Egypt as a Monster in the Book of Ezekiel (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161532450, 9783161536281, 3161532457

Citation preview

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

76

Safwat Marzouk

Egypt as a Monster in the Book of Ezekiel

Mohr Siebeck

Safwat Marzouk, born 1978; PhD in Biblical Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary; ordained Presbyterian pastor with the Synod of the Nile and assistant professor of OT/HB at the Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart Indiana.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153628-1 ISBN 978-3-16-153245-0 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2015 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For my Beloved Carolin

Acknowledgements This book is a slightly revised version of my dissertation that I wrote as a part of the doctoral program at Princeton Theological Seminary, which was defended in the spring of 2012. I am grateful for the enduring support and encouragement I have received from my mentor Jacqueline Lapsley throughout the different stages of the project. In addition to her creative and astute insights that have enabled me to shape my own thinking and grow as a scholar, her continuous reminder to remain human while taming a monstrous project like this will continue to be valuable. Many thanks to Dennis Olson and Jeremy Hutton, members of my dissertation committee, for their extensive and detailed comments on the dissertation. In addition to meticulous philological and theoretical comments, Jeremy Hutton’s humorous comments, which he advised not to include in the dissertation, made writing this project fun. The idea of pursuing graduate studies in the Old Testament would not have seen the light of day without the encouragement of my seminary professors at the Evangelical Theological Seminary in Cairo and Union Theological Seminary in New York City. I am especially indebted to Gendi Ibrahim Rizk, Stephen J. Davis, Michael Shelley, Alan Cooper, and Archie Lee for believing in me and for showing me the way. I am thankful for the support that I have received from the students, the faculty and the staff at the Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary, where I currently teach. I am especially grateful for the support of Sarah Shenk, Rebecca Slough, Ben Ollenburger, Loren Johns, and Mary Schertz. Special thanks go to Mark Smith for his close and thorough reading of the manuscript of the book. His valuable comments and detailed observations helped me to improve my work. I would like also to thank the staff of Mohr Siebeck, Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, Simon Schüz, and Dominika Zgolik, for being available throughout the process of publishing this book. Many thanks to Barbara Gingerich, Lydia Nofziger, and Armando Sultan for helping me with proofing, indexing, and illustrations. I am grateful for the help and feedback that I received from Paul Keim and Joshua Roberson. I am indebted to Loren Johns for the hours and energy he put into helping me with the final formatting and typesetting of this project. Any mistakes that remain in the book are mine.

VIII

Acknowledgements

As I was making the transition into the doctoral studies I received valuable advice from my friend, colleague and neighbor, Peter Altmann, who urged me to “enjoy” graduate studies. I am grateful for his friendship. I am also thankful for the friendship of Hani Kostandi, with whom I enjoyed many conversations while at PTS about Egypt, the Bible, and theology. With the presence of these two friends, graduate studies at PTS were indeed “enjoyable.” I am thankful to my parents Adel and Fawzeya, and to my siblings Zozo, Salah, and George, and to their spouses Abdallah, Maha, and Loly, and to my nieces and nephews, and to my family in law Karam, Eva, Alfred, and Nancy for their prayers, support, and words of encouragement throughout the years of working on this book. Our children Calista and Julian have developed a love for monsters because they have gazed over many books with monsters on their cover. I cannot think of the perfect words to express my gratitude to my wife and friend, Carolin, for her endless and gracious support. I am grateful for her patience, words of encouragement, and for believing in me and in my work. To her I offer two lines from an ancient Egyptian love song: “One alone is my sister, having no peer: more gracious than all other women … she has captured my heart.” January 2015

Safwat Marzouk

Table of Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................... VII List of Abbreviations ................................................................................ XII Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Chapter One – History of Scholarship: The Monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel in Light of the Exodus Tradition and the Historio-Political Context of the Sixth Century BCE .......................................................... 15 I. Chaoskampf, Exodus and Egypt as a Monster ..................................... 16 A. Preliminary Remarks on Chaoskampf in Biblical Scholarship ....... 16 B. Chaoskampf and the Nations in the Old Testament ......................... 18 C. The Monstrification of Egypt and the Exodus Tradition ................. 20 D. The Monstrification of Egypt and the Exodus Tradition Revisited . 22 E. Summary ......................................................................................... 29 II. Beyond Political Alliance .................................................................... 29 A. The Historio-Political Situation of the Levant Prior to the Babylonian Exile ............................................................................ 30 B. The Political Alliance Between Judah and Egypt Prior to the Babylonian Exile as an Explanation for the Severe Judgment of Egypt in Ezekiel Scholarship ......................................................... 33 C. Beyond the Political Alliance ......................................................... 36 III. Summary ............................................................................................. 43

Chapter Two – Monster Theory ................................................................... 45 I. A Definition of the Monster ................................................................ 46 II. The Monster as an Other ..................................................................... 47 A. The Monster and the Body .............................................................. 48

X

Table of Contents

B. Body and Identity ............................................................................ 50 C. Embodying the Monster .................................................................. 52 D. Body and Punishment ..................................................................... 55 III. Problematizing the Categorization of the Monster .............................. 60 A. René Girard and the Monstrous Double .......................................... 60 B. Monsters as Abject and Unheimlich ................................................ 63 IV. Summary ............................................................................................. 67

Chapter Three – Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East ............................... 70 I. Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East ................................................. 71 A. Enūma eliš ...................................................................................... 71 B. Baal Cycle ....................................................................................... 74 C. Re and Apophis ............................................................................... 76 II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double .......................... 78 A. Beyond Structural Perspective ........................................................ 78 B. Complexity of Relationship Between the Monsters and Gods ........ 85 C. Summary ......................................................................................... 93 III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster ................................ 94 A. Summary ....................................................................................... 108 IV. Complete Annihilation versus Putting the Monster Under Check ..... 109 V. Summary ........................................................................................... 113

Chapter Four – Egypt as a Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23 .......... 115 I. The Significance of Describing Israel and Egypt with Similar Language in Ezekiel ................................................................ 119 A. Jerusalem’s Nwmh and Egypt’s Nwmh .............................................. 119 B. Scattering and Gathering Israel and Egypt .................................... 121 C. “A Mighty Hand and Outstretched Arm” ...................................... 123 D. Summary ....................................................................................... 124

Table of Contents

XI

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in the Revisionist Histories of Ezekiel 20 and 23 ......................................................................... 125 A. Idolatry and Adultery as Impurities: Transgression of Boundaries . B. Worshiping Egyptian Idols as a Marker for Boundary Transgression: Ezekiel 20 ............................................................ C. The Adultery Metaphor: Nudity as a Shared Element of Identity between Egypt and Israel ............................................................. D. Summary ......................................................................................

125 131 136 144

III. Idolatry and Adultery as Primordial and Resurgent Chaos ................ 145 A. Egypt’s Chaos as Primordial in Israel’s History ........................... 146 B. The Chaos that Egypt Represents is Resurgent ............................. 148 IV. Summary ........................................................................................... 152

Chapter Five – Egypt as the Abject: Embodying Egypt as a Monster and the Dismemberment of Its Body ....................................................... 154 I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster ......................................................... 156 A. Ascribing the Body of a Monster to Pharaoh in Ezekiel 29:1–3 and 32:1–2 .................................................................................... 158 B. Constructing Egypt’s Monstrous Body in Ezekiel 16, 23, 30, and 31 ............................................................. 171 C. Summary ....................................................................................... 178 II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster .................. 179 A. YHWH’s Combat with the Monster ............................................. 180 B. Dismembering the Body of the Monster (29:4–5 and 32:4–6) ...... 185 III. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos in the Ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf and Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Egypt ......... 191 A. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos in the Ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf ..................................................................... 191 B. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos in Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt .................................................................. 194 IV. Summary ............................................................................................. 200

XII

Table of Contents

Chapter Six – Putting the Monster Under Check: Geopolitical Minimization of Egypt (Ezekiel 19:12–16) and Pharaoh’s Descent into Sheol (Ezekiel 32:17–32) ............................................................. 202 I. Recalling Some Insights from The Preceding Chapters ..................... 205 II. Center : Periphery .............................................................................. 207 A. Cosmological and Empirical Geographies .................................... 208 B. Center : Periphery :: Israel : Egypt ................................................ 210 III. Geopolitical Minimization ................................................................. 211 A. Restoring Egypt to its Southern Origin ......................................... 212 B. Egypt as a Lowly Kingdom: Minimization of Political Power ...... 213 C. The Result of the Geopolitical Minimization ................................ 214 IV. Mythological Marginalization: Ezekiel 32:17–32 and Egypt’s Descent into the Netherworld, Associating Egypt with Impurity and Death ........................................................................................... 217 A. Ezekiel 32:17–32: A Translation .................................................. 217 B. Destination: Periphery of the Netherworld ................................... 221 C. Egypt’s Companion’s in Sheol ...................................................... 225 V. Summary ........................................................................................... 236

Conclusion

.............................................................................................. 238

Bibliography .............................................................................................. 245 Index of Sources ........................................................................................ 267 Index of Authors ........................................................................................ 277 Index of Subjects ....................................................................................... 282

Abbreviations ÄAT AB AB ABD AH AlASPM AnBib ANET ANEP AOAT AuOr BA BBR BBVO BDB BF BHS Bib BibOr BIS BJS BMECCJ BSac BS BS BUS BZAW

Ägypten und Altes Testament Academia Biblica Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Aegyptiaca Helvetica Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens Analecta biblica Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pitchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969 The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pitchard. Princeton, 1954 Alter Orient und Altes Testament Aula orientalis Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca Bulletin for Biblical Research Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Baghdader Forschungen Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Biblica Biblia et orientalia Biblical Interpretation Series Biblical and Judaic Studies Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan Bibliotheca Sacra The Biblical Seminar Bollingen Series Brown University Studies Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

XIV CAD CBQ CBQMS CC CM ConBOT COS CRAI DJD EUS FAT FB FOTL FRLANT HALOT

HAT HBM HSM ICC IEJ JANESCU JAOS JBL JEA JNES JSOT JSOTSup JTS KTU

Lane LAPO

Abbreviations The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956– Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Continental Commentary Cuneiform Monographs Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger. 3 vols. Leiden, 1997–2002 Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres Discoveries in the Judean Desert European University Studies Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–1999 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hebrew Bible Monographs Harvard Semitic Monographs International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2d enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 (= CTU) Lane, E. W. An Arabic-English Lexicon. 8 vols. London. Repr., 1968. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient

Abbreviations LHB/OTS MARI MAQ MC MVAG NIB NIBC NICOT NSBT OBO OEAE OED OIUCAS OIUCOIS Or OTS PÄ PT RB RIMB SAA SAHL SAOC SBL SBLAB SBLDS SBLMS SBLSymS SBLWAW SHBC SJOT ST TCS TDOT

UBL UCOP UF

XV

Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires Medical Anthropology Quarterly Mesopotamian Civilization Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft. Vols 1–44. 1896–1939 New Interpreter’s Bible New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament New Studies in Biblical Theology Orbis biblicus et orientalis Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Oxford English Dictionary The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Assyriological Studies The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Seminars Orientalia Old Testament Studies Probleme der Ägyptologie Playing the Text Revue biblique The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Babylonian Periods State Archives of Assyria Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Studies in Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature / Academia Biblica Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studia theologica Theory, Culture and Society Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgern. Rev. ed. Translated by J. T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977 Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Ugarit-Forschungen

XVI UNP VT VTSup WAW WBC YES ZAW ZDMG

Abbreviations Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Edited by Simon B. Parker. SBLWAW 9 Atlanta, 1997. Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Writings from the Ancient World Word Biblical Commentary Yale Egyptological Studies Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Introduction Among the prophetic books of the Old Testament,1 the book of Ezekiel includes the largest collection of oracles against Egypt (Ezekiel 29–32). These oracles proclaim divine judgment over Egypt by employing rich images and by interweaving diverse themes. Egypt (represented by Pharaoh) is embodied as a monster in chapter 29:1–5 and chapter 32:1–5,2 and its greatness and 1

Whereas the book of Ezekiel dedicates four chapters to proclaiming seven oracles of judgment against Egypt (1954 words, 97 verses), the rest of the prophets dedicate much less space to Egypt. In addition to the oracles against Egypt, Judah’s relation with Egypt appears over and over again in other contexts as well (chs. 17, 20, 23). The book of Hosea contains a few references that criticize the Northern Kingdom, Israel, for putting its trust in Egypt (e.g. 7:11; 11:5). The book of Isaiah has one chapter (Isaiah 19, 455 words, 25 verses, the oracle ends on a more favorable note toward Egypt) in addition to some sporadic references to the political alliance between Egypt and Judah during the reign of Hezekiah (Isa 30:1–7; 31:1–4). In the book of Jeremiah, a contemporary of Ezekiel, only one chapter is concerned with pronouncing a message of judgment over Egypt in which YHWH uses the Babylonians to put an end to Egypt’s power (Jeremiah 46; 533 words, 28 verses). The rest of the references to Egypt in Jeremiah criticize either the political alliance with Egypt during the reign of Zedekiah (Jer 2:18, 36) or the Judahites who chose to flee to Egypt because of the Babylonian exile. While the book of Jeremiah pronounces oracles of judgment against Babylon, the book of Ezekiel is silent in this regard (Jeremiah 50–51). These observations highlight how central Egypt is for the book of Ezekiel. 2 What the book of Ezekiel says specifically about Pharaoh, the leader of Egypt, applies also to the whole nation of Egypt more broadly. Tyler D. Mayfield argues for a distinction between Pharaoh and Egypt based on the prominence of the figure of Pharaoh in the oracles against Egypt. For Mayfield the fact that Ezekiel directs oracles against the entire nation is enough reason to maintain this distinction. See Mayfield, Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel (FAT 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 204–206. Mayfield however admits that “the ruler of the nation undoubtedly stands as a metaphorical representative of the whole nation.” Moreover, although he initially labels the oracle in Ezekiel 29 an oracle concerning “Pharaoh,” later in his discussion he calls this same oracle “judgment prophesied against Egypt” (ibid., 204, 206). Further, Ezekiel’s oracles against Egypt support my assumption. For example, in the first oracle in 29:1–16, which contains the first portrayal of Egypt as a monster, YHWH commands Ezekiel to prophesy concerning Egypt and Pharaoh (29:2). As the oracle unfolds, the prophet declares that YHWH is against Pharaoh and against the whole nation of Egypt (29:3). Furthermore, in the sixth oracle against Egypt (32:1–16), which contains the second incident of portraying Pharaoh as a monster, the prophet raises a lament over Pharaoh and his demise. Yet at the end of the oracle, and specifically in verse 16, we are told that this is a lament that is to be chanted over

2

Introduction

demise is compared to Assyria, which is represented as a cosmic tree in chapter 31. In addition to these images, Egypt is treated as a political power that YHWH is about to punish using Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon (Ezek 29:17–21; 30:24–26; 32:11). YHWH’s plan for Egypt is to make it a desolate land (Ezek 29:9–12; 30:7; 32:15), and to disperse its people in the midst of the other nations (Ezek 29:12; 30:23). When restored from its exile, Egypt will be a lowly kingdom (Ezek 29:13–16; 30:26). In the last oracle YHWH commands the prophet to declare Pharaoh’s descent into Sheol along with the uncircumcised and those slain by the sword (Ezek 32:17–32). As we can see, Ezekiel’s oracles against Egypt are rich in imagery and diverse in their themes and motifs. In this project I am interested primarily in the motif of the monstrification of Egypt in the book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel’s depiction of Egypt as a monster occurs in two of the longest instantiations of a combat myth between YHWH and the monster of chaos that can be found in the Old Testament.3 In Ezekiel, the monster is embodied, its habitat is described (i.e., the Nile), YHWH snatches it with hooks and a net, and YHWH dismembers its body and proclaims a punishment over the cosmos of Egypt. Twice the prophet addresses Pharaoh as a monster. In Ezek 29:2–3, the text confronts Pharaoh who is embodied as a monster lying in the midst of its river(s). Snatched and thrown in the wilderness, the monster’s body is left abandoned and unburied so that wild animals and birds may feast on it (Ezek 29:4–5). After the defeat of the monster YHWH strikes Egypt cosmologically by drying up the Nile and turning Egypt into a desolation (Ezek 29:8–12). In Ezek 32:1–2, Pharaoh is to be identified with the monster of chaos and not with the positive imagery of the lion. This is followed by a long account of the dismemberment of the body of the monster (Ezek 32:4–6) and a description of how YHWH continues the divine punishment against Egypt expressed in cosmological language, as YHWH darkens its luminaries (Ezek 32:6–8). all Egypt. Further, when the prophet addresses Pharaoh in 31:2 (“to whom are you compared in your greatness?”), the answer the prophet provides is a comparison with another nation, Assyria, not with a king. Thus, the distinction between a king and a nation is not as sharp as our contemporary political view assumes. 3 Most of the other references to the combat myth in the OT (i.e., Psalm 74; 89; Isaiah 11; 27:1; 51:9–10; Job 7:12; 26) are short and concise. Even the detailed description of Leviathan and Behemoth in Job 40–41 does not really describe a combat, but rather the text merely focuses on their outstanding power. As for YHWH’s defeat of the Egyptians in the book of Exodus, Frank M. Cross has argued persuasively that in the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15, “the sea is not personified or hostile, but a passive instrument in Yahweh’s control. There is no question here of a mythological combat between two gods.” See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 131–132. See the discussion in Stephen Russell, Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, TransjordanIsraelite, and Judahite Portrayals (BZAW 403; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 127– 176.

I. Thesis

3

The fact that the book of Ezekiel twice portrays Egypt as a monster, within the collection of oracles against Egypt and within the span of two years according to the internal chronology of the Masoretic tradition of the book, testifies to the centrality of this motif for the Ezekielien tradition in the process of unpacking who Egypt is in relation to YHWH’s people, Israel. Some of the questions that I am interested in addressing in this book include the following: Why does the imagery of a monster in particular seem to be appropriate for Egypt? How does the rhetoric concerning Egypt aside from the collection of the oracles against nations (e.g., Ezekiel 17, 20, 23) relate to this imagery of the monster?4 What are the components that constitute, characterize, and are associated with the category of the monster in both the ancient Near Eastern motif of Chaoskampf 5 and the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in the book of Ezekiel?

I. Thesis I. Thesis

In this book I will argue that the paradoxes that constitute and characterize the category of the monster are what prompt the prophet Ezekiel to portray Egypt as a monster. The category of the monster holds two paradoxical notions dialectically together. First, the monster is simultaneously the same and also different, double and Other. Second, subjugating the monster is done in two ironic ways that range between utter annihilation, on one hand, and harnessing, muzzling, and keeping the monster in check on the other. I will also argue that Egypt is portrayed as a monster in the book of Ezekiel because, for the prophet, Egypt stands in for the threat of Israel’s assimilation to other nations and their gods (Ezekiel 20 and 23). Egypt symbolizes religious chaos in which Israel loses its distinctive identity. Egypt as a monster represents transgression of religious boundaries. Although initially the monstrosity of Egypt is constructed because of the sameness and the shared elements of 4 Lawrence Boadt has pointed out the importance of reading the oracles against the nations in relation to the rest of the book. Based on the vocabulary connections between the oracles against the nations and the oracles against Judah, Boadt argues that the oracles “relate to the basic prophetic message.” Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74; ed. J. Lust; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986), 182–200, esp. 198. These connections underline the sinfulness of Judah as the prophet describes it with language similar to that used for the surrounding nations. See chapter four, in which I will deal with this issue in detail. 5 Chaoskampf is a term coined by modern scholars to identify a literary theme of a combat between the god of order and the power of chaos. I will dedicate the third chapter of this book to a discussion of this motif as it appears in some literary works in the ancient Near East and in the Old Testament.

4

Introduction

identity between Egypt and Israel, the prophet flips this imagery of monster on its other side in order to embody Egypt as a monstrous Other (Ezekiel 29 and 32). Embodying Egypt as a monstrous Other paves the way for the combat between YHWH and the monster. The embodiment, defeat, and dismemberment of the body of the monster witnesses to Egypt’s otherness and also to YHWH’s power to annihilate of the monster (Ezek 29:1–5; 32:1–6). Yet annihilation of the monster is the not the only way YHWH deals with the monster. YHWH also harnesses Egypt the monster by pushing its borders southward toward Pathros (Ezek 29:13–16) and by causing Pharaoh/Egypt to descend into Sheol with those slain by the sword and the uncircumcised (Ezek 32:17–32). The annihilation and the harnessing of the monster ultimately work in two different ways to put an end to the chaos that Egypt represents and to tighten the boundaries between Egypt and Israel.

II. Method In order to reach my conclusion I employ an interdisciplinary approach to my questions. I bring together three threads in this project: (1) contemporary insights from literary, anthropological, and social fields with regard to the category of the monster; (2) comparison and contrast with the ancient Near Eastern literary works pertinent to the motif of the Chaoskampf; and (3) exegesis of the appropriate texts in Ezekiel. My exegetical work builds on the work of previous scholarship in Ezekiel.6 I will be mainly interested in how Ezekiel’s 6

Because my discussions are thematic in nature, I will be dealing with the text of Ezekiel in its final form. There are two established schools of scholarship on how to handle the formation of the book of Ezekiel. The first, which seeks to understand the history of the formation of the book of Ezekiel and follows a redactional approach to the “layers” of the text, is exemplified in the work of Walther Zimmerli. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (trans. Ronald Clements; Hermenia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) and the work of Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) (2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2001). The other approach to the book reads the book of Ezekiel “holistically.” A proponent of this approach to the book is Moshe Greenberg, who writes: “the persuasion grows on one as piece after piece falls into the established patterns and ideas that a coherent world of vision is emerging, contemporary with the sixth-century prophet and decisively shaped by him, if not the very words of Ezekiel himself.” Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 27. On these two approaches Paul Joyce comments, “Neither an elaborate stratification nor a holistic interpretation fully recognizes the particular complexity and difficulty of the questions of unity and authorship in the book of Ezekiel.” Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHB/OTS 482; New York/London: T & T Clark, 2009), 16. He goes on to argue that the book probably reached its final form by the end of the 6th century: “this is the more probable in that by the end of that century reality will have taken over from aspiration in many respects (with regard, for example, to temple or

III. Outlines

5

discourse on Egypt, whether within the oracles or aside from the oracles, helps us understand Ezekiel’s representation of Egypt as a monster (Ezekiel 20, 23, 29, 32). I am aware of the gap between our contemporary worldview and the ancient Near Eastern worldview (including the biblical world) that makes the appropriation of such methods hazardous. However, these theoretical questions will function as “heuristic tools” that will help unpack some important aspects of the ancient Near Eastern and biblical texts that deal with monsters. These ancient Near Eastern traditions will help bridge the gap between the contemporary social and anthropological questions in the texts in Ezekiel. If a shared pattern of characteristics of the monster is discernible in the ancient Near Eastern texts and in Ezekiel, then one can make stronger conclusions.

III. Outlines III. Outlines

The first chapter will review the history of scholarship on the monstrification of Egypt in the Old Testament in general and in the book of Ezekiel in particular. Portraying Egypt as a monster in the book of Ezekiel is an appropriation of the Chaoskampf motif known from many ancient Near Eastern literary works (e.g., Enūma eliš, Baal-Cycle, Re-Apophis) and also attested elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalm 74, 89; Isa 27:1; 51:9–10; Job 7:12). The book of Ezekiel is not the only biblical tradition that appropriates the Chaoskampf motif in order to speak of Egypt. Isaiah 30:7, for instance, employs the mythological term Rahab in order to represent Egypt; it is a term that becomes attached to Egypt (cf. Ps 87:4). The most famous example of connecting Egypt with the monster of chaos apart from Ezekiel comes from Isaiah 51:9–10: “Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon? Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over?” It is clear that this text alludes to the exodus event and the parting of the sea after the flight of the Israelites from Egypt (cf. Exodus 14). Does Ezekiel portray Egypt as a monster because of the memory of Egypt as the land of oppression and the memory of YHWH’s parting of the sea? In other words, can one generalize from Second Isaiah’s monstrification of Egypt to explain Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt? monarchy), and many expectations will have been falsified by historical developments. We can, then, with a measure of confidence speak of the sixth-century witness of the book of Ezekiel, and also regard that witness as profoundly influenced, both in content and in style, by Ezekiel himself” (ibid., 16). The balance that Joyce strives for signals a third approach that takes seriously both the diachronic formation and the synchronic reading of the book of Ezekiel.

