of Moses in general. Yet, he did not do so “on the day” of the Jordan crossing nor every seven 17. “Within your gates” from Deut 31,12aβ had to be changed to “among you” in order to fit the pre-settlement situation of Joshua. Josh 8,33 is similar to Deut 29,9-10 [EV 10-11] and Josh 8,35 is similar to both Deut 29,10 [EV 11] and 31,12. Given the context of the Gibeonite dilemma, it is significant that “sojourners” appear in all four of these texts.

78

R.D. NELSON

years at the Festival of Booths, but when the time was appropriate. Details of the two-mountain ceremony as performed deviate from what was commanded. Issues contemporary to the earliest readers of Joshua overlay the wording of the texts cited and alluded to from Deuteronomy. Tribal traditions are downplayed, but all elements of society still participate. The topics of ark, Levitical priesthood, and blessing overshadow the two mountains and the impact of curses. Shechem (for original readers the capital of the northern kingdom) is nowhere in view. Even the iconic mountains are not themselves the location for the ceremony, but rather provide only a backdrop for what happens. As readers we are urged to reaffirm our loyalty to Deuteronomy’s law and seek to follow it. However, at the same time we are also led to understand that properobedienceisobediencethatis adaptedtothecurrentsituation18. From chapter 8, the reader moves into the dilemma of Israel’s covenant with the Gibeonites, an even more egregious violation of the Mosaic law than the earlier agreement with Rahab. The Gibeonites themselves point out what “Yahweh your God had commanded his servant Moses” (9,24), but Joshua realizes that an unbreakable covenant has now been instituted and that the oath that has been sworn to spare the Gibeonites is guaranteed “by Yahweh the God of Israel” (9,18). The reader too has been prepared for what must happen by the rhetoric of 8,30-35. In this situation, the law cannot be obeyed exactly as written. The Gibeonites cannot be treated as Yahweh’s ḥērem booty by being slaughtered, but they may be subordinated into permanent temple bondservants, employed for Yahweh’s benefit. Let us do a thought experiment. Can we imagine a historical scenario that would lead an author to create this text? Here one encounters a successful leader who is a model of vigorous obedience to the law of Moses and who reads out the law to all the people, both small and great (compare 2 Kgs 23,2). This leader has the capacity to be present in and perform cultic actions in territories to the north of Judah. But this leader must temper rigid obedience and legalism to the dictates of the present moment. His followers must be led to understand that proper obedience is obedience that is adapted to the present situation. Perhaps not all Levites can continue as active priests at the place Yahweh has chosen; some may 18. Consider the poem “The Present Crisis” by the American abolitionist James Russell Lowell (1818-1891): “Newoccasionsteachnewduties;Timemakesancientgooduncouth”. This stirring poem was published in 1845 in response to the growing crisis over slavery and the impending Mexican-American War. Martin Luther King quoted it frequently in speeches and sermons.

DISORIENTING RHETORIC IN JOSHUA 8,30-35

79

have to eat the unleavened bread of hospitality among their brothers (as in 2 Kgs 23,9). Perhaps ḥērem is not a properly obedient response to a situation of vassalage to imperial power and a mixed population in the ancestral territory resulting from an imperial policy of forced migration. Vassal treaty oaths have been sworn in Yahweh’s name, and somehow both those oaths and the law of Moses must be obeyed. Could it be that King Josiah appears here in the guise of Joshua? 7830 North Brown Road Columbia City, IN 46725 USA [email protected]

Richard D. NELSON

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

Anne Marie Kitz has argued that the allotment of land to Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan in Joshua 18–19 takes the form of an inheritance text1. Ancient Near Eastern inheritance texts involve several typical elements, all of which we find in these chapters: An estate is co-owned, or undivided, until the heirs review the estate and agree on what is to be distributed, and the process is managed by an estate administrator. Joshua is the administrator of the land the Israelites are to inherit from Yahweh, and he sends out scouts to review and describe the land (Josh 18,4.8-9). Inheritance texts describe the portions in detail, refer to boundaries where they are relevant, and end each portion with a concluding formula: in Joshua, ‫[ למשפחתם‬tribe X] ‫‘ זאת נחלת‬This is the portion of [tribe X], according to their clans’ (Josh 18,28; 19,8.16.23.31. 39.48). The administrator then distributes the portions by lot, a process that often carries a divine imprimatur, evident in Joshua 18–19 in the fact that this entire process takes place “before Yahweh” at the tent of meeting in Shiloh (Josh 18,1.8.10)2. The fact that inheritance texts can include adhocreferences to boundaries raises a new possibility for the interpretation of Joshua 13–19. The allotments for Judah (Joshua 15), Ephraim and Manasseh (Joshua 16–17), and Benjamin (Josh 18,11-28) do not involve adhoc references to boundary concerns; rather, they draw detailed, contiguous boundaries separate from the enumeration of towns within the allotment. This generic distinctiveness, combined with the fact that they differ somewhat in the territories they define, led Albrecht Alt to posit that boundaries and town lists are distinct genres that signal the use of separate source documents from different historical periods3. The boundary source, according to Alt, would have been a comprehensive system of boundaries whose purpose 1. I wish to thank the staff of the Klau Library at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and Richard Sarason, Director of the Pines School of Graduate Studies for their generous support of my research. 2. A.M. KITZ, UndividedInheritanceandLotCastingintheBookofJoshua, in JBL 119 (2000) 601-618. 3. A. ALT, JudasGaueunterJosia, in Palästinajahrbuch 21 (1925) 100-116 and ID., DasSystemderStammesgrenzenimBucheJosua, in A. JIRKU (ed.), BeiträgezurReligionsgeschichteundArchäologiePalästinas, Leipzig, Deichert, 1927, 13-24, both reprinted in A. ALT, KleineSchriftenzurGeschichtedesVolkesIsrael, 3 vols., München, Beck, 1953, 2, 276-288 and 1, 193-202, respectively.

82

A.R. ERISMAN

would have been to settle border disputes among the Israelite tribes4. Alt’s groundbreaking form-critical and historical work has defined the conversation about boundaries ever since. But Kitz’s form-critical work changes the conversation because it shows us that there are not one but two genres at play in Joshua 13–19, each involving a different set of expectations about how boundaries are treated: the comprehensive boundary description and the inheritance text. It is quite understandable that we have read Joshua 13–19 as we have because comprehensive boundary descriptions not only come first but dominate the early chapters of the allotment texts as we now have them, establishing what Wolfgang Iser calls a theme. The different way in which boundary concerns are expressed, especially in Joshua 19, constitutes a horizon that readers must negotiate vis-à-vis the theme in order to make sense of the text5. Alt recognized the horizon and explained it in terms of the expectations established by the dominant genre, the only genre he recognized: the source document must have survived only in fragments for the northern tribes whose allotments are delineated in Joshua 19. Martin Noth negotiated the horizon differently, but his explanation is no less dependent on the dominant genre: the boundary source did not include any of the northern tribes; where we find partial boundaries in these allotments, they were created out of the town lists in order to imitate the more fully articulated boundaries for the southern tribes6. But now that we are attuned to the use of a second genre in Joshua 18–19 that involves a different set of expectations about how boundaries are treated, we should resist that dominant reading, at least when it comes to asking historical questions about the sources used and the composition history of the text, because the new genre may signal the use of a different source or a different stage of composition. Genre is not the only thing that distinguishes Joshua 18–19 from the preceding chapters. The Israelite camp is located at Gilgal (Josh 4,19-20; 5,9-10; 9–10), so Caleb naturally comes to Gilgal to request his allotment 4. This purpose bears out in subsequent studies of ancient Near Eastern texts, especially treaties, that involve border descriptions; see, e.g., R.S. HESS, LateBronzeAgeandBiblicalBoundaryDescriptionsoftheWestSemiticWorld, in G.J. BROOKE – A.H.W. CURTIS – J.F. HEALEY (eds.), UgaritandtheBible:ProceedingsoftheInternationalSymposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992 (Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1994, 123-138 and N. WAZANA, TheTribalBoundariesinLight ofTarhuntaššaBorderDescriptions, in Shnaton 12 (2000) 165-186 (Hebrew). 5. W. ISER, TheActofReading:ATheoryofAestheticResponse, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, pp. 95-96. 6. M. NOTH, Studienzudenhistorisch-geographischenDokumentendesJosuabuches, in ID., Aufsätze zur Biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde, ed. H.W. WOLFF, 2 vols., Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1971, vol. 1, 229-280.

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

83

from Joshua (Josh 14,6), but the setting shifts abruptly to Shiloh in chapter 18 (vv. 1.8.10); as Robert Boling notes, “nothing in the book has paved the way for Shiloh’s move to center stage”7. We also find a tension in characterization. Joshua alone casts lots in Josh 18,10 in order to determine which tribe gets which portion. But in the texts that frame Joshua 18–19, Eleazar not only participates in this process with him but is listed before him, the change surely motivated by priestly objection to the idea that a figure who is not a priest would be in charge of casting lots (Josh 14,1-2; 19,51)8. Even the notion that territory was surveyed by the heirs and distributed by lot is not initially present in Joshua 15–17, as it is in 18–19. Judah and the Joseph tribes are not surveyed at all. The boundary descriptions are introduced as “lots” (e.g., ‫ויהי הגורל למטה בני‬ ‫ יהודה למשפחתם‬in Josh 15,1)9, but this is the case only in MT. The LXX, which A. Graeme Auld has demonstrated is an earlier text here, reads τὰ ὅρια ‘border’ in the introductions to the boundaries for Judah (Josh 15,1), the Joseph tribes (Josh 16,1), and Manasseh (Josh 17,1), witness to Hebrew ‫ גבול‬instead of ‫גורל‬10. These boundary descriptions were not initially conceptualized as lots. That they are now, in MT, may be best understood as an effort to harmonize them with the references to ‫‘ גורל‬lot’ in Joshua 18– 19 by changing ‫ גבול‬to ‫ גורל‬in all of these cases so that they, too, read as part of the divinely allotted inheritance even though they were not initially framed that way11. 7. R.G. BOLING, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (AB, 6), Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1982, p. 422. 8. R.D. NELSON, Joshua (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1997, p. 210. This is not satisfactorily explained by efforts to argue that Eleazar cast the lot in Josh 18,10 as well but Joshua got the credit; e.g., BOLING, Joshua (n. 7), p. 424. 9. J.C. DE VOS, “Holy Land” in Joshua 18:1-10, in J. VAN RUITEN – J.C. DE VOS (eds.), TheLandofIsraelinBible,History,andTheology:StudiesinHonourofEdNoort (VT.S, 124), Leiden, Brill, 2009, 61-72, pp. 66-67. 10. A.G. AULD, Joshua:JesusSonofNauēinCodexVaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 48-49; 52-55. 11. A.G. AULD, Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua, in ZAW 90 (1978) 416-417 and ID., Joshua,MosesandtheLand:Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch inaGenerationsince1938, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1980, p. 67 thinks that the seven “lot” introductions in Josh 18,11; 19,1.10.17.24.32.40 are also a later development, part of a revision of the whole of Joshua 13–19 that introduces the concept of lot for the first time. But Kitz’s genre analysis suggests that the concept of lot casting is at home here in chapters 18– 19, and this is confirmed by the fact that LXX reads ὁ κλῆρος ‘lot’ in all cases here, where it does not in the preceding chapters; see AULD, Joshua:JesusSonofNauē (n. 10), pp. 58-63. Auld’s analysis is stronger than that of E. CORTESE, Josua13–21:Einpriesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (OBO, 94), Freiburg/ Schw., Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990 and J.C. DE VOS, Das LosJudas:ÜberEntstehungundZielederLandbeschreibunginJosua15 (VT.S, 95), Leiden, Brill, 2003, who argue that LXX is dependent on and corrects MT; see S.L. MCKENZIE,

84

A.R. ERISMAN

A curious feature of the Judah allotment, one that Kitz herself points out, is that ‫[ למשפחתם‬tribe X] ‫זאת נחלת‬, the stereotypical concluding formula in the allotments of Joshua 18–19, is used in Josh 15,20 to introduce the town list for Judah12. This looks like a case of imitation and creative manipulation of a genre element, a phenomenon that is not uncommon when a scribe is substantively revising a text and wants to accommodate his revision to the base text13. This leads me to posit that the Judah allotment is a case of what Cynthia Edenburg calls overwriting. Overwriting involves expanding a received narrative, particularly at its beginning, in order to cause “a shift in the reader’s perception of the text’s purpose and significance”, what Iser might call establishing a different theme than the text had before it was revised14. I will argue here that the inheritance text in Joshua 18–19 was overwritten by the Judah allotment, which not only put Judah at the head of the tribes but brought detailed, contiguous boundary description into play in a way that has successfully shaped how we read what follows. Yet resisting that dominant reading, now that Kitz has given us the tools to do so, is essential for understanding the use of sources and the composition history of the text15.

I. THE BOUNDARIES AND TOWNS

OF JUDAH

Josh 15,1-12 draws a contiguous boundary around the territory of Judah. The idealized character of this boundary is evident from the fact that it is drawn roughly with the Dead Sea on the east and the Mediterranean Sea on the west, but the detailed northern and southern boundaries warrant a more careful look. Alt thought that the system of tribal boundaries is essentially that of the Israelite tribes at the time of conquest and settlement, Review of Josua 13–21: Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, byEnzoCortese, in JBL 110 (1991) 711-713 for critique. 12. KITZ, UndividedInheritance (n. 2), p. 615 n. 47. 13. See A.R. ROSKOP, TheWildernessItineraries:Genre,Geography,andtheGrowth ofTorah (History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant, 3), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2011, pp. 185-232 for several examples of how this happens with the itinerary genre. 14. C. EDENBURG, Rewriting, Overwriting, and Overriding: Techniques of Editorial RevisionintheDeuteronomisticHistory, in A. BRENNER – F.H. POLAK (eds.), Words,Ideas, Worlds:BiblicalEssaysinHonourofYairahAmit (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 40), Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012, 54-69, quote p. 56. 15. CORTESE, Josua13–21(n. 11) proposed a broadly similar development for the land allotments, understanding the town lists for the northern tribes to have been supplemented by the town lists for Judah and reframed by Josh 14,1 and 19,51 along with the boundary system by a post-P supplementer who linked it to the Tetrateuch, but it differs significantly from my analysis here in important aspects.

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

85

but this view is difficult to maintain in the absence of a tribal amphictyony and has generally been superseded by the view that they come from the reign of David16. The argument for this relies heavily on the presumption of a match between the boundary texts in Joshua 13–19 and the extent of territory covered by David’s census in 2 Sam 24,1-917. But the southern limit of David’s census is Beer-sheba, significantly farther north than the southern boundary of Judah in Josh 15,2-4, which extends as far south as Kadesh and the Wilderness of Zin. These places instead constitute the setting of key episodes in Israel’s literary tradition that take place on the cusp of entering the land: the rock-water episode in which Moses is condemned to die in the wilderness rather than enter the land (Num 20,1) and the scouts episode, where representatives of the twelve tribes reconnoiter land “from the Wilderness of Zin to Rehoblebo-hamath” before they return to their camp at Kadesh (Num 13,21.26). There are nonetheless elements of the Davidic about where this boundary is drawn. Territory this far south is implicated in David’s Negeb raids (1 Sam 27,30), and the fact that the southern boundary of Judah here in Josh 15,2-4 matches the southern boundary of Canaan as framed in Numbers 34 depicts the territory controlled by David as coterminous with territory that had been controlled by Egypt, giving David’s ideal 16. Exceptions to this include R.S. HESS, AskingHistoricalQuestionsofJoshua13– 19: Recent Discussion concerning the Date of the Boundary Lists, in A.R. MILLARD – J.K. HOFFMEIER – D.W. BAKER (eds.), Faith,Tradition,andHistory:OldTestamentHistoriography in Its Near Eastern Context, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1994, 191-205, who points to ancient Near Eastern analogues to show that Joshua 13–19 could be this early in some form, and Y. KAUFMANN, TheBiblicalAccountoftheConquestofCanaan, trans. M. Dagut, Jerusalem, Magnes, 21985, who insists that the idealized character of the boundaries makes sense even in such an early period. But, with N.P. LEMCHE, EarlyIsrael: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy (VT.S, 37), Leiden, Brill, 1985, “[w]e would then be forced to ask … who could have been interested in such an ideal demand, when the twelve-tribe amphictyony did not exist”, a question first asked by S. MOWINCKEL, Zur Frage nach Dokumentarischen Quellen in Josua13–19, Oslo, Jacob Dybwad, 1946, pp. 64-65. 17. N. NAʼAMAN, BordersandDistrictsinBiblicalHistoriography:SevenStudiesin Biblical Geographical Texts (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 4), Jerusalem, Simor, 1986, although see his updated view in ID., JosiahandtheKingdomofJudah, in L.L. GRABBE (ed.), GoodKingsandBadKings:TheKingdomofJudahintheSeventhCentury (European Seminar in Historical Methodology, 5; LHBOTS, 393), London, T&T Clark, 2005, 189-247; Z. KALLAI-KLEINMANN, TheTownListsofJudah,Simeon,BenjaminandDan, in VT 8 (1958) 134-160; Z. KALLAI, TheUnitedMonarchyofIsrael–AFocalPointin IsraeliteHistoriography, in IEJ27 (1977) 103-109; ID., Solomon’sDistrictsReconsidered, in ID., Biblical Historiography and Historical Geography: Collection of Studies (BEATAJ, 44), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1998, 92-110; ID., TheBoundariesofCanaanand the Land of Israel in the Bible: Territorial Patterns in Biblical Historiography, ibid., 111-129; and ID., Simeon’s Town List: Scribal Rules and Geographical Patterns, in VT 53 (2003) 81-96.

86

A.R. ERISMAN

kingdom the ethos of empire18. This boundary may be best understood, with Nadav Na’aman, as an effort to articulate the “maximum extent of monarchic rule” that is a blend of the ideal, the historical, and the ideological19. Josh 15,20-61 fills in the boundaries of this idealized Davidic Judah with towns. The town list is divided into eleven groups, all but one of which conclude with a statement of the total number of towns, followed by ‫‘ וחצריהן‬and their dependent settlements’. Alt proposed that this fill came from a list of the administrative districts of Judah during the late monarchy, each group reflecting one district, which he understood to have been adapted to the boundary. Some of this fill is artificial, evident in the section that consists of the Philistine cities of Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza (Josh 15,45-47). This group is formally distinct from the others in that it emphasizes the ‫חצרים‬, or dependent settlements, of each city independently instead of at the end of the group, lacks a total number of towns, and explicitly states the goal of filling in the territory to the boundaries to the south (‫ )עד נחל מצרים‬and west (‫ ;והים הגדול‬Josh 15,47, cf. the boundary in 15,4). It also covers territory that it is not clear the Israelites ever controlled20. But the neighboring Shephelah districts appear to have been reordered in an effort to accommodate the Philistine list, strengthening the sense that they came from a source document of the sort Alt proposed, which was adapted and expanded in order to fill in the idealized boundaries21. We see a similar effort to fill in area down to the southern border. The total of twenty-nine towns for the Negeb district in Josh 15,32, which famously does not match the number of towns listed in the preceding verses, may have been copied from the late monarchic list of Judahite administrative districts and may constitute a clue to how many of the place names here came from that source22. That this text contains several 18. This effect arguably stands whether or not the southern boundary is an accurate memory of the southern extent of Egyptian rule, as argued by Y. AHARONI, TheLandofthe Bible:AHistoricalGeography, trans. A.F. Rainey, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1967. 19. NA’AMAN, Borders and Districts (n. 17), pp. 64-65. Although the Davidic census cannot be used as an argument that the boundaries come from the time of David, the historical may come into play in some fashion given the similarity between the territorial extent indicated by this boundary and the distribution of settlements in the Negeb during the eleventh-tenth centuries BCE, but see ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries (n. 13), pp. 261-271 for significant caveats about how we interpret this archaeological data. 20. See NA’AMAN, JosiahandtheKingdomofJudah (n. 17) for discussion of Mesad Hashavyahu and the question of whether Josiah controlled this area. 21. R.E. TAPPY, HistoricalandGeographicalNotesonthe“LowlandDistricts” ofJudah inJoshuaxv33-47, in VT 58 (2008) 381-403. 22. For the notion that the total of number of towns was unamended from the source document, see, e.g., E. ASSIS, “HowLongAreYouSlacktoGotoPossesstheLand”

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

87

textual issues is readily evident from the rendering of Arad as ‫ עדר‬and Aroer as ‫( עדעדה‬Josh 15,21-22 MT), and the usual assumption is that the extra place names are due to textual issues, whether corruptions that are not really place names, like Biziothiah (‫בזיותיה‬, Josh 15,28 MT), which should read ‫‘ ובנותיה‬and its villages’; distinct names like Hazor and Jagur (Josh 15,23) that may be problematic treatments of compounds like Hazar-gaddah (Josh 15,27); and potential dittographies or variants, like ‫( שמע‬Josh 15,26), which may be a variant of Beer-sheba, given that ‫ שבע‬appears immediately after Beer-sheba in Josh 19,223. But resolving these textual issues has not been successful in reducing the list to twentynine names. A stronger explanation of the gap between the total and the number of towns listed is possible if we understand the problem to involve editorial as well as textual dimensions. The towns allotted to Simeon in Josh 19,1-9 also appear in the Negeb district of Judah in Josh 15,21-32. This overlap is usually explained in one of two ways: either the Simeon allotment in Josh 19,1-9 was created by cutting apart the list of Judahite administrative districts to create allotments for multiple tribes – including Benjamin as well as Simeon – or the Simeon and Judah allotments are based on different source documents from different periods24. But if the Judah allotment in Joshua 15 is an effort to overwrite the inheritance text in Joshua 18–19, we have a third possibility: the scribe who drafted it incorporated the list (Jos.XVIII3):IdealandRealityintheDistributionDescriptionsinJoshuaXIII–XIX, in VT 53 (2003) 1-25, p. 22, although his sense that it was left purposefully in order to maintain a numerical system is problematic. 23. See, e.g., F.M. CROSS – G.E. WRIGHT, The Boundary and Province Lists of the KingdomofJudah, in JBL 75 (1956) 202-226, p. 212, who note many of these problems and then give up (“it would not serve our purpose here to attempt to solve it”). Another place name commonly seen as a dittography is Iyyim (‫ )עיים‬in Josh 15,29, which is read as a dittography of the following ‫ עצם‬based on the similarity of tsade and yod; see, e.g., CROSS – WRIGHT, BoundaryandProvinceLists, p. 214 and S. TALMON, TheTownListsof Simeon, in IEJ 15 (1965) 235-241, p. 238. Num 21,11 and 33,45 refer to an Iyyim that appears to be in Transjordan, but my analysis of the role of geography in the editorial history of Numbers 21 suggests that Iyyim may actually be in the Negeb, right where Josh 15,29 situates it, so we should not be so quick to omit it; see A.R. ERISMAN, FortheBorderof theAmmonites Was … Where? Historical Geography and Biblical Interpretation in Numbers21, in J.C. GERTZ – B.M. LEVINSON – D. ROM-SHILONI – K. SCHMID (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and NorthAmerica (FAT, 111), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 761-776. 24. The first view originated with Alt and was adopted by Noth. CROSS – WRIGHT, BoundaryandProvinceLists (n. 23) also adopt this view, as does TALMON, TownLists (n. 23), p. 236. The main proponent of the second view is KALLAI-KLEINMANN, TownLists (n. 17), pp. 137; 159 and KALLAI, Simeon’sTownList (n. 17), pp. 88; 91-92; 95; and the independence of the Simeon town list has been broadly accepted, even by scholars who continue to maintain that the towns for Judah come from a late monarchic administrative document, as noted by NA’AMAN, JosiahandtheKingdomofJudah (n. 17), pp. 192-193.

88

A.R. ERISMAN

from Josh 19,1-9 in order to establish a new and dominant theme that these places are inJudahbefore the reader encounters the idea that they are in Simeon. Such an operation would involve blending two sources: the Simeon list from the base text being overwritten in Joshua 18–19 and the Judahite administrative document. Subtracting the Simeonite towns from the list in Josh 15,21-32 still does not get us to twenty-nine, which suggests that there may have been overlap between the Simeon list and the Judahite administrative document. We can see this overlap in the case of Ether and Ashan (Josh 19,7), which appear in Josh 15,42, in one of the Shephelah districts rather than the Negeb district. Frank Moore Cross and G. Ernest Wright understand this placement as a copyist mistake, but Na’aman is surely correct that this part of the Simeon list in Joshua 19 overlaps with the Shephelah district articulated in the Judah list25. When the lists were combined, Ether and Ashan were simply left where they were in the Judah list. If there is one case of overlap, there may have been more, but when it comes to the expanded Negeb district, we have no way of knowing which names overlapped without the ability to compare the Judahite administrative list in its raw form. The count is further complicated by the presence of several sites with Davidic resonances that complement the ideological goals that inform how the southern boundary was drawn and give the whole allotment a Davidic cast: Kabzeel (Josh 15,23), home of the soldier in charge of David’s bodyguard in 2 Sam 23,20//1 Chr 11,22; Aroer (Josh 15,23), one of the cities to which David sends spoil from his Negeb raids in 1 Sam 30,28; Ziph (Josh 15,24), David’s wilderness hideout in 1 Sam 23,1415.24; 26,2; and Ziklag (Josh 15,31), the base from which David launches his Negeb raids in 1 Sam 27,5-12; 30,1-31. Some of these names may have been drawn from the scribe’s knowledge of the geography of the David narratives and added to what came from the source documents, but we cannot assume this. Some of them may have been in the source documents, but their Davidic associations were activated only when the source was used in a text with a relevant ideological goal26. Ziklag is evidence that this happened in at least one case, because it also appears in the Simeon allotment (Josh 19,5), where it is just another name in a list and contributes to no ideological goal. 25. CROSS – WRIGHT, BoundaryandProvinceLists(n. 23), p. 214; N. NA’AMAN, The InheritanceoftheSonsofSimeon, in ZDPV 96 (1980) 136-152, pp. 146-147. 26. On the principle of relevance for understanding what elements of a word’s background are at play in any given communicative context, see, e.g., D. WILSON – D. SPERBER, RelevanceTheory, in TheHandbookofPragmatics, Oxford, Blackwell, 2004, 607-632.

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

89

We may be hampered in our ability to unentangle the sources used to create the Judah allotment, but we can detect their presence. The artificial and idealized character of the allotments, combined with the lack of proof that ancient Near Eastern bureaucracies used comprehensive boundary lists or lists of administrative districts, prompts John Van Seters to reject the idea that any source documents were used here27. His inclination is a good one when it comes to boundaries, and the possibility that the boundaries in Joshua 19 came about as part of a different genre entirely – one for which we do have comparative evidence – only strengthens it, but his critique is painted with too broad a brush. When it comes to the Judah town list, we can see exactly what Zecharia Kallai calls to our attention: sources may be interwoven with literary material – in this case, the geography of the David narratives – in a way that exhibits elements of faithful reproduction as well as selectivity and manipulation28. Here this happens in the service of establishing a Judah allotment with Davidic overtones that preempts the idea that any of this territory belongs to Simeon.

II. THE EDITORIAL DYNAMICS OF SUBSUMING SIMEON WITHIN JUDAH Edenburg characterizes overwriting as involving “little or no attempt at easing the transitions between the host narrative and the insertion”29. Indeed, we see no effort to overhaul the inheritance text in Joshua 18–19 in order to eliminate tensions with what now precedes, which is precisely why we can recognize it as distinct. But we do see selective efforts to reframe the base text in order to ground the new theme at points where it is essential to guide readers away from the very ideas the new theme is designed to alter. The allotments in Joshua 18–19 have a highly typical structure: A geographical description and a total number of towns is introduced by a formula stating that “the lot went out to X according to their clans” (18,11; 19,1.10.17.24.32.40). It concludes with a formula stating that “this is the portion of X according to their clans”, sometimes followed by “their towns and their villages” (18,28; 19,9.16.23.31.39.48). The allotments for Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan are 27. J. VAN SETERS, InSearchofHistory:HistoriographyintheAncientWorldandthe OriginsofBiblicalHistory, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1997, p. 332. 28. Z. KALLAI, TheRealityoftheLandoftheBible, in G. STRECKER (ed.), DasLand IsraelinBiblischerZeit (Göttinger theologische Arbeiten, 25), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983, 76-90, p. 76. 29. EDENBURG, Rewriting,Overwriting,andOverriding (n. 14), quote p. 56.