6

Introduction

These questions will be discussed in part in chapter one. There I will argue that we should not generalize the connection between the monstrification of Egypt and the memory of the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt and the parting of the sea as a way of explaining every single incident of portraying Egypt as a monster in biblical texts. In other words, what could stand behind Second Isaiah’s monstrification of Egypt does not automatically explain why Egypt is a monster in Ezekiel. It suffices here to say that the exodus event in Ezekiel is not remembered in terms of an oppression-liberation cycle; rather, in Ezekiel’s memory (e.g., ch. 20) the exodus is not remembered because of Egypt’s cruel oppression of Israelites or because YHWH defeated Egypt and parted the sea; rather Egypt is remembered because it posed and continues to pose a threat to Israel’s religious identity because the Israelites worshiped Egyptian idols prior to their exodus from Egypt (Ezek 20:8–9). A further gap in the scholarship that my work will fill has to do with the relationship between Ezekiel’s portrayal of Egypt as a monster in the oracles against Egypt and Ezekiel’s discourse concerning the relationship between Egypt and Israel in chapters 20 and 23. Whether in the oracles against the nations (Ezekiel 25–32) or apart from this collection (Ezekiel 17, 20, 23), Egypt figures prominently in the book of Ezekiel. In addition to a plethora of images and motifs that are intertwined in the oracles against Egypt, the book of Ezekiel shows a great interest in the relationship between Egypt and Israel from the time of the exodus until the time of the exile. To be sure, the historical context of the last decade of the history of Judah is important for understanding Ezekiel’s prophecies against Egypt. During the reign of Zedekiah of Judah and with the promises of Egyptian military help, a rebellion against the Babylonians took place. In 592 BCE Psammetichus II, after returning victoriously from Nubia, went to the Levant in order to stir up such a revolt. In Ezekiel 17 Judah is explicitly criticized for sending messengers to ask for Egyptian military assistance. The prophet pronounces Egypt an unreliable ally; it is like an unstable rod, which if leaned upon, will break and hurt that person (Ezek 29:6–8). Reacting to the rebellions of the kingdoms of the Levant, the Babylonians moved swiftly westward and restored their control in the region, leaving most of these kingdoms in ruins, including Jerusalem, which fell to the Babylonians in 587 BCE. As central as it is for understanding Ezekiel’s severe judgment of Egypt, these historical data alone do not sufficiently account for the way the book of Ezekiel describes the relationship between Israel and Egypt. Judah’s rebellion against Babylon with the assistance of the Egyptians is viewed as a rebellion against YHWH. This political rebellion has cosmological implications. This incident of the rebellion of the Israelites is not the first one in which Egypt has played an active role, argues the book of Ezekiel. For the book of Ezekiel this rebellion against Babylon and by extension against YHWH is one event in a long history of rebellion. Interestingly, Ezekiel 20 proclaims that the Is-

III. Outlines

7

raelites worshiped Egyptian idols prior to their exodus from Egypt and they refused to listen to YHWH’s injunction to cast away the defilement of Egypt. Furthermore, Ezekiel 23, by employing the husband-wife metaphor, proclaims that both Samaria and Jerusalem were involved in an illicit relationship with the Egyptians. This adulterous relationship takes place at the beginning of the history of these two cities (prior to the exodus) and at various points throughout their histories until their end at the exile. The political relationship between Egypt and Judah is an external sign hovering on the surface that reflects a deeper chaos in the religious life of the Israelites. It is this deeper chaos that Egypt represents for Ezekiel, the sublimated but terrifying threat that Egypt poses to Israel’s religious identity that I will explore in the chapters that follow. Scholars have highlighted the cosmological dimension of the political alliance between Egypt and Judah in the sicth century. But the relationship between this cosmological dimension and the imagery of the monster – that is Egypt – has gone unexplained. In chapter one I will deal with the political alliance between Egypt and Judah, and then I will point out some, but not all, passages in Ezekiel where the political relationship seems to be an external representation of an internal chaos in the life of Israel, a theme that I will fully flesh out in chapter four. This chaos that Egypt represents, as reflected in idolatry and metaphorized as adultery, poses a threat of religious assimilation and loss of identity. But again, how does this threat relate to the imagery of the monster? What does this fear of loss of identity and religious assimilation have to do with the imagery of the monster? I believe that monster theory can offer help in answering these questions and in solving the problem that I have just stated. Therefore, the second chapter will deal with a theoretical definition of a monster. One may easily observe the rise of interest in monsters in the last two decades in the literary, social, and anthropological fields. This interest in monsters reflects the anxiety pervasive in the postmodern period, in which many things (e.g., sexuality, gender, identity) that were taken for granted are subject to revision and questioning. The contemporary anxieties and fears that are reflected in the rejuvenation of interest in monsters in recent decades in part parallels the time of the exile in that both deal with anxiety, horror, and identity questions. After reviewing various theoretical analyses that deal with monsters and monstrosity, the definition I will adopt for the purposes of this book is an eclectic one. It reconstructs the definition of the monster from different theoretical parts. Whereas some theorists claim that monstrosity is a result of difference, other scholars argue that it is totally the opposite that causes monstrosity – namely, sameness. I will show that it is both; it is not one or the other. The monster “shimmers” between being a double/Other, same/different, heimlich/unheimlich. Thus I will discuss the notion of the monster as a double and the monster as an Other. I will explore how monstrosity is related to sameness and to

8

Introduction

difference. Furthermore, I will discuss the role of the body of the monster in the notion of monstrosity, whether in the process of ascribing the monster a hybrid and impure body or in the notion of inscribing the punishment on the body of the monster in order to restore order and reestablish the law. Special attention will be paid to the notion of abjection as discussed by Julia Kristeva and its resonances with the category of the monster. This will be fruitful in unpacking some new insights into the Chaoskampf motif in the ancient Near East and will also contribute to a more nuanced analysis of how the monstrosity of Egypt is reconstructed in Ezekiel. Chapter three will be dedicated to studying the motif of Chaoskampf as it appears in some ancient Near Eastern literary works (e.g., Enūma eliš, BaalCycle, Re-Apophis). The discussion will focus on three major themes. First, I will deal with the complex relation between the monsters (i.e., Tiamat, Yamm/ Mot, Apophis) and their respective divine pantheons. Second, I will deal with the phenomenon of the embodiment of chaos as a monster. Not only is the body of the monster anomalous, but it also bears the divine punishment and judgment. Finally, I will deal with the tension between the utter annihilation of the monster and the notion of harnessing the monster that is found in the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf motif. Chapter four will deal with Egypt as a monstrous double in the book of Ezekiel. Basically, I will argue that Egypt’s monstrosity is partially constructed because Egypt is Israel’s double. The sameness between Egypt and Israel as constructed and unveiled by the prophet underlines the blurring and haziness of boundaries between the two. I will support my argument from Ezekiel 20 and 23, in which the prophet reviews Israel’s history from the time of exodus to the time of the exile. First, I will highlight the stock terms used to describe both Egypt and Judah and show how this shared set of terms establishes a special relationship between Egypt and Judah. The loss of boundaries between these two nations is further underlined when the prophet proclaims that the Israelites worshiped the Egyptian idols (Ezekiel 20). In addition, as the prophet appropriates the marriage metaphor (Ezekiel 23), the shared elements of identity are also emphasized when the prophet describes the nude bodies of the Egyptian male and the two sisters (Samaria and Jerusalem). The blurred and hazy boundaries between Egypt and Judah are analogous to the ancient Near Eastern concept of chaos in that they are primordial and also resurgent. For Ezekiel the situation of the sixth century is rooted in the history of Israel. Prior to their exodus from Egypt, they worshiped Egyptian idols and thus metaphorically committed adultery with the Egyptians. In addition to the fact that Israel as a nation was created at the time of the exodus out of the chaos of Egypt, a notion that is similar to the creation-out-ofchaos attested in some ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, Ezekiel 20 and 23 show that this religious chaos as represented by Egypt is not only originating

III. Outlines

9

and primordial but also continuous and resurgent; it keeps coming back throughout Israel’s history. In chapter five I will argue that Ezekiel embodies Egypt as a monstrous Other. Although Egypt is portrayed as a monster initially in Ezekiel because of its sameness with Israel, eventually the prophet appropriates the imagery of the monster in order to separate Egypt from Israel. I will argue that by appropriating the Chaoskampf and by ascribing the body of a monster to Egypt, Ezekiel underlines Egypt’s Otherness in order to reconstruct the boundaries between Egypt and Israel. This is similar to the notion of embodying chaos in the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf traditions. The monster that is usually ascribed an anomalous body, a notion that underlines its Otherness, is defeated and its body is dismembered. YHWH, the divine warrior, combats the monster and inscribes his punishment and defeat on the body of the monster. The dismembered body of the monster declares YHWH’s sovereignty, and a warning message to anyone who dares to oppose YHWH’s will. This discussion will be illuminated by Michel Foucault’s studies of bodily punishment prior to the birth of the prison. The body becomes the site of the struggle, and it bears the stigmata and the scars that witness to the power of the sovereign. This argument will be supported by considering what happens to the body of the monster in Enūma eliš, the Baal-Cycle, and the combat between ReApophis. Ultimately, the dismemberment of the body of the monster is one of the ways through which YHWH puts an end to the chaos that Egypt perpetuates in the religious and political life of Israel. In addition to the defeat of the monster, YHWH removes the monster to the margins of Israel’s universe. On both the geopolitical level and the mythological level, YHWH will restore the boundaries between Egypt and Israel. Because chaos is resurgent, the defeat of the monster is never the end of the story, nor is it a complete annihilation. Rather, as we learn from the combat myth in the ancient Near East, chaos always comes back to threaten the order of the cosmos, so I will argue in chapter six that YHWH works in Ezekiel to remove Egypt to the periphery of both empirical geography and the mythological geography. Monsters in the ancient Near East are associated with the periphery. So Ezekiel pushes Egypt to the south to be as far as possible from Israel. Furthermore, YHWH causes Pharaoh to descend into Sheol, which is beyond the known world of the living, along with the uncircumcised and the impure. Egypt must die and remain dead with the impure. However, Israel will be restored and revived again (Ezekiel 37). So the prophet testifies to the hope that God will restore the boundaries that separate Israel and Egypt.

10

Introduction

IV. Situating the Reader IV. Situating the Reader

The main goal in this book is to read Ezekiel’s rhetoric concerning Egypt as found in his book in the light of his ancient Near Eastern milieu and his historical context. Situating the text in its historical moment yields a better reading of the text and also respects the otherness of the ancient author(s) and the text and the otherness of their contexts. But it is not only the author’s context that matters. These texts are also read now by readers from contexts different not only from that of the prophet, but also from the contexts of other readers as well. These texts that addressed the Israelites of the sixth century have become scripture, and therefore they have been and are read in different times and places by Jews and non-Jews. I am one of these readers. I am an Egyptian Christian who reads the texts of Ezekiel as scripture. I live in a different historical and cultural milieu from Ezekiel’s. I think describing my cultural and historical location as a reader is as ethical and as important as describing the context of the text and the author(s). Being a Christian Egyptian lies behind my interest in the portrayal of Egypt in the Old Testament. In the following few paragraphs I will sketch the current state of hermeneutics in Christian Egyptian circles with regard to the portrayal of Egypt in the Old Testament. In this brief sketch I will shift from the first person to the third person because some of these portraits in the sketch speak of my own experience with the Old Testament and others do not. Further, the following sketch is not meant to be a generalized statement about every single Christian Egyptian; unfortunately, a serious and a systematic study of Egyptian Christian hermeneutics is still lacking. Christian Egyptians face a hermeneutical dilemma when they read the Hebrew Bible. The negative portrayal of Egypt in Hebrew scriptures as the house of slavery (Exod 20:2; Deut 8:14), embodying it as monster of chaos in Ezekiel 29 and 32, or representing it as a threat to the Israelite identity as in Jeremiah 40–42, overshadows the blessing of Egypt (Isa 19:25) and Egypt’s role as a place of refuge for the ancestors (Genesis 12; 37–50), Jeroboam (1 Kings 11), and the Judeans (Jer 42–44). The Hebrew Bible that developed over a long period of time as Israel’s testimony of its experience of the divine has become a sacred text found in the hands of Egyptians, read in synagogues, churches, and mosques as their scripture. Because a significant aspect of Israel’s testimony centers on the exodus event, in which Egypt is portrayed as a place of oppression and as a threat to the Israelite identity, the Hebrew Bible’s status as scripture in contemporary Christian Egyptian circles has undergone severe scrutiny in recent years. Reading the Hebrew Bible in a Christian Egyptian context is an identity question. Religion, in modern Egyptian society, is an identity component. Religious affiliation is determined at birth, inherited from the parents, and made official by explicitly listing it in birth certificate and Identification Card.

IV. Situating the Reader

11

Whether or not people practice their religion, they are labeled Muslims (ca. 89 percent of the population), Christians (ca. 10 percent) or Jews or other (ca. 1 percent; official numbers are unknown). Religion, therefore, is an essential identity marker in contemporary Egypt. In various incidents throughout the past three decades, the religious facet of identity has become an instigator of conflict and violence between the Muslim Egyptian majority and Christian Egyptian minority. In addition to the minority status of Christian Egyptians, which has impacted the way they interpret the Bible, the political situation in the Middle East – that is, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and more specifically the wars of 1967 and 1973 – has raised many questions for Middle Eastern Christians, including Christian Egyptians, with regard to appropriating the Hebrew Bible as scripture. The 25th of January Revolution has stirred the long suppressed sense of belonging among Egyptians, signaling the rise of a nationalistic self-understanding. In light of this religious and political context, when Christian Egyptians read the Hebrew Bible, they are caught in a tension between the two facets of their identity, the religious and the political. A tension has risen between the religious facet of identity signified by a commitment to continue to read the Hebrew Bible as scripture despite its negative representation of Egypt, and the political facet of identity manifested in tracing the Egyptian identity, despite the historical and cultural changes, down to the pharaonic period. As Christian Egyptians struggle with formulating their identity in the light of the negative representation of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible, two approaches emerge. The first approach, which is a minority report, discards the text and refuses to engage with it because it is offensive. Identifying themselves with the Egypt of the Old Testament, some Christian Egyptians are offended because of the negative portrayal of Egypt in the text of the Hebrew Bible and thus they tend to discard or expel the text altogether in an attempt to settle the question of identity. This approach dismisses the religious aspect – namely, engaging with the Hebrew Bible as a part of their scriptures – for the sake of redeeming the political aspect of their identity. This approach assumes that discarding the text will undo the questions it imposes on the process of formulating the identity of Christian Egyptians. It is likely that highlighting the nationalistic facet of identity, which leads to rejecting the Hebrew Bible as scripture, is a reaction to the employment of the Hebrew Bible in the Israeli nationalistic discourse. For some, dismissing the text takes place in an indirect way through treating the text as a historical artifact that has nothing to do with our contemporary world. Focusing on the biblical text just as a historical artifact ignores the impact the Bible has had on human history and political relationships between the different communities of faith throughout history. The second interpretive approach that Christian Egyptians appeal to is allegorical interpretation; they argue that Egypt in the Bible is just a symbol for something else. Allegorical interpretation is prevalent as an interpretive style

12

Introduction

among Christian Egyptians. The prevalence of this interpretive style can be read as a way through which the Christian Egyptian community deals with the question of identity in relation to negative representations of Egypt in the Old Testament. This approach argues that when Christian Egyptians read the Hebrew Bible, they should identify with Israel, which represents the godly, the chosen, the spiritual, and they should not identify with the Egypt, which stands in for evil, oppression, the material, and the rejected. This allegorical approach dismisses the political facet of the identity of Christian Egyptians in order to redeem the religious facet of identity as a way of holding onto the text as scripture. But it is ironic to note that Christian Egyptians, who allegorize the offensive texts, tend to read literally the texts that speak favorably of Egypt (e.g., Isa 19:25). Christian Egyptians create different zones in which they entertain the religious and the political facets of their identity independently. Many Christian Egyptians shy away from identifying with Egypt as represented in the biblical texts. In the context of reading scriptures, many Christian Egyptians mask their political identity with a religious identity; they relate themselves to the Israelites. The underlying problem with this hermeneutical approach has to do with accepting the biblical portrayal of Egypt uncritically or explaining it away allegorically without reflecting on how this representation of Egypt shapes a people’s self-image and selfunderstanding. The way these Christian Egyptian readers employ allegorical interpretation alienates the political facet of their identity. Although allegorical interpretation is part of the popular understanding of the text in many Christian Egyptian interpretive circles, and although one should take it seriously, this notion of transcending the geopolitical entity of Egypt in the text does not acknowledge the situatedness and the historical context of both the text and its readers. The theoretical frame of reference of the allegorical interpretation that was influenced by middle-platonism needs to be challenged and nuanced by our contemporary theoretical perspective. Most Christian Egyptians who interpret the text allegorically tend to focus primarily on the spiritual meaning of the text, ignoring their own and the text’s own historical realities. In this way many contemporary Christian Egyptian interpreters misuse the allegorical method by making the text mean one thing for everyone, all the time, and everywhere. Many Christian Egyptian interpreters endorse the results of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament without tracing it back to the cultural and intellectual environment that made this interpretive approach appealing. Although allegorical interpretation created a way of dealing with offensive parts of the Hebrew Bible for a variety of readers, including Christian Egyptians, the problem with this approach is that it takes the readers away from their own historical context, to say nothing of the historical context of the text itself. Understanding the frame of reference of allegorical interpretation enables us to situate it as a tradition in its historical contexts, and it will also enable us to figure out a

IV. Situating the Reader

13

frame of reference that fits with our contemporary questions as Christian Egyptians living in the twenty-first century. In the conclusion of this book, I offer some remarks on contemporary tensions in the Middle East, as they relate to the hermeneutical dilemma that Christian Egyptians face as they continue to construct their hybrid identity in light of how Egypt is portrayed in the Old Testament. The relevance of these remarks is not limited to the Christian Egyptian context; my hope is that they can help to foster a vigorous and a productive interreligious dialogue between Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Chapter 1

History of Scholarship: Egypt as a Monster in the Book of Ezekiel in Light of the Exodus Tradition and the Historio-Political Context of the Sixth Century BCE In two oracles in the book of Ezekiel, Pharaoh is represented as a monster (Ezek 29:1–16 and Ezek 32:1–16). This designation is critical for the prophet’s perception of who Egypt is and how Israel should relate to this nation. Assuming that what Ezekiel says specifically about Pharaoh, the leader of Egypt, applies also to the whole nation of Egypt more broadly, 1 this book will focus on the following questions: Why is Egypt portrayed as a monster in the book of Ezekiel? How does the monstrification of Egypt, as highlighted in the prophet’s discourse with regard to Egypt in the collection of the oracles against Egypt (Ezekiel 29–32) relate to his discourse concerning the relationship between Egypt and Israel apart from the collection of the oracles against the nations (e.g., Ezekiel 17, 20, 23)? Before I discuss my proposal that addresses these questions, I will review two trends in biblical scholarship that deal with the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel. On the one hand, some scholars tend to explain the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel by appealing to other biblical accounts in which Egypt is portrayed as a monster. For example, the connection that is suggested by Isa 51:9–10 between Egypt’s monstrosity and the exodus from Egypt is frequently pointed out as an explanation for Egypt’s monstrosity in Ezekiel. Is Egypt’s monstrosity reconstructed for the same reason in Isa 51:9–10 as compared to Ezek 29:1–5 and 32:1–6? Does the memory of the exodus and the defeat of the Egyptians by the sea stand behind the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in Ezekiel? How does Ezekiel remember the exodus event? I will deal with these questions in the following pages. On the other hand, a second account of the monstrification of Egypt in the book of Ezekiel has focused on the political alliance between Egypt and Judah prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Although it is clear to the reader of the book of Ezekiel that the political situation of the sixth century is critical to understanding Ezekiel's severe criticism of Egypt, I will argue that this political coalition has more than political significance for the prophet; beneath the surface of the political situation there is a turbid religious chaos 1

See the Introduction, p.1, note 2, for a discussion of this assumption.

16

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

that prevailed in the life of Israel before and at the time of the exile. Many scholars have pointed out that there is a deeper meaning for the political alliance between Egypt and Judah in the book of Ezekiel. However, the connection between this deeper meaning of the political alliance and the imagery of the monster has gone unexplained.

I. Chaoskampf, Exodus, and Egypt as a Monster I. Chaoskampf, Exodus, and Egypt as a Monster

A. Preliminary Remarks on Chaoskampf in Biblical Scholarship Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt is related to a widespread motif in the ancient Near East known as Chaoskampf (a cosmic battle with the powers of chaos).2 This term was coined by modern scholars to identify a literary theme of a combat between a patron god who is associated with order and some sort of a power of chaos.3 The motif of Chaoskampf was brought to the fore by Herman Gunkel in the1890s after the publication of the so-called Mesopotamian creation myth of Enūma eliš.4 Gunkel, who realized that there were similarities between the creation account recorded in Genesis 1 and Enūma eliš, argued that Genesis 1 is not a free construction of its author but goes back to the tradition preserved in the Babylonian myth.5 Noticing that Genesis 1 does 2 Chapter three of this book will discuss in detail the motif of Chaoskampf. Most of the scholarly debates over the Chaoskampf fall into one of the following circles of discussions: 1. What are the boundaries of comparative method in which scholars investigate the relationship between the different Chaoskampf traditions in the ancient Near East, including the biblical texts? 2. How does myth relate to history/politics and ritual within the Chaoskampf traditions? 3. How is Chaoskampf associated with creation, cosmology, and cosmogony? 4. How do we read the ancient Near Eastern and biblical texts that employ the Chaoskampf motif comparatively in light of one another, and at the same time read each text with its own distinctive integrity? Because of limitations of space I will not be able to engage with these questions in a straightforward manner; rather they will be dealt with as they appear in the course of the general discussion of the chapter. 3 According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word chaos means “gaping void” or “formless void.” The word designates a sense of disorder and confusion. In this book, I use the term to refer to a loss of boundaries and to describe a state of disorder, be it natural, social, political, or religious. 4 George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis (London: Low Marston Searle Rivington, 1875); L. W. King, The Seven Tablets of Creation, or the Babylonian and Assyrian Legends Concerning the Creation of the World and of Mankind (2 vols; London: Luzac, 1902); R. Labat, Le Poème babylonien de la creation (Paris: Adrien-Maissonneuve, 1935). 5 Herman Gunkel and Heinrich Zimmern, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: a Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12 (trans. K. William Whitney Jr.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans: 2006); originally published in German as Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen.1 und Ap. Jon 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895, 1921);

I. Chaoskampf, Exodus, and Egypt as a Monster

17

not really speak of a combat, Gunkel filled this gap by appealing to other parts of the Bible (e.g., Psalm 74, 89).6 Between 1930 and 1933 the so-called Baal Cycle and other fragments were found in Ugarit; such texts, when put together, speak of a combat myth between rival gods over kingship and supremacy in the Ugaritic pantheon. Since the discovery of these materials, many valuable scholarly works have highlighted the significance of the Ugaritic materials for understanding the biblical appropriation of the Chaoskampf tradition.7 In discussions of the combat myth in the ancient Near East and the Old Testament, a few scholars make reference to other traditions of combat myth in addition to Enūma eliš and the Baal Cycle.8 These include the combat between Re and Apophis,9 which is attested in Egyptian funerary literature throughout the history of ancient Egypt. for a discussion on the Babylonian background, for Genesis see W. G. Lambert, “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis,” JTS 16 (1965): 287–300. 6 Gunkel was criticized by his contemporary Wellhausen for exaggerating the similarities between Genesis 1 and Enūma eliš, and over-reading the text. For a bibliography on the debate between Wellhausen and Gunkel on this issue, see the foreword by Peter Machinist in Whitney’s translation of Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos (pages xviii–xix and 285). After 1929, Gunkel was also criticized based on the archaeological finds of Ugarit, which show a similar motif of Chaoskampf in the Baal Cycle and other fragments. According to some scholars, linguistic and geographical affinities between Ugaritic and Hebrew lend more support to the notion of comparing the biblical chaos traditions with that of Ugarit. See John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (UCOP 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 7 Frank Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973); John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 1–18; Mark Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume I: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2 (VTSupp 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994); N. Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL 13; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996); Mark Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU / CAT 1.3–1.4 (VTSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 8 For a list of other combat myths from different cultures, see Mary K. Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 7–42. Wakeman divides the monsters in terms of space and time categories. And the list of combat myths includes Ninurta vs. Asag (Mesopotamian), Indra vs. Vritra (Indian), Zeus vs. Kronos (Greek), and Teshub vs. Ullikummi (Hittite). 9 One example of scholarly references to Egyptian mythology of the combat between Re and Apophis comes from O. Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meers in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 78; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1962), 151. There Kaiser refers to the enmity between the dragon and the Sun. See John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 45, for a different view. Another example is Stig Norin, who associates Leviathan and Tannin with the Egyptian monster Apophis. Stig I. L. Norin, Er spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel (ConBOT 9; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1977), 92–93. For a different perspective on the relationship between Leviathan/Tannin and Apophis, see J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-

18

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

The combat myth tradition, which appears in various literary works and genres from different historical periods and different geographical locations throughout the ancient Near East (e.g., Enūma eliš, Baal-Cycle, Re-Apophis), was also appropriated by numerous biblical traditions for a variety theological purposes (e.g., Job 7:12; Isa 27:1; 51:9–10; Psalm 74). B. Chaoskampf and the Nations in the Old Testament One of the ways the Old Testament appropriated the Chaoskampf motif was by identifying Israel’s neighboring nations with the monster of chaos. The imagery of the monster is associated with foreign nations such as Egypt (Isa 30:7; 51:9–10; Ezekiel 29, 32), Assyria (Isa 17:12–14), Babylon (Jer 51:34), and the Seleucids (Daniel 7). Associating this motif of Chaoskampf with foreign nations became puzzling because many scholars following Gunkel thought that the Chaoskampf is solely concerned with primordial creation;10 therefore, the question arose: how would a mythological theme such as the Chaoskampf that is concerned with primordial creation be applied to historical nations? Thus the process of identifying the monster of chaos with a polit-

Solomonic Empire,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 331–347, 333. It seems that Ezekiel’s heritage of monsters is hybrid in nature. On the one hand, Ezekiel appropriates Canaanite and Mesopotamian literary motifs and lexical stock and attributes them to YHWH, and at the same time he shows knowledge of Egyptian mythology, which he subverts polemically in order to criticize Pharaoh’s and Egypt’s involvement in the life of Judah prior to and during the exile. 10 The terms creation and cosmogony are part of the larger scholarly debates concerning the theme of Chaoskampf. On the one hand, scholars debate the meaning of these two terms: do they refer to a creation of something new or do they refer to reordering a chaotic state? On the other hand, do these themes of creation and cosmogony occupy the authors of ancient Near Eastern literature such as Enūma eliš and the Baal Cycle? See Richard Clifford, “Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible,” Or 53 (1984): 183–201; Richard Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and the Bible (CBQ Monograph Series 26; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994); Rebecca Watson, Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of ‘Chaos’ in the Hebrew Bible (BZAW 341; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005). Watson’s study argues against the presence of a chaos tradition in the Hebrew Bible. However, I disagree with the general conclusions of her work. Watson’s reassessment of the term chaos leaves us with no combat myth in the Old Testament. Watson is on target when she cautions biblical scholars against assuming uncritically an instinctive connection between chaos and creation. See the discussion of Watson’s work in Bernard F. Batto, “The Combat Myth in Israelite Tradition Revisited,” in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Herman Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis (ed. Joann Scurlock and Richard H. Beal; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 217– 236. In addition, my work in this book argues for the presence of the chaos motif in the Hebrew Bible, and it will show how the book of Ezekiel appropriates it for its own literary purposes.

I. Chaoskampf, Exodus, and Egypt as a Monster

19

ical power has been called “historicization of the divine conflict with the dragon and the sea.”11 This designation – in my judgment – is problematic because for some commentators the Chaoskampf tradition was at some point divorced from history, time and politics.12 In his seminal work Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Frank Cross showed that Canaanite myth is related to, but not identical with, Israelite epic. While one cannot “posit a radical break” between what is mythological and what is historical, “it is proper to speak of this counterforce as the tendency to mythologize historical episodes in order to reveal their transcendent meaning.”13 Whereas John Day speaks of “historicization of the divine conflict with the dragon and the sea” – that is, historicization of myth – Cross speaks of a “tendency to mythologize historical episodes.” In other words, biblical scholarship does not have consensus on the questions: Do we have a historicization of myth? Or do we have a mythologization of history?14 I would argue that myth and history in the ancient Near Eastern worldview were perceived in a complementary tension and a dialectic in which one informs the other. These two are not polar opposites.15 Although Frank Cross 11

John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 88. Many scholars now understand the Chaoskampf tradition to reflect a political situation; for example, the elevation of Marduk to the throne of the pantheon reflects Babylon’s prominence in Mesopotamia (See Thorkild Jacobsen, “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East [ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975], 65–97; W. G. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek [ed. W. S. McCullough; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964], 3–13). The kingship of Baal among the gods reflects the royal agenda in Ras Shamra (see Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel [Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1990; 2nd ed. Dearborn, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 2002], 91–101). Even in the books of the netherworld Re’s defeat of Apophis is paralleled by a defeat of Pharaoh’s enemies. (See for example: Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife [trans. David Lorton; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1999], 38, 48) This does not necessarily mean that these accounts do not have any interest in theogony (the case of Enūma eliš) and in creation (Marduk created the universe), the renewal of creation (i.e., Baal vs. Mot), or the stability of the order of the cosmos (i.e., the rise of the Sun in Re-Apophis combat), and kingship of the gods. The point that I am trying to make here is that the mythological and the historical should always be maintained in tension throughout the discussion of the appropriation of the Chaoskampf in order to speak of a political conflict between Israel and her surrounding nations. 13 Emphasis is mine. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 143–144. 14 See the discussion in Carola Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 158–190. 15 J. J. M. Roberts argues that “one must be aware of the possible mythological use of history as well as the historical use of myth.” Roberts The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 12

20

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

and John Day were ultimately working toward nuancing our understanding of the relation between myth and history, the limits of our contemporary categories and the inconsistency of the discourse used has created this opposition that I have just highlighted. Whether one puts it as a mythologization of history or as a historicization of myth, one must contend with the point that in various literary texts the divine combat against the power of chaos and its embodiment as a monster, according to the ancient Near Eastern worldview, is interrelated with political situations and historical events.16 C. The Monstrification of Egypt and the Exodus Tradition When biblical scholars discuss the monstrification of Egypt, the so-called “historicization of the divine conflict with the sea and the dragon”17 is occasioned by the defeat of the Egyptians at the time of the exodus. Day argues that “the Old Testament allusions to Egypt as Rahab or the dragon probably arose as a result of the oppressive role that Egypt played toward Israel before the Exodus, and that the use of this imagery was also conditioned by the fact that the heart of the Exodus deliverance actually took place at the sea.”18 In another place, Day notes: “Although the imagery was applied, for example, to Babylon (cf. Jer. 51:34; Is. 27:1) and the Seleucids (cf. Dan. 7) when these represented the dominant world power, it was still used of Egypt long after the Exodus had taken place and when Egypt was no longer the dominant 59–71, esp. 71. Roberts’s comments in this article address a notion that pervaded in biblical studies, which highlighted a great contrast between Israel and its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Anderson, for example, writes: “the uniqueness of the Bible is that it takes history seriously as the sphere of God’s self-disclosure and of man’s authentic existence.” Bernhard W. Anderson, Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (New York: Association Press: 1967), 27. For another response to this dichotomy see Nick Wyatt, “The Mythic Mind,” in The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature (London: Equinox, 2005), 151– 188. Wyatt argues, “Myth and history are not opposing terms” (ibid., 173); see also Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestation in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (ConBOT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1967; repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011). 16 In Habakkuk 3, the poem raises the question: “is your wrath against River, O YHWH? … Or is your anger against Sea?” (3:8). Before pronouncing that YHWH tramples over the Sea in 3:15, the poem described how YHWH in his wrath trampled the nations. In addition to a connection between the marching of the divine warrior with the defeat of cosmological powers (Hab 3:8, 15), the divine victory over the national enemies is also evident in this poem (Hab 3:6, 12; Psalm 68:2). See H. G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm ‘Many Waters,’” JBL 64 (1955): 9–21; and Theodore Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), 101–109. 17 Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 88. 18 Ibid., 96.

I. Chaoskampf, Exodus, and Egypt as a Monster

21

world power.”19 Day explains the phenomenon of monstrifying Egypt, although it was not the dominant power, as follows: “probably because of the oppressive role which Egypt had vis à vis Israel before the Exodus, aided by the fact that the heart of the deliverance actually took place at the sea (Ex. 14–15).”20 This of course suggests that the memory of Egypt as an oppressive nation prior to the exodus is responsible for the continuity of applying the Chaoskampf imageries to Egypt. Mary Wakeman follows this line of thought, “The primeval monster, having been identified with the Egypt of the Exodus as a way of expressing the significance of Israel’s creation, is a natural choice of metaphor for contemporary Egypt, for Ezekiel.”21 Similarly, Joseph Blenkinsopp contends that the association of Egypt with this chaotic figure might stem from YHWH’s defeat of the power of Egypt and the sea according to the exodus tradition: in the course of time these dramatis personae of primordial myth were drawn into the heroic narrative of national origins in which the defeat by divine power of Egypt and subduing of the sea, the Papyrus Sea, featured prominently. It was therefore not surprising that the names Rahab (also in Ps 87:4) and Tannin (Ezek 29:3; 32:2) stuck to Egypt as Chaos personified, the evil empire par excellence. 22

Day, Wakeman, and Blenkinsopp thus agree in principle that the portrayal of Egypt as a monster is a result of the association of the Chaoskampf traditions with the exodus from Egypt. This brief survey gives a sense of the scholarly proposal that the monstrification of Egypt is intrinsically related to the memory of the exodus. This memory entails both the image of Egypt as an oppressor and also the events that took place at the sea. The quotations show a tendency to generalize and focus on one component of Israel’s historical memory – namely, the memory of the exodus event – in order to explain the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in various biblical traditions (e.g. Isa 30:7; 51:9–10; Ezekiel 29, 32).

19

Ibid., 89. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 88–89. In another place Day asserts: “this should not surprise us when we recall how prominent the Exodus faith was in the Old Testament, with its attendant consciousness of the oppressive role that Egypt had played” (ibid., 89). 21 Mark K. Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 74. 22 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 414. Blenkinsopp writes, “the references to Egypt as Rahab (Isa 30:7; Ps 87:4) and the Dragon (Ezek 29:3; 32:2) bring in the Sea by association, and the Sea (Yamm) in its turn conjures up the miraculous crossing of the Papyrus Sea during the escape from Egypt (Exod 15:8)” (ibid., 333). Note that Isa 11:15 speaks of YHWH drying up the “tongue of the Egyptian Sea.” 20

22

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

D. The Monstrification of Egypt and the Exodus Tradition Revisited There are two problems with such a generalizing proposal that attempts to explain all the incidents of the monstrification of Egypt found in the Old Testament by appealing to the oppression prior to the exodus and the defeat of the Egyptians at the sea. We must ask first whether biblical traditions appropriate the Chaoskampf in a unified manner and whether one can use a single biblical text that alludes to the Chaoskampf in order to interpret another text that appropriates the same motif? Second, is there a monolithic way of perceiving the exodus tradition in the Old Testament, specifically in relation to mythological motifs? These two problems in turn prompt the following questions: Should the historical and literary connections between the exodus and the Chaoskampf be seen as the reason why Egypt is portrayed as a monster in Ezekiel? Was the memory of Egypt’s oppression of the Israelites prior to the exodus operating in the background in the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in Ezekiel? The traditions that make use of the Chaoskampf motif appropriate it for a variety of different theological purposes. When we compare, for example, some texts from the books of Job and Psalms, we learn that though these texts use a traditional stock of language from the Chaoskampf tradition they differ in theological purpose. In the midst of his anguish and misery, Job addresses the deity: “am I Sea or the Dragon, that you set a watch against me?” (Job 7:12).23 Thus Job employs the Chaoskampf motif in order to complain of the uninterrupted divine concern about him. In his anguish Job perceives the eyes of the deity to be set on him “not in beneficence but in hostility.”24 The divine power that is manifest in subduing the powers of chaos, for the suffering Job is a constant source of “harassment and surveillance.”25 While Job makes a reference to the Chaoskampf motif in order to complain that divine power has been too overpowering, some of the psalms of lament recall the Chaoskampf motif in the midst of persecution in order to express their hope in YHWH’s power to restore order and put an end to chaos.26 On the basis of the divine faithfulness to the Davidic covenant, Psalm 89 23

C. L. Seow points out that “Targ1 associates the dragon with Egypt, an interpretation probably prompted by Ezek 29:3; 32:2.” Seow, Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 507. The same is true with regard to the Targum of Isa 27:1, where Leviathan is associated with foreign kings including Pharaoh (see also Ps 74:14). This observation points to the life of the association of Egypt with the monster even after the time of the book of Ezekiel. 24 Seow, Job 1–21, 495–497. 25 Marvin Pope, Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3rd ed.; AB 15; Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1973), 61. 26 For a discussion on mythological motifs in the book of Psalms see Claus Petersen, Mythos im Alten Testament: Bestimmung des Mythosbegriffs und Untersuchung der mythischen Elemente in den Psalmen (BZAW157; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982).

I. Chaoskampf, Exodus, and Egypt as a Monster

23

appeals to YHWH to act in behalf of the anointed king who apparently is in distress. In the midst of the prayer the psalmist addresses YHWH: “you rule the raging Sea” and “you have crushed Rahab like the slain” (89:10–11). This is followed by a declaration of YHWH’s control of the created world (89:12). In a similar manner, and probably after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, the psalmist in Psalm 74 expresses the anguish that the people are experiencing. In the midst of the agony, the psalmist offers a song of confidence in the deity who “split the Sea,” “broke the heads of the dragon” (v. 13), and “crushed the heads of Leviathan” (v. 14). This God who defeated the monster and the sea is in control of the creation (vv. 15–17).27 Both of these psalms employ the Chaoskampf motif in order to proclaim their confidence that though chaos currently prevails, YHWH is still capable of dealing with the current disasters as he did in the ancient days. From these examples, from Job and Psalms, we learn that different biblical texts appropriate the Chaoskampf for different literary and theological purposes. Therefore, we should exercise caution when we interpret the different traditions that portray Egypt as a monster in the Old Testament. The second point I would like to make here is that the way the Old Testament makes connections between mythological motifs and the exodus event is not monolithic. When we compare, for example. Exod 15:1–18 and Isa 51:9–10, we notice that whereas both of these texts speak of the event of the exodus by employing mythological motifs, the two texts make different claims about the exodus event in relation to the Chaoskampf. Although the song is concerned with a battle next to a sea, the divine warrior, unlike Baal in the Baal-Cycle, does not enter into combat with the sea, but rather uses the sea as an instrument for the destruction of the Egyptians (15:4).28 Yet one can 27

The references in these two psalms (89 and 74) to the Chaoskampf have been interpreted in three different ways. Some interpreters read the Chaoskampf in these psalms as referring to the primordial creation. This interpretation finds its support from the immediate context in which the two psalms refer to the created world (Ps 74:15–17; 89:13). See Gunkel, Creation and Chaos, 28. Other interpreters read these references to the Chaoskampf as a reference to the event of the exodus from Egypt. This trend of interpretation finds its support in the idea that this event represents the creation of Israel as a people. S. I. L. Norin suggests that at least Psalm 89 refers to the exodus because of the similarity between v. 9 and Exod 15:11 (Norin, Er spaltete das Meer, 112–114). Other interpreters tend to keep both options in view, namely, that the psalms are referring to both the primordial creation and the event of the exodus. H. J. Kraus, Psalms: A Commentary (2 vols; Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1988–1989). 28 Frank Cross puts it clearly: “There is no suggestion in the poem of a splitting of the sea or of an east wind blowing the waters back so that the Israelites can cross on a dry bottom of the waters ‘running’ to overwhelm the Egyptians mired in the mud. Rather it is a storm-tossed sea that is directed against the Egyptians by the breath of the Deity. Moreover, the sea is not personified or hostile, but a passive instrument in Yahweh’s control.” Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 131.

24

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

still detect some parallel elements embedded within the poem that recall the depiction of Baal in the Baal Cycle. In a way Similar to the portrayal of Baal as a warrior, the hymn of Exodus 15 portrays YHWH as a warrior who accomplishes the following deeds: (1) YHWH defeats the enemies (15:1b–12); (2) YHWH marches to his abode victoriously and thereby leads his people into the land (15:13–17); (3) YHWH claims an eternal kingship (15:18).29 Although the poem lacks combat with the sea30 and views Egyptians as the enemies, the poem couches this “historical” battle within a mythological framework.31 The poem makes use of mythological motifs; nevertheless, it still does not speak of combat between YHWH and the sea.

29

Baal defeats his enemies Yamm and Nahar (KTU 1.2.iv.10, 32); a palace is built for Baal (KTU 1.3–4); and his eternal kingship is pronounced (KTU 1.2.iv.7–10). These same motifs are also found in the combat between Marduk and Tiamat: the Waters were defeated (Enūma eliš IV. 95–145), a temple was built (V. 122; VI. 49) and Marduk’s kingship was declared (IV. 28; VI. 16–162). See the discussion in Stephen Russell, Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals (BZAW 403; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 127–176. 30 Note that according to other biblical traditions a different meaning was attributed to the events at the Sea of Reeds. While the poem in Exodus 15 does not speak of the sea as an enemy, Neh 9:11 does use the same imagery found in the poem (namely, that the Egyptians were thrown like a stone in the sea) but then also speaks of YHWH “splitting” the Sea. The same language is used in the Priestly tradition of the crossing of the sea (Exod 14:16). Batto writes, “P portrays Egypt as an extension of the chaos dragon.” Bernard Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 113. For a discussion on the representation of Egypt in the Priestly tradition in the book of Exodus, see Thomas Römer, “The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ATANT 95; ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel Baden; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 157–74; see also Jaeyoung Jeon, The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13 (FAT 60; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). 31 Frank Cross writes, “The Canaanite mythic pattern is not the core of Israel’s epic of Exodus and Conquest. On the other hand, it is equally unsatisfactory to posit a radical break between Israel’s mythological and cultic past and the historical cultus of the league. The power of the mythic pattern was enormous. The Song of the Sea reveals this power as its mythological themes shape its mode of presenting epic memories. It is proper to speak of this counterforce as the tendency to mythologize historical episodes to reveal their transcendent meaning.” Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 143–144. Ps 77:16–20 portrays YHWH as a divine warrior whose theophany is reminiscent of the description of Baal’s theophany, and declares that YHWH has a “way” and a “path” through the sea and upon the cosmic waters, yet, the psalm roots this cosmological language in the history of the people of Israel as it speaks of YHWH leading the people of Israel by the hand of Moses and Aaron. See F. Eakin, “The Reed Sea and Baalism,” JBL 86 (1967): 378–84, who speaks of a demythologization of the sea as an enemy. I posit that we still have mythological language here; rather than using the language of demythologization I suggest the use of

I. Chaoskampf, Exodus, and Egypt as a Monster

25

Though in the poem of Exod 15:1–18 YHWH does not do battle against the sea, other biblical traditions interpret the defeat of the Egyptians at the sea in a manner that is akin to what we get in the Chaoskampf traditions, namely, that the deity defeats the sea and slays the dragon. Isa 51:9–10 records an important reference, which associates the defeat of Egypt at the exodus with the Chaoskampf tradition.32 The text presents a prayer that invokes the arm of the Lord to act in behalf of the people who are exiled.33 In the form of a series of rhetorical questions the praying individual/community reminds YHWH that it was his arm that cleaved Rahab,34 pierced the Tannin, dried up the Sea so that the redeemed ones could pass through. The exodus event is intertwined with mythological motifs; Egypt and the sea represent the primordial chaos, and out of it YHWH redeemed his people Israel. At the time of the exile that myth was not just a past event, it was also a present need. The people longed to see YHWH act anew.35 Although the exodus event and the tossing of the Egyptians under the water of the sea might have contributed to the mythological association of Egypt the phrase “depersonification of sea,” achieved by undermining any notion of sea as a hostile enemy and omitting any sense of a of battle with sea. 32 Bernhard W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 177–95. Another biblical reference that makes a clear connection between the exodus from Egypt and the Chaoskampf motif can be found in Ps 77:17–21. See the discussions in Michaela Bauks, “‘Chaos’ also Metapher für die Gefährdung der Weltordnung,” in in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte (ed. Janowski, Bernd, Beate Ego, and Annette Kruger; FAT 32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 455–457. 33 Jeremy Hutton argues that this prayer was not offered by the prophet; rather it is quoted by the prophet on behalf of the people to correct their theology. Whereas the people expected YHWH to act in a similar way to that described in the old myth – namely, defeating the dragon – the prophet urges the people to see that God works through the mundane. Jeremy Hutton, “Isaiah 51:9–11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies,” JBL 126 (2007): 271–303. 34 In an obscure psalm, Egypt is associated with Rahab in a different manner. In Ps 87:4, the psalmist includes Rahab amongst a list of some of the nations that will join in worshiping YHWH in Zion. This is probably a post-exilic psalm that envisions YHWH granting Zion-citizenship to foreign nations including Rahab (Egypt), Babel, Philistia, Tyre, and Kush. YHWH declares: “Rahab and Babel I count among those who know me.” There is no mention here of a defeat of the power of chaos that Egypt represents. Rather, this chaotic enemy is included and is joining in a different type of a relationship with YHWH, Zion and Israel. 35 Blenkinsopp writes, “the references to Egypt as Rahab (Isa 30:7; Ps 87:4) and the Dragon (Ezek 29:3; 32:2) bring in the Sea by association, and the Sea (Yamm) in its turn conjures up the miraculous crossing of the Papyrus Sea during the escape from Egypt (Exod 15:8).” Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 333. Note that Isa 11:15 speaks of YHWH drying up the “tongue of the Egyptian Sea.”