90

A.R. ERISMAN

counted in succession, first through seventh, in the introductory formulas, strengthening the sense that these typical allotments are part of the inheritance text that is being overwritten. The Simeon allotment departs from this typical structure in that it is framed by statements about its inclusion in Judah: ‫ויהי נחלתם בתוך נחלת‬ ‫ בני יהודה‬in 19,1 and ‫מחבל בני יהודה נחלת בני שמעון כי היה חלק בני יהודה‬ ‫ רב מהם וינחלו בני שמעון בתוך נחלתם‬in 19,9. The second statement is sometimes understood as a supplement because it repeats the key piece of information from 19,1, that Simeon is part of Judah30. But the two statements together control how we contextualize what otherwise looks like an independent Simeon allotment and strongly reinforce the now dominant reading established in Joshua 15, and both should be seen as supplements. The last clause we read strengthens this reading by also offering a historical rationale. This rationale – that Judah was allotted more territory than it needed – complements the narrative we will read in Judges 1, where Judah and Simeon conquer their respective territories together prior to the emergence of the monarchy, but is at odds with 1 Chr 4,31, which gives a different historical rationale: the territory was Simeonite until it was assimilated into David’s kingdom (‫)אלה עריהם עד מלך דויד‬. The fact that we see two different efforts to explain the place of Simeon within Judah should make us very cautious, along with Hartmut Rösel, about seeing either one as historically accurate, as both may be efforts to historicize anomalies created by editorial work31. III. BENJAMIN AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF JUDAH When we turn to the northern boundary of the Judah allotment, which it shares with Benjamin (Josh 15,5-11; 18,15-19), we see an effort not to expand the list of Judahite administrative districts as on the west and south but potentially to truncate it in order to make it fit the boundary. The boundary is drawn such that a few towns clearly allotted to Benjamin in Josh 18,21-28 – Beth-arabah (v. 22), Beth-hoglah (v. 21), and Kiriathjearim (v. 28) – not only appear on the boundary (Josh 15,6 // 18,18; 15,6 // 18,19; and 15,9-10 // 18,14-15, respectively) but are also clearly attributed toJudah in the Judah town list (Beth-arabah in Josh 15,61 and Kiriath-jearim in 15,60)32. The usual explanation for this, which goes all 30. CORTESE, Josua13–21 (n. 11), p. 74 and H.N. RÖSEL, Joshua (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, p. 304. 31. RÖSEL, Joshua (n. 30), p. 301. 32. MT Josh 18,28 reads ‫ גבעת קרית‬prior to the concluding formula ‫ערים ארבע עשרה‬ ‫‘ וחצריהן‬fourteen towns and their dependent settlements’. There is some question about

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

91

the way back to Alt, is that the last hill country district and the wilderness district in Josh 15,60 and 61, respectively, also contained the two groups of towns we find attributed to Benjamin in Josh 18,21-24 and 25-28. The source document was cut apart in an effort to accommodate it to the boundary, but this editorial operation was not performed neatly and resulted in the attribution of Beth-arabah and Kiriath-jearim to two different tribes33. But if the Judah allotment is an effort to overwrite the inheritance text in Joshua 18–19, the towns allotted to Benjamin in Josh 18,21-28 should be understood as belonging right where they are, as part of the first allotment of seven, and those towns that are also attributed to Judah should be understood as claimedforJudahinsteadofBenjamin by the author of the Judah allotment, just as the Simeonite towns are. As in the case of Simeon, there appears to have been overlap between the text being overwritten and the source document used to construct the Judah allotment: Beth-arabah was, so it appears, in both allotments34. But we also see a probable case of variant names: the Benjamin allotment contains Kiriath-jearim (Josh 18,28), but the list of Judahite administrative districts appears to have contained Kiriath-baal, prompting the scribe to equate the two places in the Judah town list: ‫קרית בעל היא קרית יערים‬ (Josh 15,60). We can see an added layer of significance when we account for how the boundary is drawn in Josh 15,9-10, where Kiriath-jearim is equated instead with Baalah (‫)בעלה היא קרית יערים‬. Both of these place names are associated with the ark: 1 Sam 6,19–7,2 narrates how the ark gets to Kiriath-jearim, where it remains for twenty years, while 2 Sam 6,2 has David bring up the ark from Baalah, and the version of this latter story in Chronicles also equates these two places (1 Chr 13,6). The Davidic resonance produced by this equation complements the Davidic resonances whether to read this as one place name (Gibeath-kiriath) or two (Gibeah and Kiriath). Some LXX manuscripts read “Kiriath-jearim” here, and it is very easy to see how ‫יערים‬ could have dropped due to haplography, given that ‫ ערים‬would have followed it, so the LXX is best interpreted as witness to a better text. See discussion in NA’AMAN, Josiah andtheKingdomofJudah (n. 17), pp. 194-195; see I. FINKELSTEIN – T. RÖMER, Kiriathjearim,Kiriath-baal/Baalah,Gibeah:AGeographical-HistoryChallenge, in this volume, 211-222. 33. This view, which builds on the groundbreaking work of Alt, is broadly accepted with relatively minor variations; see CROSS – WRIGHT, Boundary and Province Lists (n. 23); Y. AHARONI, TheProvince-ListofJudah, in VT 9 (1959) 225-246; and NA’AMAN, Josiah andtheKingdomofJudah (n. 17), pp. 194-198. The most significant departure from this consensus is the view of KALLAI-KLEINMANN, TownLists (n. 17) and Z. KALLAI, Historical GeographyoftheBible:TheTribalTerritoriesofIsrael, Jerusalem, Magnes; Leiden, Brill, 1986 that the overlap in place names has to do with the use of four separate lists, for Simeon, Dan, Benjamin, and Judah, that come from different time periods. 34. AHARONI, Province-List (n. 33), p. 238 explains the reference to Beth-arabah in two places as a function of its status as a border town.

92

A.R. ERISMAN

of Kabzeel, Aroer, Ziph, and Ziklag in the Negeb district of Judah and contributes to the picture of the entire Judah allotment as an idealized Davidic territory35. Did the Judahite administrative document contain territory north of this boundary? That it may have is suggested by the fact that the district in Josh 15,60 contains only two towns, Kiriath-baal and Rabbah, which seems to most commentators impossibly small in comparison to the size of the other districts. Yet Yohanan Aharoni is not bothered by the small size of the district in Josh 15,60 as it stands, and his instinct may be correct36. We can detect manipulation of the source for the Negeb district because the total of towns diverges significantly from the actual number listed. But here in Josh 15,60, it matches in both MT and LXX, suggesting one of two possibilities: either the source was preserved here intact and only ever consisted of two towns, or this district was truncated, and the scribe changed the total number of towns to reflect the shortened text here but neglected to change it in 15,32 for the expanded text there. Without the source document in front of us, we lack a sound basis for weighing one of these possibilities more heavily than the other. But if the district was larger in the source document, the rest of it would not have been cut and pasted into Joshua 18 in order to create the Benjamin allotment, because that was already part of the text being overwritten by the Judah allotment. The rest of the towns in the source document would simply have been omitted in an effort to accommodate the source document to the boundary. Some of these names may have been the same as those we find in the Benjamin allotment in Josh 18,25-28, but, again, we would need access to the source in its raw form in order to evaluate which ones, if any37. 35. For a thorough overview of the biblical attestations of Kiriath-jearim, see I. FINKELSTEIN etal., ExcavationsatKiriath-JearimnearJerusalem,2017:Preliminary Report, in Semitica 60 (2018) 33-38. NELSON, Joshua (n. 8), pp. 190-191 tries to resolve the conflict over whether this place is in Benjamin or Judah by understanding Kiriath-baal/ Baalah and Kiriath-jearim as two different places, the former in Judah and the latter in Benjamin. 36. AHARONI, Province-List (n. 33), pp. 229-230 and ID., LandoftheBible (n. 18), p. 301. 37. A significant implication, either way, is that we cannot use the list of places now attributed to Benjamin to reconstruct the northern extent of Judah in the late monarchy, as we can if they are understood to have been part of the Judah source document; see, e.g., NA’AMAN, JosiahandtheKingdomofJudah (n. 17), pp. 217-219 with discussion of earlier literature. Na’aman predicts this implication in his discussion of Kallai’s work: “the definition of the town list of Benjamin as an independent section in its own right, reflecting a special historical situation, changes the entire picture” (p. 193). If our source document is broken along the edges in the form we now have it, the geography we would need to address this issue – as is so often and frustratingly the case – is in the lacuna.

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

93

We see an effort to reframe and constrain the reading of the Benjamin allotment in Josh 18,21-28, as is done on the edges of the Simeon allotment in Josh 19,1-8, here accomplished by drawing a boundary. This southern boundary of Benjamin involves the same list of place names as the northern boundary of Judah in Josh 15,5-11, in the opposite order, and uses ‫ – פאה‬an expression used in Josh 15,5 for the northern boundary of Judah but nowhere else in Joshua38 – to articulate not only the southern side but all four sides (Josh 18,12.14-15.20). This southern boundary of Benjamin leaves even less ambiguity than the northern boundary of Judah in Joshua 15 that the places we have been discussing are in Judah. Josh 18,18-19 state that the boundary runs north (‫ )צפונה‬of Beth-arabah and Beth-hoglah, whereas Josh 15,6 has ‫ מצפון‬only in the case of Betharabah, and Josh 18,14 states explicitly that Kiriath-jearim is ‫עיר בני יהודה‬ ‘a Judahite town’, an expression absent from its parallel in Josh 15,9. The notion that these sites are inJudah rather than Benjamin is thus well established not only in Joshua 15 but again, and unambiguously so, right before the reader encounters the conflicting idea that they belong to Benjamin in Josh 18,21-28. Yet there is a question about whether this overwriting is the work of the same scribe who wrote the Judah allotment. Na’aman points to two copyist errors as evidence that “Benjamin’s borders were drawn later [than Judah’s] by encircling the tribe’s allotment”39. The first relates to the direction of the boundary. Josh 15,10 indicates that the boundary goes west (‫ )ימה‬from Baalah/Kiriath-jearim and continues toward the Mediterranean Sea. Josh 18,15 also indicates that the boundary goes west (‫)ימה‬ from Kiriath-jearim, only here the boundary is headed east, not west. Kallai argues that ‫ ימה‬in Josh 18,15 is not a copyist error but indicates a western turn in the boundary before it heads east40. But this is a problematic view given Na’aman’s second bit of evidence that the scribe stumbled in his effort to copy the northern Judah boundary in reverse. The boundary correctly goes up (‫ )עלה‬to the Jerusalem area in Josh 15,8, but Josh 18,16 has flipped ‫ עלה‬to its antonym, ‫ירד‬, a mechanical effort that fails to account for the actual topography: one does not “go down” to get to Jerusalem41. The same flip happens for the stone of Bohan, son of Reuben from Josh 15,6 to 18,17 but does not happen for Beth-hoglah from Josh 15,6 38. NELSON, Joshua(n. 8), p. 213. 39. NA’AMAN, BordersandDistricts (n. 17), pp. 103-104. 40. KALLAI, HistoricalGeography (n. 33), pp. 133-134. 41. NELSON, Joshua(n. 8), p. 213 acknowledges that Joshua 18 clearly copied Joshua 15 and recognizes this inaccuracy in the effort to reverse the boundary but does not consider the implications of evidence of scribal inattention for interpreting ‫ ימה‬in Josh 18,15.

94

A.R. ERISMAN

to 18,19, suggesting that the effort to flip ‫ עלה‬to ‫ ירד‬may have been not only mechanical but also executed inconsistently. These copyist errors make it unlikely that this effort to control the reading of the Benjamin allotment was carried out by the same scribe who wrote the Judah allotment in Joshua 15, even though it would have served his interests. If the same scribe who drafted the Judah allotment in Joshua 15 is not also responsible for the southern boundary of Benjamin in Joshua 18, who is? The Benjamin boundary is drawn in a circle around the entire territory. That this circle was not drawn in multiple editorial stages is evident when we observe that Kiriath-jearim appears not simply in the southern boundary of Benjamin, but as the western boundaryturnsintothe southern (Josh 18,14-15). The southern boundary thus cannot be viewed apart from the entire effort to delimit Benjamin not only from Judah but also from the Joseph tribes, an aim stated explicitly in Josh 18,11. This means that the Joseph boundaries also have to be in the text when the Benjamin boundary is drawn. As I noted earlier, the introductions to the Joseph portion in Josh 16,1 and the Manasseh portion in Josh 17,1, along with Josh 15,1, originally read “boundary” (‫)גבול‬, indicating that they, too, are revisions of the base inheritance text in Joshua 18–19 that were only later harmonized with its “lots” (‫)גורל‬. Which revision came first, Judah or the Joseph tribes? Thorough study of the allotments for the Joseph tribes is beyond the scope of this article, but we can note this: Concern for the territory of Judah begins in Joshua 14, where we also get a new introduction to the allotments (14,1) that, together with a new conclusion (19,51), reframes (almost) the entire allotment pericope and repairs the problem in the old introduction to the inheritance text (18,6.10) of Joshua alone casting lots by placing Eleazar at his side. The verses that follow this new introduction (14,2-5) are concerned with allotments for the Transjordan tribes, the Levites, and the Joseph tribes, but allotments for the Transjordan tribes (Joshua 13) and the Levites (Joshua 21) are outside the boundaries of the pericope as framed by 14,1 and 19,51, concern for both the Levites and the Joseph tribes here is preemptive, and this set of verses is framed with a Wiederaufnahme (‫ כאשר צוה יהוה ביד משה‬in v. 2 and ‫ כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬in v. 5), making it likely to be a later interpolation designed to pull those materials into the system of allotments42. The implication – one that needs to be further 42. Given that LXX witnesses ‫ גורל‬here in 14,2 (the same reading as MT) but ‫גבול‬ ‘border’ in Josh 15,1; 16,1; and 17,1 where MT reads ‫‘ גורל‬lot’, this interpolation in Josh 14,2-5 appears to have been made before the harmonization we find in the text of MT and, as AULD, Joshua,MosesandtheLand (n. 11), p. 56 thinks, gave rise to the change from ‫ גבול‬to ‫ גורל‬in Josh 15,1; 16,1; and 17,1. See pages 82-83 above. The references to Judah

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

95

explored in detail, to be sure, but that we can already detect – is that the scribe who drafted the Judah allotment likely introduced the idea of drawing contiguous boundaries around tribal allotments for the first time, and his strategy was picked up and adapted in subsequent revisions, involving not only the Joseph tribes but also the effort to delimit Benjamin by drawing a circle around it43. The scribe who drew this circle equated Kiriath-jearim with Kiriath-baal (Josh 18,14), as it is in the Judah town list (Josh 15,60), not Baalah, as it is in the Judah boundary being copied (Josh 15,9-10). Because the scribe clearly also knew the northern Judah boundary and accepted it as a given, it is hard not to see this shift as a deliberate effort to avoid the rich Davidic resonances evoked by the Baalah equation, which may no longer have been relevant for this scribe.

IV. VISIONS FOR

A

RESTORED JUDAH IN JOSHUA AND NEHEMIAH

The scribe who drafted the Judah allotment has a very clear idea of where Judah ends and Benjamin begins that is at odds with the Benjamin allotment in Josh 18,21-28 and may also be at odds with his late monarchic source document. Why did he draw it where he did? A distinctive feature of the northern boundary of Judah is that it carefully excludes Jerusalem. J. Alberto Soggin notes that one can explain this in two different ways. The first takes the literary context of a premonarchic conquest of the land as indicative of the historical context in which the boundaries emerged and concludes that Jerusalem was not conquered44. But it was conquered by Judah according to Judg 1,8. Even those passages indicating that it wasn’t conquered assume that it was at least allotted, but they disagree about to which tribe, Judah (Josh 15,63) or Benjamin (Judg 1,21; see also Josh 18,28). The conflicting claims involved in texts related to this first explanation yield more confusion than answers45.

and Joseph in Josh 18,5 and the Levites and Transjordan tribes in 18,7 may be elements of similar editorial work on the early verses of that chapter. 43. We see a similar phenomenon once the itinerary genre comes to dominate the wilderness narrative; see ROSKOP, WildernessItineraries(n. 13), pp. 185-232. 44. J.A. SOGGIN, Joshua:ACommentary (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1972, p. 174. 45. KALLAI, HistoricalGeography (n. 33), pp. 283-285 is an example of the problematic argumentation involved in efforts to make historical sense out of these texts: he takes as axiomatic that Jerusalem was not part of Israelite territory until David conquered it, so he argues that Judg 1,8 must reflect a premonarchic conquest of Jerusalem that ultimately did not last, its failure evident in Josh 15,63, and that Jerusalem was allotted to Benjamin in a rhetorical ploy by David and Solomon to get Benjamin to ally with Judah.

96

A.R. ERISMAN

The second way involves viewing the boundary as indicative of a later historical reality when Jerusalem was considered “an autonomous administrative community”, evident in texts that distinguish Jerusalem from Judah46. These references to “Jerusalem and Judah” include 2 Kgs 21,12; 24,20; Jer 40,1; and Ezra 2,1. Apart from Ezra 2,1, all have to do with threat of destruction by the Babylonians. Whether this distinctiveness was the case as early as the expansion of Jerusalem during the eighth century or even earlier, it does appear to have emerged before 587/647. But use of the place name “Valley of Hinnom” to draw this boundary in Josh 15,8 directs our attention specifically to MT Neh 11,30, where the northern extent of Judah is defined the same way48. The expression ‫ויחנו מבאר שבע‬ ‫ עד גיא הנם‬is not present in LXX, which also defines the extent of Judah using a minimal list of sites: Kirath-arba, Jeshua, Beer-sheba, and Lachish. Not only has the summary statement referring to the Valley of Hinnom been added in MT, but the list of sites has been fleshed out in an area covering a rough circle from Kiriath-arba in the hill country, down into the Negeb as far south as Beer-sheba, and back up into the Shephelah (Neh 11,25-30). All but two of these sites are also listed in the Joshua 15 Judah allotment, and in the same order, suggesting to Deirdre N. Fulton that the text of Nehemiah 11 has been expanded on the basis of the Judah allotment in Joshua 15 in order to give it depth and create the impression of a contiguous area settled by Judah49. It is standard to view Nehemiah 11 as a reuse of Joshua 15 in order to frame its settlement claims as a restoration of what once was50. This view 46. SOGGIN, Joshua (n. 44), p. 174. 47. See NA’AMAN, JosiahandtheKingdomofJudah (n. 17), pp. 194-195 for the suggestion that this concept may have accompanied the significant expansion of Jerusalem in the eighth century. 48. The idea that postexilic concerns might drive why the northern boundary of Judah is drawn as it is, with reference to the Valley of Hinnom, has already been suggested by M.G. SELEZNEV, TheOriginoftheTribal BoundariesinJoshua:AdministrativeDistricts orSacralGeography?, in MemoriaeIgorM.Diakonoff (Babel und Bibel, 2), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2005, 331-362, p. 348. 49. D.N. FULTON, ReconsideringNehemiah’sJudah:TheCaseofMTandLXXNehemiah11–12 (FAT, II/80), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2015, pp. 86-94; 99-101; 107. The two that do not overlap are Jeshua and Meconah. Some have proposed to equate them with Shema and Madmannah in Joshua 15, respectively, but this is not without its problems, discussed here by Fulton. 50. O. LIPSCHITS, Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11, in JBL 121 (2002) 429-435, esp. p. 430 n. 35 for literature on the relationship between Joshua 15 and Nehemiah 11 and FULTON, ReconsideringNehemiah’sJudah (n. 49), p. 116. This effect stands irrespective of whether the sites named in these two texts are taken to indicate continuous settlement through the exile, as held by AHARONI, LandoftheBible (n. 18), p. 82, or whether they reflect the realities of resettlement after the exile, as held by Z. KALLAI, Judah andtheBoundariesofJewishSettlementunderPersianRule, in ID., BiblicalHistoriography

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

97

naturally understands Joshua 15 in terms of the consensus that emerged from Alt’s work and takes MT Nehemiah 11 to envision restoration on the basis of a blend of early and late monarchic geographies that came about as the town lists were accommodated to a comprehensive boundary system that came from a separate, and earlier, source. But if the author of the Judah allotment introduced the idea of drawing boundaries to delimit a territory, and the elements that give this territory a Davidic flavor are part of the ideology that informed his shaping of the whole, including manipulation of his late monarchic source, we must contend with the possibility that the geography of Joshua 15 is not much older than MT Neh 11,25-30, but that the two texts share an understanding of Jerusalem as distinct from Judah as well as a vision for a restored Judah, expressed in each case with a different focus. The primary ideological concern in Nehemiah 11 is the relationship of both Judah and Benjamin to Jerusalem: Jerusalem is set apart as an ‫‘ עיר הקדש‬holy city’ (Neh 11,1), the towns of Judah and Benjamin are framed as dependent settlements of Jerusalem (‫חצרים‬, Neh 11,25), and the repopulation of Jerusalem with onetenth of the people from the settlements (Neh 11,1) is framed as a tithe51. Joshua 15, on the other hand, articulates a territorial Judah designed to evoke the glory of the Davidic past. We cannot fully understand why this is without considering the verses at its heart, in which Caleb conquers his portion within Judah at Hebron.

V. CALEB AND THE TERRITORY

OF JUDAH

The first two place names in the description of Judah in MT Neh 11,2530 are Kiriath-arba and Debir52. These two places also play a central role in the Judah allotment as the sites conquered by Caleb and Othniel (Josh 15,13-19). Focus on Hebron, which is equated with Kiriath-arba, andHistoricalGeography (n. 17), 63-91, p.81; ID., BiblicalHistoriographyandLiterary History:AProgrammaticSurvey, in VT 49 (1999) 338-350, p. 344; and KALLAI, Simeon’s TownList (n. 17), pp. 84-85. 51. LIPSCHITS, Literary and Ideological Aspects (n. 50), pp. 434-437 and FULTON, ReconsideringNehemiah’sJudah(n. 49), pp. 25-29. On the meaning of ‫חצר‬, see A. FAUST, Cities,Villages,andFarmsteads:TheLandscapeofLeviticus25:29-31, in J.D. SCHLOEN (ed.), ExploringtheLongueDurée:EssaysinHonorofLawrenceE.Stager, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2009, 103-112. For more on the editorial history of Nehemiah 11, see J.L. WRIGHT, A New Model for the Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, in O. LIPSCHITS – G.N. KNOPPERS – R. ALBERTZ (eds.), JudahandtheJudeansintheFourthCenturyB.C.E., Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2007, 333-348. 52. On the reading of Debir (‫ )דביר‬in Neh 11,25 instead of Dibon (MT ‫)דיבן‬, see FULTON, ReconsideringNehemiah’sJudah(n. 49), p. 98.

98

A.R. ERISMAN

links this text back to Caleb’s speech in Josh 14,6-15 and the scouts episode in Numbers 13–14, as well as forward to Judg 1,10-15. It has long been typical to view this little conquest episode as distinct from the Judah allotment that surrounds it – and as an editorial interpolation – for two reasons: The first is that it is distinct in content and genre from the boundary and town lists, clearly focused on conquest rather than land distribution, and understood alternatively as an etiological saga, a clan saga, or a land grant53. The second is that Caleb is identified here as a Kenizzite, not a Judahite, and makes a marriage alliance with Othniel, another Kenizzite, which has left commentators with a sense that Calebite control of this area is a very old tradition that had to be accounted for after it became part of Judah54. One problem with this view is that Hebron is not the only geographical link between the scouts episode and Joshua 15. Num 13,21 states: ‫‘ ויתרו את הארץ ממדבר צן עד רחב לבא חמת‬they scouted the land from the Wilderness of Zin to Rehob-lebo-hamath’. The Wilderness of Zin is the southern boundary of the land as it is conceptualized in Josh 15,1.3 (see also Num 34,3-4), and this is distinctive because the southern extent of the land is otherwise usually at Beer-sheba. Links that connect Numbers 13–14, Joshua 14, and Joshua 15 are thus not limited to the Caleb episode in 15,13-17 but involve the whole effort to construct an allotment for Judah. Strong ideological links also connect these texts. After the Israelites express a desire to return to Egypt and threaten to stone their leaders in Num 14,1-9, the kabod appears at the tent of meeting (v. 10), and Yahweh threatens to destroy the people and make a greater and more numerous people out of Moses (v. 12). Moses ostensibly persuades Yahweh to pardon the people, but the outcome as it is framed here (vv. 21-23) is not 53. DE VOS, Das Los Judas (n. 11), p. 119. On Josh 15,13-19 as an etiological saga, see, e.g., J. GRAY, Joshua,Judges,Ruth (NCB), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1986, p. 133; as a clan saga, see A. ROFÉ, ClanSagasasaSourceinSettlementTraditions, in S.M. OLYAN – R.C. CULLEY (eds.), AWiseandDiscerningMind:EssaysinHonorof BurkeO.Long (Brown Judaic Studies, 325), Providence, RI, Brown Judaic Studies, 2000, 191-203; and as the continuation of a land grant narrative that begins in 14,6-15, see NELSON, Joshua(n. 8), pp. 177-179; 188-189. 54. The idea that the Calebites were incorporated into Judah as the monarchy emerged is common; see, e.g., M. NOTH, TheHistoryofIsrael, New York, Harper & Row, 21960, pp. 53-76; ID., A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B.W. Anderson, Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1981, pp. 131-135; R. DE VAUX, TheSettlementoftheIsraelitesinSouthern PalestineandtheOriginsoftheTribeofJudah, in H.T. FRANK – W.L. REED (eds.), TranslatingandUnderstandingtheOldTestament:EssaysinHonorofHerbertGordonMay, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1970, 108-134; and J.W. FLANAGAN, History, Religion, and Ideology:TheCalebTradition, in Horizons 3 (1976) 175-185.

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

99

much of a pardon: perhaps Yahweh will not destroy the people with an immediate plague, but they will all die in the wilderness, including Moses (Num 20,1-13 and 27,12-23), so the outcome is materially the same. Yahweh is still going to make a new people out of someone, but that someone is Caleb (v. 24), and it is hard to escape the sense that framing Caleb as the new Moses is the whole point of the dialogue55. Referring to him as ‫‘ עבדי כלב‬myservant Caleb’ in Num 14,24 puts him in the elite company of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, andDavid 56. The title ‫ עבד‬is associated with obedience to torah, a characteristic of the ideal king, as is the character trait of complete loyalty, articulated not only by the statement that Caleb “wholly followed after” (‫ )וימלא אחרי‬Yahweh but, conveniently, by his very name57. Caleb reiterates this quality once the Israelites are in the land, in his successful appeal to Joshua for the portion of Hebron (Josh 14,8-9.14), David’s first royal capital (2 Sam 2,11; 5,1-5). As Elie Assis notes, when Caleb says ‫‘ אולי יהוה אותי והורשתים‬If Yahweh is with me, I will dispossess them’ (Josh 14,12), he evokes the very act of loyalty that he now claims merits him possession of Hebron by combining ‫ וירשנו אתה‬from his first speech encouraging the reluctant Israelites to enter the land in Num 13,30 and ‫ ויהוה אתנו‬from his second in Num 14,958. His speech here in Joshua 14 engages still more royal language and implicit comparison to Moses when he says that, at age eighty-five, “I am still as strong today as on the day Moses sent me; my strength for battle is now as it was then, for going out and coming in [‫( ”]ולצאת ולבוא‬Josh 14,11). The expression “to go out and come in” generally means to actively go about one’s business but is applied especially to kings in the context of war, and the notion of vigor in old age evokes Deut 34,7, where the same is said of Moses59. 55. Several issues here warrant more detailed discussion, which will appear in A.R. ERISMAN, Numbers (NCBC), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming and EAD., TheWildernessNarrativesintheHebrewBible:Religion,Politics,andBiblical Interpretation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. 56. Abraham (Gen 26,24), Moses (Num 12,7-8; Deut 34,5; Josh 1,1-2.7.13.15; 8,31.33; 11,12; 12,6; 13,8; 14,7; 18,7; 22,2.4-5; 2 Kgs 8,12; 21,8; Mal 3,22; 2 Chr 1,3; 24,6), Joshua (Josh 24,29; Judg 2,8), and David (2 Sam 3,18; 7,5.8; 1 Kgs 11,13.32.34.36.38; 14,18; 2 Kgs 19,34; 20,6 // Isa 37,35; Jer 35,21-22.26; Ezek 34,23-24; 37,24-25; Pss 18,1; 36,1; 89,4.21; 1 Chr 17,4.7). 57. On the meaning of “Caleb”, see, e.g., J. MILGROM, TheJPSTorahCommentary: Numbers, Philadelphia, PA, Jewish Publication Society, 1990, p. 101. For the royal resonances of this trait, see esp. 1 Kgs 11,6, which indicates that Solomon did not remain loyal to Yahweh as David did. 58. ASSIS, “HowLong” (n. 22), pp. 17-18. 59. As noted, e.g., by J.G. MCCONVILLE – S.N. WILLIAMS, Joshua (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2010, p. 65. For the expression “to go out and come in”, see 1 Sam 18,16; 29,6; 2 Sam 5,2 // 1 Chr 11,2 (David);

100

A.R. ERISMAN

The question is whether the claim that Caleb is the David-like successor of Moses extends into Joshua 15. Because the conquest episode in Josh 15,13-19 refers to Caleb as a Kenizzite and lacks the Deuteronomistic language present in Josh 14,6-15, where Caleb is called a Judahite, many commentators have understood it to be an old, independent conquest tradition that was interpolated into Joshua 15 by a Deuteronomistic editor60. But Brian Doak has shown us that the Davidic themes do indeed continue into this text. The inhabitants of Hebron whom Caleb encounters in the scouts episode and ultimately conquers are identified specifically as the ‫‘ ילידי הענק‬children of Anaq’ (Num 13,22.28) and equated with the Rephaim in Num 13,33, where they are called ‫ ;בני הענק‬Josh 15,14 picks up both expressions. The expression ‫ ילידי הענק‬evokes the ‫ילידי הרפה‬ whom David fights in 2 Sam 21,15-22 and casts Caleb as a giant killer in the mode of David61. Leveling giants is a “political symbol of law and of justice” for which the king is responsible in the face of chaos, a “trope that originated with the tales of David’s glorious era [and is] read back into the conquest”62. The Davidic resonances that run throughout the entire Judah allotment, from the equation of Kirath-jearim with Baalah in the northern boundary to the references to Kabzeel, Aroer, Ziph, and Ziklag in the Negeb, to Caleb’s slaying of the giants of Hebron in his effort to claim David’s royal capital tie together the whole of Joshua 15. Together with Joshua 14, it constitutes an effort to territorialize Caleb’s claim to be the leader of a great and numerous people in Numbers 13–1463. 1 Kgs 3,7 and 2 Chr 1,10 (Solomon); 2 Kgs 19,27 // Isa 37,28 (Hezekiah); and Num 27,16 (Joshua). 60. See, e.g., V. FRITZ, DasBuchJosua (HAT, I/7), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1994, pp. 157-160 and discussion in DE VOS, DasLosJudas (n. 11), pp. 291-292; 295-298; 519-520. 61. B.R. DOAK, TheLastoftheRephaim:ConquestandCataclysmintheHeroicAges of Ancient Israel (Ilex Foundation Series, 7), Washington, DC, Ilex Foundation, 2012, p. 111. 62. Ibid., p. 214. 63. My analysis of the links among Numbers 13–14, Josh 14,6-15, and Josh 15,13-19 is very much along the same lines as and in many respects inspired by the view of E. OTTO, DasDeuteronomiumimPentateuchundHexateuch:StudienzurLiteraturgeschichtevon PentateuchundHexateuchimLichtedesDeuteronomiumrahmens (FAT, 30), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000, esp. pp. 75-86 that they are united by concern for Hebron, the Anaqim, and Caleb’s Kenizzite affiliation, but I view the revision as much more narrowly focused, designed not to create a Hexateuch (although it certainly seems to presume one) but to instantiate this territorialized royal claim. The Caleb material is itself increasingly seen as a relatively late supplement to the scouts episode in Numbers 13–14, and my analysis of it in forthcoming works will be very much along those lines as well, albeit with significant differences in detail; see, e.g., D. FRANKEL, TheMurmuringStoriesofthePriestlySchool: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore (VT.S, 89), Leiden, Brill, 2002; J.L. WRIGHT, David,KingofIsrael,andCalebinCulturalMemory, Cambridge, Cambridge University

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

101

This revision involves not only elements of the scouts episode in Numbers 13–14 and composition of Joshua 14–15 but also the efforts to overwrite the inheritance text in Joshua 18–19. The new frames for the Simeon allotment in Josh 19,1.9 and the entire land distribution pericope in 14,1 and 19,51 are not the only places where this editorial effort reaches into Joshua 18–19 itself. Assis points out that “How long will you hesitate (‫ )מתרפים‬to enter the land…?” in Josh 18,3 links to Moses’ command to the scouts in Num 13,18 to find out whether the people who live in the land are strong or weak (‫וראיתם את הארץ מה הוא ואת העם הישב‬ ‫)עליה החזק הוא הרפה‬. Use of the same root (‫ )רפה‬in both places is a critique of the tribes whose allotments are discussed in Joshua 18–19 as weaklings and a comparison to Caleb, whose strength (‫ )חזק‬is emphasized in his speech to Joshua in Josh 14,1164. Caleb’s territorialized royal claim is, in fact, more extensive than the Judah allotment itself. The northern extent of the land explored by the scouts in Num 13,21 is Rehob-lebo-hamath – a combination of the northernmost site in the inheritance text in Joshua 18–19 that is being overwritten (Rehob) with yet another place name with Davidic resonance. Rehob is on the northern end of Asher (Josh 19,28), while Lebo-hamath figures in the northern extent of trope for the entire land ruled by Israelite kings, including David65. Caleb’s claim is not merely to a restored territory of Judah, although that plays an important role in the instantiation of his claim, but to a restored united Israel that also encompasses the tribes whose allotments in Joshua 18–19 have been overwritten. The extent of Judah as it is mapped in Neh 11,25-30 does not match the territorial realities of the Persian period setting of this text, and we have several options for understanding the gap66: The Judah depicted in Nehemiah 11 may indicate sites where Judahites resettled and may have Press, 2014, 197-198; and S. GERMANY, TheExodus–ConquestNarrative:TheComposition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua (FAT, 115), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2017, pp. 211-212. 64. ASSIS, “HowLong” (n. 22), pp. 17-18. 65. See 1 Kgs 8,65 // 2 Chr 7,8 (Solomon); 2 Kgs 14,25 (Jeroboam); Amos 6,14; 1 Chr 13,5 (David). R. ACHENBACH, DieErzählungvondergescheitertenLandnahmevon KadeschBarnea(Numeri13–14)alsSchlüsseltextderRedaktionsgeschichtedesPentateuchs, in ZAR 9 (2003) 56-123 follows and fleshes out Otto’s reading of the links among the spies episode and these Caleb texts in Joshua, but he ascribes this new frame to a separate theocratic revision (p. 87). The theocratic motivation for having Eleazar accompany Joshua in the casting of lots is clear, but I hesitate to see this new frame as part of a different effort than the rest because of its role in Caleb’s claim to lead not just Judah but a (re)united Israel. 66. Outlined in D. EDELMAN, TheOriginsofthe“Second”Temple:PersianImperial PolicyandtheRebuildingofJerusalem (BibleWorld), London, Equinox, 2005, pp. 226228.