26

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

with the power of chaos, it is important to note – as I have mentioned already – that in Exodus 15 neither the Egyptians nor the sea is embodied as a monster. Even when later traditions speak of the Sea as the enemy which YHWH divides (Neh 9:11; P in Exod 14:16), the Egyptians are still not monstrified. The analyses of Day, Wakeman, and Blenkinsopp work to explain the connection between the Chaoskampf and the exodus event in Isaiah 51:9–10. But are the events at the Sea of Reeds the sole reason behind Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt? Although it is necessary to read Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt in the light of other biblical traditions that make use of the Chaoskampf motif, each text should be read on its own terms and with its own integrity. The way Psalm 74 uses the Chaoskampf motif and the reason for its use there are different from the way it is employed in Job 7:12 and the purpose for which it is employed there. Accordingly, one should not use Isa 51:9–10 to explain the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel.36 There is another issue with regard to the simplistic connection between the exodus and the Chaoskampf as an explanation for the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in the book of Ezekiel. This element of the dilemma deals with the repeated reference to “oppression.”37 For instance, Blenkinsopp writes: “It was therefore not surprising that the names Rahab (also in Ps 87:4) and Tannin (Ezek 29:3; 32:2) stuck to Egypt as Chaos personified, the evil empire par excellence.”38 However, here I would like to raise a question: was Egypt the “evil empire” during the last decade of Judah’s history?39 It is worth noting 36 Friedrich Fechter contends that although the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in Ezek 29:3 and 32:2 is related to the combat myth found elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. Isa 51:9; Ps 74:13; Job 7:12), some differences between these accounts of the combat myth remain obvious. For example, while YHWH pierces the dragon in Isa 51:9, YHWH catches the dragon by a hook or a fishnet in Ezek 29:3 and 32:2. Furthermore, Fechter notes that the themes of exodus or creation are not the prominent themes in Ezekiel’s combat myth accounts. The central theme in Ezekiel’s account of the combat myth is the battle between YHWH and the dragon. I agree with Fechter that the Ezekielian author(s) appropriate older traditions of the combat myth and transform them for their own purposes. In this project I will take this discussion further in order to consider what prompts Ezekiel’s portrayal of Egypt as a monster. Friedrich Fechter, Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch (BZAW 208; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1992), 228–230. 37 After surveying the historical context of the oracles against Egypt, Brad Kelle in his commentary on Ezekiel writes, “Egypt possesses a symbolic character throughout the OT, representing the paradigm of oppressive rulers and destructive forces that arise throughout the entire course of human history.” Kelle, Ezekiel: A Commentary in the Weslyan Tradition (Kansas City, Ks.: Beacon Hill Press, 2013), 260. 38 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 333. 39 This same question should be directed to John Day, who in a general statement noted that the “historicization of the divine conflict with the dragon and the sea” refers to “in-

I. Chaoskampf, Exodus, and Egypt as a Monster

27

that in some cases the nations that are portrayed as monsters are not dominant powers or hostile to Israel at the time of the textual evidence. This lines up with my argument, which I will flesh out later in this book, that Egypt is portrayed as a monster in Ezekiel for some other purpose than to offer a contemporaneously accurate assessment of Egypt’s politically adversarial relationship to Israel.40 Noting that Egypt was the second super power during the last decade of Judah’s history, Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann raises a question about the motif of the author of Ezekiel when he portrays Egypt as a monster where there are no indications of “scorn, riducle, or contempt” against Yahweh’s people.41 At the time of Ezekiel, Egypt was not the dominant and threatening power; rather, Egypt was an ally with Judah against Babylon.42 stances [in biblical traditions] where various names for the dragon and the sea are applied to a nation or nations hostile to Israel.” Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 88. In another place, however, Day acknowledges that the image of the monster was at some points applied to Egypt at times in which Egypt was not the dominant power: “Although the imagery was applied, for example, to Babylon (cf. Jer 51:34; Isa 27:1) and the Seleucids (cf. Daniel 7) when these represented the dominant world power, it was still used of Egypt long after the Exodus had taken place and when Egypt was no longer the dominant world power” (ibid., 89). Does this imagery of the monster appear with the hostile empire? Why was it associated with Egypt at a time when Babylon seemed the hostile empire that besieged the city and destroyed Jerusalem? Day appeals to the memory of the oppression prior to the exodus in order to explain the fact that Egypt was still portrayed as a monster at times when Egypt was not the dominant power. As we will see in this chapter and in the rest of the project, what Ezekiel was concerned with was not Egyptian oppression but rather the threat that Egypt posed to Israel’s religious identity through the practices of idolatry and adultery (Ezek 20 and 23). 40 It is important to point to another text in which Egypt is associated with a chaos figure – namely, Rahab – in a context in which Egypt was not a dominant power. The appropriation of this association in relation to Egypt was done not because of Egypt’s oppression but because of Egypt’s incapability of following through with its promises of aid and support against Assyria. One of these references that connects Egypt to the monster of chaos is found in Isa 30:7. There, Egypt is described as “Rahab.” Rahab is a mythological figure that is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in connection with Yamm (Sea), Tannin (Dragon), and Leviathan (see 51:9; Psalms 74:12–14; 89:11; 104:26; Job 3:8, 7:12; 26:12). In this context, Isaiah intends to show that Egypt will not be a good support for Judah against Assyria; Egypt will be just like that defeated and crushed dragon that is incapable of defending itself. Egypt’s incapability and vain promises to help Judah against its enemies are not always the reasons why Egypt is portrayed as a monster. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 414. 41 Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 406–407. 42 This is not to say that Egypt did not have its own interest in reviving its old dominance in the Levant, or that Egypt supported Judah for noble reasons of opposing the empire. Egypt was probably trying to protect its own eastern borders against Babylon. Nevertheless, it is important to note here that the perspective of the prophet Ezekiel, who politically favors submission to Babylon over resisting and rebelling, views rebelling against Babylon as akin to rebelling against YHWH. Therefore, the prophet perceives Egypt’s po-

28

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

The appeal to the exodus in order to explain the monstrification of Egypt could be an appropriate explanation if the writer or the composer who appropriates the Chaoskampf tradition associates the exodus with the cycle of slavery-oppression and emphasizes the defeat of the Egyptians by the Sea. These associations with the exodus, for example, are certainly in the mind of Second Isaiah, who appropriates the Chaoskampf to speak of the divine redemption of the Israelites from Egypt (Isa 51:9–10). Is the case the same when it comes to the monstrification of Egypt in the book of Ezekiel? I would argue that this is not the case in the book of Ezekiel. The exodus is not perceived in Ezekiel in terms of oppression and liberation. Corrine Patton notes, “The oracles against Egypt in chs. 29–32 never make use of the motif of enslavement in Egypt. Egypt is sentenced because of her interactions with the nation of Israel, and her punishment has no reflex with the exodus traditions.”43 Nor does the prophet mention any parting of the sea when he recounts the history of the exodus from Egypt. Rather, Israel’s time in Egypt stands for apostasy and defilement.44 Egypt poses a threat, but not in terms of oppression. The Israelites, according to Ezekiel, worshiped Egyptian idols and committed “adultery” with the Egyptians, the latter being a metaphor for the unfaithfulness of the Israelites. For Ezekiel, Egypt is not the place of oppression; Egypt is the place where the Israelites knew idolatry (20:5–9), articulated elsewhere as adultery (23:1– 5). How does this circumstance make Egypt a monster? This question and others will be addressed in the following chapters (especially chapter four). For now it may suffice to note that it is not the memory of the oppressive and hostile Egypt prior to the exodus that lies behind the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in Ezekiel. Egypt is a threat to the relationship between YHWH and Israel. At the time of the exodus, the boundaries between Egypt and Israel were transgressed, when Israel worshiped Egyptian idols and committed “adultery” with this foreign nation. I will argue that Egypt is portrayed as a

litical role and its alliance with Judah, whether done for imperial purposes or for the purpose of protecting its borders, as a threat to Israel’s relation with YHWH. 43 Corrine Patton, “‘I Myself Gave Them Laws That Were Not Good’: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus Traditions,” JSOT 69 (1996): 73–90, 77. The way Ezekiel’s account of the exodus differs from the account of the exodus in the book of Exodus becomes even more crucial when we consider the various literary echoes of the exodus in the book of Ezekiel as discussed by Rebecca G. S. Idestrom, “Echoes of the Book of Exodus in Ezekiel,” JSOT 33 (2009): 489–510. 44 Note that Diana Lipton believes that the issue in the book of Exodus is not slavery and liberation but rather the challenge of assimilation. She writes: “The authors of Exodus wrote about the past as a way of writing about themselves, portraying Israel in Egypt in the light of their own concerns. I suggest that alongside the fear of destruction at the hands of a powerful enemy was loss of identity through assimilation.” Lipton, Longing for Egypt and Other Unexpected Biblical Tales (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 16.

II. Beyond Political Alliance

29

monster in the book of Ezekiel because Egypt posed and continues to pose a threat to the boundaries that constitute Israelite identity. Egypt and the memory of the exodus for Ezekiel stand not for the threat of oppression but for the threat of assimilation. E. Summary In this section I have contended that although Egypt is represented as a monster in various places in the Old Testament, Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt should be read in the historical and rhetorical contexts of the book of Ezekiel on its own terms. To put it more specifically: although the exodus tradition was understood in some biblical traditions in relation to the Chaoskampf, this connection between oppression and the combat myth does not automatically apply to Ezekiel’s portrayal of Egypt as a monster. The prophet’s discourse on the exodus event neither recalls an oppression and liberation nor does it speak of the parting of the sea as Second Isaiah does (Isa 51:8– 10). The prophet, rather, remembers Israel’s time in Egypt in terms of idolatry (Ezek 20:5–9) and “adultery” (23:1–4); that is, the Israelites prior to their departure from Egypt shared an idolatrous relationship (articulated metaphorically as adulterous) with the Egyptians. This issue will be discussed in detail in chapter four of this project. Here, though, it suffices to say that the connection between the exodus tradition, parting the sea, and the Chaoskampf does not adequately explain why Egypt is a monster in Ezekiel. Therefore, my goal in this study will be to investigate the matter within the context of the book of Ezekiel itself so that we might find a more compelling explanation of Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt. In this regard, another set of scholars point to the political alliance between Egypt and Judah against the Babylonians prior to the fall of Jerusalem as an explanation for the prophets’ severe judgment against Egypt. We turn now to consider this approach to understanding the role of Egypt in Ezekiel.

II. Beyond Political Alliance II. Beyond Political Alliance

Most interpreters of Ezekiel’s oracles against Egypt rightly appeal to the political and historical circumstances of the last decade of the history of Judah in order to understand the oracles.45 The political alliance between Judah and Egypt against Babylon may indeed provide a partial explanation for Ezekiel’s severe judgment against Egypt. However, as we will see, it is not a completely sufficient explanation for Ezekiel’s strong interest in Egypt. The political element is one factor that is necessary in order to understand the deeper con45

For examples and citations, see the discussion below beginning with page 33.

30

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

nection between Israel and Egypt that Ezekiel explores. However, even among some Ezekiel scholars who have realized that Egypt stands in for something other than just a political ally to Judah, the relationship between Egypt’s significance throughout the book of Ezekiel and the imagery of the monster associated with Egypt has not been adequately studied or explained. The following pages hope to point to a gap in the scholarship on the character of Egypt in the book of Ezekiel, a gap that this study will seek to fill. I will be concerned with how the prophet portrays the character of Egypt in relation to Israel apart from the oracles against Egypt, and how this character of Egypt relates to the imagery of the monster. In order to do that, I will survey the historical context of the last decade of Judah before the Babylonian exile and Egypt’s role in the rebellion against Babylon. Afterward I will highlight some examples in which Ezekiel scholars pointed out how this historical context stands behind Ezekiel’s judgment against Egypt. Further I will provide examples of scholars who point to the significance of Egypt for Ezekiel beyond the historical alliance. I will provide at the end other pieces of evidence that support this claim. The section will end by raising the question: why does Ezekiel depict Egypt as a monster in particular? A. The Historio-Political Situation of the Levant Prior to the Babylonian Exile In the first part of the study, I will focus the discussion on Judah during the reign of King Zedekiah and the alliance he forged with Egypt against the Babylonians.46 This period of the history of Judah is a critical stage in the his46

The following observations will explain in part the previous tension between Babylon and Egypt and its impact on Judah prior to Zedekiah. Here I will also highlight how Zedekiah became king of Judah. The failure of the Babylonian empire to invade Egypt in 601 BCE weakened the presence of the Babylonians in the Hatti land. This is evident in the fact that Egypt was able to restore its sovereignty over Phoenicia and Gaza (cf. Jeremiah 47). These events probably explain best the revolt of the Judean king Jehoiakim against Babylon after Judah had paid tribute for three years to the Babylonians. This revolt was probably supported by the Egyptians (cf. 2 Kgs 24:1). In the month of Kislev the Babylonians conquered the city of Jerusalem in order to suppress Jehoiakim’s revolt. The Babylonians deported many of the religious, military, and elite inhabitants of the Judean city in order to stabilize Babylonian sovereignty over Jerusalem by weakening its economy (in Nissan 597; the eighth year of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign). Moreover, after the death of Jehoiakim, his son Jehoiakin became the king of Judah and surrendered to Babylon. It seems that the Babylonians thought Jehoiakin was also responsible for the revolt; this is why they deported him to Babylon and appointed Zedekiah to be the king of Judah in his place. The Babylonian Chronicle writes that Nebuchadrezzar “besieged Jerusalem (literally the city of Judah) and seized it on the second day of the month of Adar. He then captured its king and appointed a king of his own choice, having received heavy tribute from the city, which he sent back to Babylon.” See D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), 73; see B.M. 21946, rev. lines 12–13. This event

II. Beyond Political Alliance

31

tory of this nation. “In political science terms, Judah was now poignantly caught up in a bi-polar system, meaning that the exclusive control of international politics was concentrated in two powers, solely responsible for preserving peace or making war.”47 In this case Judah was caught politically between the new rising empire of Babylon and its southern neighbor, Egypt. Particularly during the reign of Psammetichus II (595–589 BCE), Egypt posed a threat to the rule of the Babylonians in the Levant. This threat continued during the reign of Hophra (589–570 BCE), who continued the policy of destabilizing Babylonian rule over the small nations of the Levant.48 This instability was embodied in a Judean revolt against the Babylonians, supported by the Egyptians. There are two external causes of the Judean revolt against Babylon during the reign of Zedekiah.49 The revolt led to the last Babylonian siege of two probably took place in the second of Adar (15/16th of March 597). Wiseman, Chronicles, 33. “Jehoiakin’s place was taken by a Babylonian nominee, the young uncle of Jehoiakin named Mattaniah whose official name was designated or changed to Zedekiah” Wiseman, Chronicles, 33; 2 Kgs 24:17; Jer 37:1. “This change also served as a public testimony to the subservient position held by Zedekiah on oath to Nebuchadrezzar ‘that he would certainly keep the kingdom for him and make no innovation, nor have any league of friendship with the Egyptians.’” Wiseman, Chronicles, 34. For a reconstruction of the history of the exile, see Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (SIBL 3; trans. David Green; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 45–138. On the conditions of Judah and the Judeans during the Neo-Babylonian rule, see the last two chapters of Hans Barstad, History and the Hebrew Bible: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography (FAT 61; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 135–159. 47 Abraham Malamat, “The Kingdom of Judah between Egypt and Babylon: A Small State within a Great Power Confrontation,” Studia Theologica 44 (1990): 65–77, esp. 67. For a discussion of the political context of the book of Ezekiel, see Bernhard Lang, Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: Die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978). 48 Oded Lipschits notes that “the tangible threat to Babylonian control was heightened by the succession of Hophra in Egypt (589–570 BCE).” Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under the Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 66. 49 Lipschits argues that there is a strong cause for this rebellion other than the external political observations mentioned above. Although the Egyptian army withdrew from the face of the Babylonian army during the last siege of the city of Jerusalem, the Judeans still did not change the decision of the revolt. He argues that “there were social, political, and, in particular, ideological-theological factors that led the leaders of Judah to persist in the rebellion against Babylon” (Lipschits, The Fall, 70.) This ideological-theological factor probably lies in the faith that YHWH who delivered Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah would be able to deliver the city again in the time of the Babylonian siege. The prophet Jeremiah opposed this ideology and supported submission to Babylon (Jeremiah 27). Jeremiah’s call to submit to the Babylonian empire, however, was opposed by other prophets who had a different theological and political view such as the prophet Hananiah (Jeremiah 28). These groups of either prophets or officials who surrounded Zedekiah and affected his

32

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

years and the destruction of the city in 587. First, Nebuchadnezzar, who was probably dealing with issues of imperial control in Mesopotamia, had not visited the region of Syria-Palestine since 595 BCE.50 The second factor that fueled the Judean revolt against Babylon was the apparent renewal of Egyptian power after Psammetichus II’s victory in Nubia; such a victory strengthened hope for Egyptian support against Babylon. This hope for Egyptian intervention increased further when Psammetichus II conducted his “triumph tour” in the Levant.51 Papyrus Rylands IX, 14:16–19 describes this expedition in the following manner: “Now in the fourth year of Pharaoh Psammetichus (II) Neferibre dispatches were sent to the great temples of Upper and Lower Egypt as follows: ‘Pharaoh, life, prosperity, and health! Goes to the land of Palestine (Ḫ3rw); let the priests come with the bouquets of the gods of Egypt to take them to the land of Palestine with Pharaoh!’”52 The expedition was intended to fuel the rebellion in the Levant against Babylon and also to make firm the alliance between Judah and Egypt.

decisions to rebel against Babylon have been related to what modern scholarship calls “religious-nationalist fanaticism” (Lipschits, The Fall, 71). This revolt, however, was put to an end after a two-year siege of Jerusalem, which fell to the Babylonians in the eleventh year of the reign of king Zedekiah, in the year 587 BCE. 50 James Maxwell Miller and John Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 412. The Babylonians were preoccupied with the king of Elam on their eastern borders and also with internal revolts in the Babylonian army in the years 596–594. Wiseman, Chronicles, 73. See B.M. 21946, rev. lines 14–15, and lines 21–22. 51 Miller and Hayes, A History. 412. “A famous grafitto scratched in Greek on the left leg of the colossal seated statue of Ramesses II, on the south side of the entrance to the temple of Abu Simble, records that ‘when King Psammetichus came to Elephantine, this was written by those who sailed with Psammetichus the son of Theocles, and they came beyond Kerkis as far as the river permits. Those who spoke foreign tongues [i.e., Greeks and Carians who also scratched their names on the monument] were led by Potasimto, the Egyptians by Amasis.’” Peter Clayton, Chronicles of the Pharaohs: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1994), 196. 52 Redford, Egypt, Canaan, Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 464. See also F. L. Griffith, Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester (Vol. III; Manchester University Press, 1909); J. Yoyotte, “Sur Le Voyage Asiatique de Psammetique II,” VT 1 (1951): 140–144, 143; Karl Freedy and Donald B. Redford, “The Dates in Ezekiel in relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources,” JAOS 90 (1970): 462–485, 497; G. Vittmann, Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9 (ÄAT 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998); Bernd Urlich Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die Kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems (OBO 170; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1999), 242–246; M. Smith, “Papyrus Rylands IX,” Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Vol. II; Oxford University Press: 2000), 24.

II. Beyond Political Alliance

33

A Judean-Egyptian alliance against Babylon is attested in extra-biblical sources as well as in the books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. The Lachish ostracon number 3 speaks of Coniah, son of Elnathan, an officer in the Judean army at Lachish, going to Egypt.53 Furthermore, Jeremiah 37:5–11 refers to an Egyptian campaign during the Babylonian siege against Jerusalem. Ezekiel 17:15 describes the rebellion against the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. The king of Judah sent messengers to Egypt in order to get horses and a large army. This action was a violation of the suzerainty treaty between Babylon and Judah.54 The Babylonian king or suzerain made a covenant with the vassal, Zedekiah, the king of Judah, who was appointed after the exile of Jehoiakin in 597 BCE. The rebellion is portrayed not only as a form of breaking the covenant with Nebuchadnezzar but also as violating YHWH’s covenant. YHWH, the sponsor of the Babylonian policies, declared judgment on the rebellious Judah. Further, the worst part of the scenario is that the Egyptian pharaoh would not come to aid Zedekiah in the time of the siege of Jerusalem (17:17).55 Zedekiah’s end would be in Babylon, where he would die (17:16). B. The Political Alliance between Judah and Egypt Prior to the Babylonian Exile as an Explanation for the Severe Judgment of Egypt in Ezekiel Scholarship As I have just mentioned, most, if not all, of the interpreters of the book of Ezekiel correctly read the severe judgment in Ezekiel 29–32 against Egypt in the historio-political context of the alliance between Egypt and Judah prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.56 As I have mentioned already, however, 53

“Lachish 3: Complains and Information,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 3.42b:79–80). There is a scholarly debate over whether the prophet mentioned in the ostracon (could be Jeremiah or another prophet such as Hananiah). Although there is this obscurity of the identity of the prophet, the ostracon witnesses to a visit of the commanders of the Judean army to Egypt. See the discussion in Dobbs-Allsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 308–314. 54 Ezekiel 17 is one of the few resources that describe the imperial policies of Babylon with the kingdoms of the Levant. M. Tsevat, “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel,” JBL 78 (1959): 199–204; David Stephen Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (HSM 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 164–167. 55 Greenberg, “Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psamatichus II,” JBL 76 (1957): 308–309. 56 John Thomas Strong, in an unpublished dissertation, unpacks the meaning of Ezekiel’s oracles against the nations (Ezekiel 25–32) in light of the prophet’s message. John Thomas Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations within the Context of His Message” (PhD Diss., Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Va., 1993). For Strong the oracles against Egypt are related to the theme of the Promised Land. Strong argues that the exile for Ezekiel is an important step toward re-entering the Promised Land. On this reading, the defeat of Egypt in Ezekiel parallels their defeat in the book of Exodus. This approach is a useful one in that it tries to read the oracles against the nations in relation to the

34

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

and as I will discuss in detail in the following pages, the historical context is not sufficient to explain why Egypt is portrayed as a monster in Ezekiel. Before I show that Egypt stands in for something deeper than a political ally for the prophet, I will survey a few quotations from Ezekiel scholarship that highlight the historical context of the oracles against Egypt. The following quotations will display the agreement among scholars on the centrality of the historical situation in order to understand Ezekiel’s condemnation of Egypt in his book. Eichrodt writes, Egypt was singled out along with Tyre to be the object of lengthy prophetic threats, whose dates extend a full year before and after the fall of Jerusalem. We have already tried to show how this arose out of the decisive part which these states played in the political powergame of the seventh and eighth centuries, and have tried to assess their direct or indirect contribution to the elimination of Judah.57

This quotation is followed by a survey of Egyptian involvement in the political affairs of the Levant from the time of the New Kingdom to the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. “One cannot fail to notice that the threat against Tyre is much more extensive than the other oracles to the nations which have preceded it. The threats against Egypt which follow are lengthier still. Yet the exceptional length of the judgments pronounced upon them is thoroughly justified by the political importance of the two states.”58 So Egypt, along with Tyre, is seen to be the chief supporter of the resistance to the prophet’s proposal of submission to Babylon. “Their appeals to yield to Yahweh’s will and accept foreign overlordship as what he had decided upon in judgment and to

larger framework of Ezekiel’s message. However, Strong approaches the question from one direction, that is, how the oracles against the nations (all of them, not only those against Egypt) function in the larger message of Ezekiel. The approach that I am suggesting is more focused on the dialogue between the oracles against Egypt and the character of Egypt as perceived in the rest of the book (chs. 20, 23). Strong’s focus on the return to the Promised Land does not do justice to the fact that Judah’s sixth-century exile to Babylon was initially perceived by the prophet as a punishment on the people before he saw it as a step toward the return to the Land. Furthermore, Strong’s positive reading of the exile rests on a complete distinction between Egypt and Judah. However, the linguistic and rhetorical similarities in Ezekiel’s message of judgment upon Egypt and his message of judgment upon Judah point to the conclusion that the prophet identifies the sinful Judah with the wicked Egypt (e.g., Ezek 16:26; 20:8; 23:8; for similar judgment, see Ezek12:14; 29:12). This similarity between Israel and the monstrous Egypt is unacceptable to the prophet. Therefore, it takes YHWH to gird himself as a divine warrior in order to defeat the primordial monster of chaos, Egypt. This defeat that will strip the mask of Egypt away from YHWH’s people Israel will function as one of the steps in YHWH’s program of restoring Israel, according to Ezekiel (Ezekiel 34–48). 57 Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970), 399. 58 Ibid., 367.

II. Beyond Political Alliance

35

wait in faith for his forgiveness could not deprive the attempts at achieving a self-willed freedom which proceeded from Egypt of their power to attract.”59 For Eichrodt, Egypt and Tyre are judged because of their rebellion against Babylon. Similarly, Zimmerli notes: “In the judgment on Egypt we can discern the same two-fold aspect as in the oracles against Tyre and its prince. The foreign power is regarded, on the one hand, as having become subject, through temptation, to hubris. On the other, however, it is threatened with the word of judgment within the context of Israelite salvation history on account of its offense to Israel.”60 Although I agree with Zimmerli that these motifs appear in both sections of the oracles, I would like to raise a question. Why was Tyre not portrayed as a monster? What is so peculiar about Egypt that the prophet felt compelled to portray it as a monster? In a similar vein to Zimmerli’s approach, Blenkinsopp argues that Ezekiel’s judgment over Egypt is due to the Egyptian fueling of the opposition to the Babylonian imperial force. The much greater length at which Egypt is taken to task, and the absence of Babylon from the list, can be both explained by Ezekiel’s construal of the political events of the twentytwo years of his active ministry, events that reached its climax in the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Judean state. Taking this cue from Jeremiah, Ezekiel saw Babylon as the instrument of divine judgment on Judah and its neighbors, and of these, Egypt was not only the most powerful but the most persistent in opposing Babylonian imperial expansion.61

59

Ibid., 400. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (trans. James Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 105; on the issue of hubris and punishment see also: Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel (HAT 13; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1955), 166. After reviewing the political situation Fohrer argues that Ezekiel declares that the Israelites will be disappointed in Egypt’s incapability of helping them against Babylon. For Fohrer as for Zimmerli, hubris is the underlying issue that Ezekiel is facing here, similar to the case of Tyre. Beth A. Bedlack, “Imagery in Ezekiel’s Oracles against Foreign Nations and Rulers (Ezekiel 25–32)” (PhD Diss., Boston University, 2000). 61 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1990), 126. In his published dissertation on the oracles against Egypt in the book of Ezekiel, Lawrence Boadt’s focus is largely philological with some attention to literary aspects of these four chapters (Ezekiel 29–32). Lawrence Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (BO 37; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). In its literary aspects, Boadt’s thorough study deals mostly with stylistic and poetic questions. However, it does not examine the relation between the images of Egypt (e.g., as a monster) in the oracles and the character of Egypt in the rest of the book, as presented in chapters 20 and 23. Furthermore, it does not pay attention to the function of the rhetoric about Egypt – in the oracles and aside from it – in the schema of Ezekiel’s larger message. Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann underlines the literary connections between Ezek 32:2–6 and Ezekiel 19 on the one hand and the literary connections between Ezekiel *17 and Ezekiel *31 on the other in order to make the point that the oracles against Egypt extended the 60

36

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

These previous quotations show the major trend in Ezekiel scholarship to explain Ezekiel’s judgment over Egypt in the light of the political situation of the Levant in the last decade of the history of Judah.62 The question of why a monster in particular, though, still remains unanswered. C. Beyond the Political Alliance Some scholars have pushed the political agenda to a further level of significance in Ezekiel’s rhetoric concerning Egypt. In his study Slaying the Dragon, Bernard Batto traces the function of myth as a medium of divine revelation. Among the instances of mythological motifs from the prophetic literature that he mentions are those of the combat against Egypt and Gog (Ezekiel 29, 32, 38–39). In terms of method, Batto’s approach has some similarities to the project that I wish to undertake in this study. For example, Batto discusses how Ezekiel adapts older mythic traditions; Batto does so in a way that Day and Lawrence Boadt do not. Here I would agree with Batto that Ezekiel not only transmits a particular tradition but also creatively shapes and appropriates borrowed mythic traditions to make them serve a particular agenda. Batto refers very briefly to Ezekiel 29 and 32, where the prophet speaks of Egypt as a monster and source of wickedness (chs. 20, 23) “that must be eliminated from the face of the earth.”63 However, Batto does not engage in any sustained study of the function of this imagery and tradition within the message of judgment against Judah which allied with Egypt against Babylon and by extension against Yahweh. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 401. 62 See also H. F. Van Rooy, “Ezekiel’s prophecies against Egypt and the Babylonian exiles.” Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 115–122. See also more recently Ken D. Fentress, “Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A New Study of Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt” (Ph.D. Diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2004). Fentress describes his study as follows: “the approach taken in the present study is primarily literary and historical in nature” (Abstract). The historical situation seems to be in the background of Allen’s discussion of the oracles against Egypt as well. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (Word Biblical Commentary 29; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1990), 104, 106. Daniel I. Block writes, “like his contemporary Jeremiah, Ezekiel appears to have been more interested in Egypt than in any other foreign nation. This is undoubtedly attributable to Egypt’s position in the international community, particularly its involvement in Judean affairs in the latter’s final years.” This comment is followed with a survey of Egyptian involvement in the politics of the Levant from the Exodus till the fall of Jerusalem. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 128–131. See also another historical survey provided by Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VI (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 1401–1403; and Volkmar Premstaller, Fremdvölkersprüche des Ezechielbuches (Forschung zur Bibel 104; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005), 134–136. 63 Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 164.

II. Beyond Political Alliance

37

larger argument and purposes of the book of Ezekiel. More specifically, Batto does not discuss how the image of Egypt as a monster functions in Ezekiel’s reconstruction of the identity of Israel. As a result, his study does not discuss how Israel mirrors Egypt, showing how Egypt and Israel are similar – and how the judgment over Egypt – the monster – serves as a way of separating Israel from Egypt. Furthermore, whereas Batto argues that Egypt must be eliminated from the face of the earth, one finds that Ezekiel, by appropriating the Chaoskampf, only puts the chaos monster in check (29:15–16). As I will argue, the prophet portrays Egypt as a monster, as an Other. Since one cannot construct an identity without having an Other, Israel is thereby rendered unable to construct its own identity. Ezekiel does not annihilate the monstrous Egypt, but instead spares it, keeping it under control precisely in order to provide Israel with an Other against which it may reformulate its own identity. G. A. Cooke provides two general reasons for Ezekiel’s hostile approach toward Egypt. Cooke succinctly writes, “the general tone is hostile and threatening due to the part which Egypt had played in Israel’s past and recent history; moreover, Hebrew religion detested the gross idolatry of Egypt.”64 These two statements point to the two aspects that I am highlighting here, namely, the exploration of the historical and political context, on one hand, and what Egypt stood for in Ezekiel’s religious thought, on the other. I intend to unpack these succinct statements as I spend some time exploring the issue of idolatry in Ezekiel 20. Furthermore, I will explore how this issue of idolatry is related to the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel. Margaret S. Odell writes, “Egypt’s seductive promise of aid is lasciviously depicted in the allegory of the affairs of Oholibah (23:19–21); and its ancient attractions are condemned in Ezekiel’s revisionist salvation history (ch. 20).”65 Odell, however, does not develop such important statements, due of course to the space and the genre of the commentary.66 I will argue in this book that the central

64

G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC 23–24; repr., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960), 325. 65 Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Georgia: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2005), 371. 66 Zimmerli also notes that the oracles listed in chapter 29:1–16 stem from the prophet’s perception of Egypt as a nation that led the Israelites astray (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 112); in a similar line, Ronald Hals writes, “Egypt’s guilt and punishment flow from its role as the tempter who led Israel to oppose Yahweh’s own will” (Hals, Ezekiel [FOTL 19; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 208. Moshe Greenberg argues that “the religious offense resulting from Egypt’s pretensions was to deflect Israel from reliance on God. The future reduction of Egypt as a lowly kingdom will prevent any future Israelite state from faithlessly turning to Egypt for help” (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997], 611). The issue as I will argue later is not about trusting in God; YHWH was punishing the people by the Babylonians. The issue was whether the Israelites would submit themselves

38

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

issue of idolatry, either named literally or expressed as adultery, reflects aspects of Egypt’s monstrosity in the book of Ezekiel. By worshiping Egyptian idols and by having an “adulterous” relationship, Israel shares with Egypt a common identity of a self and its double. The boundaries between the two are transgressed. The problem of idolatry signals religious chaos, in which Egypt, the monster, threatens the covenantal relation between YHWH and Israel. In his commentary on Ezekiel Steven Tuell gives a short introduction to the oracles against Egypt in the book of Ezekiel. In his attempt to provide a context for these oracles Tuell surveys historical events, literary motifs, and theological approaches that relate Egypt to Israel throughout the Hebrew Bible. In his survey, the memory of the oppression of Egypt was revived in the memory of the Israelites by continuous Egyptian “military exploits.”67 However, Tuell highlights a positive approach in biblical traditions towards Egypt (Deut 23:3, 7).68 Furthermore, political alliances and prophetic condemnation are pointed out by Tuell in his discussion of the relationship between Judah and Egypt. “For Judah’s prophets, foreign alliances – specifically, alliances with Egypt – were signs of faithlessness.” To support this point Tuell cites the prophets Isaiah (30:1–2) and Jeremiah (46:10). However, Tuell writes: “but Ezekiel’s condemnation of Egypt is particularly vitriolic.” Already in his allegories of the eagles and the vine (17:15) and the trapped lions (19:4), Ezekiel has made plain his contempt for Egypt, and for those who put their trust in Egypt. Ezekiel claims that Israel’s idolatry began when Israel was still in Egypt (20:5–10, 36; 23:3, 8). He condemns alliance with Egypt as adultery, which he describes in the crudest of terms (16:26; 23:19–21, 27). The content of chapters 29–32, then, is no surprise. As in the oracles against Tyre, Ezekiel’s creative imagination, wide-ranging knowledge, and literary skills are put to the task of roundly and decidedly vilifying a nation that this prophet regards as a threat to Israel’s faith.69

I agree with Tuell that Ezekiel’s condemnation of Egypt is vitriolic. Ezekiel’s condemnation of Egypt lies in how the prophet reads the history of idolatry in the life of Israel. Egypt for Ezekiel, as Tuell contends, is a “threat to Israel’s faith.” Although Tuell highlights this insight, in his treatment of the oracles

to YHWH’s judgment and not oppose the Babylonians who were functioning as YHWH’s rod of punishment. 67 Tuell, Ezekiel (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 199. Here Tuell lists both the Merneptah stele as extra-biblical evidence of Egyptian oppression of the Israelites and biblical evidence that ranges from the tenth century BCE (e.g., Sheshonk I, 1 Kgs 14:25) down to the seventh century BCE (e.g., installation of Jehoiakim; 2 Kgs 23:34–35). 68 For Tuell the cultural interaction is a sign of this positive relationship. For example, Tuell reads the affinities between Egyptian wisdom and hymnology with the book of Prov 22:17–24:22 and Psalm 104 as a marker of good relations between Israel and Egypt. 69 Tuell, Ezekiel, 201.

II. Beyond Political Alliance

39

against Egypt he does not develop how perceiving Egypt as a threat to Israel’s faith relates to the imagery of the monster. Egypt’s military aid failed to protect Judah and Jerusalem against the Babylonians. Egypt, argues Ezekiel, is like the unstable rod, which hurts those who lean on it for support (Ezekiel 29:5–6). On the political and the historical level one can see why Ezekiel would condemn Egypt, namely, that Egypt had been incapable of supporting Judah against Babylon. However, the issue is more complex than that, because Ezekiel considers the exile as a judgment from YHWH. The exile is not simply a political situation. To rebel against Babylon is to rebel against YHWH, and so Egypt is cast in the role of an aid to apostasy. Is the political alliance condemned based on the theological proposition that Judah should rely solely on YHWH? Or is its condemnation based on Egypt’s incapability of supporting the political rebellion against Babylon? The first scenario can be found in the time of Isaiah of Jerusalem who urges Ahaz and Hezekiah to trust that YHWH will save Jerusalem from the SyroEphramite and Assyrian threats (Isaiah 7; 35–36). In Isaiah’s case, Assyria is an enemy that poses a threat to Judah, and the kings of Judah should put their trust in YHWH and not in their political allies. The second scenario is also found in Isaiah 30, which declares that Egypt is incapable of supporting Judah against Assyria. Isaiah 30:7 designates Egypt with the mythological name Rahab.70 One can appeal to this approach in order to explain Ezekiel’s understanding of Judah’s political alliance with Egypt against Babylon in the sixth century BCE. One can make the case that Ezekiel was condemning Judah’s alliance with Egypt because, as YHWH’s people, Judahites should rely on YHWH alone. This proposition becomes problematic, however, when we examine the difference between Ezekiel and Isaiah of Jerusalem. Both were opposed to the coalition with Egypt. Yet, while Isaiah of Jerusalem, despite his disagreement with Hezekiah’s foreign policy, pronounced a word of relief from the Assyrians (ca. 705–701; Isa 30–36) Ezekiel pronounces a word of doom against Judah that would be fulfilled by the Babylonians (Ezek 17:11– 21; 23:45; 29:17–21; 30:20–26).71 YHWH will not save Judah from Babylon; The MT of Isa 30:7 reads tRb`Dv MEh bAhår “Rahab, they are sitting.” There are multiple emendations that preserve the consonants preserved by the MT. Most of these emendations, however, would not read Mh “they” as third masculine plural, rather as part of the word tb#$. The phrase could be emended to “hammĕšabēt (Piel), hammašbît (Hiphil), and hammošbāt (Hophal).” Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 413. In either case the verb would stem from the root tb#$ “to cease” and not b#$y “to sit.” In this way the whole line would read, “Rahab is caused to cease.” 71 Some scholars see connections between the notion of the divine protection of Zion and the portrayal of the hostile nations to Israel as monsters. The defeat of the hostile nations, which are portrayed as monsters, is part of the so-called Zion Theology. Zion Theology is a motif that focuses on a miraculous divine deliverance of Jerusalem/Zion from po70

40

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

rather YHWH is using Babylon to punish Judah. Rebelling against Babylon is rebelling against YHWH’s order.72 Although it is clear that the political situation of the sixth century is critical to understanding Ezekiel’s severe criticism of Egypt, I would argue further that this political ally has more than political significance for the prophet; the political situation is floating on the surface, and under it is a religious chaos more prevalent in the life of Israel before and at the time of the exile. This point can be illustrated when we compare what another prophet had to say about Egypt in the sixth century during the time of the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel and Jeremiah witnessed the fall of Jerusalem and Egypt’s failure to support Judah against the cruel rod of the Babylonian empire.73 Showing simlitical enemies. The motif is also described as “the inviolability of Zion” or “the conflict with the nations (Völkerkampf)” (Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 125). Examples of this motif can be found in the Psalms (e.g. 46; 48; 76), the classical prophetic literature (e.g. Isa 8:9–10; 10:5–11, 27b–34; 30:27–33), and the proto-apocalyptic parts of the prophets (Ezekiel 38–39; Zechariah 12–14). Day raises the question of the origin of the motif and suggests that “although it has been subject to certain criticism in recent years, … it represents a historicization of the divine conflict with the sea” (Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 126). Day advances another argument in addition to this one: “the theme of the divine conflict with the chaos waters was mediated to the Israelites through the cult of the Jebusite god Elyon.” J. J. M. Roberts, however, argues “all the features in the Zion tradition can be explained most adequately by positing an original Sitz im Leben in the era of the Davidic-Solomonic empire.” The motif is related to the threats that the Philistines have formed against Jerusalem during the time of David when they camped in the Valley of Rephaim outside of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:17–25). J. J. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 313–330, esp. 324, 329. As the scholarly debate continues to focus on the origins of Zion Theology and its connections with the portrayal of the nations as monsters of chaos, I suggest that the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in Ezekiel adds to the complexity of this discussion. In Ezekiel’s context, the enemy that attacks Jerusalem is seen as a divine agent. YHWH sponsors the Babylonian power in order to punish his people for their sins. Moreover, Babylon in Ezekiel is not portrayed as a monster, whereas Egypt is. In my opinion the motif of the inviolability of Zion might help in understanding some of the psalms, since the motif equates the roaring nations with the mighty waters of chaos. But this motif does not explain why a nation like Egypt is portrayed as a monster during the time of the Babylonian exile. 72 C. A. Strine and C. L. Crouch argue that “in lieu of the now-defunct Judah, Ezekiel identifies the king of Babylon as YHWH’s earthly agent for establishing order; Egypt is (re)confirmed as a chaotic force, opposing YHWH and his Babylonian agent; and Judah’s status is rendered a variable predicated on its political allegiances.” Strine and Crouch, “YHWH’s Battle against Chaos in Ezekiel: The Transformation of Judahite Mythology for a New Situation,” JBL 132 (2013): 883–903, esp. 889. 73 Note that Ezek 29:6–8 seems to criticize Egypt for its incapability of supporting Judah during the Babylonian exile. In this text Ezekiel employs the popular staff of reed imagery in order to describe Egypt’s failure to support Judah. The prophet uses the same imagery that was used by the Assyrians concerning Egypt’s support for Hezekiah in 701 (see

II. Beyond Political Alliance

41

ilarities or differences in Jeremiah’s characterization of the situation of the exile can point to Ezekiel’s unique characterization of Egypt’s role in the life of Judah.74 The prophet Jeremiah had a take on the exilic situation similar to that of Ezekiel. For him, as for Ezekiel, the exile was a divine punishment against the rebellious Israel. The alliance with Egypt was a sign of the continuous rebellion of the Israelites against YHWH (Jer 2:18, 36). Jeremiah exhorted Zedekiah to submit to the Babylonian yoke and abandon any political alliances against the Babylonians (Jeremiah 27–28). If Zedekiah continued his coalition with the Egyptians against Babylon, the inevitable conclusion would be the destruction of Jerusalem. Although Ezekiel and Jeremiah witnessed the disastrous exile and Egypt’s failure to support Judah against Babylon, Ezekiel’s judgment over Egypt is harsher than Jeremiah’s. Jeremiah’s oracle against Egypt (Jeremiah 46) focuses on the battle of Carchemish (605 BCE) and the Babylonian attempts to invade Egypt (601 BCE). Jeremiah uses Egypt’s defeat by the Babylonians in Carchemish in order to support his prophecy of another Babylonian defeat of the Egyptians at their borders. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel argue that YHWH is about to use Babylon in order to punish Egypt. Both of the prophets speak of the divine judgment in political terms (Ezekiel 30; Jer 46:24–26). However, Ezekiel’s rhetoric concerning Egypt, though developed in the same historical situation, takes the issue of the relationship between Judah and Egypt another step in a somewhat different direction from that of Jeremiah. Jeremiah does not argue that the Israelites worshiped Egyptian idols as Ezekiel does in chapter 20. Nor does Jeremiah ascribe an illicit sexual relation between Egypt and Israel when the Israelites were in Egypt before the exodus. In Jeremiah the monster is not Egypt; rather it is Babylon (cf. Jeremiah 51:34). Egypt, for Ezekiel, is the monster (Ezek 29, 32) that perpetuates moral chaos and transgresses the boundaries of the covenantal relation between Judah and YHWH.

Isaiah 35–36). One might assume here that Ezekiel is condemning Egypt because it failed to support Judah against Babylon. Zimmerli objects that this is what the prophet meant by employing this imagery of staff of reed. Rather Ezekiel’s rhetoric is overwhelmingly critical of Egypt’s role in making Judah rebellious toward YHWH’s agent, Babylon. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 112. 74 The notion of comparing Ezekiel to Jeremiah may seem to contradict my methodological observation at the beginning of the chapter, namely, to read each biblical text on its own terms. My intention from this comparison is to highlight the uniqueness of Ezekiel’s discourse with regard to Egypt. He shared a similar context to that of Jeremiah and also shared some conceptual ground with Jeremiah. The uniqueness of each of these authors can simply be explained by their creativity. I do not intend this to be an argument from silence, yet the comparison between both prophets underlines Ezekiel’s discourse with regard to Egypt when put in contrast with another prophet who shares with him a similar historical context and worldview.

42

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

At this point, I turn to the book of Ezekiel for other pieces of evidence to support the claim that the prophet reconstructs a deeper level of relation between Egypt and Judah beyond the sphere of political alliance. First, according to the internal chronology of the book, the collection of oracles against Egypt includes oracles that go beyond the time of the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE): two oracles in chapter 32 are dated to March 3, 585 BCE (32:1–16; see v. 1) and March 18, 585 BCE (32:17–32; see v. 17)75 and the oracle in Ezek 29:17–21 is dated to April 26, 571 BCE. Egypt’s resistance to the Babylonians and Egypt’s defeat by the Persians continued to stir the interest of the Ezekielian tradition in Egypt’s political and theological place in YHWH’s plans for the world.76 Second, the prophet, who criticizes the political alliance between Judah and Egypt in chapters 17 and 19, has more to say about the situation. He therefore dedicates chapters 20 and 23 to revisiting Israel’s past history from the exodus to the contemporary situation of the sixth century BCE. These two temporal points, the exodus and the exile, are similar in that both reveal deep levels of significance in the relationship between Egypt and Israel. In other words, while the historical situation in the sixth century illuminates our understanding of Ezekiel’s message about Egypt, we need to dig deeper in Ezekiel’s rhetoric in order to unpack Egypt’s identity in Ezekiel’s imagination. In Ezekiel 20 and 23 the prophet associates the relationship between Judah and Egypt with idolatry and adultery. For Ezekiel the political alliance between Egypt and Judah stands for religious apostasy. The Israelites failed to be faithful to the covenant relation with their God. They failed in their covenantal responsibility when they worshiped other gods and when they “committed adultery” with other nations. Idolatry and the metaphor of adultery are used by the prophet Ezekiel in order to embody the religious chaos77 that prevailed in the life of the Israelites prior to the exile.

75

One of the unique features of the book of Ezekiel is that at the beginning of many oracles in the book a date formula that usually includes a year, a month and a day of the month is provided. On these specific dates that I refer to here see Chapters Five and Six of this book, where I discuss the variations among the textual witnesses. For a fuller discussion of the dates in the book of Ezekiel, see Freedy and Redford, “The Dates of Ezekiel,” 462–485. 76 It is possible that some of the oracles against Egypt in the book of Ezekiel come from the Persian period. Ezekiel 29:13–16, for example, possibly reflects the time when Egypt was defeated by the Persian king Kambyses in 525 BCE. See Friedrich Fechter, Bewältigung der Katastrophe, 251–252 77 The two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, bring chaos upon themselves through their adulterous conduct. The metaphor of adultery in Ezekiel 23 underlines a sense of loss of order and transgression of social, political, and religious boundaries. Odell writes, “in chapter 23, Ezekiel uses the portrayal of Jerusalem’s lovers as markers for the extent of her transgressions against the boundaries of order” (Odell, Ezekiel, 303). Egypt, I will argue,

III. Summary

43

III. Summary III. Summary

In this chapter I surveyed two trends in biblical scholarship that have dealt with the theme of the monstrification of Egypt in the book of Ezekiel. One way that some scholars have dealt with the question of why Egypt is portrayed as a monster in Ezekiel is by appealing to the exodus event, the parting of the sea and its connection with the Chaoskampf tradition. In other words, some scholars use the way Egypt is monstrified in Isaiah 51:9–10, a text that connects the imagery of the monster with the exodus from Egypt, to explain the portrayal of Egypt as a monster everywhere else in the Old Testament. It is important to remember that Old Testament texts that speak of the Chaoskampf appropriate the motif for different theological purposes. Therefore, we should read the texts in conversation with each other, but at the same time each text should be read within its own context. Furthermore, even the exodus traditions that make use of mythological motifs are not monolithic. For example, whereas Exodus 15 and Isaiah 51:9–10 make use of mythological motifs, they do not agree in the way they engage with the Chaoskampf motif. Finally, Ezekiel does not remember the exodus events in a traditional way in terms of oppression and liberation but rather in terms of apostasy, idolatry, and unfaithfulness to YHWH and defilement. That is, the prophet does not speak of the Israelites being oppressed in Egypt, but rather the prophet speaks of the Israelites worshiping Egyptian idols and committing adultery, which is a metaphor for their infidelity. The second trend that attempts to explain the monstrification of Egypt falls within the larger context of Ezekiel’s severe judgment pronounced against Egypt in his seven oracles. Here the historical context of the last decade of the history of Judah plays a large role in explaining Ezekiel’s castigation of Egypt. The political alliance between Judah and Egypt against Babylon is frequently pointed out in order to explain how Egypt is portrayed in the book of Ezekiel. However, as has been articulated already by other scholars, the political alliance for Ezekiel points to something else deeper in the relationship between Judah and Egypt: Egypt’s military opposition to Babylon, construed as “rebellion” by the prophet, has a cosmological significance (e.g., Odell, Tuell). However, the connection between this cosmological significance and the issues of idolatry and adultery in relation to the image of the monster still needs to be explained. In the book of Ezekiel the history of Israel is revisited from the time of the exodus to the time of the exile. Ezekiel accuses the Israelites of worshiping Egyptian idols and also of “committing adultery” with the Egyptians (Ezek 20:5–9 and 23:1–4, 8, 19). Furthermore, the book portrays Egypt as a monster plays a large role according to Ezekiel in breaking the boundaries and spreading chaos in the life of the Israelites.

44

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

of chaos. Given the historical and the literary context of the book of Ezekiel, exactly what kind of “chaos” does Egypt, the monster, represent in the book of Ezekiel? How does the character of Egypt as painted in chapters 20 and 23 relate to the monstrous imagery? What is the function of the episodes in which YHWH defeats Egypt the monster and dismembers its body? What is a monster, anyway? These questions will be the subject of the following chapters. The following two chapters will provide the tools I will use to address the preceding questions. First, I will appeal to some theoretical insights from monster theory in order to define what a monster is and in order to highlight the sociopolitical significance of the monster. Yet before investigating how this theory is helpful in unpacking the monstrification of Egypt in the book of Ezekiel, I will appeal to my other tool, namely, the Chaoskampf tradition in the ancient Near East. The purpose of appealing to the Chaoskampf in the ancient Near East at this point is to provide a set of controls against which I will test the insights that are drawn later from contemporary “Monster Theory.” In this way, contemporary theoretical insights will not only help underline some ignored themes in ancient Near Eastern texts featuring the Chaoskampf, they will also be put in historical conversation with the larger ancient Near Eastern context prior to applying them to Ezekiel.

Chapter Two

Monster Theory In order to address the key question of this book, namely, why Egypt is portrayed as a monster in the book of Ezekiel, it is necessary to unpack the category of the monster. Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt, I have argued in the preceding chapter, is a complex process that needs to be reconsidered. In order to explain this monstrification we need to move beyond an approach that merely compares the Chaoskampf in the ancient Near East and the character of the monster in the Old Testament. We also need to go beyond a simple appeal to the political alliance between Egypt and Judah prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587. I believe that the category of the monster as applied to Egypt reveals an intricate perception on Ezekiel’s part of who (or what) Egypt is and how Israel should relate to Egypt. In order to fully understand the role that Egypt plays in Ezekiel’s rhetoric, we need to define what a monster is, discuss how monstrosity is constructed, and pay attention to what function this monstrosity plays. The way the monster is understood in both the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf and the Old Testament’s appropriation of this motif should take advantage of recent developments in literary theories and sociological studies with regard to the category of the monster. Monster theories can help us explain the multifaceted nature of the character of the monster not only in Ezekiel but also in the ancient Near Eastern combat myths. Monster theories will enable us to develop answers to a number of questions. What is a monster? What makes a monster a monster? Why and how is the monster embodied and treated? Monster theory will also improve the way we address some of the intertwined layers of the Chaoskampf in the ancient Near East and Old Testament, and it will also help us highlight some of the literary motifs that are tied to the theme of Chaoskampf. This chapter will discuss some insights from literary and sociological theories that are concerned with the category of the monster. These disciplines have produced difference answers to the question of what a monster is. Therefore, the first section of this chapter will deal with the paradoxical character of the monster, which is sometimes perceived ironically as a double and not only an Other. Furthermore, this chapter will discuss how a hybrid and an anomalous body is usually ascribed to the monster, a process that gives concrete expression to the horror and loathsomeness of the monster. Finally, the

46

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

chapter will highlight a tension that pertains to the category of the monster: a tension between the desire to completely annihilate the monster which embodies horror and terror, and the fact that the monster continues to exist and keeps on coming back to threaten and challenge the well-established world.