102

A.R. ERISMAN

nothing to do with the political extent of Judah67. It may signal the extent of political control in the Hasmonean period68. Or it may be idealized69. Once we understand Joshua 15 in the same historical orbit, we are confronted with the same set of problems70. But here, the character of the text as a territorialized claim to restored kingship – and its use of a late monarchic source document to flesh out that territory, an act that contributes to the ideological goal of restoring what once was – speaks strongly in favor of an idealized geography patterned in part after past realities. This new set of allotments, now headed by Judah, is not merely a vision for what might be restored geographically. It is somebody’s claim for the power to lead the restoration. Who is this Caleb, this Mr. Loyal? The notion that the book of Joshua envisions a restored monarchy is hardly novel, but Joshua is usually the paradigmatic king in question, whether he is understood as a model for Josiah or for the Hasmoneans71. But we have another in Caleb. While determining the extent of Yehud as a political territory is fraught with difficulty, what we can see clearly is a mixed population of Judahites, Arabs, and Edomites, with a greater concentration of Judahites north of the Beth-zur/Hebron area and a greater 67. D. JANZEN, Politics,Settlement,andTempleCommunityinPersian-PeriodYehud, in CBQ 64 (2002) 490-510 and J.W. WRIGHT, RemappingYehud:TheBordersofYehud andtheGenealogiesofChronicles, in O. LIPSCHITS – M. OEMING (eds.), Judahandthe JudeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2006, 67-89, who emphasizes that Judah after the exile is an ethnos with geographical elements, not a sovereign political entity. 68. Pressed by I. FINKELSTEIN, GeographicalListsinEzraandNehemiahintheLight of Archaeology: Persian or Hellenistic?, in L.L. GRABBE – O. LIPSCHITS (eds.), Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE) (LSTS, 75), London, T&T Clark, 2011, 49-69 and entertained as a possibility by FULTON, ReconsideringNehemiah’sJudah(n. 49). 69. See, e.g., T.C. ESKENAZI, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to EzraNehemiah (SBLMS, 36), Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1988, 115 and O. LIPSCHITS, TheFall andRiseofJerusalem:JudahunderBabylonianRule, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2005, pp. 135-149. 70. Work to this effect has already been done on the scouts episode in Numbers 13– 14 by J. JEON, The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period, forthcoming, and his insights about the mismatch between the territory scouted there and the extent of Yehud in the Persian period also apply to the related texts in Joshua. I am very grateful to him for sharing his manuscript so that I might acknowledge his work here. 71. For Josiah, see M. OTTOSSON, Josuaboken–enprogramskriftfördavidiskrestauration (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis – Studia Biblical Upsaliensia, 1), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1991 and E.A. KNAUF, Why“Joshua”?, in D.V. EDELMAN (ed.), Deuteronomy– Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation (Ancient Near East Monographs, 6), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2014, 73-84; for the Hasmoneans, see J. STRANGE, The Book of Joshua: A Hasmonean Manifesto?, in A. LEMAIRE – B. OTZEN (eds.), History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, May 8th, 1993 (VT.S, 50), Leiden, Brill, 1993, 136-141.

CALEB AND THE TERRITORY OF JUDAH

103

concentration of Edomites and Arabs south of there. To push the concept of the “border of Edom” as far south as the Wilderness of Zin (Josh 15,1.21) required contending with the reality of areas populated by Edomites. Caleb’s dual Judahite and Kenizzite affiliation in these texts may be a nod to the diplomacy involved in playing those dynamics, at least in the literature if not also in policy72. If there is an ancient figure named Caleb son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, that ancient tradition was capitalized upon by someone else in a restoration power play73. Who that someone else could be must be a topic for another context, but we do have one lead worth mentioning: apart from Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and David, the only individual(s) other than Caleb who are called ‫‘ עבדי‬my servant’ by God are Zerubabbel (Hag 2,23) and “the Branch” (Zech 3,8).

VI. CONCLUSION The allotment texts in Joshua 13–19 are typically viewed as an en bloc addition to the Deuteronomistic History, little more than a collection of administrative documents largely unconnected with the surrounding narrative. Cynthia Edenburg has pressed us to consider the purpose behind this addition: “[t]he view of these materials as incidental leftovers obscures the editorial intentions that might have led to their inclusion in the historiographic composition”74. Cynthia’s important contribution has inspired me to take her ideas still further and look not only for the purpose but also for the parameters of the revision. Judah did come to dominate through the insertion of a block of material at a strategic juncture, albeit a much smaller block than we have previously appreciated. Powered by Iser’s insight about how theme and horizon structure the reading process, we can see not only how Joshua 14–15 establishes a new dominant reading but also how strategically placed edits to the text being revised guide readers 72. See also ACHENBACH, DieErzählung (n. 65), pp. 87; 90-91; WRIGHT, David (n. 63), pp. 168-171; and JEON, ScoutNarrative (n. 70), as well as E.A. KNAUF, Josua (ZBK.AT), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2008, p. 135 on the link between the land allotments and Persian period geography more generally. NELSON, Joshua(n. 8), pp. 178; 180 also intuits a link between Caleb’s identification here as a Kenizzite and the situation south of Hebron in the wake of the Babylonian conquest. On the association of Kenizzites with Esau/Edom, see Gen 15,19; 36,11.15.42; and 1 Chr 1,36.53. 73. For the tradition history of Caleb, see W. BELTZ, Die Kaleb-Traditionen (PhD, Reform Theological Academy of Budapest, 1966). The notion that this tradition has some antiquity should not be discounted without thorough study of the David narratives that refer to the Calebites (e.g., 1 Samuel 25; 27; 30), as well as the genealogies in Chronicles, with these questions in mind. 74. EDENBURG, Rewriting,Overwriting,andOverriding (n. 14), p. 60.

104

A.R. ERISMAN

to read with this new theme rather than against it. Yet resisting dominant readings as well as we are able can be key to answering historical questions relating to sources and composition history. We may have lost what was long thought to be a source – an early monarchic system of tribal boundaries – and what I have offered here adds to the more recent trend in that direction. But the yield in this case also involves a richer understanding of the source that was used: not only the editorial dynamics of how it was used but the reason why. Brooklyn Institute for Social Research [email protected]

Angela Roskop ERISMAN

BETHEL IN THE WARS OF AMBUSH IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21

Interpreters have long noted the similarity between the wars of ambush in Joshua 8 and Judges 20, raising questions of literary dependence and inner-biblical composition. Early source critics such as J. Wellhausen concluded that Judges 20 was dependent on Joshua 8 and this quickly emerged as the majority conclusion among interpreters1, as illustrated for example by C.F. Burney, who concluded that Judges 19–21 was “constructed by a process of selective imitation”2. Early source-critical evaluations were based in part on the ability of interpreters to determine the likely historical background of one or both stories, of which the battle of Ai was judged to be the more historically reliable3. But researchers were never unanimous on the role of historical reconstruction to determine literary dependence or whether the two stories were even related4, as is evident by G.F. Moore’s caution that “doublets in literary history are not necessarily evidence of literary dependence”5. The detachment of both Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21 from any historical grounding has forced interpreters to rely solely on literary-critical criteria based on empirical evidence for evaluating the literary relationship * It is a pleasure to participate in my colleague Cynthia Edenburg’s Festschrift. 1. J. WELLHAUSEN, DieCompositiondesHexateuchsundderhistorischenBücherdes AltenTestaments, Berlin, Reimer, 31899, p. 231. 2. C.F. BURNEY, TheBookofJudgeswithIntroductionandNotesontheHebrewText oftheBooksofKings, New York, Ktav, 1970, pp. 455-456. 3. For examples of this hermeneutical perspective see among others R. DE VAUX, The EarlyHistoryofIsrael, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978, p. 619; W.M.W. ROTH, HinterhaltundScheinflucht:DerstammespolemischeHintergrundvonJos8, in ZAW 75 (1963) 296-303, pp. 299-301; and P.M. ARNOLD, Gibeah:TheSearchforaBiblicalCity (JSOT.S, 79), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989, pp. 83-84. 4. H.N. RÖSEL (StudienzurTopographiederKriegeindenBüchernJosuaundRichter, in ZDPV 92 [1976] 10-46 esp. pp. 35-36) speculates that Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21 may be related through a third lost source. More common is the assumption that the stories were related already at the pre-literary level of development, see for example L. MAZOR, ATextualandLiteraryStudyoftheFallofAiinJoshua8, in S. JAPHET (ed.), TheBible inLightofItsInterpreters, Jerusalem, Magnes, 1994, 73-108 esp. pp. 99-106 (Hebrew); and R.L. NELSON, Joshua: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1997, pp. 111-112. 5. G.F. MOORE, ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryonJudges (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1895, p. 435 notes the inner-biblical relationship in Judges 19–21 to the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 (Judges 19); the war against Ai in Joshua 8 (Judges 20); and the war against Midian in Numbers 31 (Judges 21).

106

T.B. DOZEMAN

between the two text-complexes. Most recently, for example, C. Edenburg has compared twelve instances of deliberate literary contact between the stories of Ai and Gibeah, concluding that eight indicate the influence of Joshua 8 on Judges 20, while four move in the reverse direction6. Striking parallels include the language of ambush (Josh 8,2.12; Judg 20,29); the description of the advance for battle (Josh 8,11; Judg 20,34); the enemy’s lack of knowledge of the ambush (Josh 8,14; Judg 20,34); and the smoke that ascends to heaven as a signal (Josh 8,20; Judg 20,40). These stories also share the same general setting of Benjamin along with references to Bethel, which is the focus of this paper. In Judges 20–21 the tribes led by Judah repeatedly worship and receive oracles at Bethel (20,18.26; 21,2); in MT Joshua 8 the citizens of Bethel join Ai in warring against Joshua (8,17); and in LXX Joshua 8 Bethel is absent from the war. The conflicting role of Bethel in the MT and the LXX of Joshua 7–8 and in the larger parallel accounts of war in MT Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21 raise questions concerning the interplay of redaction and textual criticisms in the inclusion of Bethel within the different narrative complexes. A brief summary of the literary and text-critical problems surrounding the motif of Bethel in the separate stories of Judges 19–21 and Joshua 7–8 will provide background for comparison of Bethel’s function in the narrative complexes. I. BETHEL IN JUDGES 19–21 Interpreters have long identified a problem with the two locations of Mizpah and Bethel in Judges 20–217. Mizpah functions as the location 6. C. EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole:CompositionandPurposeofJudges19–21 (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 24), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2016, pp. 203-217 identifies the following inner-biblical examples as moving from Judg 20,33-48 to Joshua 7–8: mourning before YHWH (Judg 20,23.26-27; Josh 7,6); the expression “to place an ambush” (Judg 20,29; Josh 8,2); the plan of ambush includes a sequence of inner-biblical relationships (Judg 20,30-32; Josh 8,5-6); reference to felling casualties in the field (Judg 20,31; Josh 8,24); the description of the ambushers springing up from their place (Judg 20,33-34; Josh 8,19); the account of going up against the city (Judg 20,34; Josh 8,11); and the entrapment of the enemy (Judg 20,42; Josh 8,22). Examples where Joshua 8 may be influencing Judges 20 include: the description of the enemy not knowing (Josh 8,14-15; Judg 20,34); the description of the smoke as an offering (Josh 8,20; Judg 20,40-41); flight by way of the desert (Josh 8,15.20.24; Judg 20,42.45.47); and the description of returning and cutting down the opponent with the sword (Josh 8,22; Judg 20,42). For additional listings of the inner-biblical ties between Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21 see among many others BURNEY, Judges (n. 2), pp. 455-457; T.C. BUTLER, Joshua 1–12 (WBC, 7A), Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 2014, 402; J. BERMAN, NarrativeAnalogyintheHebrewBible:BattleStories andtheirEquivalentNon-BattleNarratives (VT.S, 103), Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 77-84. 7. Already in 1903 BURNEY, Judges (n. 2), p. 476 described the reference to Bethel “as alien to the conception of the narrative”.

BETHEL IN THE WARS OF AMBUSH IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21

107

for the tribal gatherings both before (20,1.3) and after (21,1) the war against Benjamin. The tribes assemble at Mizpah “before Yahweh” to respond to the rape of the Levite’s concubine (20,1.3) as a prelude to the war; then after the war they assemble again at Mizpah (21,1) to swear oaths against intermarriage with Benjamin, thus creating the problem of acquiring wives for the 600 remaining Benjaminite warriors. But Bethel also functions as the central cultic location for the tribes throughout the story. Three times the tribes meet at Bethel: Prior to the war (20,18), the tribes assemble at Bethel for intersession after their meeting at Mizpah8, at which time Judah is singled out as the leader even though the tribes function in consort in the larger narrative9. During the war (20,26), the tribes reassemble at Bethel (20,26) to lament and to receive a divine oracle. After the war (21,2), the tribes again leave their gathering place at Mizpah (21,1) for cultic intersession at Bethel to lament the potential extermination of the tribe of Benjamin. Bethel is also noted as a location of the final battle, which takes place “on the road that goes up to Bethel” (20,21), and it appears again as a location south of the “yearly festival of Yahweh” at Shiloh (21,19). The summary underscores both literary and compositional questions surrounding Mizpah and Bethel. The literary problem confronts the reader immediately, when the tribes move in rapid succession from Mizpah (20,1) to Gibeah (20,11) to Bethel (20,18). Moore responds to the whiplash in the plot concluding the writer was more concerned to follow correct theocratic principles than to maintain any sense of the verisimilitude in the 8. R.G. BOLING, Judges (AYB, 6A), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1972, p. 285 eliminates the reference to Bethel in Judg 20,18 by translating bêt-‘ēl as “sanctuary” (literally “house of god”) and identifying it with Mizpah. EDENBURG, Dismemberingthe Whole (n. 6), p. 34 interprets the description of the tribes lamenting in Judg 20,23 as an additional reference to Bethel, although the location remains unnamed. The absence of any reference to Bethel is part of a series of literary problems in Judg 20,22-24. Judg 20,22 describes the tribes forming a new battle line immediately after their defeat (v. 21) and prior to the lament (v. 23), which is followed by a new attack against Benjamin (v. 24). The sequence appears out of order, prompting U. BECKER (Richterzeit und Königtum: RedaktionsgeschichtlicheStudienzumRichterbuch [BZAW, 192], Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1990, p. 279) to judge the entire unit of 20,22-24 as a late interpolation. 9. Judah merges in a leadership role within narrative in conjunction with Bethel. EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole (n. 6), p. 33 follows many others in noting that the focus on Judah deviates from the pan-Israelite identity of the larger narrative “in which corporate groups receiving special mention are mainly characterized by separatist behavior” and that Judah receives no further mention in the narrative. See also MOORE, Judges (n. 5), p. 432; BURNEY, Judges (n. 2), p. 448; M. NOTH, DasSystemderzwölfStämmeIsraels, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21966, p. 166; T. VEIJOLA, DasKönigtuminderBeurteilungderdeuteronomistischenHistoriographie, Helsinki, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982, p. 188; and G.T.K WONG, CompositionalStrategyintheBookof Judges:AnInductiveRhetoricalStudy(VT.S, 111), Leiden, Brill, 2006, p. 33.

108

T.B. DOZEMAN

story10. The problem of verisimilitude returns at the end of the narrative, when the tribes once again move from Mizpah (21,1) to Bethel (21,2) to lament the potential extermination of the tribe of Benjamin11. In this case, even the LXXA gives in to the confusion by combining both Mizpah and Bethel as the one place of tribal intersession, translating 21,2: “and all the people came to Massepha and Baithel”12. Composition has provided the most common solution to the literary problem of too many locations in Judges 19–2113. Interpreters who focus on Mizpah note that it links the war against Benjamin to the war against the Philistines in 1 Samuel 714, or, when combined with Gibeah, it may also represent an anti-Saul, anti-Benjaminite polemic (e.g., 1 Samuel 10; 11)15. Interpreters who concentrate on Bethel tend to agree that the aim is to highlight the positive role of Bethel as the “central” cultic site. Moore interprets the reference to Bethel as nostalgia, in which a scribe wishes to 10. MOORE, Judges(n. 5), p. 432. WONG, CompositionalStrategyoftheBookofJudges (n. 9), p. 33 also notes the problem of leadership that arises in the sequence of action. See n. 9. 11. MOORE, Judges(n. 5), p. 445 interprets the reference to Bethel in Judg 21,2 as a gloss. EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole (n. 6), p. 60 also judges the reference to Bethel in Judg 21,2 to be a secondary addition that disrupts the literary pattern of two + one in the references to Bethel in Judges 20, which for her includes 20,18.23.26. 12. See T.C. BUTLER, Judges (WBC, 8), Nashville, TN, Nelson, 2006, p. 452. BOLING, Judges (n. 8), p. 285 who translates the LXX as “house of God” in Judg 20,18 rather than a geographical location as another strategy for simplifying the number of geographical references. 13. There is debate over the literary unity of Judges 19–21, the relationship of Judges 17–18 to 19–21, and the relationship of Judges 1–2 to 19–21. For recent literary arguments in favor of the unity of Judges 17–21 and its integral role in the book of Judges see WONG, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges (n. 9), pp. 79-141; perhaps also BUTLER, Judges (n. 12), p. 416; but compare MOORE, Judges (n. 5), p. 404; Y. AMIT, Hidden PolemicsinBiblicalNarrative (BIS, 25), Leiden, Brill, 2000, pp. 185-189; A.D.H. MAYES, DeuteronomisticRoyalIdeologyinJudges17–21, in BibInt 9 (2001) 241-258; P. GUILLAUME, Waiting for Josiah: The Judges (JSOT.S, 185), London, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 129 who separate Judges 17–18 from 19–21. Many see a history of composition in Judges 19–21, but the distinct episodes represented by the three chapters appear to be organically related to the plot, see EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole (n. 6), pp. 13-14. For comparison of the themes in the prologue (Judges 1–2) and the epilogue (Judges 19–21) by means of synchronic literary analysis see WONG, CompositionalStrategyoftheBookofJudges, pp. 27-77; from a compositional perspective see M. KÖHLMOOS, Bet-El:Erinnerungenan eineStadt:PerspektivenderalltestamentlichenBet-ElÜberlieferung (FAT, 49), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2006, p. 283. 14. See K.-D. SCHUNK, Benjamin: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines Israelitischen Stammes (BZAW, 86), Berlin, Alfred Töpelmann, 1963, pp. 94-95; BECKER, RichterzeitundKönigtum (n. 8), p. 269. 15. See Y. AMIT, LiteratureintheServiceofPolitics:StudiesinJudges19–21, in H.G. REVENTLOW – Y. HOFFMAN – B. UFFENHEIMER (eds.), PoliticsandTheopoliticsinthe Bible and Postbiblical Literature (JSOT.S, 171), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994, 28-40; and ID., HiddenPolemics (n. 13),pp. 179-183.

BETHEL IN THE WARS OF AMBUSH IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21

109

highlight ancient tradition associated with Bethel16. Edenburg discerns a more polemical intent, in which a post-exilic editor “rewrites” the tradition history of the Bethel cult to counter its denigration in Deuteronomistic tradition (e.g., Hos 10,5; 1 Kgs 12,28-32)17. Burney discerns a polemic between the two sites, arguing that a post-exilic redactor wishes to underscore that Bethel, rather than Mizpah, functions as the central sanctuary18. Where all agree is that Bethel is functioning in a positive role in a proJudean story written most likely in the exilic or post-exilic periods19. The addition of Bethel in the history of the text’s composition varies widely among interpreters. Moore20 and Burney21 interpret Mizpah as the original gathering site with Bethel a later addition, in which case the presence of Bethel represents the point of view of a late post-exilic editor. But the redaction-critical studies are inconclusive enough for counter-readings by K.-D. Schunk and U. Becker in which Mizpah is also judged to be the later addition22. The reason for the ambiguity is that both Mizpah and Bethel are strategically woven into the overall literary design of the narrative, even though one must be judged to be a later addition23. 16. MOORE, Judges(n. 5), p. 446. 17. EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole (n. 6), p. 36. 18. BURNEY, Judges (n. 2), p. 453. 19. See already ibid., pp. 442-458 and MOORE, Judges(n. 5), pp. 402-408. More recent redaction-critical studies date the literature in the exile (AMIT, HiddenPolemics [n. 13], pp. 185-188; K. KOENEN, Bethel:Geschichte,KultundTheologie [OBO, 192], Freiburg/ Schw., Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003, pp. 190-196), and the postexilic period (see among many others KÖHLMOOS, Bet-El [n. 13], p. 316; BECKER, RichterzeitundKönigtum [n. 8], p. 297; GUILLAUME, WaitingforJosiah [n. 13], pp. 30-31; EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole [n. 6], pp. 220-221; 321-324). But compare G. YEE, Ideological Criticism: Judges 17–21 and the Dismembered Body, in EAD. (ed.), JudgesandMethod:NewApproachestoBiblicalStudies, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2007, p. 152 who argues for a date in the late seventh century BCE. 20. MOORE, Judges(n. 5), p. 407. 21. BURNEY, Judges (n. 2), pp. 447-458 identifies separate sources A and B with the reference to Bethel embedded in yet an additional source C representing a post-exilic priestly perspective. For examples of more redaction-critical studies that identify Bethel as a later addition see among others NOTH, DasSystemderzwölfStämmeIsraels (n. 9), p. 166. 22. SCHUNK, Benjamin (n. 14), p. 60 and BECKER, RichterzeitundKönigtum (n. 8), p. 268. 23. The overview clarifies how carefully Bethel is integrated into the literary design of the narrative, appearing as the central cultic site for the tribes before (20,18), during (20,26) and after (21,2) the war against Benjamin. The geographical reference to a road leading to Bethel (30,31) further integrates the location into the narrative. EDENBURG, Dismembering theWhole (n. 6), p. 31 underscores the integration of Bethel, identifying a common sixpart pattern in the unfolding battle narrative: (1) going up to Bethel (18.23.26); (2) crying before YHWH (23.26); (3) consultation of oracle (18.23.27-28); (4) deployment by Israel (19-20.22.24.29-30); (5) Benjamin sortie (21.25.31a); and (6) summation of defeat (21.25.35.44).

110

T.B. DOZEMAN

II. BETHEL IN JOSHUA 7–8 Interpreters have long identified a problem with the relationship of Bethel and Ai in Joshua 7–824. At the outset of the narrative, Bethel aides in identifying the geographical location of Ai, when Joshua sends out spies from Jericho: “Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is near Beth-aven, east of Bethel” (Josh 7,2)25. The association of Bethel and Ai to clarify geographical setting repeats two more times in the narrative to describe the location of separate ambush parties. Joshua initially sends out an ambush party of thirty thousand warriors to a location “between Bethel and Ai, to the west of Ai”, while he spends the night in the camp (Josh 8,9). On the following day, Joshua travels to the northern side of Ai and then again he sends out a second ambush party of five thousand warriors to the same location “between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the city”, after which he spends another night in the valley (Josh 8,12). When Joshua finally executes the planned war of ambush on the third day, 24. Interpreters often separate the story of Achan (Josh 7,1.6-26) from the battle against Ai (Josh 7,2-5; 8,1-29) as independent etiologies that were later combined into the present narrative sequence. The origin of this interpretation emerged from the traditionhistorical research of A. ALT, Josua, in P. VOLZ etal. (eds.), WerdenundWesendesAlten Testaments (BZAW, 66), Berlin, Töpelmann, 1936, 13-29; = ID., Kleine Schriften zur GeschichtedesVolkesIsrael, München, Beck, 176-192; and M. NOTH, DasBuchJosua (HAT, 7), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 21971, pp. 43-45; 47-49. Subsequent research has called into question the role of etiology in tradition-history. See for example B.O. LONG, The ProblemofEtiologicalNarrativeintheOldTestament (BZAW, 108), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1968. Although many of the original presuppositions concerning the origin of etiologies have been called into question, remnants of the methodology continue in recent literary studies, which continue to attribute separate origins to the story of Achan and the battle of Ai based in part on etiology; these separate narratives are judged to be combined to form Joshua 7–8 by a later editor. See for example T. RÖMER, TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory:ASociological,HistoricalandLiteraryIntroduction, London, T&T Clark, 2007, pp. 86-90; NELSON, Joshua (n. 4), pp. 9-12; 98-99; H.N. RÖSEL, Joshua (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, pp. 123-125; and EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole (n. 6), pp. 196-199. For literary arguments in favor of the composition of the stories of Achan and Ai by a post-exilic author who employs etiology simply as a literary motif within the larger narrative see T.B. DOZEMAN, Joshua1–12:A NewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary (AYB, 6B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2015, pp. 348-350; 374-376. For the listing of the literary motifs that unify both the stories of Achan and Ai see BERMAN, NarrativeAnalogyintheHebrew Bible (n. 6), pp. 43-51. 25. The linking of Bethel and Ai to identify their proximate geographical location to each other in Josh 7,2 and 8,9.12 also appears in the journey of Abram in Gen 12,8 and 13,3. The larger context of Abram’s travels provides an even broader parallel to the invasion of Joshua in Joshua 8, since both texts trace the travel of the hero to include Ai and Bethel (Josh 7,2; 8,9.12; Gen 12,8) and Shechem (Josh 8,30-35 – Ebal and Gerizim and Gen 12,6). These locations also appear together as cities to which the returnees settle (Ezra 2,28; Neh 7,32).

BETHEL IN THE WARS OF AMBUSH IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21

111

Bethel shifts in function from providing geographical location to becoming an active participate with Ai in the war against Joshua: “there was not a man left in Ai or Bethel who did not go out after Israel” (Josh 8,17). The summary underscores the literary problem presented by Bethel in Joshua 7–8. The disruption in the plot when Joshua sends out two separate ambush parties to the same location “between Ai and Bethel” (Josh 8,9.12) is intensified when the citizens of Bethel actually join Ai in warring against Joshua (8,17). Modern interpreters have offered a variety of tradition-historical and compositional solutions to account for the literary problems surrounding Bethel. Source critics identified the two distinct ambush parties (8,3-9; and 8,10-13) as a doublet from separate authors, thus eliminating one of the two references to Bethel26. Wellhausen represents one compositional solution, in which the second account of ambush with five thousand warriors (8,10-13) is judged to be the original version, with the larger ambush party of thirty thousand representing a latter addition (8,3-9)27. Noth represents the opposite conclusion, arguing that the second account of ambush is a variant of the first; in support he highlights the resumptive repetition that frames the second episode, in which Joshua twice spends the night in the camp or valley (vv. 9b and 13b)28. R.G. Boling and G.E. Wright translate the Hebrew, bêt-ēl, in Josh 8,17 as “the sanctuary” rather than the place-name (as in Judg 20,26), thus eliminating the participation of Bethel from the war29. T.C. Butler interprets the addition of Bethel in the MT as amplification to underscore the completeness of the conquest30. More frequently the addition of Bethel as the partner of Ai is judged to be a late gloss without clear literary function; Noth provides illustration when he describes the presence of Bethel in Josh 8,17 as a “thoughtless addition”31. 26. For literary arguments that view the present text as a unity in which flashback or recapitulation plays a primary role see D.M. HOWARD, Joshua (New American Commentary), Nashville, TN, Broadman Holman, 1998, p. 200; H. WINTHER-NIELSEN, AFunctional Discourse Grammar of Joshua (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament, 40), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995, p. 223; and BUTLER, Joshua1–12 (n. 6), p. 415. 27. WELLHAUSEN, Composition (n. 1), pp. 125-126; RÖSEL, Joshua (n. 24), pp. 124-125 provides the following reasons for concluding the Josh 8,10-13 is the more original: the unit is shorter, the smaller numbers are more realistic (even though neither episode is historical), and it presents fewer problems in plot as compared to Josh 8,3-9. 28. NOTH, Josua (n. 24), p. 51. 29. R.G. BOLING – G.E. WRIGHT, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (AYB, 6), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1982, p. 223. 30. BUTLER, Joshua1–12 (n. 6), p. 396. 31. NOTH, Josua (n. 24), p. 46; see also V. FRITZ, DasBuchJosua (HAT, I/7), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1994, p. 87. The grammar of Josh 8,17 does not support two cities in the

112

T.B. DOZEMAN

Textual criticism has added a further dimension to the compositional analysis of Joshua 7–8, raising questions about the relationship of redaction and textual criticisms. The MT and the LXX diverge significantly in the presentation of Bethel. Only the MT includes the two ambush parties at the same location “between Ai and Bethel”; only the MT includes the citizens of Bethel in the war against Joshua; and only the MT introduces the additional reference to Beth-aven at the outset of the story (Josh 7,2) perhaps to denigrate Bethel as in the prophetic tradition where Hosea plays on the names Bethel and Beth-aven to judge the cult site as the “house of nothing”32. The LXX contains one ambush party of thirty thousand positioned between Bethel and Ai (LXX Josh 8,3-11); the citizens of Bethel are absent altogether from the war against Joshua (LXX Josh 8,17); and the reference to Beth-aven is also absent from the narrative (in LXXB)33. Interpreters debate the text-critical development. G. Auld and K. De Troyer along with many others conclude that the more complex MT cannot be the basis for the LXX, thus the MT represents either an independent or a later version of the LXX and its Vorlage34. M. van der Meer represents battle, since the reference to “city” is in the singular, while the later success of Joshua also only lists Ai as the destroyed city (Josh 8,22). J.A. SOGGIN, Joshua: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1972, p. 95 follows Noth, but he also notes the thesis of W.F. ALBRIGHT (TheIsraeliteConquestofCanaanintheLightofArchaeology, in BASOR 74 [1939] 11-23), that Bethel may be the city that Joshua attacked. 32. Beth-aven may be a separate location; it also plays a role in the prophetic tradition to provide critical commentary on Bethel. In Hos 4,15; 5,8; and 10,5, for example, Bethel is judged not to be the “house of God’ but a “house of idols” or a “house of nothingness”. For a discussion of Beth-aven as a location see N. NA’AMAN, Beth-aven,Bethel andEarlyIsraeliteSanctuaries, in ZDPV 103 (1987) 13-21; and R. HESS, Joshua:An IntroductionandCommentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), Leicester, InterVarsity Press, 1996, pp. 144-145; 157-159; 166. For discussion of the metaphorical use of Beth-aven as judgment on Bethel see C. STEUERNAGEL, ÜbersetzungundErkärungder Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua (HAT, I/3), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923, p. 232; and NOTH, Josua (n. 24), p. 38. 33. For general commentary on the LXX of Joshua 7–8 see A.G. AULD, Joshua:Jesus SonofNauēinCodexVaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 139-151; J. MOATTI-FINE, Jésus (Josué): Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, Introductionetnotes (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 6), Paris, Cerf, 1996, pp. 128-139; M.N. VAN DER MEER, FormationandReformulations:TheRedactionoftheBookofJoshuainthe LightoftheOldestTextualWitness (VT.S, 102), Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 417-478; and DOZEMAN, Joshua1–12 (n. 24), pp. 342-348; 364-374. For specific analysis of Jos 3,13 see K. DE TROYER, TheBattleagainstAiandtheTextualHistoryoftheBookofJoshua, in JSCS 48 (2015) 39-53. 34. See A.G. AULD, Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives (Old Testament Studies), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998, pp. 9-11; DE TROYER, TheBattleagainstAi (n. 33), pp. 3953. These studies follow a tradition that reaches back to S. HOLMES (Joshua:TheHebrew andGreekTexts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1914, p. 42) and STEUERNAGEL (Josua [n. 32], p. 180), which is reaffirmed by L.J. GREENSPOON, TextualStudiesinthe BookofJoshua (HSM, 28), Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1983, p. 162; and E. TOV, The

BETHEL IN THE WARS OF AMBUSH IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21

113

a counter reading, noting that there is no motive for the MT to create a more complex version of the war of ambush, prompting him to judge the shorter LXX as the creative work of the translator who sought to simplify the account of ambush, which would also eliminate the excessive references to Bethel35. The comparison of the MT and the LXX indicates that literary and textual criticism are intermixed in Joshua 7–8, which raises the question of the motive for the inclusion of Bethel in the MT version. W.F. Albright recognized the problem of motive when he accounted for the unexpected appearance of Bethel in the war (8,17) by identifying it with Ai; this was part of his effort to recover the historical destruction of Bethel by Joshua36. Although the historical presuppositions of Albright’s reading are no longer possible to maintain, his conclusion that Bethel and Ai are identified with each other in the narrative does lay the groundwork for interpreting the literary motive for the MT version of Joshua 7–8. III. BETHEL IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21 The distinct accounts of the war against Ai in the MT and the LXX have drawn interpreters back to a more empirical comparison of Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21. Although both the LXX and the MT versions of Joshua 7–8 include strong literary connections to Judges 19–2137, the MT contains the stronger parallels38. The second ambush party of five thousand Text-criticalUseoftheSeptuagintinBiblicalResearch.CriticalEdition, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2015. Josh 8,3-18 in the Qumran text 4QJosha also appears to require a shorter text than the MT once again leading to the argument that the Vorlage of the LXX is the more original. See E. ULRICH, 4QJosha, in ID. et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy,Joshua,Judges,Kings(DJD, 14), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, 145-146; and L.J. GREENSPOON, TheQumranFragmentsofJoshua:WhichPuzzleAre TheyPartofandWhereDoTheyFit?, in G.J. BROOKE – B. LINDARS (eds.), Septuagint, ScrollsandCognateWriting (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 33), Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1992, 159-194. 35. VAN DER MEER, FormationandReformulations (n. 33), pp. 417-478 who argues against the interpretation of AULD, JoshuaRetold (n. 34), pp. 9-10 in which he argues that the expanded MT is motivated by tracking the presence of Joshua in relationship to the camp. 36. ALBRIGHT, TheIsraeliteConquest (n. 31),pp. 15-17. For an expanded argument of Albright see HESS, Joshua (n. 32), pp. 157-159. 37. See EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole (n. 6), p. 203 n. 117 for parallels between the LXX of Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21, which include Josh 8,5-6//Judg 20,31-32.39; Josh 8,14b-15a//Judg 20,34b-35a and 8,24; Josh 8,24//Judg 20,31.35.47. 38. The MT expands the war against Ai from a two-day event in the LXX to a three-day war in the MT, which parallels the account of war in Judges 20. For more specific literary connections see MAZOR, TextualandLiteraryStudy (n. 4), pp. 210-244.

114

T.B. DOZEMAN

(MT Josh 8,10-13) fashions the plot of the ambush of Ai into a threeday sequence of war matching the three days of war against Gibeah and Benjamin (Judg 20,18-48)39. Along with the distinct parallels in the plot structure, the past summary also indicates that the MT includes Bethel more prominently in the narrative to the point where the citizens of Bethel even join Ai in the war against Joshua. The result is the sharply contrasting functions of Bethel within the parallel narrative complexes. In Judges 19–21, Bethel functions as the central cultic site for intersession before (20,18), during (20,26) and after (21,2) the war against Gibeah and Benjamin. Bethel plays no significant role in the LXX version of Joshua 7–8 beyond clarifying the location of Ai (LXX Josh 7,2; 8,9). The MT version, however, changes the function of Bethel from simply providing the location for Ai to identifying the citizens of Bethel with those of Ai as opponents of Joshua, while also providing critical commentary on Bethel with the inclusion of Beth-aven at the outset of the story (MT Josh 7,2)40. The negative portrayal of Bethel indicates a polemical purpose for its expansion in the MT, while the increased literary ties to Judges 19–21 suggests that the aim is to counteract the positive role of Bethel as the central cultic site in the battle against Gibeah and the tribe of Benjamin. This suspicion is confirmed when, after destroying the citizens of Ai (and presumably Bethel in the MT), Joshua reappears next at the northern mountains of Ebal and Gerizim near Shechem – the Samaritan place of worship that also functions as the central cultic location in the book of Joshua (Josh 8,30-35)41. The motive for the increased role of Bethel in the MT version of Joshua 7–8 comes into clearer focus through a broad based comparison with Judges 19–21. Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21 share a three-part literary design. The following diagram provides an overview of the parallel literary structure. 39. See DOZEMAN, Joshua1–12 (n. 24), pp. 386-388. 40. See n. 31. 41. The literary and textual problems surrounding Josh 8,30-45 are extensive. The MT and the LXX present distinct literary contexts for the account of worship at the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim. The worship at Ebal and Gerizim is often judged to be a Judean critique of the Samaritans, but there is no indication that the cultic service in Josh 8,30-35 is viewed negatively by the author(s) within the book of Joshua. Indeed, Josh 8,30-35 represents the central place of worship in the book of Joshua, with Shechem reappearing again at the end of the book in Joshua 24. For discussion of Josh 8,30-35 as representing the central cultic location in Joshua see DOZEMAN, Joshua1–12 (n. 24), pp. 376-384; 391396. For discussion of the role of Samaritans in the concluding covenant ceremony at Shechem in Joshua 24 see K. SCHMID, JewsandSamaritansinJosh24, in HeBAI 6 (2017) 148-160.

BETHEL IN THE WARS OF AMBUSH IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21

Joshua 7–8 War against Ai

115

Judges 19–21 War against Benjamin

1. Offense: Achan’s Theft of Booty: 1. Offense: Rape at Gibeah (Judges 19) (7,1) A. Conflict: Defeat at Ai (7,2-5a) ---------------B. Consultation and Discovery A. Consultation and Discovery (7,5b-26) (20,1-17) (1) Leader: Joshua (1) Leader: All Tribes at Mizpah (2) Discovery: YHWH reveals (2) Discovery: Levite recounts (3) Solution: Purge Achan/Judah (3) Solution: Purge Gibeah ------------------------B. Conflict: Benjamin resists (20,1417) 2. War and Ambush: One Battle Three Days (8,1-29) A. Introduction (8,1-8) B. Day One (8,9) C. Day Two (8,10-13) D. Day Three (8,14-27)

2. War and Ambush: Three Battles Three Days (20,18-48) -----------------A. Day One (20,18-21) B. Day Two (20,22-25) C. Day Three (20,26-48)

3. Booty: Cattle and Spoil (8,26-29)

3. Booty: Virgins for Benjamin (Judges 21)

Both story-complexes begin by exploring an internal communal threat to tribal pan-Israelite identity. In Joshua 7 the tribe of Judah represents the threat during the conquest when Achan steals forbidden booty from Jericho that endangers the whole camp42; while in Judges 19 it is the rape of the concubine by the Benjaminite men of Gibeah that threatens tribal unity at the close of the period of the judges. Both stories link the internal threat, whether from Achan the Judahite or from the Benjaminite men of Gibeah, with a war in the territory of Benjamin, in which ambush plays a central role43. The sacrilege of Achan is embedded in the account of Israel’s initial defeat at Ai and Joshua’s eventual victory over the city by means of ambush (Josh 7,2-5; 8); while the rape of the concubine results in the leadership of Judah in a war against Gibeah and the entire tribe of Benjamin with the same pattern of initial defeat and eventual victory through ambush (Judges 20). Finally, both stories conclude by addressing the theme of booty to resolve the initial conflict. The war against Ai identifies acceptable booty in the wake of Achan’s theft of precious metals 42. For discussion of the role of Achan as a representative of Judah see DOZEMAN, Joshua1–12 (n. 24), pp. 351-356. 43. The stories also parallel each other is pairing an internal threat, whether the theft of Achan or the rape of the concubine, with an external war. For discussion see BERMAN, NarrativeAnalogyintheHebrewBible(n. 6), pp. 31-84.

116

T.B. DOZEMAN

(Josh 8,27)44; while the taking of virgins as booty for the surviving Benjaminite warriors contrasts to the rape of the Levite’s concubine by the men of Gibeah (Judges 21)45. The common pattern of internal crisis leading to war, along with the changing and contrasting roles of Judah and Benjamin as villain or hero, indicates that the texts are functioning in a polemical, inner-biblical relationship. J. Blenkinsopp detects Judean and Benjaminite hostility in the neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods46. Other researchers echo this conclusion. Y. Amit interprets Judges 20 as part of a larger anti-Saul and anti-Benjaminite polemic47, while W. Roth interprets Joshua 8 as a proBenjaminite response to the negative portrayal of the tribe in Judges 2048.

IV. CONCLUSION The conflicting roles of Bethel in the parallel narratives of MT Joshua 7– 8 and Judges 19–21 indicate a complex form of composition in which redaction and textual criticisms function inner-biblically, rather than in isolation within a single narrative. The overview of literary structure and composition suggests that Bethel is most likely included in both narratives through later revision. Although Mizpah and Bethel are integrated well in Judges 19–21, Bethel appears to be the more likely addition. The expanded role of Bethel in MT Joshua 7–8 is also a late addition; it appears to be an extension beyond its limited geographical function in the LXX that is intended to interact with Bethel in Judges 19–21. The result is contrasting portrayals of Bethel in MT Joshua 7–8 and Judges 19–21. Judges 19– 21 advocates the central role of Bethel as the cultic center while also accentuating the leadership of Judah to counteract the defilement of the 44. For discussion of the relationship between herem and booty in Joshua 7–8 see DOZEMAN, Joshua1–12 (n. 24), pp. 351-356. 45. See EDENBURG, DismemberingtheWhole (n. 6), pp. 255-263 for comparison of Judges 19–21 to the war against Midean in Numbers 31. 46. J. BLENKINSOPP, Benjamin Traditions Read in the Early Persian Period, in O. LIPSCHITS – M. OEMING (eds.), JudahandtheJudeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2006, 629-645. See further KÖHLMOOS, Bet-El (n. 13), pp. 315-316. Compare BERMAN, Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible (n. 6), pp. 79-80; 82 n. 39, who concludes that polemic is absent from the text. 47. AMIT, Literature in the Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 19–21, in H.G. REVENTLOW – Y. HOFFMAN – B. UFFENHEIMER (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics intheBibleandPostbiblicalLiterature (JSOT.S, 171), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994, 28-40. 48. ROTH, HinterhaltundScheinflucht (n. 3).

BETHEL IN THE WARS OF AMBUSH IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21

117

Benjaminite men of Gibeah. The MT Joshua 7–8 anchors the defilement of Israel in Achan from the tribe of Judah; it equates Bethel with Ai as an opponent of Israel, while advocating the Samaritan center of worship at Ebal and Gerizim near Shechem as the central cultic location. The date for the addition of Bethel in each narrative is difficult to determine in part because of inadequate archaeological information on Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. The original study by W.F. Albright and J.L. Kelso remains incomplete49, according to W. Dever50. Kelso concluded that Bethel was destroyed in the second half of the 6th century BCE and reoccupied in the Hellenistic period51. Subsequent researchers have lowered the date of the decline of Bethel to the early 5th century BCE52, while I. Finkelstein and L. Singer-Avitz note the absence of occupation throughout the Babylonian and Persian periods (6th to 4th centuries BCE)53. The archaeological evidence for Bethel is further complicated by broader studies of the region of Benjamin, which indicate that this area was not destroyed by the Neo-Babylonians and that life continued without interruption with Mizpah becoming the central seat of government54. The Hebrew Bible further influences the evaluation of Bethel. Zech 7,2 describes the request of a delegation from Bethel for a ruling from the priests at Jerusalem in the year 518 BCE just prior to the inauguration of the Jerusalem temple in 515 BCE: “The people of Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem-melech and their men to entreat the favor of 49. See J.L. KELSO, TheExcavationofBethel(1934-1960) (AASOR, 39), Cambridge, MA, American Schools of Oriental Research, 1968; and Bethel, in E. STERN (ed.), New EncyclopediaofArchaeologicalExcavationsintheHolyLand.Vol.1, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society – Carta, 1993, 192-194. 50. For evaluation see W. DEVER, Beiten,Tell, in D.N. FREEDMAN, AnchorYaleBible Dictionary.Vol.1, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1982, 651-652. 51. KELSO, Bethel (n. 49), p. 37. 52. See E.A. KNAUF, Bethel:TheIsraeliteImpactonJudeanLanguageandLiterature, in LIPSCHITS – OEMING (eds.), JudahandtheJudeansinthePersianPeriod (n. 46), 291349, esp. pp. 307-308; O. LIPSCHITS, TheHistoryoftheBenjaminRegionunderBabylonian Rule, in TelAviv 26 (1999) 155-190, pp. 171-172; and I. MILEVSKI, SettlementPatternsin NorthernJudahduringtheAchaemenidPeriod,accordingtotheHillCountryofBenjamin andJerusalemSurveys, in BulletinoftheAnglo-IsraelArchaeologicalSociety15 (19961997) 7-29. 53. I. FINKELSTEIN – L. SINGER-AVITZ, Reevaluating Bethel, in ZDPV 125 (2009) 33-48, esp. p. 42 state: “no unambiguous evidence for a full-fledged Persian-period occupation was found at Bethel”. 54. LIPSCHITS, TheHistoryoftheBenjaminRegionunderBabylonianRule (n. 52). The continuity of settlement in the region of Benjamin is evident according to Lipschits from studies of Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh), Gibeon (el-Jib) and Gibeah (Tell el-Ful). All of these sites indicate expanded populations during the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, which raises the question of whether Bethel also functioned as a cultic center during the same period of time – in spite of the present state of the archaeological evidence.

118

T.B. DOZEMAN

Yahweh”55. Ezra 2,28 and Neh 7,32 also list Bethel and Ai as locations to which exiles returned, while Neh 11,31 also includes Bethel as a place of residence for Benjaminites56. All of these texts, however, are contested in one way or another. The inadequate archaeological information on Bethel and the conflicting information on Bethel in the Hebrew Bible qualify any firm conclusion for anchoring the insertions of Bethel in Judges 19–21 and in MT Joshua 7–8. Many avoid the problems surrounding Bethel by judging its inclusion in Judges 19–21 as a post-exilic revision without clear ties to any concrete cultic practice57. Bethel in this case represents a literary trope that highlights the leadership of Judah and provides a critical evaluation of Benjamin. But the question lingers whether Bethel is functioning in any concrete way in the social setting of the authors. This is the position of Knauf, who argues for an active role of Bethel during the Neo-Babylonian and Persians periods both in worship and as a scribal center58. The literarycritical and text-critical study of Joshua 7–8 suggest that the inclusion of Bethel in the MT Joshua 7–8 is later than Judges 19–21. The MT Joshua 7– 8 represents a blending of literary and textual criticisms aimed at an innerbiblical response to Judges 19–21; it may represent a Samaritan critique of Bethel’s central role of worship in the war against Benjamin, whether 55. But the value of the evidence from the Hebrew Bible is debated, especially whether “Bethel” in Zech 7,2 may be part of the personal name “Bethel-shar-ezer”. KNAUF, Bethel (n. 52), p. 306 n. 77 writes it “is syntactically and semantically impossible to see in ‘Bethel’ anything but the subject of the sentence or to construe ‘Bether-shar-ezer’ as a person name”. He concludes further that Zech 7,2 “shows Bethel trying to come to terms with Jerusalem and being rebuked”, thus indicating its active role as a cultic site throughout the Neo-Babylonian period. 56. The composition of these lists may be as late as the Hellenistic period, according to FINKELSTEIN – SINGER-AVITZ, ReevaluatingBethel (n. 53), pp. 43-48. 57. Edenburg most recently judged the inclusion of Bethel into Judges 19–21 to be part of a post-exilic revision of the narrative that lacked clear ties to any cultic practice. 58. KNAUF, Bethel (n. 52), pp. 291-349 underscores the ambiguity of the archaeological evidence for determining the decline of the temple at Bethel in conjunction with the reemergence of the Jerusalem temple in Adar 515 – he notes especially the problem of determining whether the decline of Bethel occurred before or after the inauguration of the Jerusalem temple and whether or not it was violent or voluntary. Knauf concludes further that Bethel functioned as the cultic center of Yehud up to the inauguration of the Second Jerusalem temple (586-515 BCE) at which time it ceased to exist either through destruction or abandonment. He suggests further that Bethel functioned as a repository of northern tradition throughout this period. Knauf cites theonyms (e.g., Ishim-Bethel; ‘Anat-Bethel) and anthroponyms (e.g., Bethel-natan; Bethel-nuri) from Elephantine, which may also suggest that “Bethel” was an active cultic center and thus provided a “designation for Yhwh for sixth-fifth century Judeans”. FINKELSTEIN – SINGER-AVITZ, ReevaluatingBethel (n. 53), pp. 33-48 judge the evidence of occupation in the late 7th and early 6th century BCE too weak to support the hypothesis of Knauf and they locate the scribal activity at Bethel earlier in late 8th and early 7th century BCE.

BETHEL IN THE WARS OF AMBUSH IN JOSHUA 7–8 AND JUDGES 19–21

119

imagined or real. The indication that MT Joshua 7–8 is an expansion of the LXX version suggests that the negative view of Bethel may reflect the Hellenistic period, when conflict between Samaritans and Jews led to the destruction of the temple on Mount Gerizim by John Hyrcanus59. In MT Joshua 7–8 Bethel is no different than Ai and both must be destroyed as the ark processes to the central Samaritan cultic site at Ebal and Gerizim near Shechem. 1120 North Lake Shore Drive 9c Chicago IL 60611 USA [email protected]

Thomas B. DOZEMAN United Theological Seminary Dayton, OH

59. For historical background see among others M. KARTVEIT, The Origin of the Samaritans (VT.S, 128), Leiden, Brill, 2009, pp. 351-370; R. PUMMER, TheSamaritans: AProfile, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2016; J. BOURGEL, TheDestructionoftheSamaritanTemple, in JBL 135 (2016) 499-517; and I. HJELM, WhatDoSamaritansandJews HaveinCommon?RecentTrendsinSamaritanStudies, in CurBR 3 (2004) 9-59.

THE REDACTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF JUDGES

I. INTRODUCTION It is easy to discern that the basic structure of the book of Judges was created by a comprehensive redaction1. The main part of the book consists of a series of hero stories which are embedded in a framework of stereotypical formulae (Judg 3,12–16,31). This framework differs from the stories in style and content. The hero stories are independent from each other in their respective narrative cores; it is possible to read and understand each plot without knowing other parts of the book. Only the framing connects the stories and gives the impression that the events occurred throughout a continuous historical period. The frame speaks about “the Israelites”2, while the hero stories have a local perspective. It displays a coherent chronology3, and it explains all events with a distinct theological causality; the Israelites do evil in the eyes of Yahweh4, and he punishes them by giving them in the hand of foreign rulers who oppress them5. In their distress the Israelites cry out to Yahweh6, and he raises up a deliverer who expels the oppressors7 so that the land has rest for many years8; but when the deliverer dies, the Israelites continue sinning, and the cycle starts again9. Scholars have observed the secondary nature of this composition since the early 19th century10. Julius Wellhausen in his ProlegomenatotheHistoryofAncientIsraellucidly described the differences between the frame and the older hero stories. He summarized: 1. For differentiating between “redactional” elements and earlier sources see already G.L. STUDER, DasBuchderRichtergrammatischundhistorischerklärt, Bern – Chur – Leipzig, Dalp, 1835, pp. 437-438. 2. Within Judg 3,12–16,31 the term ‫“ בני ישראל‬the Israelites” is attested in 3,12.1415.27; 4,1.3.5.23-24; 6,1-2.6-8; 8,28.33-34; 10,6.8.10-11.15.17; 11,27.33; 13,1. 3. Judg 3,8.11.14.30; 4,3; 5,31; 6,1; 8,28; 9,22; 10,2.3.4.8; 12,7.9.11.14; 13,1; 15,20; 16,31. 4. Judg (2,11-13); 3,7.12; 4,1; 6,1; 10,6; 13,1. 5. Judg (2,14-15); 3,8.12-14; 4,2-3; 6,1-6; 10,7-9; 13,1. 6. Judg 3,9.15; 4,3; 6,6; 10,10. 7. Judg (2,16); 3,9.15; 4,4 (?). In Judges 6–13 such notes are lacking; in their place stand the episodes of Judg 6,11-24 (the call of Gideon), 11,1-11 (Jephthah’s way of becoming chief of Gilead), and 13,2-25, which narrate what is briefly stated in these notes. 8. Judg 3,11.30; 5,31; 8,28; see Josh 11,23; 14,15. 9. Judg (2,19); 3,11-12; 4,1; 8,32-35; 10,5-6; 12,15–13,1. 10. STUDER, Richter(n. 1), pp. 437-438.

122

R. MÜLLER

[...] what is usually given out as the peculiar theocratic element in the history of Israel is the element which has been introduced by the redaction11.

Wellhausen, like others, called this redaction “Deuteronomistic”12, since its style and theological ideas seem to be closely related to the book of Deuteronomy, and especially to the first commandment. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, theories of such redactions were usually limited to the respective books. Scholars assumed that different Deuteronomistic revisions were made, in particular in Judges and in Kings13. Alternatively it was suggested that the basic redactional thread in Joshua 24–1 Samuel 12 was of pre-Deuteronomistic origin14. When Martin Noth rejected such models and postulated a coherent Deuteronomistic History (DH) written by a single author after the downfall of the Judean monarchy15, the redactional frame of the book of Judges became a cornerstone of his theory. According to Noth, one can observe in the book of Judges how the Deuteronomistic historian collected older source texts and embedded them into his larger composition16. The similarity of the Deuteronomistic elements in Judges to those in Kings can therefore be easily explained; for, according to Noth’s model, both were simply written by the same author17. This assumption is shared even today by all scholars who defend the existence of a first edition of the DH from Deuteronomy to Kings, regardless of how many additions or added comprehensive layers within this composition are postulated18. 11. J. WELLHAUSEN, ProlegomenatotheHistoryofAncientIsrael (German original 1883), trans. J.S. Black – A. Menzies, Edinburgh, A. & C. Black, 1885, p. 235. 12. Ibid., pp. 231-232. 13. Thus particularly A. KUENEN, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des AltenTestamentshinsichtlichihrerEntstehungundSammlung, I/2, Leipzig, Schulze, 1890, p. 100. 14. C.F. BURNEY, TheBookofJudgeswithIntroductionandNotes,London, Rivingtons, 1918, pp. xli-l; Burney’s model of a pre-Deuteronomistic “Ephraimite” history was taken up by A. ROFÉ, EphraimiteversusDeuteronomisticHistory, in D. GARRONE – F. ISRAEL (eds.), StoriaetradizionidiIsraele,Brescia, Paideia, 1991, 221-235. 15. M. NOTH, ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien:Diesammelndenundbearbeitenden GeschichtswerkeimAltenTestament(1943),Tübingen, Niemeyer, 31967, pp. 3-12; ET: The Deuteronomistic History (JSOT.S, 15), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991, pp. 4-11. 16. Ibid., pp. 47-54 (ET: pp.42-47). 17. See ibid., pp. 100-110 (ET: pp. 89-99). 18. See particularly R. SMEND, DasGesetzunddieVölker:EinBeitragzurdeuteronomistischenRedaktionsgeschichte (1971), in ID., DieMittedesAltenTestaments:ExegetischeAufsätze, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 148-161; T. VEIJOLA, DasKönigtumin der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchung(AASF.B, 198), Helsinki, Suomalainen Akatemia, 1977, pp. 115-119; W. DIETRICH, Geschichte und Gesetz: Deuteronomistische Geschichtsschreibung und deuteronomischesGesetzamBeispieldesÜbergangsvonderRichter-zurKönigszeit, in

THE REDACTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF JUDGES

123

Other scholars have questioned the presence of a coherent first edition of the DH. A primary argument is the noting of differences between the Deuteronomistic elements in Judges and Kings. The cyclical concept of history displayed in Judges is absent in Kings19, and also most of the stereotypical formulae of Judges cannot be found in Kings20. Both books share the formula that speaks about the Israelites’ “doing evil in the eyes of Yahweh” (‫ ויעשו בני ישראל את הרע בעיני יהוה‬in Judg 2,11; 3,7; 6,1, or ‫ ויספו בני ישראל לעשות הרע בעיני יהוה‬in Judg 3,12; 4,1; 10,6; 13,1)21, but the underlying concept seems to differ since “doing evil” in Judges means abandoning Yahweh and worshipping other gods (Judg 2,11-13; 3,7; 10,6), and in Kings the formula is primarily related to the program of a centralized cult. A considerable number of scholars therefore assume that the literary bridge between the books of Joshua and Samuel was created only secondarily22. ID., Von David zu den Deuteronomisten: Studien zu den Geschichtsüberlieferungen des AltenTestaments (BWANT, 156), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2002, 217-235, on the one hand, and F.M. CROSS, TheThemesoftheBookofKingsandtheStructureoftheDeuteronomisticHistory, in ID., CanaaniteMythandHebrewEpic:EssaysintheHistoryofReligion ofIsrael, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1973, 274-289; A.D.H. MAYES, The StoryofIsraelbetweenSettlementandExile:ARedactionalStudyoftheDeuteronomistic History, London, SCM, 1983;R.D. NELSON, TheDoubleRedactionoftheDeuteronomisticHistory:TheCaseIsStillCompelling, in JSOT29 (2005) 319-337, on the other. Cf. also the more recent models that defend, with differences endétail, a relative unity of the primary exilic edition of the DH: T. RÖMER, TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory: ASociological,HistoricalandLiteraryIntroduction, London, T&T Clark, 2007, pp. 107164; E. BLUM, Das exilische deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, in H.-J. STIPP (ed.), DasdeuteronomistischeGeschichtswerk(ÖBS, 39), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2011, 269-295; R. ALBERTZ, DeuteronomisticHistoryandtheHeritageoftheProphets, in M. NISSINEN (ed.), CongressVolumeHelsinki2010 (VT.S, 148), Leiden, Brill, 2012, 343-367; C. LEVIN, On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch, in ID., Re-Reading the Scriptures: Essays on the Literary History of the Old Testament (FAT, 87), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 115-141, pp. 120-124. 19. G. VON RAD, OldTestamentTheology.Vol. 1:TheTheologyofIsrael’sHistorical Traditions(German original 1960), trans. D.M.G. Stalker, New York, Harper, 1962, p. 347. 20. See, e.g., ‫“ … וימכרם ביד‬And he sold them into the hand of …” (Judg 2,14; 3,8; 4,2; 10,7), ‫“ ויזעקו בני ישראל אל יהוה‬And the Israelites cried out to Yahweh” (Judg 3,9.15; 4,3; 6,6; 10,10), both of which are not found in Kings. 21. Cf. 1 Kgs 11,6; 14,22; 15,26 etc. 22. I.W. PROVAN, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW, 172), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1988, p. 164; R.G. KRATZ, TheCompositionoftheNarrativeBooks of theOld Testament (German original 2000), trans. J. Bowden, London, T&T Clark, 2005,p. 209; E. AURELIUS, ZukunftjenseitsdesGerichts:Eineredaktionsgeschichtliche StudiezumEnneateuch (BZAW, 319), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2003, pp. 93-94; P. GUILLAUME, WaitingforJosiah:TheJudges(JSOT.S, 385), London, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 260; K. SCHMID, TheOldTestament:ALiteraryHistory(German original 2008), trans. L.M. Maloney, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2012, p. 72; W. GROSS, Richter übersetztund ausgelegt (HTK.AT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2009, p. 86. For a critique of the view that

124

R. MÜLLER

II. THE ORIGINAL FRAMEWORK In order to evaluate the redactional framework of Judges, it is necessary to distinguish between later additions and the original structure. Large expansions can be detected in particular in chs. 2 and 10. The prologue in Judges 2 differs conceptually from the following composition23. Instead of the crying out of the Israelites to Yahweh, which is repeatedly mentioned in the frame (3,9.15; 4,3; 6,6; 10,10), Judg 2,18 speaks about Israel’s “groaning” (‫ )נאקה‬and Yahweh’s pity (‫ נחם‬nip῾al) that move Yahweh to save the Israelites from their oppressors. These motifs are related to certain passages of the Pentateuch (cf. ‫ נאקה‬in Exod 2,24; 6,5; ‫נחם‬ nip῾al in Exod 32,12.14), but they are not resumed in the redactional passages of Judges. Another argument pertains to the titular use of ‫שפטים‬ “judges” and ‫“ השפט‬the judge” in Judg 2,16-18*24 which differs from the non-titular use of ‫“ שפט‬to judge” in other parts of the frame (3,10; 4,4; 10,2.3; 12,7-14; 16,31). Furthermore, the opening of the Othniel pericope (Judg 3,7-8aα) can be read as a Wiederaufnahmeof Judg 2,11-14aα25, which indicates that the entire prologue to the period of the Judges26 was secondarily placed in front of the following redactional comment27. 1 Samuel 1 formed the opening chapter of a first Dtr edition see R. MÜLLER, 1Samuel1 astheOpeningChapteroftheDeuteronomisticHistory?, in C. EDENBURG – J. PAKKALA (eds.), IsSamuelamongtheDeuteronomists?CurrentViewsonthePlaceofSamuelina DeuteronomisticHistory (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 16), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2013, 207-223. 23. W. RICHTER, DieBearbeitungendes“Retterbuches”inderdeuteronomischenEpoche (BBB, 21), Bonn, Hanstein, 1964, pp. 52-62; KRATZ, Composition(n. 22), p. 194. Richter’s observations regarding the secondary character of the core of Judg 2,11-19 are still valid, although he wrongly attributed the “Beispielstück” of Judg 3,7-11 together with the redactional framework beginning in Judg 3,12 to a pre-Dtr redaction while postulating that the “introductions” in Judg 2,11-19 and 10,6-16 were added by the Dtr historian. Pace U. BECKER, RichterzeitundKönigtum:RedaktionsgeschichtlicheStudienzumRichterbuch (BZAW, 192), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1990, pp. 73-98; GROSS, Richter (n. 22), p. 195;F.-E. FOCKEN, ZwischenLandnahmeundKönigtum:LiterarkritischeundredaktionskritischeUntersuchungenzumAnfangundEndederdeuteronomistischenRichtererzählungen (FRLANT, 258), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014, pp. 48-72, who attribute a basic layer of Judges 2 to the original redactional frame. 24. On the secondary character of Judg 2,17 see SMEND, Gesetz (n. 18), p. 157. 25. Additional arguments indicating the secondary and late character of 3,7 are the motif of the Israelites “forgetting Yahweh their God” (‫)וישכחו את יהוה אלהיהם‬, which is not a standard motif in Judges (cf. Deut 8,11.14.19; 1 Sam 12,9), and the mention of ‫האשרות‬ “the Asherahs” as goddesses, which is likely only biblically attested in late passages (1 Kgs 15,13; 18,19; 2 Kgs 21,7; 23,4.7; 2 Chr 15,16; 19,3; 24,18; 33,3.19) and needs to be distinguished from the meaning of ‫ אשרה‬as “sacred pole” (e.g., Deut 12,3; 16,21; Judg 6,25). 26. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena(n. 11), p. 228. 27. R. MÜLLER, KönigtumundGottesherrschaft:UntersuchungenzuralttestamentlichenMonarchiekritik(FAT, II/3), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, pp. 84-85.