I. A Definition of the Monster I. A Definition of the Monster

Monsters are universal; they are attested throughout the ages and in various places. Whether they fade into the background of a particular culture or seem to be prominent in that culture’s political and social discourses, monsters remain a central key for understanding how humans in a particular context define themselves and explain their existence in relation to others. The etymology of the word monster conforms to this idea that as fanciful as monsters are, they function as a window through which we can look at and analyze a given culture and a particular structure. The term monster stems from the Latin word monstrum, which itself derives from the verb monstrare, meaning “to reveal” or “to show.” Monstrare is related to the verb monere, which means “to warn or portend.”1 The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term monster as “a mythical creature, which is part animal and part human, or combines elements of two or more animal forms, and is frequently of great size and ferocious appearance.” The word may refer to “any imaginary creature that is large, ugly, and frightening.”2 What is evident from this definition of the word monster is that the category of the monster is an embodiment of abnormality and anomalism. It follows that the perception of abnormality is based on a presupposed perception of what is normal. Describing the monster as a hybrid and abnormal presupposes a structural worldview of binary opposites (order over against chaos, known and unknown, familiar and unfamiliar, normal and anomalous, and the like). Associating the monster with the chaotic, the unknown, the unfamiliar, and the 1

Timothy Beal, Religion and its Monsters (New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2002), 6–7. For a discussion of the etymology of the word monster see David Gilmore, Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 9–10. 2 Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.; prepared by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner; Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). Because the following terms are related to the term monster, it is important to define them. According to the OED, the “monstrous” is “of a thing (material or immaterial): deviating from the natural or conventional order; unnatural, extraordinary.” “Monstrosity” is “an animal or plant, or (occas.) an organ or part, that is abnormally developed or grossly malformed. Also: abnormal development; an instance of this.” And finally, “monstrification” is “the action of making ugly or monstrous; the portrayal of something as monstrous.”

II. The Monster as an Other

47

anomalous points to its difference and its Otherness. However, in the course of analyzing different monsters, many theorists have realized that monstrosity is created and is characterized not only by difference but also in some cases by sameness. In other words, while monsters sometimes are associated with difference, in other cases monstrosity is experienced through the loss of difference. Therefore, one must acknowledge the paradox that pertains to the monster. Hence, I define a monster as an interstitial creature that “shimmers” between being double and Other, same and different, heimlich and unheimlich.3 Now I shall turn to discuss the character of the monster, first as an Other and then as a double and same. But before dealing with the monster as a double, I will highlight the role that the body plays in displaying the categorical Otherness of the monster. The ontological difference of the monster is given a concrete expression through the anomalous body of the monster.

II. The Monster as an Other II. The Monster as an Other

As we have seen, the word monster signifies abnormality, malformation, and hybridity. Indeed, what usually comes to mind when we refer to the monster is its breach of a given norm and a particular order. Monstrifying the Other by means of underlining difference presupposes a specific structure to be the norm according to which things would be categorized as normal or abnormal. Embodying the monster as different and as Other is a necessary process for constituting one’s own identity: one defines self by means of differentiation from the Other. J. J. Cohen puts it succinctly: “The monster is difference made flesh.”4 Monsters embody difference. He adds, “Any kind of alterity can be inscribed across (constructed through) the monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural, political, racial, economic, sexual.”5 Cohen takes the abnormality of the body of the monster to stand in for something else behind it. Monsters represent difference in terms of cultural beliefs (orient vs. occident), political relations (colonized vs. colonizer), racial association (black vs. white), economic systems (Marxist vs. capitalist), or gender 3

My definition is not an ex nihilo creation. Rather, like all monsters that are reconstructed by weaving different known pieces together in order to represent the unknown, I attempt to amalgamate pieces from different theories in order to present a balanced definition that captures as much as it could of what I understand monsters to be. These theorists will be discussed in details throughout this chapter. 4 Jeffery Jerome Cohen, “Monster Culture (Seven Theses),” in Monster Theory: Reading Culture (ed. Jeffery Jerome Cohen; Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 3–25, esp. 7. 5 Cohen, “Monster Culture,” 7.

48

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

categories (woman vs. man). To these categories I would also add that various monsters were embodied in order to represent religious difference (Jews vs. Muslims vs. Christians).6 The Otherness and difference of monsters is also highlighted in Joan Landes’s comment: If the question “What is a monster?” has produced countless replies in different historical circumstances, there is one content running through all these responses: whatever a monster is, it is not one of us. Monsters violate the borders between man and beast or human and divine, but they are also a way of talking about the rejected or repulsive Other. Monsters disturb a shared sense of decorum, order, and taste. They are grotesque, distorted, ugly, bestial, and horrifying. They fascinate and repel. They are said to link bodily deformity to moral or political evils. And, above all, monsters offer a way of thinking about the world.7

Note that both Landes and Cohen argue that monsters are different; they are anomalous. Also note that both authors highlight the role of the body in signifying this difference. The body is a concrete manifestation of difference; it makes difference obvious. A. The Monster and the Body In this section I will discuss how the body of the monster figures prominently in the discourse concerning monstrosity. The main characteristic of the monster, namely, its difference, is given a concrete expression through its embodiment as deformed and abnormal.8 As the society seeks to reconstruct its identity and to establish a given norm and an accepted structure, it “abjects” the monster and it ascribes to it a transgressive body that cannot be integrated

6 Commenting on the widespread use of the tradition of the intermarriage of Genesis 6 in the medieval literature Cohen argues that “monsters are here, as elsewhere, expedient representations of other cultures, generalized and demonized to enforce a strict notion of group sameness. The fears of contamination, impurity, and loss of identity that produce stories like the Genesis episode are strong, and they reappear incessantly.” Cohen, “Monster Culture,” 15. 7 Joan Landes, “Revolutionary Anatomies,” in Monstrous Bodies / Political Monstrosities: In Early Modern Europe (ed. Laura Knoppers and Joan Landes; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, 2004), 154. 8 In Gothic literature the anomalous body of the monster stands for cultural bodies that spread horror and fear to a particular norm or structure. Judith Halberstam posits, “the emergence of the monster within Gothic fiction marks a peculiarly modern emphasis upon the horror of particular kinds of bodies.” These monsters represent a threat to the political, economic, social, and sexual presupposed norm of modernity. Judith Halberstam, Skin Shows: Gothic Horror and the Technology of Monsters (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1995), 3.

II. The Monster as an Other

49

into its presupposed borders and boundaries.9 The abnormal body of the monster breaches concomitantly a presupposed norm that could be related to natural law, legal law, or religious law.10 In order to understand the category of the monster, one must understand the role that the body in general and the body of the monster in particular play in the process of formulating what is normal and what is abnormal. In order to highlight the centrality of the embodiment of the monster, I will begin by highlighting the renewed interest in the body in Western discourse. Then I will show how the body of the monstrous outlaw is punished, with its punishment finally inscribed on its monstrous body. After a long time of being marginalized in Western thought, the body has become a center of attention in social, anthropological, and political studies. As a result of investigating the meaning of the body, these academic fields have produced various kinds of bodies.11 These various kinds of bodies have emerged as an outcome of debates over various approaches to the body: naturalistic vs. constructed, passive/object vs. active/subject, individualistic vs. 9 On the character of the monster in Gothic literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Punter and Byron write, “Through difference, whether in appearance or behaviour, monsters function to define and construct the politics of the ‘normal.’ Located at the margins of culture, they police the boundaries of the human, pointing to those lines that must not be crossed.” David Punter and Glennis Byron, The Gothic (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 263. 10 G. Canguilhem, “Monstrosity and the Monstrous,” Diogense 40 (1964): 27–42. Canguilhem analyses the category of the monster from the medical and the legal aspect. In addition, Foucault asserts that the monsters of the medieval period and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had to breach both the natural and civil/religious laws. Michel Foucault, Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France 1974–1975 (London: Verso, 2003). On Foucault’s analyses of monsters see: Andrew Sharpe, Foucault’s Monsters and the Challenge of Law (London: Routledge, 2010). 11 The purpose of listing the following studies is to show the reader how pervasive the body has become in social sciences. These various bodies have been classified in the following way. Two bodies (self and society): Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966; repr., London: Routledge, 2002), and Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1970; repr., London: Routledge, 1996); three bodies (individual body-self, social body, body-politic): Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Margaret Lock, “The Mindful Body: a Prolegomenon to Work in Medical Anthropology,” Medical Anthropology Quarterly (n.s.) 1 (1987): 6–41; four bodies (reproduction, control of population, desire, and representation of other bodies): Bryan S. Turner, The Body & Society: Explorations in Social Theory (London: SAGE, 2008); five bodies (world’s body, social body, body politic, consumer bodies, and medical bodies): John O’Neill, Five Bodies: The Human Shape of Modern Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985). For a more comprehensive survey on the various bodies that were produced and analyzed by these various disciplines see Anthony Synnott, The Body Social: Symbolism, Self and Society (London: Routledge, 1993), 228–264.

50

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

social.12 The diverse approaches to the body indicate its centrality in the fields of anthropology and sociology. Although the body is ambiguous and is always eludes our comprehensive knowledge, it still is a critical category we should pursue in order to understand how humans understand their being, their identity, and their relations with one another.13 B. Body and Identity The body has become a central focus in understanding human existence and identity, a development that takes us beyond defining human existence in terms of the mind. The focus on human subjectivity determined by the mind, which was a characterization of Descartes’s famous cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”), was challenged by Friedrich Nietzsche in The Will to Power. Nietzsche argues that “the ‘subject’ is nothing given, but something superimposed by fancy, something introduced behind,” and this can be supported by the fact that when there is thinking done, then there is an “I,” a subject, prior to the thinking.14 The question then becomes, who or what superimposes, introduces, and thinks? From Nietzsche’s point of view, the answer to this question is the body. Nietzsche writes, “the body, the thing, the ‘whole’ construed by the eye, awaken[s] the distinction between a deed and a doer; the doer, the cause of the deed, conceived even more subtly, finally left behind the ‘subject.’”15 The body is the starting point of subjectivity.16 This notion brings the body to the center of discourse about subjectivity, after it had been marginalized for a long time in favor of the mind.

12

For helpful discussions on these various debates, see Chris Shilling, The Body and Social Theory (London: Sage Publications, 1993), and Shilling, The Body in Culture, Technology & Society (London: Sage Publications, 2005). 13 Elizabeth Grosz claims that “we don’t know what a body is because a body is always in excess of our knowing it … always in excess of representation and, indeed, of all representations.” E. A. Grosz and Peter Eisenman, Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), 28. This statement brings to the fore a paradox concerning the body which emphasizes “the centrality of body as a key signifier of meaning in human life” and “the ambiguity attached to such a symbol.” Mary E. Mills, Alterity, Pain and Suffering in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 22. 14 Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Will to Power: A New Translation (trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale; edited with commentary by Walter Kaufmann; New York: Random House 1967) §481, 484. 15 Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §547. 16 Instead of “I think, therefore I am,” we would have “I am body, therefore I am.” Rodney James Giblett, The Body of Nature and Culture (Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 4.

II. The Monster as an Other

51

In ascribing the starting point of identity to the body, Nietzsche anticipates Sartre. In Being and Nothingness,17 Sartre posits that the body is the self, and that the self is the body: “I live my body … the body is what I immediately am … I am my body to the extent that I am.”18 On a similar note, Synnott argues that the body is the primary element of individual or communal, personal and social identity.19 When we talk about the body in relation to understanding being and identity, we are not just talking about skin and bones; rather we are looking at an embodied self.20 Body is a vital player in understanding subjectivity and identity. When Nietzsche suggested that we are bodies before being subjects, he left the question of what produces the body open.21 Gilles Deleuze suggests that what stands behind the constitution of the body is the unequal relation between one side that is dominant and another side that is dominated. When these two unequal powers come into a relationship, they produce a body, be it biological, chemical, political, or social.22 In this way, Deleuze makes a Nietzschean turn: “just as there is no substance to the subject prior to the subject, so there is no substance to the body. The body is the product of the forces that act upon it.”23 This insight, namely, that the body is produced when two unequal powers come into contact, challenges an essentialist approach toward the body. The body is a social construct. Although the body is a “material object” – that is, it has organs, it eats, and it suffers pain, and the like – the body can be “apprehended only through discursive mediation; that is, our understanding of our body occurs only through discourse.”24 Foucault defines “discourse” in his works in different ways. First, discourse could refer to general statements that have a meaning 17

Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (trans. Hazel E. Barnes; New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1957; introduction by Mary Warnock; with a new preface by Richard Eyre; London: Routledge, 2003). 18 Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 302; cited in Synnott, The Body Social, 32. 19 Synnott, The Body Social, 1, 2. 20 Synnott, The Body Social, 1. “The body is the prime symbol of the self, and the prime determinant of the self.” He adds that the body “is the prime constituent of personal and social identity” (ibid., 2). B. Turner states that in the modern Western tradition “the surface of the body … is the mirror of the self” (cited in Synnott, The Body Social, 2). See also Synnott, “Theoretical Developments in the Sociology of the Body,” Australian Cultural History 13 (1994): 13–30. 21 According to Giblett Nietzsche’s emphasis on the priority of the body postulates “an ‘I’ who is outside and prior to the body, precisely the point of Nietzsche’s critique of the Cartesian cogito, that it postulates a thinking substance.” Giblett, Body of Nature and Culture, 5. 22 Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy (trans. Hugh Tomlinson; New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), 40. 23 Giblett, Body, Nature and Culture, 5. 24 Sara Mills, Foucault (London: Routledge, 2003), 55–56.

52

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

and that make sense. Second, discourse could refer to categorized statements that deal with the same phenomenon (e.g., racism, femininity, colonialism). Third, discourse could refer to “regulated practices that account for a number of statements.” This last type Sara Mills describes as the “unwritten rules and structures which produce particular utterances and statements.”25 The body that is produced through unequal power relations between the dominant and the dominated, as Deleuze has argued, is experienced through discourse, according to Foucault. Discourse can be used by those who are in control and possess power in order to enforce their perception of what a normal body is. In the History of Sexuality Foucault writes: discourses are not once and for all subservient to power or raised up against it, any more than silences are. We must make allowances for the complex and unstable process whereby discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy. Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines it and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it.26

What is unique about this statement is that it highlights the paradox of discourse. Discourse can function as an instrument of enforcing power, but at the same time it can be used in order to question this power and its stability. To sum up this section: the body is a primary constituent of identity. If the body is produced by unequal power relations, this inequality grants freedom to the dominant power to reconstruct Others’ bodies and therefore their identities according to one’s own discourse. Representing Others’ bodies, and reconstructing their identities by projecting Otherness and inscribing difference on their bodies enables us to reconstruct our own identity. The body is a social space that reflects power relations. Studying the body reveals knowledge about how the dominant power inscribes its authority on the body of the dominated. C. Embodying the Monster As I mentioned earlier, monsters embody Otherness; they are abnormal, anomalous, and unhomely (unheimlich). Their ontological Otherness is usually expressed through embodying them in unnatural and hybrid bodies. One of the classic descriptions of monstrous bodies was created by Isidore of Seville (7th century CE) in his work Etymologiarum Sive Originum Liber XI.27 After 25

Ibid., 53. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality (vol. 1; trans. Robert Hurley; New York, N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1978), 100–101. 27 Isidore of Seville, “Etymologiarum Sive Originum Liber XI,” in Isidore of Seville: The Medical Writings (translation and an introduction by William D. Sharpe; Philadelphia, Pa.: The American Philosophical Society, 1964). 26

II. The Monster as an Other

53

describing the human body, Isidore provides a taxonomy of monstrous bodies. For him monstrous bodily features include: (1) hypertrophy of the body, (2) atrophy of the body, (3) excrescence of bodily parts, (4) superfluity of bodily parts, (5) deprivation of parts, (6) mixture of human and animal parts, (7) animal birth by human women, (8) mislocation of organs or parts in the body, (9) disturbed growth (being born “old”), (10) composite beings, (11) hermaphroditic features, (12) monstrous racial features. Isidore’s starting point for defining monstrous bodies is the human body, which for him functions as the norm through which one can define what is abnormal. The human body has a symbolic force not only in defining the normal but also in delineating the abnormal and the monstrous. Williams suggests that “the human body through its symbolic extensions as well as its physical structure, provides the most complete paradigm for order and thus for the disorder that has precedence and priority in the monstrous configuration of reality.”28 The human body in Mary Douglas’s work Purity and Danger is portrayed as the basic model for structuring society. For Douglas “the body is a model which can stand for any bounded system. Its boundaries can represent any boundaries which are threatened or precarious.”29 Related to seeing the body as a symbolic representation of the structure of the society is Douglas’ notion of reading defilement in a structural manner. In her classic Purity and Danger30 she has shown that there should be an appreciation of the structural analysis of the concept of pollution in any given culture. 31 There is an underlying structure to the laws of defilement. The structure, which is reflected in those laws, should be interpreted symbolically. This symbolic system becomes a tool of power that shapes each particular culture and its identity. Despite the criticism of some of Douglas’s analysis of the system that underlies

28 David Williams, Deformed Discourse: The Function of the Monster in Medieval Thought and Literature (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996), 108. 29 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966; repr., London: Routledge, 2002), 142. 30 Note that Douglas has refined some of her assumptions about Israelite purity laws in her recent work as a response to criticism by biblical scholars. For an example of this criticism, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 720–721, 729, 1001. See Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: the Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTSup 158; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). 31 Douglas argues, “defilement is never an isolated event. It cannot occur except in view of a systematic ordering of ideas. Hence any piecemeal interpretation of the pollution rules of another culture is bound to fail. For the only way in which pollution ideas make sense is in reference to a total structure of thought whose keystone, boundaries, margins and internal lines are held in relation by rituals of separation” (Douglas, Purity and Danger, 51).

54

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

the purity laws in Leviticus, what remains in her argument is that the defiling things often violate classification and transgress categories.32 She writes, Pollution is a type of danger which is not likely to occur except where the lines of structure, cosmic or social, are clearly defined. A polluting person is always in the wrong.33 He has developed some wrong condition or simply crossed some line which should not have been crossed and this displacement unleashes danger for someone.34

When we take these two concepts from Douglas’s structural analyses, namely, the body and pollution, we can posit that monsters are different and impure because they transgress the boundaries of a given cultural norm. The transgression is expressed through an anomalous body that is seen to contrast with the “normal” body. Using the category of the monster Noël Carroll develops Douglas’s perception of impurity as transgression or violation of social or cultural classification.35 He speculates that “an object or being is impure if it is categorically interstitial, categorically contradictory, incomplete, or formless. … this list … is certainly useful for analyzing the monsters of the horror genre. For they are beings or creatures that specialize in formlessness, incompleteness, categorical interstitiality, and categorical contradictoriness.”36 In this way monsters 32

One of the often disputed claims Douglas makes is the following: “to conclude, if uncleanness is matter out of place, we must approach it through order. Uncleanness or dirt is that which must not be included if a pattern is to be maintained. To recognise this is the first step towards insight into pollution.” Milgrom and Meigs criticize Douglas for claiming that “uncleanness is matter out of place.” For them, not everything that is out of place is impure (see examples in Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 729). Jonathan Klawans, however, defends Douglas: “Surely ancient Israelites did not view all misplaced objects as sources of defilement. But Douglas’s opposition has pushed her definition too far. Her definition, I believe, was never meant to be reversible: not all matter out of place is to be understood as defiling! Douglas’s point, as I understand it, is simply that impure things fall outside the category patterns of the system in question” (Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism [Oxford: University Press, 2000] 165, n. 30). Whereas the system for Douglas focuses on order and disorder, for Milgrom the underlying structure behind purity laws is the concern for life versus death. 33 In writing that “a polluting person is always in the wrong,” Douglas does not mean to identify pollution with sin. For more details on the issue of relationship between impurity and sin see Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 3–42; he cites this statement on page 9. 34 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger, 140. It is important to note that Douglas’s analyses focus on crossing the boundaries within the same culture. Yet she pays attention not only to internal lines but also to external ones. The latter lines and boundaries are the center of my interest here, that is, how the religious lines and boundaries between Judah and Egypt are crossed. 35 Noël Carroll, The Philosophy of Horror: Or, Paradoxes of the Heart (New York: Routledge, 1990). 36 Monsters are threatening; they threaten one’s identity. They are also impure, because they reflect a conflict between cultural categories. Once the monster has been established ontologically through its transgression of categorization, its horrific characteristics are

II. The Monster as an Other

55

are impure and different because they are an embodiment of boundary transgression. The deformity of the body as an expression of the monstrous is also evident in the category of the grotesque. In his study of Rabelais, Mikhail Bakhtin deals with the grotesque body in contrast to the closed and smooth body. For Bakhtin, “the grotesque image ignores the closed, smooth, and impenetrable surface of the body and retains only its excrescences (sprouts, buds) and orifices, only that which leads beyond the body’s limited space or into the body’s depths.”37 The grotesque and the monstrous are similar in that they transgress a given perception of what constitutes a normal human body. Both the grotesque and the monstrous focus on the abnormality of the body, through which these two types of discourse negate the order and the normal.38 D. Body and Punishment We have seen in the previous sections that the difference of the monster and its Otherness is given a concrete expression through its anomalous and hybrid body. The monster does not respect borders or boundaries; the abnormal body of the monster threatens the structure that is perceived as normal.39 The oncethreatening entity, the monster, is doomed to suffer punishment. It is noteworthy that the anomalous body of the monster, that is, the body that breaches law and nature, finds itself a bearer of punishment, torture, and dismemberment. In addition to embodying monsters as anomalous bodies, societies also inscribe punishment upon the body of the monster as a witness to the affirmation of the rules of this society.

formally embodied. The following are four techniques that are used to make a monster. The first is fusion: transgressing categorical distinctions, “a ‘fusion figure’ is a composite that unites attributes held to be categorically distinct and/or at odds in the cultural scheme of things in unambiguously one, spatio-temporally discrete entity.” The second way of creating a monster is through fission: “the contradictory elements are, so to speak, distributed over different though metaphysically related, identities” (e.g., werewolves). Human and wolf identities “are not fused” but “sequenced.” There is “temporal fission” and “spatial fission.” “In the most fundamental sense of fusion and fission, these structures are meant to apply to the organization of opposed cultural categories, generally of a deep biological or ontological sort.” A third and a fourth technique in creating a monster are the magnification and massification of entities of beings already typically adjudged impure or disgusting within the culture.” Carroll, Philosophy of Horror, 32, 43–52. 37 Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World (trans. Hélène Iswolsky; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1984), 317. 38 Williams, Deformed Discourse, 109. “In the process of the grotesque, the abnormalization of the body and the negation of order are not coincidental; the one is the habitual method of the grotesque, the other, the conceptual goal at which it aims.” 39 In this manner the monster is similar to the abject. See below for the full discussion of the notion of abjection as brought to the fore by Julia Kristeva.

56

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

This notion of inscribing punishment upon the body of the monster can be illumined by Michel Foucault’s work Discipline and Punish. 40 Foucault’s discussion of the punishment of the body was not put forth in the context of a discussion of monstrosity. Rather, it was produced in the course of his study on punishment in medieval Europe prior to the birth of the prison. Nevertheless, his discussion will be helpful for understanding what happens to the monster in the ancient Near Eastern combat myths and what happens to Egypt as a monster in the book of Ezekiel. Foucault’s work deals with the body as a site of exercising power.41 For Foucault, the body that bears the punishment declares a message testifying to the authority of the sovereign. Furthermore, the punished body declares a monstrous message to anyone who is considering breaking the law of the sovereign. When the punished body is displayed publicly, the tortured body will function as a message of warning and horror that whoever breaks the law will be punished in a similar manner. The history of the body is not just concerned with the biological or the physiological aspects of the body, but also is concerned with its political aspect. Because the body has always been involved in the political arena, Foucault develops what he calls “the political technology of the body.”42 This technology of the body centers on the way “power relations have an immediate hold upon” the body.43 Power relations have an impact on the body when “they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs.”44 Political technology of the body is the way power relations master and conquer bodies.

40

Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (trans. Alan Sheridan; New York: Vintage Books, 1977). 41 What interests me in Foucault’s work is his insights on torture of the body in the pre-modern period. Although Foucault focuses on the shift of Western modern subjectivity from centering on the body to focus on the soul, his discussion of the treatment of the outlaw in the premodern period is helpful. He notes this shift of subjectivity in Discipline and Punish: “A ‘soul’ inhabits him and brings him to existence, which is itself a factor of mastery that power exercises over the body. The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body” (ibid., 30). See also Judith Halberstam, Skin Shows, 2, 72; and Andrew Sharpe, Foucault’s Monsters, 48–52. 42 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 26. This develops a field of “micro-physics of power, whose field of validity is situated in a sense between these great functionings and the bodies themselves with their materiality and their forces” (ibid., 26). 43 Foucault points out the development of “a political technology of the body in which might be read a common history of power relations and object relations” (Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 24). 44 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 25. Foucault does not focus only on the productivity of the body. He is also interested in how the body is seen as subject to power: “the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body” (ibid., 26).