THE REDACTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF JUDGES

125

Another larger addition is likely found in Judg 10,10*-16, as Timo Veijola pointed out28. Here, the Israelites cry out to Yahweh to confess their sin (10,10), and after a longer speech by Yahweh, who states that he will no longer save the Israelites because of their continued veneration of other gods (10,11-14), the Israelites remove the foreign gods from their midst, and Yahweh changes his mind (Judg 10,15-16). Crying out to Yahweh in order to confess sin is clearly a secondary use of the formula ‫“ ויזעקו בני ישראל אל יהוה‬the Israelites cried out to Yahweh”; in the other parts of the book, this formula never introduces a confession of sin (Judg 3,9.15; 4,3; 6,6)29. “Crying out” (‫ צעק‬/ ‫ )זעק‬means an inarticulate screaming for help (cf., e.g., Deut 22,27), and the frame refers to this meaning. In addition, the concept of removing foreign gods from Israel’s midst in Judg 10,16 (‫ סור‬hip‛il + ‫ )אלהי הנכר‬has literary horizons (see Gen 35,2; Josh 24,23-24; 1 Sam 7,3-4) that differ from the other elements of the redactional frame in Judges. Further additions can be assumed in the passages referring to Israel’s apostasy, as indicated by the redundancy of these passages. Judg 2,11-13 displays a circular structure, the core of which may be found in 2,11a.1330, or in 2,1131, originally followed by 2,14aα (‫“ ויחר אף יהוה בישראל‬And the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel”) and 3,8aβγb (‫וימכרם ביד‬ … ‫“ כושן רשעתים‬and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-Rishatayim ...”), as the Wiederaufnahmeof 2,11-14aα in 3,7-8aα suggests. And in 10,6 the gods of the neighboring nations were likely secondarily added to the Baals and Astartes32.

28. VEIJOLA, Königtum(n. 18), pp. 45-48; H. SPIECKERMANN,JudaunterAssurinder Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT, 129), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982, pp. 210211 n. 117; U. BECKER, Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zumRichterbuch(BZAW, 192), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1990, pp. 210-212. 29. PaceFOCKEN, Landnahme(n. 23), pp. 136-145, esp. 142, who tries to minimize this tension by arguing that formal and content-related modifications among repeated redactional elements can be expected. 30. SPIECKERMANN, Juda (n. 28), pp. 209-210 n. 116; MÜLLER, Königtum (n. 27), p. 84. RICHTER, Bearbeitungen(n. 23), p. 28; GROSS, Richter(n. 22), p. 185; and FOCKEN, Landnahme (n. 23), take only 2,13 as an addition, while BECKER, Richterzeit und Königtum(n. 28), pp. 74-75, understands 2,12aβb as also being secondary. 31. Thus R. MÜLLER, ImagesofExileintheBookofJudges, in E. BEN ZVI – C. LEVIN (eds.), TheConceptofExileinAncientIsraelandItsHistoricalContexts(BZAW, 404), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2010, 229-240, p. 232. 32. SPIECKERMANN, Juda(n.28), pp. 210-211 n. 117; BECKER, RichterzeitundKönigtum(n. 28), p. 211; KRATZ, Composition(n. 22), pp. 195-196; MÜLLER, Königtum(n. 27), p. 83; similarly GROSS, Richter(n. 22), p. 553, who takes also the Astartes as secondary. Pace, FOCKEN, Landnahme(n. 23), p. 138, who denies the need for differentiating within 10,6.

126

R. MÜLLER

Regarding the anti-monarchic elements in Judges 8–9, Timo Veijola made another important observation33. Gideon’s rejection of the Israelites’ request to establish a ruling dynasty (Judg 8,22-23) and Jotam’s antimonarchic speech including his famous fable (Judg 9,7-21), which both were clearly not an original part of the respective source narratives, cannot be understood as integral parts of the redactional frame. In all likelihood, these passages have been added later. Their fundamental opposition to kingship does not fit the image of the judges as national rulers who are not entirely different from kings34. Finally, some formulae and other material of the redactional comments might be secondary as well. In particular, this can be assumed for the passages that mention the spirit of Yahweh coming upon the judges and strengthening them for battle (Judg 3,10; 6,34; 11,29; 13,25; 14,6; 15,14; cf. 1 Sam 11,6). This motif has distinct parallels in Chronicles (1 Chr 12,19; 2 Chr 15,1; 20,14; 24,20) and is no necessary part of the original frame35. To be sure, it is possible to contest each of these decisions in detail. The basic structure of the redactional composition, however, cannot be debated. The core of the scheme is a coherent composition, and there are no reasons for tearing it apart36. The main elements are links of a chain, and each of them is inseparably connected to the following one. The 33. VEIJOLA, Königtum (n. 18), pp. 100-114; see also KRATZ, Composition(n. 22), pp. 207-208. 34. MÜLLER, Königtum (n. 27), pp. 93-118. Pace, on the one hand, U. BECKER, The PlaceoftheBookofJudgesintheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory:SomeRemarkson RecentResearch, in C. BERNER – H. SAMUEL (eds.), Book-SeamsintheHexateuch.I:The LiteraryTransitionsbetweentheBooksofGenesis/ExodusandJoshua/Judges (FAT, 120), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, 339-351, pp. 350-351, who, in the course of his monographic investigation (BECKER, RichterzeitundKönigtum[n. 28], attributes the criticism of kingship in Judg 8,22-23 and 9,7-22 to the first Deuteronomistic redaction in Judges (see also the discussion by P. PORZIG, TheBookofJudgeswithintheDeuteronomisticHistory, in BERNER – SAMUEL [eds.], Book-Seams, 371-380), and, on the other, GROSS, Richter (n. 22), p. 386, who, following W. RICHTER, TraditionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungenzum Richterbuch(BBB, 18), Bonn, Hanstein, 1963, pp. 235-236, attributes Judg 8,22-23 to the pre-Dtr Gideon narrative, which is impossible since the motif of Gideon “saving” Israel cannot be separated from the redactional comments (Judg 3,9.15; 10,1); this also holds true for the use of the verb ‫ ישע‬in the hip‛il in the context of Gideon’s call (Judg 6,13-16), which cannot be earlier than the frame but already presupposes it. 35. MÜLLER, Königtum(n. 27), p. 48. 36. Pace E.A. KNAUF, Richter (ZBK.AT, 7), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2016, pp. 20-24, who postulates, without giving clear redaction critical arguments, a first Dtr redaction ending with Judg 8,32, which was supplemented by an expanded “JoshuaJudges-Samuel-Kings redaction” comprising the lists of the minor judges and the Dtr elements in 1 Samuel 1–12 and creating a chronological bridge between the Hexateuch and Samuel–Kings.

THE REDACTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF JUDGES

127

events occur more or less in the same sequence, although the scheme varies slightly towards the latter parts of the book. The outline is given in the first episode about Othniel in Judges 3. Since this pericope contains no older source narrative, it was probably created by the author of the framework himself. The hero stories that follow are framed according to this programmatic outline. The frame comprises of at least Judges 3–12*, but there are no cogent arguments that demonstrate that the Samson cycle did not also belong to it from the beginning37. The Samson stories are introduced with the usual formulae in Judg 13,1, and they are concluded with a remark about Samson’s “judging”, which fits to the concept of judging as it is introduced in Judg 3,1038. Taken as a whole, the framing of the book of Judges can be described as a constructed chronicle39. The chronological elements are integral parts of the system, and they have considerable weight within the scheme. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the entire epoch is artificially constructed40. The chronicle serves an etiological purpose. The imagery of the foreign nations that oppress Israel reflects the historical catastrophes of Israel and Judah from the eighth to the sixth centuries41. It cannot be a coincidence that, in Judg 3,8*, the first foreign ruler is a king of northern Mesopotamia (“Aram-of-the-Two-Rivers”) whose name, Cushan-Rishataim (“theCushite-of-the-Doubled-Wickedness”), recalls Judah’s disappointing and devastating experiences with the Cushite rulers of the eighth century (cf. Isa 18; 20; 36,6). Time and again, Yahweh “gives” or “sells” the Israelites into the hand of foreign rulers (3,8*; 4,2; 6,1; 10,7; 13,1), and, because they “served the Baals and the Astartes” (2,11; 10,6*), they have to “serve” these rulers for long periods (3,8.14). The foreigners defeat Israel (3,13*), oppress the people (4,3; 6,2*; 10,8*), and devastate the land (6,3-5*). The Israelites have to pay tribute to the Moabite king (3,15*), and the Canaanite general Sisera, who commands “nine 37. KRATZ, Composition (n. 22), pp. 205; 208; MÜLLER, Königtum (n. 27), pp. 5657. Pace NOTH, Studien (n. 15), p. 61 (ET: History, pp. 52-53); H.-J. STIPP, Simson,der Nasiräer, in ID., AlttestamentlicheStudien:ArbeitenzuPriesterschrift,Deuteronomistischem GeschichtswerkundProphetie (BZAW, 442), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2013, 139-169, pp. 149150; M. WITTE, WieSimsonindenKanonkam:RedaktionsgeschichtlicheBeobachtungen zuJdc13–16, in ZAW112 (2000) 526-549, pp. 542-543; RÖMER, History(n. 18), p. 138; GROSS, Richter(n. 22), pp. 648-649. 38. A further decisive argument for the original incorporation of the Samson cycle in the frame, which is related to the corresponding passages of Judg 10,18 and 13,5, is mentioned below under no. III. 39. See the reconstruction in MÜLLER, Images (n. 31), pp. 233-235. 40. Thus RÖMER, History(n. 18), pp. 136-137, who correctly speaks about “The Invention of a Period of Judges”. 41. See the more detailed arguments in MÜLLER, Images (n. 31), pp. 236-238.

128

R. MÜLLER

hundred chariots of iron”, resides in “Woodland-of-the-Peoples”, which reflects Israel’s “exilic” experience of being ruled by foreign nations. But this is only one side of the coin. The programmatic first episode makes clear how the end of the foreign rule can be reached (Judg 3,9): And the Israelites cried out to Yahweh, and Yahweh raised up a deliverer for the Israelites, who delivered them [...].

Introduced in this way, Othniel, Ehud, Debora and Barak, Gideon, and Jephthah become chosen deliverers who “judge Israel” by defeating the foreigners and expelling them from the land. Even Samson “begins to deliver Israel from the Philistines” (Judg 13,5), although his judging is limited by his untimely death (Judg 16,31). Also the so-called minor judges “deliver Israel” according to Judg 10,1, although they do not go to war, but “judge Israel” in longer and uninterrupted periods of peace (10,1-5*; 12,7-15*). The first four pericopes end with the motif that “the land had rest” for many years (3,11.30*; 5,31*; 8,28*). After Gideon, this motif is replaced by the formula “he judged Israel x years” (10,2-3; 12,7.9.11.1314; 16,31; cf. also 1 Sam 7,15, which can be understood as the concluding element of the redactional framing, preparing the reader for the transition to the monarchic era42). At the end of the Gideon cycle, the frame mentions for the first time that the judge is buried (Judg 8,32). In the latter part of the book, this motif becomes an important element of the scheme (10,2.5; 12,7.10.12.15). Even Samson is buried in the tomb of his father (Judg 16,31), which closely parallels Gideon’s burial.

III. ISRAEL’S WAY

TO

MONARCHIC RULE

The two short lists of so-called minor judges in 10,1-5 and 12,7-15 are an integral part of the system. It was Martin Noth himself who showed this convincingly43, refuting Karl Budde who argued that these lists were inserted at a late stage44. But Noth regarded the lists of the minor judges as an old source from the pre-monarchic period45, thus failing to recognize the redactional character of the material. Both lists are closely linked with other parts of the frame (see esp. 10,1 and 12,7-8), and it is difficult to 42. MÜLLER, Königtum(n. 27), pp. 76-77; 123. 43. NOTH, Studien (n. 15), pp. 48-49 (ET: History, pp. 43-44). 44. K. BUDDE, DasBuchderRichter(KHC, 7), Freiburg i.Br., Mohr (Siebeck), 1897, p. 78. 45. M. NOTH, DasAmtdes‘RichtersIsraels’, in ID., GesammelteStudienzumAlten TestamentII (ThB, 39), München, Kaiser, 1969, 71-85, pp. 74-75.

THE REDACTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF JUDGES

129

reconstruct an independent list of judges that is of an older origin. Wolfgang Richter demonstrated that the scheme of the “minor judges” is dependent on the annals of the kings quoted in the book of Kings46, but he failed to see that in all likelihood it was the author of the redactional frame who invented the “minor judges” corresponding to the annals of the kings47. This has consequences for the way in which the judges are characterized throughout the entire composition. Although the judges are not called kings, they figure as quasi-monarchic rulers. They “deliver the Israelites” (3,9.15*; 10,1; 13,5*) and lead them into war against their enemies (3,10*.27; 10,18*; 13,5*). They “judge Israel”, which in light of 3,10* (‫“ וישפט את ישראל ויצא למלחמה‬and he judged Israel and went out to war”) does not only include deciding law suits, but stands parsprototo for governing Israel in war (see also 4,4; 12,7; 16,31) and peace (10,1-5*; 12,8-15). Some of the judges have many wives and children (8,30*; 10,4*; 12,9.14), and some possess many donkeys, both of which illustrates their wealth and social influence (10,4*; 12,14; cf. 1 Sam 9,3). Their burials, which are mentioned in the latter half of the book, recall the burials of kings. The judges differ from the kings only in the fact that they establish no dynasty. But there is nevertheless a tendency towards a continuous succession of judicial rule, since according to Judg 10,1-5 and 12,7-15 there were also longer periods of such uninterrupted rule. These periods end only because the Israelites continue doing evil after the death of the judges Jair and Abdon (Judg 10,5-6; 12,15–13,1). This implies that, if there would have existed a clear rule of succession, the Israelites would not have fallen into apostasy again. The frame includes two passages which programmatically address the transition to monarchic rule. In Judg 10,18, before the decisive battle against the Ammonites, the people ask: Who is the man that will begin (‫ )יחל‬to fight against the Ammonites? He shall be head (‫ )ראש‬over all the inhabitants of Gilead!

The term ‫“ ראש‬head” denotes a kind of initial monarchic rulership. The people commission the one, who begins to fight against the Ammonites, to establish chiefdom over Gilead. A close parallel for this passage is found in Judg 13,5. Here the messenger of Yahweh promises the following to Samson’s mother (v. 5b): [...] he shall begin (‫ )יחל‬to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines. 46. W. RICHTER, Zuden‘RichternIsraels’, in ZAW77 (1965) 40-71, pp. 45-46. 47. MÜLLER, Königtum(n. 27), pp. 57-64.

130

R. MÜLLER

In both cases, the judges, Jephthah and Samson, only beginto fight against Ammonites and Philistines, respectively. It cannot be a coincidence that both wars are continued by Israel’s first king Saul (1 Samuel 11; 13–14). Regarding all these motifs, it is difficult to find an anti-monarchic tendency in the original framing of Judges48. Such a model cannot explain why the image of the judges resembles the image of the kings in so many aspects. The judges are depicted as king-like leaders of Israel in war and peace, and their government protects the Israelites from their enemies and guarantees that the people remains loyal to Yahweh. The only weakness of this government is that there is no clear rule of succession. This calls for the establishment of kingship. Thus, the original framework displays a pro-monarchic or even restorative tendency49.

IV. JUDGES AS A SUPPLEMENT TO JOSHUA? The redactional frame of Judges has no absolute narrative beginning. The first redactional element belonging to this frame is Judg 2,11 (“And the Israelites did evil in the eyes of Yahweh ...”). This passage continues a preceding narrative about ‫“ בני ישראל‬the Israelites”. Part of this narrative must have been the conquest of the land under Joshua’s military leadership, regardless of what the original form of this narrative looked like (Joshua 1–11*). Immediately prior to Judg 2,11, Joshua’s death and burial (Josh 24,28-31* // Judg 2,6-10*)50 must have been mentioned. There are two elements in the redactional framing of Judges that distinctly resume the Joshua narrative. One of them is the motif of the “rest” of the land. This motif is introduced in Josh 11,23b: “And the land had 48. PaceBECKER, RichterzeitundKönigtum(n. 28), pp. 303-304; ID., Place (n. 34), pp. 349-351. 49. VEIJOLA, Königtum (n. 18), pp. 115-119; C. LEVIN, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes:InihremtheologiegeschichtlichenZusammenhangausgelegt(FRLANT, 137), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985, pp. 118-119; MÜLLER, Königtum (n. 27), pp. 238-244. 50. On the intricate problems connected with this doublet see most recently E. GASS, Joshua’s Death Told Twice: Perspectives from the History of Research, in BERNER – SAMUEL (eds.), Book-Seams(n. 34), 199-219; E. BLUM, OnceAgain:TheCompositional Knot at the Transition between Joshua and Judges, ibid., 221-240; R.G. KRATZ, The LiteraryTransitioninJoshua23–Judges2:ObservationsandConsiderations, ibid., 241256; S. SCHULZ, TheLiteraryTransitionbetweentheBooksofJoshuaandJudges, ibid., 257-280; C. FREVEL, OnUntyingTanglesandTyingKnotsinJoshua23–Judges3:6: A Response to Erhard Blum, Reinhard G. Kratz and Sarah Schulz, ibid., 281-294; S. GERMANY, TheLiteraryRelationshipbetweenGenesis50–Exodus1andJoshua24– Judges2, ibid., 385-400, pp. 390-394.

THE REDACTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF JUDGES

131

rest from war”. The author of the framework of Judges resumes this motif in order to conclude the first four pericopes (3,11.30*; 5,31*; 8,28*). Othniel, Ehud, Debora / Barak, and Gideon therefore re-establish the situation that was reached at the end of the conquest. In other words, the wars that are fought by these judges continue or repeat the wars of the conquest. The second motif of the conquest narrative that is resumed by the frame of Judges is the figure of a Canaanite king who is called “Jabin”. Joshua 11,1 mentions a certain “Jabin king of Hazor”, who is defeated by Joshua, and Judg 4,3 speaks about “Jabin king of Canaan, who resides in Hazor”. Since the latter king plays no role in the core of Judges 4 – the hero story mentions only the Canaanite commander Sisera – this figure was possibly invented by the author of the framework as a kind of successor of Jabin king of Hazor51. It is not easy to establish the exact literary relation between the conquest narrative and the framework of Judges. It cannot be excluded that both were written by the same hand. But there is also the possibility that the narrative of the conquest was originally composed without continuing into the book of Judges. The conquest narrative does not need to be extended beyond Joshua’s death. Apart from Joshua 24, which cannot be dealt with here52, it is very well imaginable that the death and burial of Joshua, “the servant of Yahweh” (Josh 24,29 // Judg 2,8; cf. Josh 1,2 LXX), formed the original conclusion of the conquest narrative. Furthermore, both resumptions of the book of Joshua in Judges (i.e., the motif of the “rest” of the land in Josh 11,23b and Judg 3,11.30*; 5,31*; 8,28*; and the figure of a certain Jabin in Josh 11,1 and Judg 4,3) are to a certain extent artificial. After the resounding note in Josh 11,23b “And the land had 51. RICHTER, Untersuchungen (n. 34), pp. 32-33; GROSS, Richter(n. 22), p. 258 and pp. 264-265; differently C. Levin in this volume who also stresses that “Jabin king of Canaan” was invented by the redactor but argues that Josh 11,1 etc. is dependent on Judges 4. 52. See, e.g., most recently C. EDENBURG, Joshua24:ADiaspora-orientedOverriding oftheJoshuaScroll, in HeBAI6 (2017) 161-180; J.J. KRAUSE, HexateuchalRedaction in Joshua, ibid., 181-202; K. SCHMID, Jews and Samaritans in Joshua 24, ibid., 148160; T. RÖMER, TheDate,CompositionandFunctionofJoshua24inRecentResearch: AResponsetoJoachimJ.Krause,CynthiaEdenburg,andKonradSchmid, ibid., 203216; V. MÄKIPELTO, TheFourDeathsofJoshua:WhytheSeptuagintIsPivotalforthe StudyofJoshua24, ibid., 217-242. The model proposed by FOCKEN, Landnahme(n. 23), p. 219, according to which the redactional framing of Judges presupposes a Hexateuch that is already shaped by the priestly code, seems difficult to substantiate since the formulaic material of the frame (see the reconstruction in MÜLLER, Images [n. 31], pp. 233235) does not show demonstrable overlaps with priestly material or a post-priestly Hexateuch; Judg 2,19 is clearly younger than the oldest redactional frame of Judges (see above II).

132

R. MÜLLER

rest from war”, the narrative takes a slightly surprising turn in that the rest of the land is re-established four times, which implies that the rest got lost repeatedly. In addition, the periods of rest in Judges are chronologically determined, unlike Josh 11,23b; one may only implicitly deduce from Joshua’s final age of 110 years (Josh 24,29 // Judg 2,8) that the first rest of the land after the conquest lasted for several decades. Similarly, it is rather surprising that relatively shortly after Jabin of Hazor’s defeat and the burning of his capital (Josh 11,8.10-13), another Jabin, who is even called “king of Canaan”, resides in Hazor (Judg 4,2)53. Both motifs suggest a supplementary character for the frame of Judges. The literary bridge from the conquest to the origins of the monarchy could therefore have been created by another hand, rather than the author of the conquest narrative.

V. “DOING EVIL” IN JUDGES AND KINGS One of the most important redactional elements of Judges is the recurrent formula “the Israelites did evil in the eyes of Yahweh” or “the Israelites continued to do evil in the eyes of Yahweh” (2,11; 3,12; 4,1; 6,1; 10,6*; 13,1). On two occasions, this formula is combined with a second element. In 2,11, it is expanded with the phrase “and they served the Baals”, and in 10,6* there follows the remark “and they served the Baals and the Astartes”. Both passages have a defining function. They clearly aim at explaining what is meant by “doing evil in the eyes of Yahweh” in the book of Judges. All other passages where this clarification is not given have to be read in light of Judg 2,11 and 10,6*54. If one compares this meaning of “doing evil in the eyes of Yahweh” with the use of the formula in Kings, crucial differences can be noted55. 53. To be sure, it is possible that the details of Jabin’s defeat in Joshua 11 were only added after Judg 4,2 was conceived in light of the core of Joshua 11*; particularly the ban on Hazor’s inhabitants and the burning of the city, mentioned in 11,11.13 can be suspected as having been added later. 54. PaceJ. PAKKALA, IntolerantMonolatryintheDeuteronomisticHistory (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 76), Helsinki, The Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999,pp. 143; 148, who considers, albeit cautiously in the case of 10,6aα because of the lack of clear literary critical criteria, the possibility that the references to Israel’s worship of the Baal and the Astarot were secondarily added by nomistic editors. 55. KRATZ, Composition(n. 22), pp. 195-196; MÜLLER, Königtum(n. 27), pp. 78-83; F. BLANCO WISSMANN, “ErtatdasRechte…”:BeurteilungskriterienundDeuteronomismusin1Kön12–2Kön25 (ATANT, 93), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2008, pp. 42-54.

THE REDACTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF JUDGES

133

In Kings, the formula usually does not refer to the people but to monarchs. Its meaning seems mainly related to the concept of a centralized cult and its political implications56. All northern kings, who are held responsible for the division of Israel’s monarchy – they worship Yahweh in Bethel and Dan – are said to have “done evil in the eyes of Yahweh”. It is obvious that this concept of “doing evil” cannot be found in Judges. However, one should not overlook that there are also some passages in Kings where “doing evil” is connected with the worship of the Baal. The Omrides Ahab and Ahaziah, especially, are said to have “done evil” by “serving the Baal” (1 Kgs 16,31; 22,54). These statements are integral parts of the oldest Deuteronomistic evaluations of the kings57. This is indicated in 2 Kgs 10,28-29 where it is said that Jehu removed the Baal from Israel but continued in the sins of Jeroboam (cf. also 2 Kgs 3,2)58. Thus it is possible that the author of the frame of Judges developed his idea of an Israelite apostasy based on these early Deuteronomistic notes in the book of Kings. Like some of the Omrides who served the Baal, in the period of the Judges all the Israelites served time and again the Baals and the Astartes. Thus, the concepts of “doing evil in the eyes of Yahweh” are not entirely different in the books of Judges and Kings59.

VI. RESULTS

AND

CONSEQUENCES

Judges forms a literary bridge between the conquest narrative and the stories about the origins of the monarchy. The basic structure of this bridge is provided by the stereotypical framing that connects a series of originally independent hero stories with each other. Its author worked as a redactor since he created a literary sequence that was not found in his sources. He placed in front of his sources the programmatic Othniel pericope so that the story might unfold with his designed intention in mind. 56. R. MÜLLER, Righteous Kings, Evil Kings, and Israel’s Non-Monarchic Identity: Different Voices on the Failure of Israelite Kingship, in I.D. WILSON – D.V. EDELMAN (eds.), History,Memory,HebrewScriptures, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2015,77-89, pp. 78-83. 57. C. LEVIN, Die Frömmigkeit der Könige von Israel und Juda, in ID., Verheißung und Rechtfertigung: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II (BZAW, 431), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2013, 144-177, pp. 164; 166-167. 58. LEVIN, Frömmigkeit (n. 57), p. 167; R. MÜLLER, Treue zum rettenden Gott: Erwägungen zu Ursprung und Sinn des Ersten Gebots, in ZTK 112 (2015) 403-428, p. 418. 59. LEVIN, Frömmigkeit (n. 57), pp. 176-177.

134

R. MÜLLER

The composition served mainly two purposes. On the one hand, it gives an etiology for the historical catastrophes of Israel and Judah. According to the frame, the Israelites suffered from the consequences of their apostasy already in the centuries before the monarchic era. On the other hand, the chronicle of this period shows how, time and again, an independent Israel emerged from the catastrophe, governed by a mighty political leader. The image of these leaders is strikingly similar to the image of kings. In other words, the judges are presented as pre-monarchic monarchs60. In addition, a development towards permanent monarchic rule can be observed; Jephthah and Samson “begin” to fight against Ammonites and Philistines – wars that are continued by Israel’s first king Saul. In light of all this, it is unlikely that the author of this composition rejected monarchic rule as such. The anti-monarchic passages in Judges 8 and 9 do not fit to the original concept of judicial rule and were therefore likely added later. The redactional frame of Judges might have been written as a secondary supplement to a conquest narrative ending with the death of Joshua. At the same time, Judges might be slightly younger than the Deuteronomistic elements in Kings. But the differences between Judges and Joshua, on the one hand, and Judges and Kings, on the other, should also not be exaggerated. It is not unlikely that the bridge between the conquest narrative and the narratives about the origins of the monarchy was created relatively early. The book of Judges contains many additions that are later than the original frame. The original structure of the book is clearly older than these additions. The author of the redactional frame of Judges might have belonged to a group of scribes who were jointly composing a larger history of Israel’s origins. This history could have included different Deuteronomistic compositions in Kings, Joshua, and Judges, with Judges being the relatively latest redactional arc61. But 60. C. LEVIN, DasvorstaatlicheIsrael, in ID., Fortschreibungen:GesammelteStudien zum Alten Testament (BZAW, 316), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2003, 142-157, p. 148: “Die Richter sind nach ihrem Amt fiktive Könige”. 61. This model comes rather close to what has been recently proposed by C. EDENBURG, EnvelopesandSeams:HowJudgesFits(ornot)withintheDeuteronomisticHistory, in BERNER – SAMUEL (eds.), Book-Seams(n. 34), 353-369 – esteemed colleague and dear friend to whom this article is dedicated. Edenburg (p. 354) postulates that the DH “was composed from the start as a set of five scrolls … that were meant to be read as a continuous narrative”. While this model may indeed explain the supplementary character of Judges related to Joshua, it runs into difficulties regarding the transition from Judges to Samuel: 1 Sam 7,15 can be read as the conclusion of the redactional framing of Judges (see n. 42), and Judges 13–16; 17–18; 1 Samuel 1; and 1 Samuel 9–10 seem to have been part of an older collection of narratives, which was secondarily separated

THE REDACTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF JUDGES

135

after these compositions had been put together, the resulting composite work would not have looked completely different from what is usually called “Deuteronomistic History”. Theologische Fakultät Reinhard MÜLLER Platz der Göttinger Sieben 2 DE-37073 Göttingen Germany [email protected]

between Judges 18 and 1 Samuel 1; LEVIN, Cohesion (n. 18), pp. 123-124; MÜLLER, 1Samuel1 (n. 22), pp. 211-216.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

I. EINE

THEOKRATISCHE

LEGENDE

Im Verhältnis von Debora-Erzählung Ri 4 und Debora-Lied Ri 5 gilt in der Regel die Erzählung als die jüngere Fassung, die aus dem Lied entwickelt sei und die Dichtung nachträglich erläutert habe. Neben der archaischen Anmutung des Liedes hat zu diesem Urteil beigetragen, dass die religiöse Dimension des Geschehens in Ri 4 viel offensichtlicher ist und theologischen Vorgaben folgt. Julius Wellhausen hat den Unterschied beschrieben und damit die Deutung für lange Zeit bestimmt: „In der Erzählung ist […] die Befreiung rein Sache Jahves, die israelitischen Mannen sind Statisten, denen kein Verdienst und kein Dank gebührt. […] Überall in den Varianten der prosaischen Reproduktion macht es sich fühlbar, daß das bunte Getriebe des wirklichen Hergangs verblaßt vor der einen allgemeinen Endursache, Jahve“1. Diese Beobachtungen sind oft wiederholt worden, in jüngerer Zeit von Yairah Amit: An examination of the center of interest directs the reader’s attention to […] the discovery that contrary to expectation the savior is not one of the human heroes of the work. As the decisive role of God in the development of the plot and the functioning of the human characters is revealed, it becomes clear to the reader that the savior God is the hero of the work. […] The salvation is accomplished mainly by God, whereas Deborah’s part, and even more so Jael’s, is secondary and predetermined by God“2. „The purpose of the story is to stress that God, and God alone, is the savior of Israel, a savior who makes use of human characters as instruments in a game he has established the rules of 3.