II. The Monster as an Other

57

In the course of studying how institutions of power – such as governments – control the masses by controlling their bodies, Foucault has suggested that the body should be perceived as a site of struggle.45 The body that is produced by means of unequal power relation bears the signs of the exercise of authority and power of the dominant. Foucault suggests, “we can surely accept the general proposition that, in our societies, the systems of punishment are to be situated in a certain ‘political economy’ of the body ... it is always that which is at issue – the body and its forces, their utility and their docility, their distribution and their submission.”46 When we study the body we encounter a political technology and economy of the body that focuses on controlling and practicing authority over the masses by means of subjugating their bodies. The body bears the stigma of the exercised authority. The body is a text that reflects power relations. Exercising domination and power could be carried out by treating the body violently.47 Control of the body by the institutions of power can be manifest through punishment and discipline. Foucault’s analysis of punishment and discipline in Europe prior to the birth of the prison sheds light on the body as the site of torture.48 Prior to the prison, the body was the major target for “penal repression.”49 Punishment was treated as “spectacle” intending to establish order by spreading horror. Torture during public execution establishes a unique punishment-body relationship. It is physical and visible. The physical pain – the pain of the body – is a basic feature of this punishment. The body becomes the target of “unbearable sensations of punishment.”50 Torture as part of punishment must meet two demands: first, it must leave a scar on the body, and second, it must be spectacular so that it would be seen 45

In Foucault’s work, this becomes a central point: “the body is one of the sites of struggle and discursive conflict upon which he focuses.” Sara Mills, Foucault, 82. 46 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 25. 47 “We should admit … that power produces knowledge; that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” (Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 27). “This would not be a study of a state in terms of a ‘body’ (with its elements, its resources and its forces), nor would it be the study of the body and its surroundings in terms of a small state. One would be concerned with the ‘body politic’, as a set of material elements and techniques that serve as weapons, relays, communication routes and supports for the power and knowledge relations that invest human bodies and subjugate them by turning them into objects of knowledge” (ibid., 28). 48 Even after the birth of the prison, Foucault states: “there remains a trace of ‘torture’ in the modern mechanisms of criminal justice – a trace that has not been entirely overcome, but which is enveloped, increasingly, by the non-corporal nature of the penal system” (Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 16). 49 Ibid., 8. 50 Ibid., 11.

58

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

by all as a triumph of law and order.51 The condemned body displays a message of disgrace. Because “the body manifests the stigmata of past experience,”52 then, according to Foucault, it should be recognized as “the surface of the inscription of events.”53 On a similar note Mills states that the “body can be read as a social object, as a text to be marked, written upon by political ideologies. … a body is a significant social space on which meaning can be inscribed.”54 Tortures and punishments that are inscribed upon the body of the condemned are codes that signify the ‘lack of power,’ particularly when contrasted with the care for the body of the sovereign king.55 If the offense of breaking the law or order is not just against that institution but also against the power that enforces that law, then punishment can be seen as “a direct reply to the person who has offended” this authority.56 What follows is that this sovereign, when he/she acts in punishment, declares an absolute power over life and death. “In this liturgy of punishment, there must be an emphatic affirmation of power and its intrinsic superiority.”57 The broken and beaten body is a physical affirmation of this absolute power. Public punishment makes the body of the condemned “the place where the vengeance of the sovereign was applied, the anchoring point for a manifestation of power, an opportunity of affirming the dissymmetry of forces.”58 The outlaws that once threatened the law and its order are now being subjected to the law and its order. Although, as I mentioned earlier, Foucault’s insights on the punishment of the body were not produced with specific interest in the monster, they are still helpful in understanding the exercise of power on the body of the monster in 51

Speaking of punishment, Foucault writes: “it must mark the victim: it is intended, either by the scar it leaves on the body, or by the spectacle that accompanies it, to brand the victim with infamy; even if its function is to ‘purge’ the crime, torture does not reconcile; it traces around or, rather, on the very body of the condemned man signs that must not be effaced; in any case men will remember public exhibition, the pillory, torture and pain duly observed” (ibid., 34). 52 Foucault, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” in The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (ed. Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose; New York, N.Y.: The New Press, 2003), 356. 53 Ibid., 356. 54 Mary Mills, Alterity, Pain and Suffering in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, 89. 55 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 29. 56 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 48. Additionally, “we must regard the public execution, as it was still ritualized in the eighteenth century, as a political operation. It was logically inscribed in a system of punishment, in which the sovereign, directly or indirectly, demanded, decided and carried out punishments, in so far as it was he who, through the law, had been injured by the crime” (ibid., 53). 57 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 49. 58 Ibid., 55.

II. The Monster as an Other

59

horror literature. The punished body of the outlaws also signifies their Otherness and their monstrosity. They do not belong to the well-ordered society; their difference is marked upon their bodies. The scars on their bodies show that they are outside the norm; the beating of their bodies declares their breaking of the law. The spectacle punishment that is visible on the body becomes a source of terror and horror for those who are under the law.59 The punished body is a monstrous text of horror and terror. While Foucault deals with historical accounts that speak of the physical punishment of the subjects who challenged the laws and the norms of the master, various genres (e.g., horror literature) texualized these historical notions of physical torture and used them as a literary device to underline the horror and the fear of transgressing the boundary set up by the center of power. These characteristics of the monster that I have just outlined, namely, the abnormal body and the punished body, are typical in Gothic literature of the eighteenth century and the Victorian period.60 After introducing the monster and entertaining the threat that this creature poses on the boundaries of the society, it is usually punished, repudiated, and expelled. This process enables the society to restore its borders and reinstates its identity as the monster is dispatched. The lines are drawn between self and Other. Unlike the two aforementioned periods of Gothic and Victorian, the Gothic of the twentieth century focuses more on the fragility of the boundaries between self and Other. “The very dependence of the one term [self] upon the other [other] introduces an ambivalence.”61 Monsters threaten the stability of the presupposed as normal and accepted. From the difference between Gothic in the eighteenth century and the Gothic of the twentieth century, we recognize that the category of the monster cannot be minimized into just an Other. Social and cultural changes have allowed for the subaltern and the peripheral to represent themselves instead of being represented by those who possess the power of the center. The monster “problematize[s] binary thinking and demand[s] a rethinking of boundaries and concepts of normality.”62 To this problematization of binary thinking I shall now turn.

59

Punishment “made it possible to reproduce the crime on the visible body of the criminal; in the same horror, the crime had to be manifested and annulled” (Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 55). 60 Punter and Byron, The Gothic, 263. 61 Ibid., 264. 62 Ibid., 264.

60

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

III. Problematizing the Categorization of the Monster III. Problematizing the Categorization of the Monster

A. René Girard and the Monstrous Double In his famous work Violence and the Sacred, René Girard makes an invaluable contribution to the theoretical discussion of the character of the monster.63 As we have seen, the most obvious characteristic of the monster is its difference and abnormality. As Margit Schildrick observes, the figure of the monster, as usually perceived by many theorists, “is particularly rich in binary associations, and … is characterised variously as unnatural, inhuman, abnormal, impure, racially other and so on.”64 Girard, nevertheless, argues that under the apparent difference and Otherness of the monster, there lies a muddied sameness and similarity between the monster and the hero that represents the given norm and order. Similarity and resemblance between two figures can become a source of terror. The wearing out of boundaries between the two explains why one of them becomes a monster. René Girard argues: “A fundamental principle, often overlooked, is that the double and the monster are one and the same thing.”65 Girard addresses this relation between the double and the monster in the context of his discussion of mimetic desire. Girard perceives desire as mimetic, that is, we learn how and what to desire by copying and imitating each other.66 Mimetic desire manifests itself in a triangular structure: a subject (1) desires an object (2) and is copied by another subject that is the rival (3) who desires the same thing. These two subjects who mimic each other in their de-

63

Girard, Violence and the Sacred (trans. Patrick Gregory; Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). 64 Schildrick, Embodying the Monster: Encounters with the Vulnerable Self (London: Sage Publications, 2002), 28. Note that Schildrick in this work points to the instability of this binary opposition. She writes, “the monstrous, then, is a necessary signifier, a signifier that is of normality, of a self that is constructed discursively against what it is not, and yet, as I have indicated, that is nonetheless unstable. The apparent security of the binary self/non-self that guarantees the identity of the selfsame is irrevocably displaced by the necessity that the subject be defined by its excluded other” (ibid., 29–30). 65 Girard, Violence and the Sacred, 160. 66 “We desire what others desire because we imitate their desires,” argues René Girard (Girard “Generative Scapegoating,” in Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, René Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation [ed. Robert G. HamertonKelly; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987], 73–145, 122). For Girard, “desire” here refers to more than biological needs (e.g., food, drinks); the objects of desire are varied and unlimited. There are desires for objects (toys, etc.) and there are metaphysical desires (fullness of being). Furthermore, Girard’s perception of desire as mimetic, that is, a situation in which two subjects copy one another in what they desire, challenges “the idea of the desiring self as autonomous and independent” (Michael Kirwan SJ, Discovering Girard [London: Barton, Longman, and Todd Ltd., 2004], 14).

III. Problematizing the Categorization of the Monster

61

sire are doubles. However, their sameness – in desiring the same object – makes one of them monstrous. Whereas for most of us, words such as sameness and similarity denote a state of harmony, for Girard these words might cause a development of rivalry. When a subject and a rival mimic each other in desiring one object – that is, they are similar – clash is inevitable. “Two desires converging on the same object are bound to clash. Thus mimesis coupled with desire leads automatically to conflict.”67 In the context of mimetic desire, conflict is not caused because of the differences between the rivals. But rather, the conflict arises because of the sameness that is signaled by possessing a mimetic desire. The “erosion of differences between mimetic antagonists”68 underlines a new level of relation between the rivals. Girard claims, “When all differences have been eliminated and the similarity between two figures has been achieved, we say that the antagonists are doubles.”69 Whereas various anthropologists, including Victor Turner, would explain violence70 (and monstrosity for that matter) as caused by differences between people, Girard would argue that the absence of these differences is what causes violence and initiates monstrosity.71 To this end Girard observes: “The monstrous double is also to be found wherever we encounter an ‘I’ and an ‘Other’ caught up in a constant interchange of differences.”72 In his analysis of The Bacchae, Girard points out that when Pentheus sees a vision of two images exterior to himself, one of the two images is described as “not me” and the other is perceived as “me.” Girard calls this “double vision.”73 While the subject here sees the antagonist 67

Girard, Violence and the Sacred, 146. Of course, not all mimetic desires lead to rivalry and violence. “As long as the object of yearning is not closed off to general use – for example, if my friend and I want to learn the same language, or read the same book, or listen to the same piece of music – then conflict need not arise. But as soon as the object is cordoned off from this possibility of shared enjoyment, as is the case with sexual relationships, or jockeying for social prestige, mimesis will lead to competition.” Kirwan, Discovering Girard, 20–21. 68 Chris Fleming, René Girard: Violence and Mimesis (Cambridge: Polity, 2004), 42. 69 Girard, Violence and the Sacred, 159. 70 Victor Turner argues that “structural differentiation, both vertical and horizontal, is the foundation of strife and factionalism, and of struggles in dyadic relations between incumbents of positions or rivals for positions” (The Ritual Process: Structure and AntiStructure [Chicago: Aldine, 1969], 179; cited in Girard, Violence and the Sacred, 50). 71 Girard was able to demonstrate this notion of the erosion of differences as a source of violence and monstrosity in various classical works such as Oedipus the King (cf. the similarities between Oedipus and Laius) and Julius Caesar (cf. similarities between Brutus and Cassius on the one hand and Octavius Caesar and Mark Antony on the other). See Fleming, René Girard, 43. 72 Girard, Violence and the Sacred, 164. 73 Ibid., 165.

62

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

exterior to himself and attempts to make sense of this monster as “alien to himself,” he knows very well that this monster is a mere double. “The subject watches the monstrosity that takes shape within him and outside him simultaneously.”74 The subject holds a double vision in which he/she can see and cannot see him/herself simultaneously in the double. Terrified by the experience, the subject interprets the double as a monster that is alien to him/herself. “The subject feels that the most intimate regions of his being have been invaded by a supernatural creature who also besieges him without.”75 The source of horror here is that the subject is confronted with himself reflected in the double and the double seen within himself. Although sameness for Girard is what accounts for violence and for turning one of the rivals of the mimetic desire into a monster, this does not mean that differences are completely erased. Differences will always be there; however, what we usually do not see is that these differences cover up similarities between the rivals. In literary works the relation between the rivals, the antagonists, that is, the double and the monster, is not always clear. “In the collective experience of the monstrous double the differences are not eliminated, but muddied and confused. All the doubles are interchangeable, although their basic similarity is never formally acknowledged.” 76 Girard contends, “The myth, of course, emphasizes only one aspect (usually the monstrous aspect) in order to minimize the other. There is no monster who does not tend to duplicate himself or to ‘marry’ another monster, no double who does not yield a monstrous aspect upon close scrutiny.”77 “Pentheus: I seem to see two suns, two Thebes, with two times seven gates. And you, you are a bull walking before me, with two horns sprouting from your head. Dionysus: You see what you ought to see.” Pentheus sees Dionysus at once as a man, god and bull: “The reference to the bull’s horns links the two themes: doubles are always monstrous, the duality is always an attribute of monsters” (ibid., 162). 74 The subject reacts to this monstrous experience of seeing himself in the double through a process of alienation: “in his efforts to explain what is happening to him, he attributes the origin of the apparition to some exterior cause” (ibid., 165). 75 Although the subject tries to alienate this monstrous double, the subject is well aware of the inefficiency of this attempt. “How can one defend oneself against an enemy who blithely ignores all barriers between inside and outside?” (ibid., 165). 76 “They thus occupy the equivocal middle ground between difference and unity that is indispensable to the process of sacrificial substitution – to the polarization of violence onto a single victim who substitutes for all others” (ibid., 161). 77 Girard, Violence and the Sacred, 160. On a similar note, David D. Gilmore makes the following observation concerning monsters and the heroes that defeat them: “such monsters as sphinxes bring forth the necessary heroes to defeat them, and because such heroes make civilization by the example of monster taming, without the former there would be no civilization at all. In fact, one may say that monsters and heroes arise simultaneously in virtually all the ancient cosmologies as paired twins, indeed as inseparable polarities of

III. Problematizing the Categorization of the Monster

63

What usually captures the attention with regard to monsters are their differences from the presupposed norm and their ability to disturb the known and the familiar. René Girard, however, showed that this apparent difference covers an underlying sameness between the monster and the hero. In a context in which the two rivals converge in their desires upon one object, these two subjects are called doubles. Because of the horrific experience of seeing oneself in the double, one tries to alienate and monstrify the Other; the subject thus constructs its double as a monstrous one. The monstrous Other continues to haunt the subject as its double. B. Monsters as Abject and Unheimlich Looking at the issue of monstrosity from another angle, I will appeal to the work of Julia Kristeva on the process of “abjection.” Kristeva’s work Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection78 “takes the reader back to the brink of how subjectivity is constituted in the first place, that is, to how a person comes to see him- or herself as a separate being with his or her own borders between self and other.”79 Following Jacques Lacan, Kristeva suggests a particular pattern for forming the identity, the “I” of the infant, who when born has no sense of borders between the self and Other. In this stage the child is unable to differentiate him/herself from the mother; they seem to share a unitary sameness. Lacan would maintain that the child starts to recognize him/herself as an independent subject through the development of language during the stage that is the so-called “mirror stage,”80 which takes place sometime between six and eighteen months. In contrast, Kristeva suggests that this step of reconstructing an “I” in which the child starts to break from his/her harmony with the mother occurs earlier than the mirror phase. In the earliest stage of harmony with the mother, the period in which there are no boundaries, Lacan also discerns no sense of desire. Prior to the point of differentiation, in the fantasy of the child there are no desires because the child’s needs are simply satisfied. After separation the child becomes the subject of desire, a desire not only for things but also for that stage of harmony with the mother. Kristeva does not just point out that the process of separa-

a unified system of values and ideas underlying order itself” (Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors [Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003], 26). 78 Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (trans. Leon S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press, 1982); trans. of Pouvoirs de l’horreur (Éditions du Seuil, 1980). 79 Noëlle McAfee, Julia Kristeva (Routledge Critical Thinkers; New York: Routledge, 2004), 45. 80 Jacques Lacan, Écrits: A Selection (trans. Alan Sheridan; London: Tavistock, 1977), 1–7.

64

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

tion could start prior to the mirror stage; she also nuances Lacan’s position by highlighting the argument that the language or the symbolic is not the only factor that acts as a catalyst in the process of subjectivity and separation. For Kristeva there is another motive and drive that works in the process of separation, namely, the abjection of the mother. For Kristeva, abjection, as a process of subjectivity, is concerned with creating an opposition between the “I” and the “jettisoned object.”81 In the case of the relation between the infant and the mother, abjection is “a process of jettisoning what seems to be part of oneself. The abject is what one spits out, rejects, almost violently excludes from oneself: sour milk, excrement, even mother’s engulfing embrace.”82 Abjection, therefore, is the process that transforms the infant from the “imaginary union with its mother”83 into an independent subject. In an interview, Kristeva defines abjection as “revolt of the person against an external menace from which one wants to keep oneself at a distance, but which one has the impression that it is not only external menace but that it may menace us from inside. So it is a desire for separation, for becoming autonomous and also the feeling of an impossibility of doing so.”84 We see here the paradox of the process of abjection. There is a necessity to eject the danger, whether external or internal, which threatens the identity and the borders. Yet at the same time there is a sense of fear that this process seems impossible. The paradox of abjection goes further in that there is a tension between the need to completely exclude the abject and the reality that it is never utterly annihilated. “What is abjected is radically excluded but never banished altogether. It hovers at the periphery of one’s existence, constantly challenging one’s own tenuous borders of selfhood.”85 Because “from its place of ban-

81

The abject for Kristeva “has only one quality of the object – that of being opposed to I. If the object, however, through its opposition, settles me within the fragile texture of a desire for meaning, which as a matter of fact, makes me ceaselessly and infinitely homologous to it, what is abject, on the contrary, the jettisoned object, is radically excluded and draws me toward the place where meaning collapses” (Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 1–2). 82 McAfee, Kristeva, 46. Kristeva writes, “Food loathing is perhaps the most elementary and most archaic form of abjection.” She goes on to describe what happens to an infant when he/she vomits the milk of the mother, “along with sight-clouding dizziness, nausea, makes me balk at that milk cream, separates me from the mother and father who proffer it. ‘I’ want none of that element, sign of their desire; ‘I’ do not want to listen, ‘I’ do not assimilate it, ‘I’ expel it. But since the food is not an ‘other’ for ‘me,’ who am only in their desire, I expel myself, I spit myself out, I abject myself within the same notion through which ‘I’ claim to establish myself” (Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 2–3). 83 McAfee, Kristeva, 47. 84 “Interview with Julia Kristeva,” in Women Analyze Women (ed. Eliane Baruch and Lucienne Serrano; New York: New York University Press, 1988), 135–136. 85 McAfee, Kristeva, 46.

III. Problematizing the Categorization of the Monster

65

ishment, the abject does not cease challenging its master,”86 Kristeva maintains that the process of abjection is not just a stage that the person goes through in order to reconstruct an “I”; rather, it is a continuous process that takes place throughout the person’s whole life. This process of abjection is related not just to individual infants but also to how communities and groups of people constitute their identity. By initiating rituals of abjection societies reconstruct their identities by abjecting the impure and the polluted.87 Kelley Oliver comments on the process of abjection in relation to societies: “Although every society is founded on the abject – constructing boundaries and jettisoning the antisocial – every society may have its own abject. In all cases the abject threatens the unity/identity of both society and the subject. It calls into question the boundaries upon which they are constructed.”88 As the infant finds its “I” by abjecting the threat of the mother, so do societies through rituals; through rituals of separation societies form their subjectivities and identities.89 Societies abject the one who – or that which – “disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite.”90 We can start to see here some affinities between the monstrous, as described by Girard, and the abject, as posited by Kristeva. “The horror monster signifies abject terror because it violates cultural categories, disrespects organizing principles, and generally serves to present a chaotic alternative to the place of order and meaning, socially as well as biologically.”91 Both – the monster and the abject – simultaneously stand for horror and hope; they threaten one’s sense of identity and order, and by ejecting them one can reinforce one’s identity. The monstrous and the abject suffer the drastic association with utter Otherness, yet they are not a complete Other, because prior to the initiation of abjection they were part of 86

Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 2. She writes further, “The abject simultaneously beseeches and pulverizes the subject” (ibid., 5). “What makes something abject and not simply repressed is that it does not entirely disappear from consciousness. It remains as both an unconscious and a conscious threat to one’s own clean and proper self. The abject is what does not respect boundaries. It beseeches and pulverizes the subject” (McAfee, Kristeva, 46). 87 “A combination of anthropology and psychoanalysis now appears to squeeze out the kind of sociological framework based on a dichotomy between individual (subject) and society” (John Lechte, Julia Kristeva [London: Routledge, 1990], 162). 88 Kelly Oliver, Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the Double-Bind (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1993), 56. 89 Lechte, Kristeva, 163. 90 Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 4. 91 Tony Magistrale, Abject Terrors: Surveying the Modern and the Postmodern Horror Film (New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang, 2005), 7. Further connections between the abject and the monstrous female in horror literature is discussed by Barbara Creed, The Monstrous Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (London: Routledge, 1993).

66

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

an imaginary union with the self. Even after being abjected, and even though through rituals they are firmly excluded, they still hover at the periphery. They are not completely annihilated. In addition to the abject, another category has been used in order to unpack the character of the monster, namely, the Unheimlich, or the “uncanny.” Such a category is helpful because it deals with monsters as paradoxical beings. Timothy Beal describes the paradox that surrounds monsters in the following manner: “Monsters are in the world but not of the world. They are paradoxical personifications of Otherness within sameness. That is, they are threatening figures of anomaly within a well-established and accepted order of things. They represent the outside that has gotten inside, the beyond-thepale, much to our horror, has gotten into the pale.”92 Beal appeals to the Freudian notion of the Unheimlich in order to explain the paradoxical aspect of monsters, namely, that they represent Otherness within sameness. “The Unheimlich is in some sense what is in the house without belonging there, the outside that is inside,”93 in short, the “unhomely.” Freud speaks of the “Unheimlich” or the “uncanny”: “we can understand why linguistic usage has extended das Heimliche into its opposite, das Unheimlich; for this uncanny is in reality nothing new or alien, but something which is familiar and oldestablished in the mind.”94 The uncanny is something familiar that was repressed and now has found its way out. Rather than referring just to one’s sense of security and familiarity on the level of consciousness, the Heimlich is, for Beal, expanded to include one’s sense of confidence in the meaning and integrity of self, society, and even cosmos. The Unheimlich invades and threatens one’s sense of security and identity. “The unheimlich is the other within, that which is ‘there’ in the house but cannot be comprehended by it or integrated into it. Monsters are personifications of the unheimlich. … they are figures of chaos and disorientation within order and orientation, revealing deep insecurities in one’s faith in oneself, one’s society, and one’s world.”95

92

Beal, Religion and Its Monsters, 4. Ibid., 5. 94 Freud, The Uncanny, 241. For Freud the uncanniness is traced back to a stage in which the subject was not sharply distinguished from the world and from other people (ibid., 236). The uncanny is described by Freud as the “return of the repressed.” Kristeva calls this process “the maternal abject.” 95 Beal, Religion and Its Monsters, 5. Beal’s definition of the monster as an embodiment of “otherness within sameness” is attractive. However, his attempt to relate the monster only to the Unheimlich gives the impression that his application of the definition focuses only on Otherness and does not sufficiently emphasize that this Otherness is within sameness. That is to say, his definition hinges more on difference than sameness. However, the monsters (the ANE ones) that he discusses in his book can be seen as double as well as 93

IV. Summary

67

The Unheimlich and the abject are similar in that the alienated Other and the repressed is in fact part of the self. The difference, however, between these two categories is that whereas the Unheimlich represents repressed desires that at some point in time fade away in the background, the abject on the other hand never goes out of sight. The abject haunts the subject and its identity at all times. When these two terms are applied to the category of the monster they together underline sameness as a characteristic of the monster; yet describing the monster as abject highlights its continuous existence albeit being on the margins.