Solche Monokausalität kennzeichnet ein religiös bestimmtes Geschichtsbild, das zu den tatsächlichen Ereignissen, wie immer sie gewesen sein mögen, natürlicherweise in Spannung steht. Dabei zeigt die Traditionsgeschichte ein Gefälle: Je jünger die Texte sind, desto bestimmender ist 1. J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1905, S. 237f. Cf. auch ID., DieCompositiondesHexateuchsundderhistorischenBücher desAltenTestaments (1878=1885), Berlin, De Gruyter, 41963, S. 215-218; ID., IsraelitischeundjüdischeGeschichte (1894), Berlin, De Gruyter, 71914, S. 36-38. 2. Y. AMIT, Judges4:ItsContentsandForm, in JSOT 39 (1987) 89-111, S. 100. 3. Ibid., S. 102. 6

138

C. LEVIN

die Rolle Gottes. Sofern die Erzählungen nicht von vornherein in der religiösen Kausalität wurzeln, also nicht Geschichte, sondern Mythen sind, wurde der Gottesbezug ergänzt oder wenigstens nachträglich unterstrichen. So auch bei der Erzählung von Debora, Barak und Jaël. Schon Ernst Täubler nahm an, „daß die zugrunde liegende Erzählung nicht in ihrer ursprünglichen Gestalt vorliegt, sondern in ihrer Umarbeitung in eine theokratische Legende: Gott ist der Träger der Handlung, seine menschlichen Mittel sind Debora, Barak und Jael. Gott gebietet den Kampf, Gott zieht Sisera an den Kison, Gott wird dem zögernden Helden den Ruhm der Führung nehmen und ihn der Frau geben, Gott ist bereits vor Barak zum Kampf ausgezogen, er ist es, der das feindliche Heer für das Schwert Baraks in Verwirrung setzt. Dem Stil der Legende gehört es an, daß das Heer Siseras auf der Flucht nach Haroseth-haggojim bis auf den letzten Mann vernichtet wird“4. Die Umarbeitung ist so offensichtlich, dass die ursprüngliche Gestalt der zugrunde liegenden Erzählung kein Postulat bleiben muss. Die bisherige Exegese hat die Härten des Textes oft notiert und bereits einzelne Zusätze identifiziert. Diese Beobachtungen lassen sich vermehren und zu einem literaturgeschichtlichen Gesamtbild zusammenführen. Das Deboralied muss dabei nicht einbezogen werden. Das literarische Wachstum von Ri 4 erklärt sich aus eigenen Gründen, ohne dass es dafür des Seitenblicks auf Ri 5 bedarf. Da Lied und Prosatext nicht nur im Ablauf des Geschehens übereinstimmen, sondern auch solche Einzelheiten gemeinsam haben, die in Ri 4 offensichtlich nachgetragen sind5, folgt daraus, dass das Lied die Erzählung voraussetzt und nicht umgekehrt6. 4. E. TÄUBLER, BiblischeStudien:DieEpochederRichter, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1958, S. 151. Täubler trifft allerdings keine literarkritischen Unterscheidungen. Auch W. GROSS, ProphetinundProphetimRichterbuch, in ID. – E. GASS, StudienzumRichterbuch und seinen Völkernamen (SBAB, 54), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012, 89-103, S. 94, für den „eine Gruppe von Autoren aus dem ehemaligen Nordstaat Israel […] im Übergang vom 7. zum 6. Jh. […] Überlieferungen von kriegerischen Heldentaten […] mit Motiven des JHWH-Krieges“ bearbeitet hat, verzichtet auf den literarkritischen Nachweis. 5. Ein Beispiel ist Siseras Bitte um Wasser, auf die hin Jaël ihm Milch reicht. Das Motiv stört in 4,19 den Ablauf, in 5,25 ist es grundlegend. Das müsste es auch in Ri 4 sein, wenn die Prosafassung die jüngere wäre. 6. Bei der Frühdatierung von Ri 5 wird übersehen oder gewaltsam umgedeutet, dass Ps 68 die unentbehrliche poetische Matrix bildet, wie schon J.W. COLENSO, ThePentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, Part VII, London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1879, S. 80-81, gezeigt hat, cf. bes. Ri 5,4-5 mit Ps 68,8-9. Dass die Dichtung ein junges Gebilde ist, hat als erster M. VERNES, LeCantiquedeDébora, in Revuedesétudesjuives 24 (1892) 52-67; 225-255, erkannt. Das sprachgeschichtliche Argument zugunsten der Frühdatierung wurde von M. WALTISBERG, ZumAlterderSprachedesDeboraliedsRi5, in ZAH 12 (1999) 218-232, entkräftet. WELLHAUSENs Vergleich der Jaël-Szene 4,19-21

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

139

Aus demselben Grund kann man einen je unabhängigen Bezug auf eine hinter beiden Texten stehende Tradition ausschließen.

II. DER TEXT7 1 Die Israeliten taten wieder, was Jahwe missfiel8. 2 So verkaufte Jahwe sie in die Hand Jabins, des Königs von Kanaan, der in Hazor herrschte.DessenHeerführerwarSisera.DerwohnteinHaroschet-Gojim. 3 DaschriendieIsraelitenzuJahwe. Denn er hatte neunhundert eiserne Wagen, und er bedrängte ‚Israel‘9 mit Gewalt zwanzig Jahre. 4 Debora, eine prophetische Frau, dieFraudesLappidot, richtete10Israelzujener mit 5,24-27, der für ihn „schlagend die Abhängigkeit des historischen Kommentars vom Liede erweist“ (Composition [Anm. 1], S. 217) und der in der älteren Exegese breite Zustimmung gefunden hat, stellt den Sachverhalt auf den Kopf. In Wahrheit erschließen sich die Einzelheiten des Liedes nur vor dem Hintergrund von Ri 4. Cf. im übrigen C. LEVIN, Das Alter des Deboralieds, in ID., Fortschreibungen: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament(BZAW, 316), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2003, 124-141, und zuletzt S. FROLOV, How OldIstheSongofDeborah?, in JSOT 36 (2011) 163-184. Der Versuch von J.L. WRIGHT, Deborah’sWarMemorial:TheCompositionofJudges4–5andthePoliticsofWarCommemoration, in ZAW 123 (2011) 516-534, in Ri 5 die Bezüge auf das übrige Richterbuch als sekundär zu erweisen, würde einen nicht lebensfähigen Torso hinterlassen. 7. Literarische Schichtung: Vv. 6abαβ(< ‫ ֲהלֹא‬bis ‫)יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬.10aβγ.12-13aα.13b(nur ‫ֶאל־נַ ַחל‬ ‫)קישׁוֹן‬.14b.15b-16a(< ִ ‫אַח ֵרי ַה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ֲ ְ‫)ו‬.17a.18.21a.b(nur ‫)וַ יָּ מֹת‬: Alte Quelle. – Vv. 20.21b(< ‫)וַ יָּ מֹת‬. 22: Ausgestaltung der Quelle innerhalb der vorredaktionellen Sammlung. – Vv. 1-3a.4(< ‫ִא ָשּׁה‬ ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫)נְ ִב‬.24a; 5,31b: RedaktiondesdeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks. – Vv. 5.6bγ.10aα. 11.17b: Historisierende Nachträge. – V. 19: [Gerechtigkeits-Bearbeitung]. – Vv. 3b.4aα(nur ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫)א ָשּׁה נְ ִב‬.6bα(nur ִ ‫ ֲהלֹא‬bis ‫)יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬.7.10b.13aβ.13b(nur ‫)מ ֲחר ֶֹשׁת ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬.14aα(bis ֵ ‫)קוּם‬. 14aβ.15a(bis ‫)ח ֶרב‬.16a(nur ֶ ‫אַח ֵרי ַה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ֲ ְ‫)ו‬.b.23.24b: Jahwekrieg-Bearbeitung. – Vv. 8-9aα(bis ‫)ע ָמְּך‬.9b.14aαb(ab ִ ‫)כּי‬.15a(nur ִ ‫;)ל ְפנֵ י ָב ָרק‬ ִ sowie V. 9a(ab ‫)א ֶפס‬: ֶ [Nachträge zur JahwekriegBearbeitung]. 8. V. 1b ‫„ וְ ֵאהוּד ֵמת‬Ehud aber war gestorben“ fehlt in LXXL und Vetus Latina und steht in Syh subasterisco. Das ist nach A. RAHLFS – R. HANHART (Hgg.), Septuaginta, editio altera, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006, S. 419, der ursprüngliche griechische Text (LXXA, txt.em.). In der Septuaginta erzeugt die Anpassung an MT (so u.a. LXXA und LXXB) eine Dublette, weil die Todesnotiz für Ehud sich dort am Schluss von 3,30 findet: καὶ ἔκρινεν αὐτοὺς Αωϑ ἕως οὗ ἀπέϑανεν „Und Ehud richtete sie, bis er starb“. Die vermutliche Vorlage ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁפֹּט ֵאהוּד א ָֹתם ַעד־מוֹתוֹ‬ist mit Wahrscheinlichkeit der ursprüngliche Text; denn die Schamgar-Notiz 3,31 setzt mit ‫אַח ָריו ָהיָ ה‬ ֲ ְ‫„ ו‬nach ihm war“ voraus, dass Ehuds Tod zuvor erwähnt war, cf. 10,1.3; 12,8.11.13. R.G. BOLING, Judges (AB, 6A), Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1975, S. 87: „Without this sentence, the beginning of vs. 31 has no antecedent in the neighboring context, so ,after him‘ must refer to Ehud“. 9. So mit LXX, cf. 2 Kön 13,4.22. MT, Peschitta und Targum lesen ‫ ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬wie in V. 3a. 10. Das Partizip ‫ שׁ ְֹפ ָטה‬hat hier verbale Rektionskraft, cf. R. SMEND, Jahwekriegund Stämmebund (21966), in ID. (Hg.), ZurältestenGeschichteIsraels (BEvT, 100), München, Kaiser, 1987, 116-199, S. 142 Anm. 22. Die Redaktion gebraucht ‫ שׁפט‬nur verbal, cf. Ri 3,10; 10,2.3; 12,7.8.9.11.13.14; 15,20; 16,31. Der Titel „Richter“ ist erst später aufgekommen, cf. 2,16-19; 2 Sam 7,11; 2 Kön 23,22; Rut 1,1; 1 Chr 17,6.10. G.F. MOORE, A Critical

140

C. LEVIN

Zeit. 5 Sie saß unter der Palme Deboras (cf. Gen 35,8) zwischen Rama (cf. 1 Sam 7,17) und Bet-El auf dem Gebirge Efraim, und die Israeliten kamen zu ihr herauf zum Gericht. 6 ‚Debora‘11 sandte und rief Barak, den Sohn Abinoams, aus Kedesch in Naftali und sprach zu ihm: Hat nicht12 Jahwe, der Gott Israels, geboten: Geh, zieh13 auf dem Berg Tabor (Truppen) zusammen und nimm mit dir zehntausend Mann von den Naftalitern und den Sebulonitern! 7 Ich werde Sisera, den Heerführer Jabins, und seine Wagen und sein Heer gegen dich an den Bach Kischon ziehen und werde ihn in deine Hand geben. [8 Barak sprach zu ihr: Wenn du mit mir gehst, will ich gehen; gehst du aber nicht mit mir, gehe ich nicht14. 9 ‚Debora‘ sprach ‚zu ihm‘15: Ich will mit dir gehen! [Allein ‚wisse‘16, dass der Ruhm nicht dein sein wird auf dem Weg, den du gehen wirst; denn Jahwe wird Sisera in die Hand einer Frau verkaufen.] So machte Debora sich auf und ging mit Barak nach Kedesch.] 10 Da bot Barak Sebulon und Naftali auf nach Kedesch. Da zog er hinauf, ihm auf dem Fuß zehntausend17 Mann. Und Debora zog mit ihm hinauf. 11 Der Keniter Heber hatte sich von Kain – von den Söhnen Hobabs, des Schwiegervaters des Mose, (← Num 10,29) – getrennt und sein Zelt aufgeschlagen bei der Terebinthe in Za‘anannim18 bei Kedesch. 12 Als man Sisera ansagte, dass Barak, der Sohn Abinoams, auf den Berg Tabor gezogen war, 13 bot Sisera alle seine Kriegswagen auf, neunhundert eiserne Wagen, und das ganze Kriegsvolk, das mit ihm war, aus HaroschetGojim an den Bach Kischon. 14 Debora aber sprach zu Barak: Auf! [Denn dies ist der Tag, an dem Jahwe den Sisera in deine Hand gegeben hat.] Ist nicht19 Jahwe ausgezogen vor dir her! Da zog Barak vom Berg Tabor herab, und zehntausend Mann ihm nach. 15 Jahwe erschreckte den Sisera und alle Wagen und das ganze Heerlager (← Ex 14,24) durch andExegeticalCommentaryonJudges (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1895, S. 114, liest sogar pf. ‫שׁ ְפ ָטה‬. ָ 11. So mit LXX + Δεββωρα. 12. Die mit ‫ ֲהלֹא‬eingeleitete Frage ist hier Ausdruck der Versicherung, cf. GesK § 150 e. Eine nahe Parallele ist Jos 1,9. 13. Hebr. ‫„ משְׁך‬ziehen“ ist transitiv. Das Objekt ist hinzuzudenken, cf. V. 7. 14. LXX hat einen Überschuss, der auf eine hebräische Vorlage zurückgeht: „Denn ich kenne nicht den Tag, an dem der Engel Jahwes mir Gelingen schaffen wird“. Der Zusatz blickt auf Deboras Worte in V. 14 voraus. Mit der Gestalt des Engels setzt sich die Angleichung an das Meerwunder fort, cf. Ex 14,19, auch Ex 23,20. 15. So mit LXXA, Vetus Latina, Syh subasterisco + πρὸς αὐτὸν Δεββωρα. 16. So mit LXX + γίνωσκε. 17. Die Konstruktion ‫אַל ֵפי ִאישׁ‬ ְ ‫„ ַע ֶשׂ ֶרת‬zehntausend Mann“ ist regulär. Die Masoreten haben gleichwohl die Lesart ‫ ֲא ָל ִפים‬erwogen (Sebir), um den auffallenden Wechsel des Stils auszugleichen, cf. Vv. 6.14. ַ 18. Qerê ‫ ַצ ֲענַ נִּ ים‬wie Jos 19,33; Ketîb ‫ ַצ ֲענַ יִם‬oder ‫צ ֲענִּ ים‬. 19. Cf. Anm. 12.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

141

die Schärfe des Schwerts [vor Barak]. Da stieg Sisera von seinem Wagen und floh zu Fuß. 16 Barak aber jagte20 den Wagen und dem Heerlager nach bis Haroschet-Gojim. Das ganze Heerlager Siseras fiel durch die Schärfe des Schwerts. Nicht einer blieb übrig. (← Ex 14,28) 17 Sisera aber floh zu Fuß zum Zelt Jaëls, der Frau des Keniters Heber. Denn es herrschte Frieden zwischen Jabin, dem König von Hazor, und dem Haus des Keniters Heber. 18 Da trat Jaël heraus Sisera entgegen und sprach zu ihm: Kehre ein, mein Herr, kehre ein zu mir! Fürchte dich nicht! Da kehrte er zu ihr ein ins Zelt, und sie bedeckte ihn mit einer Decke21. [19 ‚Sisera‘22 sprach zu ihr: Gib mir bitte ein wenig Wasser zu trinken, denn ich habe Durst. Da öffnete sie den Milchschlauch, gab ihm zu trinken und deckte ihn zu.] 20 Er sprach zu ihr: ‚Tritt‘23 in den Eingang des Zelts. Wenn dann einer ‚zu dir‘24 kommt und dich fragt und spricht: Ist jemand hier?, so sprich: Niemand25. 21 Und Jaël, die Frau Hebers, ergriff einen26 Zeltpflock und nahm einen Hammer zur Hand, ging leise zu ihm hinein und schlug ihm den Pflock durch die Schläfe27, dass er in den Boden drang28. Er aber lag im Tiefschlaf29 ‚und war erschöpft‘30. So starb er. 22 Und siehe, Barak verfolgte den Sisera. Jaël ging hinaus ihm entgegen und sprach zu ihm: Komm! Ich will dir den Mann zeigen, den du suchst. Als er zu ihr hereinkam, siehe, da war Sisera gefallen und tot, (← Ri 3,25) mit dem Pflock in der Schläfe. 20. W. GROSS, Richter übersetztundausgelegt (HTK.AT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2009, S. 279: „Die Unterbrechung der wa=yiqtol-Reihen durch die Formation w=Subjekt qatal signalisiert in 16a das Ende des Abschnitts 4-16 und in 17a den Beginn des Abschnitts 1721. Man kann diese beiden Sätze aber auch unter Betonung der opponierenden Subjekte als einerseits-andererseits-Sachverhalt lesen“. 21. Das Wort ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ ְשׂ ִמ‬ist nur hier belegt. Die alten Übersetzungen deuten als „Decke“. Cf. hebr. ‫„ סמְך‬stützen, die Hand auflegen“ und akk. samāku „überdecken“. 22. So mit LXX + Σισαρα. 23. Der Imp. m. ‫ ֲעמֹד‬ist falsch vokalisiert. Lies Inf. abs. ‫( ָעמֹד‬GesK § 113 bb) oder Imp. f. ‫ע ְמ ִדי‬, ִ letzteres mit J. OLSHAUSEN, LehrbuchderhebräischenSprache, Braunschweig, Vieweg, 1861, S. 488 (§ 234b). 24. So mit LXX + πρὸς σέ. 25. LXXA (auch Syh subobelo) wiederholt an dieser Stelle καὶ συνεκάλυψεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ δέρρει αὐτῆς „und sie verbarg ihn mit ihrer Decke“, wörtlich wie in V. 18bβ. 26. Im Hebräischen sind ‫יְתד ָהא ֶֹהל‬ ַ „der Zeltpflock“ und ‫„ ַה ַמּ ֶקּ ֶבת‬der Hammer“ determiniert, cf. GesK § 126q. 27. Das Wort ‫ ַר ָקּה‬ist nur Ri 4,21.22; 5,26; Hld 4,3; 6,7 belegt. Die übliche Übersetzung als „Schläfe“ wird von den alten Übersetzungen gestützt. Cf. E.W. NICHOLSON, The Problemof ‫צנח‬, in ZAW 89 (1977) 259-266, S. 261f. 28. Die Etymologie von ‫ צנח‬ist ungelöst. Das Wort findet sich nur noch Jos 15,18 par. Ri 1,14, wo es am wahrscheinlichsten „hinabsteigen“ bedeutet, cf. ibid., S. 264f. Am besten wird der Pflock (‫ ַהיָּ ֵתד‬f.) als Subjekt aufgefasst. 29. LXXA und die Tochterübersetzungen, Syh subobelo + ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν γονάτων αὐτῆς „zwischen ihren Knien“, cf. 5,27. 30. Die Parenthese ist Nominalsatz. Lies ‫( נִ ְר ָדּם‬mit MT) und ‫וְ יָ ֵעף‬.

142

C. LEVIN

23 So demütigte31 Gott an jenem Tage Jabin, den König von Kanaan, vor den Israeliten. 24 Und die Hand der Israeliten legte sich ‚immer lastender‘32aufJabin,denKönigvonKanaan, bis sie Jabin, den König von Kanaan, ausgerottet hatten. … 5,31b UnddasLandhatteRuhevierzigJahre.

III. DER RAHMEN Auch die zweite der großen Erzählungen des Richterbuchs33 beginnt mit jenem Rahmen, der der Zeit der Richter den Rhythmus gibt. Wie stets wird das Geschehen ausgelöst durch die Sünde der Israeliten. Sobald der Retter/Richter gestorben ist, werden sie Jahwe ungehorsam (cf. 2,8-9.11; 3,11-12; 10,5-6; 12,15–13,1). In der Septuaginta wird der Tod des Ehud im Anschluss an die durch Ehuds Rettungstat gewonnene Friedenszeit berichtet: „Da hatte das Land achtzig Jahre Ruhe. Und Ehud richtete sie, bis er starb“ (3,30 LXX). Die griechische Lesart ist wahrscheinlich die ursprüngliche Fassung, an die 4,1a angeschlossen hat: „Da taten die Israeliten wieder, was Jahwe missfiel“. Später kam die Notiz über den Retter Schamgar in 3,31 zwischenein. Dadurch wurde die Abfolge gestört. Um sie wiederherzustellen, wurde noch später im hebräischen Text die Nachricht von Ehuds Tod nach 4,1b verschoben, wobei die Aussage über Ehuds Richteramt entfiel34. „The awkward clause“35 ‫„ וְ ֵאהוּד ֵמת‬Ehud aber war gestorben“ liest sich wie ein Verweis auf den im Hebräischen nicht mehr vorhandenen Text von 3,30. Um die Israeliten zu bestrafen, gibt Jahwe sie in die Hand eines fremden Königs. Das Verb ‫„ מכר‬verkaufen“ deutet an, dass die Strafe vorübergehend sein soll (so auch in 3,8 und 10,7). Es bezeichnet die befristete Schuldknechtschaft (cf. Ex 21,7; Lev 25,39.47-50; Dtn 15,12). Jabin, der 31. LXXA und Tochterübersetzungen + κύριος. 32. Lies ‫הלוְֹך וְ ָקשׁ ֹה‬, ָ cf. GesK § 113 h, Anm. 2. 33. Forschungsgeschichtlicher Überblick bei W. RICHTER, TraditionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB, 18), Bonn, Hanstein, 1963, S. 29-31, und H.-D. NEEF, DeboraerzählungundDeboralied (BTSt, 49), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2002, S. 116-121. Zu Arbeiten seit 1990 cf. T. MAYFIELD, TheAccountsofDeborah(Judges4–5) inRecentResearch, in CurBR 7 (2009) 306-335. 34. Zur Textüberlieferung s.o. Anm. 8. Auch A.B. EHRLICH, Randglossenzurhebräischen Bibel.DritterBand, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1910, S. 77; M. NOTH, ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien (1943), Tübingen, Niemeyer, 31967, S. 51 Anm. 3; W. RICHTER, DieBearbeitungendes„Retterbuches“inderdeuteronomischenEpoche (BBB, 21), Bonn, Hanstein, 1964, S. 15, halten Ri 4,1b für einen späteren Zusatz. 35. B. LINDARS, Judges1–5:ANewTranslationandCommentary, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1995, S. 175.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

143

König von Kanaan, kann eine erfundene Gestalt sein. Ebenso hat die Redaktion den ersten Gegner der Israeliten in 3,8 erfunden, wie dessen künstlicher Name Kuschan-Rischatajim zeigt. Jabin wird in Ri 4 das ursprünglich einzige Mal genannt36. Dass er in Hazor (TellWaqqāṣ – Tell Qedaḥ, 2035.2693) residiert habe37, dürfte aus der Nähe Hazors zu Kedesch in Naftali (TellQedes, 1997.2798) erschlossen sein, das in der Quelle als Herkunft Baraks genannt wird (V. 6)38. Die einstmals große Bedeutung Hazors war im 6. Jh. noch bekannt39. In der überlieferten Erzählung ist Sisera mit seiner Streitwagentruppe der selbständig handelnde Gegner Baraks. Warum hat ihn die Redaktion dem König Jabin von Hazor untergeordnet und zu dessen Feldherrn erklärt? Der Grund ist daran abzulesen, dass Jabin „König von Kanaan“ gewesen sein soll. Diese Bezeichnung kann nicht historisch sein: „Kanaan“ war der Name des Landes (cf. Gen 42,7; 45,25), aber zu keiner Zeit eine politische Größe. Die „historisch unmögliche Vorstellung“40 verleiht dem Geschehen eine Bedeutung, die weit über das lokale Ereignis hinausreicht, das die Quelle geschildert hat. Jabin ist nach Kuschan-Rischatajim und Eglon der dritte und letzte nichtisraelitische König, den das Richterbuch nennt. Seine Niederlage bedeutet, dass die Israeliten von nun an über das ganze Land verfügen. Das galt später auch buchstäblich. „The war of Zebulun and Naphtali against Jabin, king of Hazor, and his allies is recounted in Jos. 111-9, where it is magnified into the conquest of all the northern Canaanites by Joshua and all Israel“41. „Die Volkstradition ging selbständig weiter und drang 36. Eine Deutung des Namens ‫ ִיָבין‬ist bisher nicht gelungen. Die Ableitung von ‫בין‬ „wahrnehmen, verstehen“ lässt sich nicht sichern. Vergleichbare Namen sind amurritisch, safatenisch und altsüdarabisch belegt (Gesenius18, S. 432). Eine Verbindung mit dem in den Mari-Briefen (1717-1695 v.Chr.) erwähnten Ibni-Addu von Ḫaṣurā (cf. M. BIROT, Nomsdepersonnes, in ArchivesRoyalesdeMari 16/1, Paris, Geuthner, 1979, 43-249, S. 113) liegt außerhalb des Möglichen. 37. Zu Hazor cf. E. GASS, DieOrtsnamendesRichterbuchsinhistorischerundredaktionellerPerspektive (ADPV, 35), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2005, S. 228-235; W. ZWICKEL, Art. Hazor, in M. GÖRG – B. LANG (Hgg.), Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Band 2, Zürich – Düsseldorf, Benziger, 1995, 60-62. 38. GASS, Ortsnamen (Anm. 37), S. 247-249. 39. Cf. die späte Behauptung in 1 Kön 9,15, Salomo habe Hazor, Megiddo und Geser ausgebaut. In 2 Kön 15,29 wird Hazor unter den obergaliläischen Orten und Gegenden aufgeführt, die unter Tiglat-Pileser für die Könige von Israel verloren gingen. Dass in Jos 11 und Ri 4 die Zerstörung des spätbronzezeitlichen Hazor am Übergang von 13. zum 12. Jh. nachklingt, ist auszuschließen, cf. V. FRITZ, Das Ende der spätbronzezeitlichen StadtHazorStratumXIIIunddiebiblischeÜberlieferunginJosua11undRichter4, in UF 5 (1973) 123-139. 40. A. SCHERER, ÜberlieferungenvonReligionundKrieg (WMANT, 105), NeukirchenVluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2005, S. 87. 41. MOORE, Judges (Anm. 10), S. 109.

144

C. LEVIN

in den Legendenkreis um Josua ein […] (Sie hat) den von Barak geführten Kampf […] in einen Kampf Josuas gegen eine von Jabin geführte Koalition zurückgespiegelt“42. Bis in die Einzelheiten wurde der Sieg über Jabin zum Schlüsselereignis der kriegerischen Landnahme. Die Könige des Landes bieten, von Jabin veranlasst, eine riesige Streitwagentruppe auf und werden an den Wassern von Merom (statt am Bach Kischon) vernichtend geschlagen. Wie Barak die fliehenden Truppen Siseras nach HaroschetGojim verfolgt, so Josua die Truppen der Könige nach Sidon, MisrefotMajim und in die Ebene von Mizpe (Jos 11,8). Das gesamte Land fällt den Israeliten in die Hände. In Jos 10 wurde das Muster später auch auf die südlichen Landesteile ausgedehnt. Auch wenn die biblische Geschehensfolge ein Gefälle von Jos 11 nach Ri 4 suggeriert, kann die summarische Darstellung von Jos 11 nicht das Vorbild für die detailreiche Schilderung von Ri 4 gebildet haben43. „Die in Ri 4 eingefügten Bemerkungen werden kaum zu einer Zeit entstanden sein, als die Erzählung in Jos 11,115 bereits existierte“44. Auf das Zetergeschrei der Israeliten antwortet Jahwe nicht unmittelbar. Der Grund liegt in der überlieferten Erzählung. Dort war es Debora, die den Kriegshelden Barak entsandt hat. Das übliche Schema verbindet sich deshalb in V. 4 nicht mit Barak, sondern mit Debora. Ebenso wie später auch Jaël wird sie mit dem Namen ihres Ehemannes eingeführt, das heißt als sozial etabliert. Ob die Redaktion den Namen Lappidot in der Quelle gelesen hat, lässt sich nicht beantworten. Es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass er als Variante des Namens „Barak“ auf eisegetische Spekulation zurückgeht. Denn Lappidot heißt „Fackel“45, was „der Bedeutung nach (Exod. 20,18) merkwürdig an Barak erinnert“46, dessen Name hebräisch „Blitz“ bedeutet47. Dass Debora Prophetin gewesen sei, wurde ihr erst 42. TÄUBLER, BiblischeStudien (Anm. 4), S. 152. 43. Das lässt sich auch aus der Perspektive der Ergänzer nachvollziehen. Für sie hat Jabin nicht in Ri 4 seine Auferstehung erlebt, sondern in Jos 11 seine erste Niederlage. Es gibt Anzeichen, dass der Bericht vom Tod des Königs von Hazor in Jos 11,10-11, der den Widerspruch vollkommen macht, erst später hinzugefügt worden ist. Dabei wurde der Name „Jabin“ vermieden. Auch den Dichtern des Deboralieds Ri 5 war der Widerspruch zwischen Jos 11 und Ri 4 bewusst. Sie übergehen Jabin mit Schweigen. 44. FRITZ, DasEndederspätbronzezeitlichenStadtHazor (Anm. 39), S. 128. 45. Die Endung -ôt ist als hypokoristisch, das heißt als Koseform zu verstehen. 46. WELLHAUSEN, Composition (Anm. 1), S. 218. 47. G. HILLIGER, DasDeborah-Lied,übersetztunderklärt, Gießen, Keller, 1867, S. 11: „Sollte man aus dieser Thatsache und aus der Bekanntschaft der Prophetin mit Barak den Schluß ziehen, daß Lappidoth und Barak dieselbe Person, mithin Deborah Stammesgenossin des Barak oder gar Gattin desselben gewesen sei?“. Die Erwägung, die sich schon bei David Kimchi findet, wurde aufgenommen von K. BUDDE, DieBücherRichterundSamuel,ihre QuellenundihrAufbau, Gießen, Ricker, 1890, S. 69f.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

145

später zugeschrieben. Die Funktion steht regelwidrig noch vor der Angabe über den Ehemann48. Da das Retten (cf. 3,9.15; 10,1; 13,5) an Barak fällt, bleibt für Debora das Richten. So rückt Debora in die Reihe der „vorköniglichen Könige“ ein. Die Amtszeit, die sie wie alle Richter gehabt haben muss, wird kurzerhand mit „jener Zeit“ gleichgesetzt, das sind die vierzig Jahre der Ruhe nach Baraks Sieg (5,31b). In derselben Weise fällt in 8,28 die Amtszeit Gideons mit den vierzig Jahren der Ruhe nach seinem Sieg über die Midianiter zusammen. Der rückwärtige Rahmen in V. 24a ist daran auszumachen, dass die Niederlage Siseras als Sieg der Israeliten gilt, die in der Erzählung gar nicht auftreten. Dieselbe Ausweitung hat die Redaktion auch in 3,27-28 für Ehuds Tat vorgenommen. Siseras Niederlage aber soll Jabin, den König von Kanaan, betroffen haben. Die Schwierigkeit, dass auch Jabin in der Erzählung fehlt, wird so gelöst, dass der Sieg über Sisera ein erster Schritt gewesen sei, dem weitere gefolgt seien: „Die Hand der Israeliten legte sich härter und härter (‫ )וַ ֵתּ ֶלְך יַ ד ְבּנֵ י־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ָהלוְֹך וְ ָקשׁ ֹה‬auf Jabin, den König von Kanaan“ (V. 24a). Daran hat ursprünglich die Ruheformel 5,31b angeschlossen: „Und das Land hatte Ruhe vierzig Jahre“ (cf. Jos 11,23; Ri 3,11.30; 8,28). Sie wurde abgespalten, als später das Debora-Lied hinzukam49.

IV. DIE QUELLE 1. DieSchlachtamBachKischon Die überlieferte Erzählung um Debora und Barak, Sisera und Jaël gliedert sich in zwei Episoden, die durch die Person des Sisera verknüpft sind. Die erste, die den Sieg Baraks über Sisera berichtet, trägt eher historische, die zweite, die den Tod Siseras durch die Hand der Jaël schildert, anekdotische Züge. Ebenso wie bei der vorangehenden Erzählung von Ehud und Eglon rankt sich die Überlieferung um die denkwürdigen Umstände, unter denen ein mächtiger Gegner den Tod fand. Die beiden Erzählungen waren einst Teil einer und derselben Sammlung; denn sie haben sich gegenseitig beeinflusst. Die Gattung ist 48. Es gibt nur wenige Ausnahmen: Gen 11,31; 1 Sam 25,44; 2 Sam 11,3; 2 Kön 22,14. Sie erklären sich jeweils aus den Umständen. In 2 Kön 22,14 wird Ri 4,5 nachgeahmt. 49. LINDARS, Judges1–5 (Anm. 35), S. 164: „As far as the poem is concerned, there is virtually unanimous agreement that the Song of Deborah has been inserted into the book at a very late stage, as it breaks the continuity between 4.24 and 5.31b“.

146

C. LEVIN

wie bei vielen historischen Erzählungen des Alten Testaments das „Memorabile“, die erinnerte Denkwürdigkeit50. Der ursprüngliche Beginn ist nicht erhalten. Wer Sisera gewesen ist, muss in der Quelle erwähnt gewesen sein. Heute ist es der redaktionelle Rahmen in V. 2, der Sisera einführt, und zwar als Feldherrn des Jabin. Diese Rolle widerspricht offensichtlich dem, was die Quelle berichtet hat. Ebenso wird Debora in V. 4 in redaktionellem Zusammenhang das erste Mal genannt. Auch das ist ursprünglich anders gewesen. Sie trägt einen der häufigen Tiernamen („Biene“)51. Dass sie aus Issachar stammte, wie man aus 5,15 erschließen zu können meint, ist nicht vorausgesetzt. Ob die Autorität, mit der Debora auftritt, in ihrer Person lag oder auf einem Amt beruhte, bleibt ungewiss. Barak, der dritte Protagonist, wird mit Vatersnamen als „Sohn Abinoams“ eingeführt, und Kedesch in Naftali als seine Herkunft angegeben. Der Name ‫„ ָבּ ָרק‬Blitz“ passt vorzüglich auf einen Heerführer, der mit einem Überraschungsangriff durchschlagenden Erfolg gehabt hat52. Orte des Namens Kadesch oder Kedesch „Heiligtum“ gab es mehrere. Deshalb ist zur Unterscheidung die Landschaft Naftali hinzugefügt. Die zuverlässigste Bezeugung für Kedesch-Naftali findet sich in 2 Kön 15,29 in der Liste der obergaliläischen Städte, die 732 v.Chr. von Tiglatpileser III. okkupiert worden sind. Der Ort wird mit TellQedes (1997.2798) identifiziert, dem größten Siedlungshügel Obergaliläas etwa 10 km nordwestlich von Hazor53. Demnach kam Barak aus dem Hauptort dieser Landschaft54. Der Erzählung liegt daran, dass Barak nicht aus eigenem Antrieb gehandelt hat. Es ist Debora, die ihm in V. 6 befiehlt, mit zehn Tausendschaften auf dem Tabor in Stellung zu gehen. Mehr ist freilich nicht gesagt. Der Leser erfährt weder den Grund, noch werden die Umstände beschrieben. Es wundert nicht, dass der Befehl später in Vv. 6bβγ-7 erweitert worden ist. Der Ǧebeleṭ-Ṭōr (1870.2324), mit 588 m ü.M. die höchste Erhebung 50. Cf. A. JOLLES, EinfacheFormen, Halle (Saale), Niemeyer, 1930, S. 200-217. 51. Cf. M. NOTH, Die israelitischen Personennamen (BWANT, 46), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1926, S. 230. 52. Ibid., S. 226. Der Name ist in Israel nur hier, im weiteren semitischen Kulturkreis mehrfach belegt (cf. Gesenius18, S. 181). 53. GASS, Ortsnamen (Anm. 37), S. 247-249. 54. Es ist üblich geworden, Kedesch-Naftali auf der Ḫirbat al-Qadīš (2023.2378) zu suchen, die südwestlich des Sees von Tiberias liegt und damit weit näher am Tabor. „Für die Debora-Barak-Erzählung erscheint TellQedes nämlich zu weit nördlich gelegen, zumal der israelitische Heerbann kaum so weit nach Norden gezogen wäre, um dann im Süden das kanaanäische Heer anzugreifen“ (GASS, Ortsnamen [Anm. 37], S. 248). Für solche Erwägungen gibt es keinen Anlass. Die Ergänzer von Vv. 9b und 10a verbanden das Aufgebot von Sebulon und Naftali ohne weiteres mit dem Herkunftsort Baraks. Sie hatten keinen Blick für die Topographie.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

147

Untergaliläas, ist ein nach allen Seiten freistehender Kegelberg in der Nordostecke der Ebene von Jesreel, die er mit 455 m relativer Höhe weithin sichtbar überragt (cf. Jer 46,18). Die eindrucksvolle Landmarke hat allerlei Überlieferungen an sich gezogen55. In V. 10aβγ wird berichtet, wie Barak den Befehl ausführt und eine Truppe von zehntausend Mann auf dem Tabor zusammenbringt. Die knappe Erzählweise, die das Geschehen nur eben andeutet, folgt der Dramatik des Ablaufs. Woher sich eine so große Armee aufbieten ließ, darf man nicht fragen. Danach kommt in V. 12 der Gegner ins Spiel. Wie häufig wird die neu auftretende Person in das Geschehen eingeführt, indem ihr die Kunde überbracht wird56. Als Sisera von Baraks Aufmarsch erfährt, bietet er seinerseits sein Heer auf (V. 13aα). Die neunhundert eisenbewehrten Wagen57 bedeuten eine gewaltige Streitmacht. Auch diese Zahl ist nicht wörtlich zu nehmen: Es war üblich, die Stärke des besiegten Gegners weit zu übertreiben58. Am Bach Kischon (Nahrel-Muqaṭṭa῾), der die Ebene Jesreel nach Nordwesten entwässert und sie mit der Küstenebene nördlich des Karmel verbindet, geht Sisera in Stellung. Doch als Barak mit seiner riesigen Truppe vom Tabor herabstürmt (V. 14b), lässt er seinen Wagen im Stich und flieht (V. 15b); und zwar steigt er nicht vom Kriegswagen (‫)ר ֶכב‬, ֶ sondern vom Repräsentationswagen (‫)מ ְר ָכּ ָבה‬, ֶ dem Kennzeichen seiner Herrschaft, die er damit verloren hat. Sein schmähliches Ende, von dem in einer eigenen Szene erzählt wird, ist der folgerichtige Abschluss. Währenddessen verfolgt Barak die Streitwagentruppe und treibt sie nach Haroschet-Gojim (V. 16a*). Die Ortslage, wörtlich „Waldgegend der 55. Cf. O. EISSFELDT, DerGottTaborundseineVerbreitung (1934), in ID., Kleine Schriften, II, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1963, 29-54. Die Textgrundlage Dtn 33,18-19 und Hos 5,1 ist freilich so jung, dass sie Eißfeldts Erwägungen zur Religionsgeschichte der Frühzeit nicht tragen kann. Der christlichen Tradition gilt der Tabor spätestens seit der Mitte des 4. Jh.s als Ort der Verklärung Jesu (Mk 9,2-8 par.), cf. C. KOPP, DieheiligenStättenderEvangelien, Regensburg, Pustet, 1959, S. 302. Rabbinische Überlieferungen notiert G. DALMAN, OrteundWegeJesu, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 31924, S. 202. Zum Tabor als Kriegsschauplatz cf. Flavius Josephus, DeBelloJudaico IV,1.8 (= 5461). 56. Cf. Gen 22,20; 31,22; 38,13.24; Ex 14,5; 1 Sam 15,12; 23,13; 27,4; 2 Sam 6,12; 1 Kön 1,51; 2,29; Jes 7,2. 57. Technische Beschreibung dieser Waffe: H. WEIPPERT, Art. PferdundStreitwagen, in K. GALLING (Hg.), BiblischesReallexikon, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 21977, 250-255, S. 252. Zur epochemachenden Bedeutung cf. H. DONNER, GeschichteIsraelsundseiner NachbarninGrundzügen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21995, S. 37-39. 58. Beispiele: Ex 14,7: 600 Wagen des Pharao; 1 Sam 13,5: 30000 Wagen der Philister; Monolith-Inschrift Salmanassars III. aus Kurkh, Zeilen Rs. 90–93: 3940 Streitwagen insgesamt beteiligt an der Schlacht von Qarqar (TUAT I/4, S. 361 [R. Borger]; HTAT Nr. 106, S. 257f. [M. Weippert]); Annalen Thutmosis’ III. aus Karnak, Zeile 97: 924 Wagen als Beute nach der Schlacht von Megiddo (HTAT Nr. 031, S. 102 [J. Quack]; TUAT.NF II, S. 220 [H. Sternberg-el Hotabi]).

148

C. LEVIN

Völker“59, lässt sich nicht identifizieren60. Sie soll womöglich nur andeuten: Barak vertrieb die Feinde dorthin, wo jenseits des Kulturlands die fremden Völker zu Hause sind. 2. DerhistorischeGehalt „There is no reason to doubt that the tradition preserves the memory of an episode of decisive importance in the early history of Israel, even if the accounts of it are largely legendary“61. Da die Redaktion den Anfang der Quelle durch eigenen Text ersetzt hat, erfahren wir nicht, wer Sisera gewesen ist. Einen Hinweis gibt womöglich sein Name62. Eine minoische Linear A-Inschrift auf Kreta enthält den Namen (j)a-sa-sa-ra, der als Gottesname Σαισάρα gedeutet werden kann63. Auf einer punischen Inschrift64 findet sich der Eigenname ssr65. In Ugarit ist zi-za-ru-wa belegt66 als Name eines nordwestsyrischen Gegners67. Das alles verweist auf nordwestliche Herkunft68. 59. Von ‫„ ח ֶֹרשׁ‬Waldgebiet“. A.F. RAINEY, ToponymicProblems(cont.), in TelAviv 10 (1983) 46-48, schlägt „Pflanzung(en) der Völker“ vor, von ‫„ חרשׁ‬pflügen“. 60. Man hat an eine bestimmte Ortslage in der Nähe des Baches Kischon gedacht. Dafür wurden ohne jede Sicherheit Tell ῾Amr (1593.2372) 15 km südöstlich von Haifa oder TellHarbaǧ 4 km nördlich vorgeschlagen. Cf. GASS, Ortsnamen (Anm. 37), S. 236240. Zuletzt hat I. FINKELSTEIN, CompositionalPhases,GeographyandHistoricalSetting behindJudges4–5andtheLocationofHarosheth-ha-goiim, in SJOT 31 (2017) 26-43, S. 36-38, Tell el-Muḫarḫaš alias Tel Rekhesh (1940.2288) 6,5 km südöstlich des Tabor ins Spiel gebracht, der von Y. Aharoni mit Anaharat (Jos 19,19) identifiziert wird. Das setzt voraus, dass ein herausragender Ort der „Sitz“ Siseras gewesen ist. Ri 4,2bβ ist aber redaktionell. 61. LINDARS, Judges1–5 (Anm. 35), S. 164. 62. Cf. B. BECKING, Sisera ‫סיסרא‬, in K. VAN DER TOORN etal. (Hgg.), Dictionaryof DeitiesandDemonsintheBible, Leiden – Boston, MA – Köln, Brill, 1999, 784; R.S. HESS, Israelite Identity and Personal Names from the Book of Judges, in Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 23-39, S. 30f.; Gesenius18, S. 884. 63. G. PUGLIESE CARRATELLI, ΣΑΙΣΑΡΑ, in Parola del Passato 31 (1976) 123-128, im Anschluss an K.D. Ktistópulos (1947); G. GARBINI, IlcanticodiDebora, inParoladel Passato 33 (1978) 5-31, S. 20f. 64. CIS 2882.3. 65. Die Etymologie ist unerklärt, cf. F.L. BENZ, Personal Names in Phoenician and PunicInscriptions (Studia Pohl, 8), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1972, S. 368. 66. RS 19,68: 33.35.38 (= PRU IV, 286). 67. Die sprachliche Herkunft ist unbestimmt, cf. F. GRÖNDAHL, DiePersonennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl, 1), Roma, Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967, S. 306. W.F. ALBRIGHT, YahwehandtheGodsofCanaan, London, Athlone, 1968, S. 218, und andere vermuten luwischen Ursprung. 68. Die Erwägung von A. ALT, Megiddo im Übergang vom kanaanäischen zum israelitischenZeitalter (1944), in ID., KleineSchriftenzurGeschichtedesVolkesIsrael, I, München, Beck, 1953, 256-273, S. 266 Anm. 3, dass der Name Sisera illyrisch sein könnte, ist zu weit hergeholt. Die Möglichkeit, dass der Name Sisera hethitisch sein könnte (so u.a.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

149

Siseras Macht beruhte auf einer Streitwagentruppe, wie sie für die spätbronzezeitlichen Stadtstaaten und für die eisenzeitlichen Flächenstaaten Palästina-Syriens vielfach bezeugt ist. Wenn der Aufmarsch Baraks für Sisera eine Herausforderung war, muss er ein bestimmtes Gebiet dauerhaft beherrscht haben. Es in der Jesreel-Ebene zu suchen, legt sich auch deswegen nahe, weil die Streitwagenwaffe dort ihre größte Wirksamkeit entfaltete. Nicht von ungefähr lässt Sisera seine Truppe weit westlich des Tabor am Bach Kischon Stellung beziehen. Wahrscheinlich bezeugt Baraks Sieg einen Herrschaftswechsel, der die Jesreel-Ebene unter galiläischen Einfluss gebracht hat. Dieser Wechsel hat dazu beigetragen, dass Galiläa später unter die Macht der Könige von Israel kam. Das könnte ein Grund gewesen sein, weshalb die Überlieferung erhalten blieb. 3. SiserasschmählichesEnde Auf den knappen Umriss der Schlacht folgt die ausgemalte Episode von Siseras Ende, die den flüchtenden Feldherrn ins Visier nimmt. Eine solche Erzählfolge findet sich gelegentlich auch sonst69. Der besiegte Feind wird ohne Mitleid verspottet. Die Einzelheiten sind aus einem Grundmotiv entwickelt: dem Tod durch den Zeltpflock. Wie bei dem eigens angefertigten Dolch des Ehud (3,16) und wie bei Abimelech, dem ein Mühlstein den Schädel zertrümmert (9,50-54), liegt das Augenmerk auf der eigentümlichen Waffe. Die Abfolge ‫„ לקח‬nehmen“ und ‫„ תקע‬hineinstoßen“ ist dieselbe wie bei Ehuds Tat (3,21). Aus dem Zeltpflock hat sich das Weitere ergeben: ein Zelt als Schauplatz und eine Frau als Täter; denn das Einschlagen der Pflöcke war Frauenarbeit. „Among the Bedawin pitching the tent is woman’s business, and so no doubt it was in ancient times; the mallet and pin were accustomed implements, and ready at hand“70. Diese Aufgabenverteilung war Bestandteil des üblichen Rollenspiels71. Ein Mann hätte einen Zeltpflock nicht C.F. BURNEY, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes, London, Rivingtons, 2 1920, S. 84), hat sich erledigt, seit sich die auf -sira endenden Namen in ägyptischen Quellen als Übersetzungsvarianten von heth. -šili erwiesen haben. 69. Die Gideon-Überlieferung Ri 6–8 widmet sich nach der kurzen Schilderung des Sieges über die Midianiter ausführlich dem Schicksal der Könige Sebach und Zalmunna. In 1 Kön 20 folgt auf den Sieg über die Aramäer (Vv. 1-30a) die anekdotenhafte Schilderung von der Flucht des Königs Ben-Hadad (Vv. 30b-34). 70. MOORE, Judges (Anm. 10), S. 124. Ähnlich K. BUDDE, Das Buch der Richter (KHC, 7), Freiburg i.Br. – Leipzig – Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1897, S. 38, der gegen Wellhausen und andere mit Recht feststellt: „Dass diese Darstellung nur aus Misverständnis von 5,26 entstanden sei, ist unwahrscheinlich“. 71. Moore und Budde bezogen sich auf C.M. DOUGHTY, TravelsinArabiadeserta, I, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1888, S. 221 u.ö. In späterer Zeit wurden die

150

C. LEVIN

angerührt. Dass der besiegte Feldherr durch den Zeltpflock zu Tode kommt, ist eine Schmach. Erwägungen, ob es statthaft gewesen sei, dass Jaël als verheiratete Frau einen Mann in ihr Zelt ließ und wie sie das Gastrecht durch einen Mord hat verletzten können72, sind ebenso unangebracht wie alle weitergehenden Assoziationen, an denen bei dieser Konstellation verständlicherweise kein Mangel ist73. Der Zeltpflock musste das Opfer an der empfindlichsten Stelle getroffen haben. Das war die Schläfe. Drastisch ist die Szene ausgemalt: „Und der Pflock drang in die Erde“, also zur anderen Seite wieder heraus. Der Kopf wurde an den Boden genagelt. Das Fazit „so starb er“ bildet den ursprünglichen Schluss. Wenn ihm der Pflock durch die Schläfe getrieben worden sein soll, musste Sisera sich niedergelegt haben. Dazu musste er bei Jaël eingekehrt sein. So tritt sie ihm entgegen und lädt ihn ein mit den Worten, die gegenüber dem reisenden Gast Sitte sind (cf. Gen 19,2). Um ihn in Sicherheit zu wiegen, fügt sie die Beruhigungsformel „Fürchte dich nicht!“ hinzu. Für den Leser deutet sich darin das Gegenteil an: Der Feind begibt sich ahnungslos in höchste Gefahr. Dass Jaël ihn zudeckt, ist notwendiger Teil ihrer List. Er durfte nicht sehen, wie ihm geschah, weil er sich sonst gewehrt hätte. So fällt er ihr zum Opfer. Sisera stirbt wie Abimelech, der ebenfalls einer ,weiblichen‘ Waffe erliegt: dem Oberstein einer Handmühle. Doch im Gegensatz zu der Tragik Abimelechs, der im Augenblick seines Sieges von irgendeiner namenlosen Frau (‫אַחת‬ ַ ‫א ָשּׁה‬, ִ 9,53) erschlagen wird, gilt der Mord an Sisera als mutige Heldentat. Deshalb wird Jaël als Individuum eingeführt (V. 17a). Wie Debora trägt sie einen Tiernamen: „Steinbock“74. Um ihren Status zu unterstreichen, wird auch für sie ein Ehemann genannt: Heber, dessen Name „Genosse“ bedeutet75. Er soll von Herkunft Keniter gewesen sein. Beobachtungen von H.R.P. DICKSON, TheAraboftheDesert:AGlimpseintoBadawin LifeinKuwaitandSau‘diArabia, London, Allen & Unwin, (1949) 31983, S. 54-70, bei den Nomaden in Kuwait wiederholt. „The daughters of the house […] usually hammer in the pegs“ (S. 60). 72. J.A. SOGGIN, Judges (OTL), London, SCM, 1981, S. 77: „The narrative raises the problem of what seems to be a flagrant violation of the law of hospitality, sacrosanct in the Near Eastern world as it was in the West“. 73. Als ein Beispiel für die sexuelle Deutung der Szene sei Y. ZAKOVITCH, SisserasTod, in ZAW 93 (1981) 364-374, genannt, der immerhin auf R. Johanan in bab. Jebamoth 103a verweisen kann. Zur weiteren Wirkungsgeschichte cf. C.M. CONWAY, SexandSlaughter intheTentofJael:ACulturalHistoryofaBiblicalStory, New York, Oxford University Press, 2016. 74. NOTH, Personennamen (Anm. 51), S. 230. 75. Ibid., S. 222. Der Name bezeichnet den Träger als zweit- oder nächstgeborenen Sohn.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

151

Ein Bezug zur Szene könnte darin bestehen, dass qayn im Arabischen und ‫ ֵקינָ ָאה‬im Aramäischen „Schmied“ bedeutet76, wie auch Tubal-Kajin nach Gen 4,22 der Vater der Schmiede gewesen ist. Der Hammer war das Werkzeug der Schmiede. Die stämmegeschichtliche Deutung kam erst später hinzu. 4. DieAusgestaltungderJaël-Szene Der Spott über Sisera ist in der Folge noch weiter getrieben worden. Man erkennt die Zusätze am Ablauf. Erst nachdem Jaël Sisera zugedeckt hat, spricht er sie an und bittet sie, die Tür zu bewachen. Falls ein Verfolger käme, möge sie ihn verleugnen (V. 20)77. Dass er sich derart in den Schutz einer Frau begibt, soll Sisera als Feigling verächtlich machen. Auch kurz bevor er stirbt, wird seine Hilflosigkeit unterstrichen: „Er aber lag im Tiefschlaf und war erschöpft“ (V. 21b). Der Ergänzer hat nicht bedacht, dass er mit solchen Einzelheiten die Heldentat der Jaël eher schmälerte. Siseras Bitte um Schutz hatte ihren Grund. Das erweist sich in V. 22, wo unversehens Barak auftritt, den der Leser in Haroschet-Gojim vermutet (V. 16). Der Ergänzer führt die Kontrahenten des Beginns wieder zusammen. Indes hat die Szene mit Siseras Tod schon ihren Abschluss erreicht, so dass die Situation erst hergestellt werden muss: „Und siehe, Barak verfolgte den Sisera“. Jaël, die nach wie vor in der Tür steht, tut das Gegenteil dessen, worum Sisera sie gebeten hatte. Sie geht Barak entgegen und verrät ihm den Feind. Das neue Fazit: „Und siehe, er war gefallen und tot“, ist wörtlich aus der Ehud-Erzählung (3,25) übernommen.

V. DIE GERECHTIGKEITS-BEARBEITUNG Der Anschlag hat später die Frage geweckt, ob Jaël sich nicht gegen das Gastrecht vergangen habe. Um das Bedenken zu entkräften, wurde V. 19 hinzugefügt, der durch die Wiederholung des Zudeckens als Exkurs kenntlich ist78. „It holds up the action with a motif which has no real function 76. Cf. HALAT, S. 1025; Gesenius18, S. 1165. 77. Der Vers wird in LXXA mit der Wiederaufnahme von V. 18bβ beschlossen, s.o. Anm. 25. 78. Schon A. VAN DOORNINCK, BijdragetotdeTekstkritiekvanRichterenI-XVI, Leiden, Brill, 1879, S. 26, ist über das doppelte ‫ וַ ְתּ ַכ ֵסּהוּ‬gestolpert und wollte die Wiederaufnahme streichen. MOORE, Judges (Anm. 10), S. 124, hätte hier gern ein „again“ (‫ )עוֹד‬gelesen. „We miss the adverb in Hebrew as much as in English“.

152

C. LEVIN

in the prose account“79. Zur Pflicht des Gastgebers gehörte, dem Gast „ein wenig Wasser“ anzubieten (Gen 18,4). Allerdings macht sich nunmehr die Sitte geltend, dass eine Frau nicht von sich aus an einen Fremden das Wort richten durfte. Daher musste Sisera darum bitten (so auch Gen 24,17.43; 1 Kön 17,10). Wie Abraham setzt Jaël dem Gast nicht Wasser, sondern Milch (‫)ה ָלב‬ ָ vor (Gen 18,8). Damit hat sie das Gastrecht auf vollkommene Weise erfüllt. Nach seiner Tendenz gehört dieser Zusatz zu den Gerechtigkeits-Bearbeitungen, die sich überall in den Erzählungen finden.

VI. HISTORISIERENDE NACHTRÄGE In derselben Weise, wie in V. 2bβ die Herkunft Siseras eingeführt wird (‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫)וְ הוּא‬, ist in V. 5 auch für Debora eine Ortsangabe ergänzt worden: „Sie saß (‫יוֹשׁ ֶבת‬ ֶ ‫ )וְ ִהיא‬unter der Palme Deboras zwischen Rama und Bet-El auf dem Gebirge Efraim; und die Israeliten kamen zu ihr herauf zum Gericht“. Diese Auskunft „is clearly an expansion of the text“, ein innerbiblischer Midrasch80. Er schlägt eine Brücke zu der anderen Trägerin des Namens, die in der Bibel zu finden ist: zu Debora, der Amme der Rebekka (Gen 35,8)81. Von ihr ist als einziges überliefert, dass sie unter dem Baum bei Bet-El begraben wurde82. Um die beiden Frauen zu verknüpfen, musste Debora, die Frau des Lappidot, unter diesem Baum ihr Amt versehen haben. Dass es nach Gen 35,8 eine Terebinthe (‫ )אַלּוֹן‬gewesen ist, nach Ri 4,5 hingegen eine Palme (‫)תּ ֶֹמר‬, tut der Sache keinen Eintrag83. Der Zusatz verträgt sich nicht mit dem Schauplatz; denn der DeboraBaum in Gen 35,8 wird „unterhalb von Bet-El“ lokalisiert, die DeboraBarak- Erzählung hingegen spielt in Galiläa. Indes lebt der Midrasch von 79. Cf. LINDARS, Judges 1–5 (Anm. 35), S. 198. Lindars erkennt präzise den Zusatz und weist auf die Wiederaufnahme („resumptive repetition“) hin. Dass mit V. 19 die Erzählung an das Lied angepasst worden sei (cf. 5,25), ist freilich ein Irrtum. Lindars verfehlt das Motiv. 80. Ibid., S. 183. Die gleichlautende Ortsangabe für den Richter Tola in Ri 10,1b ist dort ebenfalls nachgetragen: ‫„ וְ הוּא־י ֵֹשׁב ְבּ ָשׁ ִמיר ְבּ ַהר ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם‬Er wohnte in Schamir auf dem Gebirge Efraim“. 81. Die haggadische Ausdeutung eines solchen Dislegomenons erinnert bereits an den Analogieschluss ‫ גְ זֵ ָרה ָשׁוָ ה‬in der rabbinischen Exegese, die zweite der sieben Auslegungsregeln Hillels. Cf. ibid., S. 183: „The result of a hermeneutical principle, whereby one passage of scripture is elucidated by reference to another“. 82. Cf. die ausführlichen Erwägungen von RICHTER, Untersuchungen (Anm. 33), S. 39-42. 83. Die Masoreten haben immerhin einen Hinweis gegeben, indem sie ‫ תּ ֶֹמר‬statt ‫ָתּ ַמר‬ vokalisierten.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

153

Text-Verknüpfungen, nicht von historischer Wahrscheinlichkeit84. Dass der Debora-Baum nicht in Bet-El, sondern unterhalb (‫)מ ַתּ ַחת‬ ִ gestanden hat, machte sogar noch eine weitere Assoziation möglich: Debora soll „zwischen Rama und Bet-El“ residiert haben. In dieser Ortsangabe macht sich das Vorbild Samuels geltend, der nach 1 Sam 7,15-17a sein Richteramt so ausgeübt hat, dass er jährlich von Bet-El über Gilgal nach Mizpa die Runde machte, bis er in sein Haus nach Rama zurückkehrte. „Er richtete Israel an all diesen Orten“. Da die Samuel-Überlieferung mit Rama verknüpft ist85, ist das traditionsgeschichtliche Gefälle eindeutig. Unversehens geht damit eine semantische Verschiebung einher. In V. 4 meint ‫ שׁפט‬wie stets in den Rahmenstücken des Richterbuchs allgemein das Regieren, jetzt aber die Rechtsprechung im engeren Sinn86. Auch an die Nachricht, dass Barak aus Kedesch in Naftali stammte (V. 6a), haben sich Weiterungen geknüpft. Ein Nachtrag in V. 6bγ hat dem entnommen, dass es die Naftaliter gewesen sind, aus deren Mitte Barak auf Deboras Befehl hin die zehn Tausendschaften aufgeboten hat. Da die Kräfte eines einzelnen Stammes womöglich überfordert gewesen wären, sind die benachbarten Sebuloniter hinzugenommen. Sebulon grenzt an den Tabor (Jos 19,12). Die Erweiterung gehört in die Spätzeit, als man nicht mehr zuerst an Landschaften dachte (so für Naftali noch 1 Kön 15,20; 2 Kön 15,29; Jes 8,23; für Sebulon Ri 12,12; Jes 8,23), sondern an die Stämme Israels. Die zugehörende Erfüllungsnotiz folgt in V. 10aα. Sie hat ursprünglich sogleich an den Befehl angeschlossen. Auch dieser Ergänzer hat die Topographie ignoriert, wenn er Naftali und Sebulon nach KedeschNaftali kommen lässt, in die Gegenrichtung des Tabor. Ein weiterer Exeget hat sich gefragt, weshalb Sisera sich zu Jaël geflüchtet habe. In V. 17b teilt er seine Lösung mit: Zwischen dem Keniter Heber, dem Ehemann der Jaël, und Jabin, dem König von Kanaan, musste Einvernehmen geherrscht haben, so dass Sisera meinen konnte, in Jaël auf 84. Die Möglichkeit, dass die Nachrichten über die beiden Deboras „in mündlicher Traditionsbildung vermischt worden“ sind (so GROSS, Richter [Anm. 20], S. 268), ist auszuschließen, weil die Grabnotiz in Gen 35,8, die ursprünglich in Lus angesiedelt war, erst redaktionell nach Bet-El verlegt worden ist, um einen Rückbezug auf Jakobs Gelübde in Gen 28,20-22 zu schaffen; cf. C. LEVIN, Der Jahwist (FRLANT, 157), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993, S. 261. Die Übereinstimmung zwischen Gen 35,8 und Ri 4,5 ist daher nur als Textbezug zu erklären. 85. Cf. 1 Sam 1,19; 2,11; 7,17; 8,4; 15,34; 16,13; 19,18.22; 25,1; 28,3. Zur Debatte über die Lokalisierung cf. GASS, Ortsnamen (Anm. 37), S. 240-245. Sie ist für die Aussage von Ri 4,5 ohne Belang. 86. Cf. H. NIEHR, HerrschenundRichten:DieWurzelšpṭimAltenOrientundimAlten Testament (FzB, 54), Würzburg, Echter, 1986. LINDARS, Judges1–5 (Anm. 35), S. 184: „mišpaṭ in the sense of administering justice occurs only here in Judges“.

154

C. LEVIN

eine Verbündete zu treffen87. Es ist immer wieder beobachtet worden, dass diese Auskunft der übrigen Erzählung fremd ist. „18 zeigt, dass S. zufällig an dem Zelte vorbeikommt und erst durch Jael verlockt wird, sich darin zu bergen. Dadurch wird 17b ausgeschieden“88. Der Halbvers „ist ein Schreiberinterpretament“89. Der Ergänzer setzt voraus, dass der Keniter kein Israelit war. Das folgt späten völkergeschichtlichen Spekulationen, die die Keniter den nichtisraelitischen Völkern am Rand des Kulturlandes zuordnen (Gen 15,19; Num 24,21; 1 Sam 15,6; 27,10; 30,29), widerspricht aber der Erzählung, für die die Heldin Jaël selbstverständlich dem eigenen Volk angehört. Um diesen Widerspruch abzumildern, ist in V. 11 eine weitere Erwägung hinzugekommen90. Heber musste sich von Kain, der jetzt als Eponym der Keniter gilt91, getrennt haben; gedacht ist: um sich auf die Seite der Israeliten zu schlagen. Der Ergänzer lässt ihn unter einer Terebinthe bei Za‘anannim sein Zelt aufrichten (cf. Gen 12,8; 26,25; 35,21), so dass eine Szene wie bei Abrahams Gastmahl in Gen 18 entsteht. Die Ortslage dürfte eine Erfindung sein92; denn der Name ist augenscheinlich aus der Erzählung entwickelt: Die Wurzel ‫ צען‬ist eine Variante zu ‫ טען‬93, genauer zu ‫ טען‬I „durchbohren“94. Za‘anannim soll bei Kedesch gelegen 87. Die Wendung ‫וּבּין‬ ֵ ‫ ָשׁלוֹם ֵבּין‬auch 1 Sam 7,14; 1 Kön 5,26. Der erste Beleg ist sicher spät, der zweite wahrscheinlich. 88. BUDDE, Richter (Anm. 70), S. 38. Cf. SOGGIN, Judges (Anm. 72), S. 77; LINDARS, Judges1–5 (Anm. 35), S. 197; GROSS, Richter (Anm. 20), S. 263; und andere. RICHTER, Untersuchungen (Anm. 33), S. 322, schreibt V. 17b dem Verfasser des Retterbuchs zu. 89. K. WIESE, ZurLiterarkritikdesBuchesderRichter, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1926, S. 16. 90. Der Vers, der sich durch invertierten Verbalsatz als Parenthese ausweist, wird immer als Störung erkannt. Schon A. GEDDES, TheHolyBible,ortheBooksAccountedSacred by Jews and Christians; Faithfully Translated from Corrected Texts of the Originals, vol. 2, London, J. Davis, 1797, S. 8, versetzte ihn hinter V. 17. 91. Die Gleichsetzung von Kain mit den Kenitern bahnt sich in Ri 4,11 erst an. In der Kain-Überlieferung von Gen 4 gibt es darauf keinen Hinweis. Noch für den Verfasser der Parenthese V. 11aβ sind die Keniter nicht die Nachkommen Kains, sondern Hobabs, des Schwiegervaters des Mose. 92. Der einzige weitere Beleg für Za‘anannim in Jos 19,33 beruht wahrscheinlich auf Ri 4,11. Er wurde dort in die Grenzbeschreibung des Stammes Naftali übernommen. Eine Lokalisierung ist vergebliche Mühe, cf. die Vorschläge bei GASS, Ortsnamen (Anm. 37), S. 256-258. 93. Zur Bildungsweise cf. H. BAUER – P. LEANDER, HistorischeGrammatikderhebräischenSprachedesAltenTestamentes, Halle, Niemeyer, 1922, S. 483, § 61qδ. 94. So nach Gesenius18, S. 427 und 1128; HALAT, S. 361 und 975; cf. ugar. ṭ῾n „durchbohren“ bei J. AISTLEITNER, Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 31967, S. 121, Nr. 1123. Der Bezug auf ‫ טען‬II „ein Lasttier beladen“ empfiehlt sich nicht. So noch M. DELCOR, Quelquescasdesurvivancesduvocabulairenomadeen hébreu biblique, in VT 25 (1975) 307-322, S. 310f., der, was das Ugaritische angeht, überholte Deutungen in Betracht zieht.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

155

haben95, der Heimat Baraks. Das hielt der Ergänzer wohl für folgerichtig. Es passt aber nicht in den Ablauf. Aus der Schlacht in der Jesreel-Ebene entronnen, müsste Sisera weit nach Norden gelaufen sein und sogar Hazor, die angebliche Residenz Jabins, passiert haben, die ihm sichere Zuflucht geboten hätte. Eine Parenthese in V. 11aβ hat die volksgeschichtliche Spekulation noch weitergeführt. Sie schreibt Heber eine entfernte Verwandtschaft mit den Israeliten zu: „von den Söhnen Hobabs, des Schwiegervaters des Mose“. Die Bemerkung bezieht sich auf Num 10,29, wo Hobab das einzige weitere Mal erwähnt ist, und zwar als „Sohn des Midianiters Reguël, des Schwiegervaters des Mose“96. Wenn in Ri 4,11 die Keniter zu „Söhnen Hobabs“, also zu dessen Nachkommen erklärt werden, werden sie zu einer Untergruppe der mit Mose verschwägerten Midianiter. Die Parenthese streicht die Verwandtschaft heraus, indem sie die Apposition ‫ח ֵֹתן מ ֶֹשׁה‬ „der Schwiegervater des Mose“ in Num 10,29 auf Hobab bezieht statt auf Reguël. Das ist grammatisch möglich, steht aber in Spannung zu Ex 2,18, wo Reguël und nicht sein Sohn Hobab der Schwiegervater des Mose ist97.

VII. DEBORA UND JAËL

IM JAHWEKRIEG

1. DieJahwekrieg-Bearbeitung Ihre religiöse Bedeutung hat die Erzählung zur Hauptsache durch eine umfassende Bearbeitung gewonnen, die Baraks Sieg über Sisera nach dem Muster des (eschatologischen) Jahwekriegs gedeutet hat. Der Sieg geht nunmehr auf das unmittelbare Eingreifen des Gottes Jahwe zurück. Die Feinde Israels werden nicht nur besiegt, sondern vernichtet. Auffallend sind die Anleihen bei der Erzählung vom Meerwunder in Ex 14, dem Urbild des Jahwekriegs. Schritt für Schritt wird das Geschehen der „Theorie vom heiligen Krieg“ (G. von Rad) angepasst98. Am Anfang steht die Not des Gottesvolks. 95. Auffallend ist die stilistische Übereinstimmung mit dem Zusatz 3,19aα, cf. H. RÖSEL, StudienzurTopographiederKriegeindenBüchernJosuaundRichter, in ZDPV 91 (1975) 159-190, S. 186. 96. Die Parallele Ri 1,16 ist m.E. gegenüber 4,11 sekundär. Cf. die Erwägungen von U. BECKER, RichterzeitundKönigtum:RedaktionsbeschichtlicheStudienzumRichterbuch (BZAW, 192), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1990, S. 42; M. RAKE, „Judawirdaufsteigen!“: Untersuchungen zum ersten Kapitel des Richterbuches (BZAW, 367), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2006, S. 82. 97. Zu den verwickelten Assoziationen cf. M. NOTH, DasvierteBuchMose:Numeri (ATD, 7), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966, S. 70. 98. Cf. G. VON RAD, DerHeiligeKriegimaltenIsrael, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21952, S. 6-14. Die Darstellung von Rads hat den Vorzug, dass sie den

156

C. LEVIN

Sie erhält nunmehr besondere Dringlichkeit. Die Bedrückung durch den äußeren Feind wird verschärft: „Denn er hatte neunhundert eiserne Wagen, und er bedrängte Israel mit Gewalt zwanzig Jahre“ (V. 3b). Der Nachtrag ist daran erkennbar, „dass das SchreienzuJahwe in v. 3a anders als sonst (cf. 3,8f.) vor der Angabe der Unterdrückungszeit steht“99. Die neunhundert eisernen Wagen sind aus V. 13 übernommen100. Dass die Not zwanzig Jahre gewährt habe, dürfte auf einfachem Rückschluss beruhen, der die in 5,31b genannte Periode in eine Notzeit und eine Zeit der Rettung halbierte. Das Datum stammt nicht von der Redaktion des Geschichtswerks101. Für diesen Fall hätte es in V. 2a stehen müssen. Voraussetzung des Jahwekriegs ist, dass der Heerführer auf göttliche Weisung hin handelt. Deshalb tritt Debora jetzt als Prophetin auf. Jedoch wird sie nur mit ihrer Funktion als „eine prophetische Frau“ ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫ִא ָשּׁה נְ ִב‬ beschrieben, anders als Mirjam (Ex 15,20), Hulda (2 Kön 22,14) und Noadja (Neh 6,14), die den Titel ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫„ ַהנְּ ִב‬die Prophetin“ tragen102. Der mögliche Grund ist, dass Debora bereits das Amt der Richterin innehatte103. Die Prophetin wird nicht befragt, wie es sonst vor dem Kampf üblich war, sondern Jahwe ergreift von sich aus durch sie das Wort. Ihr Befehl, der in der ursprünglichen Erzählung das Geschehen ausgelöst hat, wird jetzt mit einer Art Botenformel eingeleitet: „Hat nicht Jahwe, der Gott Israels, geboten“ (V. 6aα*). Zwar ist die rhetorische Frage zum Ausdruck einer Behauptung regulär104; zugleich aber liest sie sich wie ein Vorverweis auf Deboras Anweisung105, die von nun an als unmittelbares Gotteswort gilt.

Motivkomplex als theologisches Konzept beschreibt. Die meisten und besten Belege dafür finden sich in der Chronik. Cf. sonst F. SCHWALLY, Semitische Kriegsaltertümer. Erstes Heft:DerheiligeKriegimaltenIsrael, Leipzig, Dieterich, 1901; W. CASPARI, Wasstand im Buche der Kriege Jahwes?, in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 54 (1912) 110-158; SMEND, JahwekriegundStämmebund (Anm. 10); F. STOLZ, JahwesundIsraels Kriege (ATANT, 60), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1972. 99. BUDDE, Richter (Anm. 70), S. 34. 100. Die weiteren Belege für ‫ב־בּ ְרזֶ ל‬ ַ ‫„ ֶר ֶכ‬eiserner Wagen“ Jos 17,16.18; Ri 1,19 leiten sich von Ri 4 her. 101. Ohne Ri 4,3 addieren sich die Zahlen des Richterbuchs zu 370 Jahren, die zusammen mit Josuas Lebensalter von 110 Jahren (Ri 2,8) eine symbolische Summe von 480 (= 12 × 40) Jahren ergeben (cf. auch die spätere Angabe in 1 Kön 6,1). 102. Die auffallende Parallele ‫ ִאישׁ נָ ִביא‬in dem späten, in 4QJudga fehlenden Zusatz Ri 6,7-10 hat den Ausdruck aus 4,4 übernommen. In 2 Kön 22,14 ist die Prophetin Hulda mit Ehemann und Wohnsitz augenscheinlich nach dem Vorbild Deboras gezeichnet worden, vgl. ‫יאה ֵא ֶשׁת‬ ָ ‫ ַהנְּ ִב‬und ‫וְ ִהיא י ֶֹשׁ ֶבת‬. 103. Cf. die Erwägungen von RICHTER, Untersuchungen (Anm. 33), S. 37. 104. Cf. oben Anm. 12, und GesK § 150e. 105. LINDARS, Judges 1–5 (Anm. 35), S. 185: „The question appears to imply that Deborah is referring back to a command which Barak has already received“.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

157

Unter dieser Voraussetzung wechselt V. 7 von der Rede über Jahwe in die Rede Jahwes. Der Befehl, auf dem Tabor in Stellung zu gehen, verbindet sich mit der Verheißung: „Ich werde Sisera, den Heerführer Jabins, in deine Hand geben“106. Der unvermittelte Sprecherwechsel ist ein weiterer Hinweis auf literarische Ergänzung. Die Übereignungsformel ‫„ נתן ְבּיַ ד‬in die Hand geben“ ist für den Jahwekrieg üblich107. Sie wird hier so ausgeweitet, dass der Aufmarsch des Gegners, der in V. 13 geschildert ist, ebenfalls durch Jahwe veranlasst worden sein soll. Der Feind ist Jahwes geschichtslenkender Macht unterworfen, nicht anders als der Pharao in Ex 14,4. Wenn Jahwe Sisera erlaubt, Israel anzugreifen, geschieht das, um ihn zu vernichten. Der Ergänzer übernimmt dafür aus V. 6 das Verb ‫משְׁך‬ „ziehen“, so dass das Aufgebot Baraks und der Aufmarsch Siseras einander entsprechen. Vor der Schlacht gibt Debora das Signal zum Angriff, wieder unter Verweis auf Jahwe. Wieder kommt die Behauptung als rhetorische Frage daher: „Auf! Ist nicht Jahwe ausgezogen vor dir her!“ (V. 14a*)108. Der Befehl deutet bereits an, dass Jahwe in der folgenden Schlacht der wahre Akteur sein wird. Der ältere Bericht setzt das nicht voraus. Um den Befehl zu erteilen, muss Debora zugegen gewesen sein, anders als in der ursprünglichen Erzählung, wo sie nur zu Anfang den Anstoß gab. Der Satz ‫וַ ַתּ ַעל‬ ‫בוֹרה‬ ָ ‫„ ִעמּוֹ ְדּ‬und Debora zog mit ihm hinauf“ in V. 10b klappt deutlich nach. Der Wendepunkt kommt, als Barak überraschend vom Tabor herabstößt und Sisera so erschreckt, dass dieser seinen Wagen im Stich lässt (Vv. 14b.15b). Die Jahwekrieg-Bearbeitung sah darin den Gottesschrecken (‫ )המם‬wirksam109 und führte in V. 15a* unvermittelt Jahwe als Subjekt ein: ‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ַ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ֶר ֶכב וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫יס ָרא וְ ֶא‬ ְ ‫ת־ס‬ ִ ‫„ וַ יָּ ָהם יהוה ֵא‬Und Jahwe erschreckte den Sisera und alle Wagen und das ganze Heerlager“. Es ist immer gesehen worden, dass die Wendung wörtlich mit dem Meerwunder übereinstimmt: ‫„ וַ יָּ ָהם ֵאת ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬Und er (Jahwe) erschreckte das Heerlager Ägyptens“ (Ex 14,24b). Sie ist von dort übernommen110. Nur so erklärt 106. Es gibt keine Handhabe, das Attribut ‫ר־צ ָבא ִיָבין‬ ְ ‫„ ַשׂ‬den Heerführer Jabins“ auszuscheiden, wie es meist geschieht. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion, die das Geschehen auf den „König von Kanaan“ bezieht, geht der Jahwekrieg-Bearbeitung voraus. 107. Dazu ausführlich RICHTER, Untersuchungen (Anm. 33), S. 21-24. 108. Die Wendung hat in 2 Sam 5,24 eine ebenfalls späte Parallele anlässlich des zweiten, nachgetragenen Sieges Davids über die Philister. Cf. auch 2 Kön 19,35 par. Jes 37,36; Jes 26,21; Sach 14,3; Ps 68,8; 1 Chr 14,15. 109. Cf. F. STOLZ, Art. ‫ המם‬hmm verwirren, in THAT I, München, Kaiser, 1971, 502504; H.-P. MÜLLER, Art. ‫ המם‬hmm, in TWAT II, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1977, 449-454. 110. Auch die beiden vergleichbaren Szenen Jos 10,10 und 1 Sam 7,10 haben in Ex 14 ihr Vorbild. Cf. auch P. WEIMAR, DieJahwekriegserzählungeninExodus14,Josua10, Richter4und1 Samuel7, in Bib 57 (1976) 38-73.

158

C. LEVIN

sich, dass der Gottesschrecken nicht nur die Streitwagentruppe, sonַ Siseras betroffen haben soll, das bisher dern das ganze Heerlager (‫)מ ֲחנֶ ה‬ nicht erwähnt war. Das Heerlager wurde auch in V. 16a nachgetragen (‫אַח ֵרי ַה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ֲ ְ‫)ו‬. Auch genügte nicht mehr, dass Barak die Streitmacht Siseras lediglich vertrieben hatte (V. 16a*). Das Heer wurde, wieder nach dem Vorbild des Meerwunders, vollständig vernichtet: ‫ד־א ָחד‬ ֶ ‫„ לֹא נִ ְשׁאַר ַע‬Nicht einer blieb übrig“ (V. 16bβ = Ex 14,28b)111. Damit auch wirklich keiner übrig geblieben sein kann, trägt V. 13* nachträglich Sorge, dass „das ganze Kriegsvolk, das mit ihm war, aus Haroschet-Gojim“ an Siseras Aufgebot teilnahm. Die Vernichtung der Feinde geschah ‫י־ח ֶרב‬ ֶ ‫„ ְל ִפ‬mit der Schärfe des Schwerts“112. Damit lag sie nicht mehr in Baraks Hand, sondern war Teil des Gottesschreckens, wie aus V. 15 hervorgeht. In der so entstandenen Darstellung zeichnen „die Verse 14-16 […] auf kleinstem Raum in der fast lückenlosen Vollständigkeit der konstituierenden Grundelemente fast ein kleines Urbild eines heiligen Krieges“113. Das Resümee: „So demütigte Gott an jenem Tage Jabin, den König von Kanaan, vor den Israeliten“ (V. 23), wurde folgerichtig in den rückwärtigen Rahmen des Kapitels eingefügt. Hier wie in den übrigen Fällen (Ri 3,30a; 8,28a; 11,33b; 1 Sam 7,13) gehört die Beugeformel nicht der deuteronomistischen Redaktion, sondern stammt von der JahwekriegBearbeitung. Die andere Handschrift ist auch an der Gottesbezeichnung ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬abzulesen114. Das Motiv der Demütigung (‫ כנע‬ni./hi.) hat seinen alttestamentlichen Schwerpunkt in der Chronik115. Dass es nicht auf Sisera, sondern auf Jabin bezogen ist, folgt aus der deuteronomistischen Redaktion (Vv. 2.24a). „Jabin, der König von Kanaan“ wird in diesen zwei Versen nicht weniger als dreimal mit Namen und voller Titulatur genannt. Aus der Redundanz ergibt sich, dass auch die vollständige Ausrottung (‫ כרת‬hi.) in V. 24b nachgetragen ist116. 111. Die sachlich gleiche Aussage ‫„ וְ לֹא נִ ְמ ַלט ִאישׁ‬kein einziger entkam“ in Ri 3,29b stammt ebenfalls von der Jahwekrieg-Bearbeitung, cf. auch 1 Sam 30,17. 112. Die Wendung ‫י־ח ֶרב‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ִפ‬wird überwiegend, wenn nicht ausschließlich, in späten Zusammenhängen gebraucht, cf. O. KAISER, Art. ‫ ֶח ֶרב‬ḥæræḇ, in TWAT III, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1982, 164-176, S. 167f. 113. VON RAD, DerHeiligeKrieg (Anm. 98), S. 19. 114. LXXA reagiert auf die Irritation, indem sie κύριος voranstellt, ebenso die Tochterübersetzungen. Cf. Anm. 31. 115. Cf. A. JEPSEN, AhabsBuße:EinkleinerBeitragzurMethodeliterarhistorischer Einordnung, in A. KUSCHKE – E. KUTSCH (Hgg.), ArchäologieundAltesTestament:FestschriftfürKurtGalling, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1970, 145-155; S. WAGNER, Art. ‫ כנע‬kn῾, in TWAT IV, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1984, 216-224. 116. ‫ כרת‬hi., das hier das einzige Mal im Richterbuch belegt ist, hat seinen Schwerpunkt in der Prophetie gegen die fremden Völker und in der Verwünschung der Frevler, cf. G.F. HASEL, Art. ‫ כרת‬krt, in TWAT IV (Anm. 115), 355-367, S. 360f.

DEBORA UND JAËL IM JAHWEKRIEG

159

2. NachträgezurJahwekrieg-Bearbeitung Wenn ein überlieferter Kriegsbericht von der Theorie des Jahwekriegs überlagert wird, entsteht die Frage, wie das Handeln Jahwes und das Handeln der beteiligten Menschen sich zueinander verhalten. Das hat zuletzt noch einige Zusätze hervorgerufen. Der erste betrifft Debora. Die Anwesenheit der Prophetin galt einem Ergänzer als für den Ablauf des Geschehens ganz und gar unverzichtbar. Dafür hat er in V. 8 dem Barak den „Einwand des Berufenen“ in den Mund gelegt117, und zwar als ultimative Bitte an Debora, mit ihm zu ziehen. Debora antwortet mit der Beistandsformel „Ich will mit dir gehen“. Wenn sie in V. 9b die Bitte erfüllt, entsteht eine Dublette zu V. 10b. Der Zusatz verrät sich auch durch die Ortsangabe ‫„ ֶק ְד ָשׁה‬nach Kedesch“, die aus V. 10a vorausgenommen ist118. „Die Verhandlung in diesen Versen bedeutet nichts für die Entwickelung der Ereignisse, das Mitgehen Deboras steht in 10b an der richtigen Stelle“119. Der zweite Zusatz betrifft Jaël. In ihrer Antwort an Barak in V. 9a macht Debora eine Einschränkung: „Allein wisse, dass der Ruhm nicht dein sein wird auf dem Weg, den du gehen wirst; denn Jahwe wird Sisera in die Hand einer Frau verkaufen“. Mit diesem Hinweis meint Debora nicht sich selbst, und er ist auch keineswegs als Kritik an Barak zu deuten. Vielmehr dient er dazu, die Ermordung Siseras, die bisher außerhalb des Duktus gestanden hat, zu einem Teil des Jahwekriegs zu erklären. Das Verb ‫„ מכר‬verkaufen“, das dafür verwendet ist, stammt aus V. 2. Die Strafe, die Sisera empfangen wird, soll die Not der Israeliten wörtlich ausgleichen. Der dritte Zusatz betrifft Barak. In Deboras Befehl V. 14a „verraten die beiden Sätze mit ‫ ִכּי‬und ‫ ]…[ ֲהלֹא‬Erweiterung durch eine spätere Hand“120. Die Begründung, die Debora ihrem Aufruf vorausschickt: „Denn dies ist der Tag, an dem Jahwe den Sisera in deine Hand gegeben hat“, wiederholt die Übereignungsformel aus V. 7, um nunmehr auch Barak am Untergang der Feinde zu beteiligen. Ähnlich beschreibt die Dublette ‫י־ח ֶרב‬ ֶ ‫ְל ִפ‬ 117. J.S. ACKERMAN, ProphecyandWarfareinEarlyIsrael:AStudyoftheDeborahBarakStory, in BASOR 220 (1975) 5-13, S. 8-9, hat in der Abfolge von Auftrag (Vv. 6b-7), Einwand des Berufenen (V. 8) und Bekräftigung (V. 9a) Elemente des Berufungsschemas gefunden, wie es W. RICHTER, DiesogenanntenvorprophetischenBerufungsberichte (FRLANT, 101), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970, S. 145-151, herausgearbeitet hat. 118. Cf. LINDARS, Judges1–5 (Anm. 35), S. 189, sieht darin eine „resumptive repetition“, beurteilt die Abfolge allerdings umgekehrt. 119. BUDDE, Richter (Anm. 70), S. 36. 120. Ibid., S. 37.

160

C. LEVIN

‫„ ִל ְפנֵ י ָב ָרק‬durch die Schärfe des Schwerts vor Barak“ in V. 15a das Zusammenwirken von Jahwe und Barak. Sie wird stets in der einen oder der anderen Weise getilgt. In all dem ist der Bericht über Baraks Sieg ein Paradigma geworden für den mächtigen Beistand des Gottes Jahwe, der sein in Bedrängnis geratenes Volk zu retten vermag und auch künftig retten wird. Die prophetische, ja eschatologische Dimension des Geschehens ist deutlich betont. „Der Held, die Menschenkraft tut es nicht, sondern in der Schwachheit ist Jahve mächtig“121. Himmelreichstr. 4 DE-80538 München Deutschland [email protected]

121. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (Anm. 1), S. 237.

Christoph LEVIN

SOURCES AND COMPOSITION IN THE LIST OF MINOR JUDGES

Scholars who discussed the list of minor judges (Judg 10,1-5; 12,8-15) have proceeded from the assumption that it was an independent work that reached an editor who inserted it into the scroll of Judges1. Due to the formulaic nature of the list and the general resemblance of the formulae to those used by the Deuteronomist, it is widely accepted that a late editor of the Deuteronomistic school inserted the five accounts into their present place in the book of Judges2. In light of the assumption that an early written source antedated the text in its present form, scholars discussed the shape, function, and date of this putative source as well as historical parallels to the function of the minor judges in the history of Israel and other nations3. The distinction between the major judges (i.e., the saviors) and the minor judges is modern and does not reflect the outlook of the editor who inserted these texts into the history of the saviors. Yet, this differentiation corresponds with the literary-historical and redactional analysis of the book of Judges and serves as a useful tool for the investigation of the group of officials included in this group. The list of minor judges includes five names – Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon. The accounts of the first two officials appear after the history of Abimelech and before that of Jephthah (Judg 10,1-5); and those of the last three appear after the history of Jephthah (12,8-15) and before that of Samson. Jephthah, who belongs to the saviors and whose history antedated the insertion of the minor judges into the scroll of Judges, was artificially combined to the list by way of adding details of his length of reign and death formula (Judg 12,7)4. As we shall see, 1. An exception is N.P. LEMCHE, The Judges Once More, in BN 20 (1983) 47-55. Lemche dismissed the idea that an early written source antedated the list of minor judges and emphasized the legendary nature of the figures of the five judges. 2. U. BECKER, Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch (BZAW, 192), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1990, pp. 223-225. See recently, W. GROSS, Richter übersetzt und ausgelegt (HTK.AT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2009, pp. 529-534, with earlier literature. 3. P. GUILLAUME, WaitingforJosiah:TheJudges(JSOT.S, 385), London, T&T Clark, 2004, pp. 125-128, with earlier literature; I. FINKELSTEIN, MajorSaviors,MinorJudges: TheHistoricalBackgroundoftheNorthernAccountsintheBookofJudges, in JSOT 41 (2017) 437-449. 4. GROSS, Richter (n. 2), p. 615.

162

N. NAʼAMAN

the insertion of v. 7 was an editorial solution for integrating the accounts of minor judges into the sequence of judges mentioned in the early scroll of Judges. Much ink had been spilled on the issue of the minor judges and the different aspects involved in the analysis of the five accounts. Among these aspects are the textual relations of the accounts of the major and minor judges5, the function of the minor judges and their assumed role in either the pre-monarchical6 or the monarchical period7, and the putative source of the original list of names and places8. As the accounts of the minor judges have been analyzed extensively, I avoid repeating what has already been established and concentrate on one fundamental issue: the putative source from which the judges’ names and operations was derived. Following a detailed analysis of the five accounts, I re-examine the issues of the date of composition, the intention of the author in composing the five accounts, and the way he integrated them into the book of Judges.

I. TOLA’S ACCOUNT AS A KEY FOR THE PUTATIVE SOURCE INVESTIGATION In 1988, Ran Zadok published a short discussion in which he dismissed altogether the historicity of Tola son of Puah, suggesting that “this judge is an innovation of the editor of the book of Judges based wholly on 5. W. RICHTER, Zu den ‘Richtern Israels’, in ZAW 77 (1965) 40-71; T. ISHIDA, The Leaders of the Tribal Leagues “Israel” in the Pre-Monarchic Period, in RB 80 (1973) 514-530; A.J. HAUSER, The“MinorJudges”–ARe-evaluation, in JBL 94 (1975) 190200; J.A. SOGGIN, DasAmtder“KleinenRichter”inIsrael, in VT 30 (1980) 245-248; H.N. RÖSEL, Die“RichterIsraels”:RückblickundneuerAnsatz, in BZ 25 (1981) 180-209, with earlier literature. 6. RICHTER, RichternIsraels (n. 5), pp. 70-71; ISHIDA, TheLeaders(n. 5), pp. 523-530; E.T. MULLEN, The “Minor Judges”: Some Literary and Historical Considerations, in CBQ 44 (1982) 185-201; RÖSEL, Die“RichterIsraels” (n. 5), pp. 202-203; A. SCHERER, DieʻKleinenʼRichterundihreFunktion, in ZAW 119 (2007) 190-200. 7. H. NIEHR, Herrschen und Richten: Die Wurzel špṭ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (FzB, 54), Würzburg, Echter, 1986, pp. 84-88; GUILLAUME, WaitingforJosiah (n. 3), pp. 125-128; R.D. NELSON, Ideology,Geography,andtheListofMinorJudges, in JSOT 31 (2007) 347-364, pp. 349-355; 357-362; FINKELSTEIN, MajorSaviors,Minor Judges (n. 3), pp. 437-449. 8. K.-D. SCHUNCK, FalscheRichterimRichterbuch, in R. LIWAK – S. WAGNER (eds.), ProphetieundgeschichtlicheWirklichkeitimaltenIsrael.FestschriftfürSiegfriedHerrmannzum65.Geburtstag, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1991, 364-370; GUILLAUME, Waitingfor Josiah (n. 3), pp. 122-125; NELSON, Ideology (n. 7), pp. 363-364; E. GASS, DieOrtsnamen desRichterbuchsinhistorischerundredaktionellerPerspektive (ADPV, 35), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2005, pp. 357-359.

SOURCES AND COMPOSITION IN THE LIST OF MINOR JUDGES

163

Hexateuchal material (in this case Source ‘P’)”9. In light of the importance of his observations, I cite a considerable part of his discussion10. It has long been observed that Tola and Puah are identical with the first and second clan of Issachar respectively, and that Shamir, the place where the alleged judge dwelt (yšb) and was buried is connected with Shimron (Šmr[w]n), the fourth and last Issacharite clan. Now, the beginning and end of Jud. 10,1, viz. TwlʻbnPwʼh… ywšbbŠmyr, are simply based on the enumeration of the Issacharite clans in Nu. 26,23f. (rather than Gen 46,13), since ywšb is just a metathesis of Yšwb, the third Issacharite clan. The combined spelling Pwʻh (