IV. Summary IV. Summary

In this chapter I showed that the category of the monster is a complex one. Its meaning cannot be minimized to focus solely on its role as a signifier of difference. I suggest maintaining a tension between the monster as representing both an Other/different/Unheimlich and a double/same/Heimlich. Monsters are paradoxical creatures. On the surface, monsters have an anomalous and abnormal body. They represent chaos and boundary transgressions. They pose a threat to the well-being of society. Monsters stand in for what a particular society recognizes as abnormal, unusual, and different. In these cases, monstrosity can be seen as the process of alienation that helps a given society to affirm what is perceived as normal, accepted and familiar. When considered closely, however, monsters do not seem to be the Ultimate Other. The apparent Otherness that is projected upon monsters reflects an underlying anxiety within a society’s established order and structure. It is not only the case that these monsters were created in order to secure a particular norm, which means that the stability of this norm hinges upon the monsters’ being monsters. But as it turns out, when a society creates monsters, it monstrifies part of itself. Monsters are horrific precisely because they simultaneously embody Otherness and sameness. They are different, but under this apparent difference, there is an underlying similarity between “them” and “us.” As we have seen, in Girard’s analysis of some literary works, although the relationship between monsters and their hero slayers is marked with apparent difference, there is a concealed sameness between the two. Literary analysis can show us that the shared sameness between the two rivals is what makes one of them a “monstrous double.” The erosion of difference is what causes monstrosity. This shared sameness, the double relation, is muddied and covered by an apparent and evident difference.

other; they share with the hero a common ground of sameness even as they deviate from the norm and become an Other.

68

Chapter 2: Monster Theory

Whereas in Girard’s proposal, monstrosity is caused because of the mimetic desire that turns one of the two rivals into a monster, in Kristeva’s notion of abjection it is the desire of separation and forming an “I” that creates an Other. The process of abjection is rebelling against sameness and the stage of the imaginary union with the (m)Other. In order to enhance this sense of self, the child projects an Otherness on the mother. The child reconstructs her or his identity by means of abjecting and monstrifying the (m)Other.96 The relationship between the subject and the abject is complex because prior to Otherizing the abject, it was part of the self; because there was no sense of borders, one abjects part of oneself. Furthermore, although the abject is radically excluded, it never banishes; its continuous existence is necessary for the “I” to continue as an independent subject. The body as a prime constituent of identity plays a role in the process of monstrosity. The monster is ascribed an abnormal body that coincides with its identity as a threat to the order and structure of the power zone. The body of the monster, which is usually anomalous and hybrid, suffers punishment and torture. The monster that once was a source of threat and horror bears the punishment of the sovereign that represents the law, the name and the wellstructured order. This punishment, as it leaves a scar on the body of the monster and as it is conducted publicly, brings shame and disgrace to the excluded monster. Furthermore, it emphatically reestablishes the law and order of the sovereign. I want to acknowledge that there may well be a gap and some differences of worldview concerning the character of the monster as seen in modern “monster theory” and the character of the monster as seen in ancient Near Eastern literature. Using contemporary theoretical insights in order to explain the notion of monstrosity in the ancient Near East and in Ezekiel has its limits. For instance, whereas Kristeva’s insights deal with the realm of psychoanalysis, the notion of monstrosity in Ezekiel and the ancient Near East move 96

Cohen suggests one of the ways in which difference and sameness function within monstrosity: “the political-cultural monster, the embodiment of radical difference, paradoxically threatens to erase difference in the world of its creators” (Cohen, “Monster Culture,” 11). This last statement is different from Girard’s analysis (see above) of the monstrous double. For Girard the erosion of difference is a cause and a characteristic of monstrosity. In postmodern philosophies, however, monsters, although created by difference, challenge the presupposed norm by destabilizing the differences that monstrosity hinges upon; therefore, monsters invite a new way of reconstructing reality. Cohen argues that, “by revealing that difference is arbitrary and potentially free-floating, mutable rather than essential, the monster threatens to destroy not just individual members of a society, but the very cultural apparatus through which individuality is constituted and allowed. Because it is a body across which difference has been repeatedly written, the monster (like Frankenstein’s creature, that combination of odd somatic pieces stitched together from a community of cadavers) seeks out its author to demand its raison d’être – and to bear witness to the fact that it could have been constructed Otherwise” (Cohen, “Monster Culture,” 12).

IV. Summary

69

beyond the psyche of the individual to the socio-political and religious realms. Furthermore, while the process of abjection takes place in the unconsciousness of the child, the Otherness that is projected on the monsters in these accounts of Chaoskampf is done for the most part by a conscious composer/prophet, who mediates monstrosity/abjection through the medium of literature and/or prophetic word. Moreover, the process of abjection centers on the relation between two figures, the child and the mother; in the literary works (ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf and its appropriation in Ezekiel) the notion of monstrosity (and abjection) involves more characters than just the self and the Other. In the case of Ezekiel, for example, the prophet (an agent of YHWH), a third party utters prophetic words that produces a literaryabjection in which Egypt plays the role of the abject/ the Other and Israel plays the role of the self. Despite these differences the insights that I gather from contemporary discourse on the monster, the body, and identity will function heuristically. These insights help us understand the complexity of the character of the monster in the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf and the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel. Three specific insights will prove helpful. First, although on the surface the monster appears to be the Ultimate Other, it hides and covers muddied sameness and similarity; monsters are paradoxical beings that simultaneously maintain Otherness and sameness in tension. Second, the body of the monster bears the sign of its rejection and abjection in both its production and in its punishment. Because it stands for boundary transgression, the monster is ascribed a hybrid and anomalous body. This same body that is produced through unequal power relations, and revealed in discourse, is fit to receive the punishment of the sovereign. Third, although the monster is usually defeated and dismembered, it is like the abject that never completely vanishes, but rather remains at the periphery and poses a threat that challenges the sense of a clean and proper identity and subjectivity.

Chapter Three

Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East In the previous chapter I described aspects of monster theory that may clarify some of the issues related to the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel. Before I show how monster theory can assist in understanding Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt, in this chapter I will put monster theory in conversation with scholarly discourse on the ancient Near Eastern monsters as found in selected literary works that pertain to the Chaoskampf motif. This chapter will function as a tool through which I will compare and evaluate the contemporary insights concerning monsters prior to applying them to Ezekiel. The purpose is to highlight some key themes that relate to the notion of monstrosity in the ancient Near East; these themes, I will show in the chapters that follow, have been appropriated by Ezekiel for his own purposes. After providing a summary of three literary works from the ancient Near East, which will be very fruitful for my discussion of the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel (i.e., Enūma eliš, Baal Cycle, Re-Apophis), I will discuss three major issues concerning the character of the monster in these three literary traditions: (1) The relationship between the monster and the divine pantheon; (2) The embodiment of the chaos and the dismemberment of the body of the monster; (3) The evident tension in these works between the nearcomplete annihilation of the monster and the fact that the monsters continue to exist and often come back to threaten the ordered world. In the course of discussing these issues, I will argue – using monster theory – that the relationship between the monster (i.e., Tiamat, Yamm, Apophis, etc.) and the patron god of the respective divine pantheon (i.e., Marduk, Baal, Re) is complex. Although on the surface, the relationship between mythic monsters and the patron or high god might be assumed to be entirely a relation of enmity and hostility, the relationship is actually more multifaceted and should not be perceived only through a simple system of binary opposites. Though Otherness is underlined by ascribing a horrific body (e.g. gigantic, or anomalous) to the monster, one can still detect important similarities and sameness between the patron god and the monster. The monster is simultaneously an Other and a double, same and different. The hostility, enmity and Otherness take place as a way of rejecting sameness, as a reaction to the loss of difference.

I. Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

71

Furthermore, although the combat myth initially seems to portray the annihilation of the monster of chaos through the dismemberment of its body, the combat ends with a paradoxical affirmation that the monster still exists; it remains, however, at bay and under check. This tension between complete annihilation and the continued existence of the monster can be resolved by appealing to monster theory, which argues that the existence of the abnormal is necessary in order for the normal to be expressed. One needs an Other in order to reconstruct one’s identity. Chaos is necessary for order to be established; the monster’s challenge to the divine order and subsequent and recurrent subjugation are indispensible narrative elements through which the patron god’s sovereignty can be demonstrated. Yet, this system of binary opposites, as I have just mentioned, is an unstable reality, because the structure of the norm hinges on the monster being a monster, and because the monster will continue to question the presupposed normal. Furthermore, at some point, the monster will break through and threaten and challenge the order. Monsters are always potentially resurgent. Now I shall summarize the plots of Enūma eliš, the Baal-Cycle and the combat between Re and Apophis. Following this brief summary of each of these literary works I will discuss in detail the aforementioned themes.

I. Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East I. Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

A. Enūma eliš The opening phrase of this mythic work, Enūma eliš, meaning “when on high …” became the official title for this classic work composed of seven tablets.1 The myth intertwines various themes including theogony, combat myth, creation and the elevation of Marduk in the Babylonian pantheon. Because of scholarly research comparing the creation motif in Enūma eliš with that of the Old Testament in Genesis 1, this complex work was initially thought of primarily as a creation story.2 However, more recent scholarship has tended to 1

In this study I rely on Benjamin Foster’s translation of Enūma eliš as found “Epic of Creation (Enūma Elish),” translated by Benjamin R. Foster (COS 1.111:390–402); and also Philippe Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth: Enūma Eliš, Introduction, Cuneiform Text, Transliteration, and Sign List with a Translation and Glossary in French (SAA IV; University of Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005); Thomas R. Kämmerer and Kai Alexander Metzler, Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma elîš (AOAT 375; Münster : Ugarit-Verlag 2012); W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths (Mesopotamian Civilizations 16; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013). 2 This is evident in the way this myth was titled by modern scholarship. Alexander Heidel calls it “The Babylonian Genesis” and Stephanie Dalley names it “The Epic of Creation.” Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of the Creation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942); “The Epic of Creation,” (Stephanie Dalley, Myths

72

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

highlight the elevation of the god Marduk and the nation of Babylon as another prominent motif underlying the story. In the first tablet of the story, when the two bodies of water, the sweet (Apsû) and the salty (Tiamat), meet, they give birth to the gods (I.1–20).3 While Apsû conspires to kill all of the younger generation of the gods, the mother Tiamat opposes his idea (I.25–45). Feeling the threat of Apsû Ea, who is one of the younger gods, puts Apsû to sleep by means of a spell (I.60–79). Ea and his wife give birth to the extremely beautiful, powerful, and aweinspiring Marduk (I.80–104). As the story develops, younger generation of the gods, who were formerly under the threat of Apsû, has become a source of horror and threats, something that evoked Tiamat to wage war against them. Tiamat, the mother of the gods, accompanied by an enormous army and waged war against the younger gods. Mother Hubur (i.e. Tiamat) makes many weapons for war and gave birth to monster-serpents (1.133; II.20; III.82). She arrays dragons, lion monsters, lion men, scorpion men, mighty demons, and fish men, all of whom will assist her in the war against other gods (I.141–144; II.27–29; III.89–91). She appoints a leader named Qingu, who later becomes her husband (I.148–162; II.34–48). 4 The Annuna-gods and from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989], 228–277). 3 The origin of Marduk’s combat against Tiamat is debated. Whereas Jacobsen argues that this motif of a conflict between the patron god and the Sea moved eastward, from the Levant to Mesopotamia, Lambert contends that the Marduk-Tiamat conflict finds its roots in the indigenous Ninurta-Anzu conflict. T. Jacobsen, “The Battle Between Marduk and Tiamat,” JAOS 88 (1968): 104–108. W. G. Lambert, “Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic of Creation,” in Keilschriftliche Literaturen (ed. K. Hecker and W. Sommerfeld; XXII Rencontre Assyriologique; Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient 6; Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1986), 55–60. Tiamat is an Akkadian contribution to the Mesopotamian pantheon, the only monster beside lahmu that bears a Semitic name: “her later history reveals a rebellious nature that is best explained by reference to the West, where the tension between the near-by sea and the ruling gods is naturally expected and attested.” F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts (Groningen: STYX & PP Publications, 1992), 155. The myth of a combat between a patron god and the Sea is also attested at Mari. This suggests that “the West-Semitic conflict-myth existed within the larger Mesopotamian cultural sphere. Therefore, it is plausible that the complex development of the rendering of Marduk and Tiamat in Enūma eliš involved primarily East Semitic elements, but possibly West Semitic ones as well.” Mark Smith, The Ugaritic Ba’al Cycle, Volume I: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2 (VTSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 111–112. 4 Qingu becomes Tiamat’s husband. Some scholars take this name to be related to the Sumerian king Keniger. Along with the reference to Tiamat as water/sea, this may suggest that this battle is a reference to the military triumph of Kassite Babylonia over the First Sealand Dynasty in the 15th century BCE. “The Creation Epic (Enūma Elish),” translated by Benjamin Foster (COS, 1.111:392). “Then, like the mountains before, she [Tiamat] co-

I. Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

73

the Igigi-gods have to select one from among themselves to respond to Tiamat’s threats (II.49–IV.32). Filled with terror and horror, Ea and Anu refuse to face the fury of Tiamat (II.49–124). Finally, Marduk agrees to engage with Tiamat in battle on condition that Marduk will become supreme among the gods5 upon his victorious return from combat with Tiamat (II.125–IV.32). incides with an enemy of Babylon (Marduk), Sealand” (Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 155; see also T. Jacobsen, “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East [ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1975], 65–97, 76). 5 The story ends with the exaltation of Marduk by means of reciting 50 various names that signify his supremacy among the gods. The importance of the naming of Marduk is emphasized by the unnaming at the beginning of the story: Enūma eliš nabuú šámamu “When above heaven had not been named.” Marduk seeks to establish fame for himself and for his name by doing a heroic deed, that is, volunteering to defeat Tiamat. Andrea Seri, “The Fifty Names of Marduk in Enūma eliš,” JAOS 126.4 (2006): 507–519, esp. 517. Enūma eliš recites this line at the end: “Let them sound abroad the song of Marduk, How he defeated Tiamat and took Kingship.” (VII.161) “The creation story was thus the means to convey, proclaim, and justify the enthronement of Marduk as Babylonia’s main deity.” (Seri, “The Fifty Names,” 511). The fifty names that were given to Marduk affirm his kingship “Enûma elish is first and foremost a literary monument in honor of Marduk as the champion of the gods.” (Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 11). In a similar approach W. G. Lambert writes, “Marduk’s supremacy was absolute. The Epic of Creation shows how, in the framework of a council like that of the Sumerian gods, he demanded that if he were to rescue the gods from Tiamat’s threat, he should assume absolute power” (“The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek [ed. W. S. McCullough; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964], 3–13, 4). In this essay Lambert notes that it was in the period of Nebuchadnezzar I that Marduk was titled “king of the gods.” This statement was found on a boundary stone that comes from the second Dynasty of Isin ca. 1100 B.C.E. Furthermore, Lambert recognizes in the return of the statue of Marduk to Babylon from Elam during the reign Nebuchadnezzar I support for his suggestion. On the elevation of Marduk, Lambert comments in another essay: “It has long been perceived that Enūma eliš sets up Marduk in the place Enlil used to hold, indeed VII 135–136 states this formally be (sic) [by] assigning perhaps the most prestigious title of Enlil to Marduk. In terms of headship of the pantheon this was a necessary thing. However, the author decided to get his hero promoted to this high rank by killing a monster, and Ninurta was traditionally the monster slayer of Sumerians and Babylonians, so in addition to becoming the new Enlil, Marduk had to be the new Ninurta also” (Lambert, “Ninurta,” 60). Note that – perhaps during the reign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib – Assyrian scholars made some recensions to Enūma eliš, which included inserting Assur in the place of Marduk. See, e.g., H. Zimmern, “Marduks (Ellils, Ashshurs) Geburt im babylonischen Weltschöpfungsepos,” MVAG 21 (1916): 213–220; P. Machinist, “The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some reflections,” Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Jahrbuch (1984/85): 353–364, 359; W. G. Lambert, “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma eliš,” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: XXXIXe Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Heidelberg, 6–10. Juli 1992 (Herausgegeben von Hartmut Waetzoldt, Harald Hauptmann; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997), 77–79.

74

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

By employing horrific acts of violence, Marduk defeats Tiamat, and out of her body he creates the cosmos (IV.35–VI.100). At the center of this cosmos he establishes his great temple, the Esagila, located in Babylon (VI.62, 72– 73). This complex literary work ends with two important sections: one is the recitation of the fifty names that extol Marduk, and the second commands the public proclamation of the defeat of Tiamat by Marduk, who is now enthroned as King in Babylon. B. Baal Cycle The term “Baal Cycle,”6 refers to six tablets excavated between 1930–1933 at Ugarit.7 There is a debate among scholars whether the six tablets form one single work or whether they are a collection of separate narratives concerning Baal.8 Though there are many gaps in the narratives reported in these six tablets, scholars still have shown interest in investigating a degree of narrative continuity within the cycle. Various organizational suggestions for the flow of the narrative have been put forth.9 The cycle is centered on three important events: Baal’s defeat of Yamm, which ends with the proclamation that Baal is King (KTU 1.1–1.2).10 The second is the building of a temple/palace for Baal after gaining permission from El. From the temple Baal utters his voice of thunder, causing rain to fall (KTU 1.3–1.4). The third is the defeat of Mot by the goddess Anat after the death of Baal; the subsequent revival of Baal is reflected in the falling of the rain (KTU 1.5–1.6).

6 This cycle is correctly named by other scholars Baal-Anat cycle, because the goddess plays a large role in the narrative. On the role that Anat plays in the Baal-Cycle and other texts from Ugarit see Neal H. Walls, The Goddess Anat in Ugraitic Myth (SBLDS 135; Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1992). 7 Due to the incomplete evidence, the dating of the Baal Cycle is a matter of dispute. Initially scholars posited that the tablets date to 1400–1350 BCE. Based on new data scholars have suggested another possible date for the tablets, namely, the thirteenth century BCE. For discussions on the date of the tablets see Dennis Pardee, The Ugaritic Texts and the Origins of West-Semitic Literary Composition: Schweich lectures of the British Academy, 2007 (Oxford: Oxford University Press [for the British Academy] 2012), 41–77; and Mark Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU / CAT 1.3–1.4 (VTSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 7–8. 8 While the last two tablets show clear narrative continuity and connections, which are concerned with the battle between Baal and Mot, the connection between tablets 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 is uncertain. 9 For an overview of the various suggestions, see Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume I: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2 (VTSup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1994). 10 See Manfried Dietrich, et.al. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts: from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995).

I. Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

75

Various interpretations have been presented in order to explain the meaning of the cycle of Baal.11 Proposals include a cultic use, arguing that the cycle can be arranged to correspond to the rainy seasons in Ugarit so that the meaning of the text would be concerned with the rituals of the New Year’s Festival.12 Other proposals focus on a cosmogonic reading of the Baal Cycle, in which there is a battle between Baal, who is perceived as the source of renewal in the cosmos, on the one side, and Yamm and Mot, both of whom represent the forces of death and devastation in the universe, on the other.13 Another suggestion, put to the fore by Mark Smith, reads the cycle politically connecting the rise of a young deity, i.e., Baal, with the prominence of the Ugaritic dynasty.14 The latter proposal finds its support in the repetition of the 11

For an overview of the various interpretations put forth, see Mark Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” UF 18 (1986): 313–339. See also Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume I, 58–114. Another survey is also provided in N. Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL13; Münster: UgaritVerlag, 1996), 140–158. See also Pardee, The Ugaritic Texts, 41–77. 12 T. H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East (New York: Doubleday, 1961); J. C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of the Ba‘lu According to the Version of Ilimilku (AOAT 16; Kevelear: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen Vluyn; Neukirchener Verlag, 1971). Unlike de Moor, who understands the cycle as reflecting a precise seasonal pattern associated with real climactic conditions, Bordreuil and Yon would interpret the “vegetative cycle” in a symbolic manner. 13 U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971), 174–177; B. Margalit, A Matter of ‘Life’ and ‘Death’: A Study in the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4–5–6) (AOAT 206; Kevelear: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), 9–11; B. Margalit, “The Ugaritic Creation Myth: Fact of Fiction?” UF 13 (1981): 137–145; Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 43. Cross writes, “Myths of Ba‘l view creation as cosmogony.” Such a claim is problematic in the light of not having a creation story in the Baal Cycle. Clifford tried to overcome this obstacle by suggesting a different understanding of cosmogony and creation. For him these two categories should not necessarily refer to creating the physical universe, but they also could refer to re-ordering the cosmos, which ought to be reflected in re-ordering human society. R. J. Clifford, “Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible,” Or 53 (1984): 183–201. John Day argues “the fact that the Old Testament so frequently uses the imagery of the divine conflict with the dragon and the sea in association with creation, when this imagery is Canaanite, leads one to expect that the Canaanites likewise connected the two themes”; John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (UCOP 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 17. For a response to this position, see J. C. Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode; Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 1987), 545–560. 14 Mark Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans; 2nd ed. Dearborn, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 2002), 60. Elsewhere, Smith argues, “Indeed the Ugaritic dynasty considered Baal-Haddu as its divine patron, and the transmission and final production of

76

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

theme of Baal’s kingship (KTU 1.2.IV.10).15 Despite the diversity in the episodes of the narrative, a diversity that includes Baal’s control of the natural order of rain and fertility and also his revival from the dead, these minor motifs underline the larger theme in the cycle, namely, Baal’s kingship. As Mark Smith puts it, “the Baal Cycle uses elements from the natural sphere to advance the theme of Baal’s kingship.”16 Though the theme of Baal’s kingship is central to the narrative in the cycle, Smith notes that Baal reaches his kingship by the aid of other deities (e.g., Anat), and that he acquires only partial control.17 In the course of the narrative, other deities exhibit or are bestowed with some degree of authority, however temporary (e.g., ‘Athtaru).18 And although Baal eventually claims kingship, his sovereignty continues to be threatened by his foe, Mot, who enjoys an ambiguous relationship with El. C. Re and Apophis The Egyptian combat myth between Re and Apophis is primarily known from Egyptian funerary literature. Funerary texts from ancient Egypt that come from different historic periods19 are “principally those that deal with life after the Baal Cycle at Ugarit may have resulted in part in the political values that it expressed on behalf of the Ugaritic dynasty”; Mark Smith “Baal Cycle,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. Simon Parker; SBLWAW 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, Scholars Press, 1997), 84. See also Aaron Tugendhaft, “Unsettling Sovereignty: Politics and Poetics in the Baal Cycle,” JAOS 132 (2012): 367–384. This notion of connecting the rise of a dynasty or a ruler with the divine defeat of the power of chaos is to be compared with a text known from Mari in which the king Zimri-Lim is addressed by the god, Adad, who informs the king that the sword that he is granting him was used by Adad to defeat the Sea; J. M. Durand, “Le Mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopotamie,” MARI 7 (1993): 41–61; see also P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, “Le Combat de Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’après les texts ougaritiques,” MARI 7 (1993): 63–70. Here we have a connection between the rise of a king to the throne and the defeat of the power of chaos, embodied by sea, by the patron god. 15 Kothar-wa-Hasis addresses Baal as he hands to him the two weapons which he has fashioned to defeat Yamm, saying: tqḥ . mlk . ‘lmk . drkt . dt . drdrk “May you take your eternal kingship, your everlasting dominion.” Similar proclamations are found in the Old Testament that speaks of YHWH’s kingship (e.g., Psalm 145:13). Scholars have noted the sounds play and the reversal of consonants in this line. See W. G. E. Watson, “Reversed Rootplay in Psalm 145,” Bib 62 (1981): 101–102. 16 Smith, “Baal Cycle,” 1997, 84. 17 Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume I, 96–114; Smith, “Baal Cycle,” 1997, 84. 18 “The Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86:242). 19 The following funerary texts come from different periods of Egyptian history: Pyramid Texts (Old Kingdom), Coffin Texts (Middle Kingdom), and Book of Going Forth by Day (the Book of the Dead; New Kingdom); as well as guidebooks to the beyond such as the Book of That Which Is in the Underworld, the Book of the Gates, and the Book of Caverns. Throughout these works that come from different periods of Egyptian history one should expect a certain amount of overlap among them. “The Old Kingdom’s Pyramid

I. Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

77

death in the company of the gods – that is, guidebooks to the beyond.”20 Along with guiding the deceased in the afterlife, the Egyptian funerary texts describe the journey and rejuvenation of the sun god, Re.21 The journey of the sun god Re through the subterranean underworld takes place during the twelve hours of the night. Re travels from the “western to the eastern horizon” in a boat via a river in the netherworld. The destination of the journey is the rejuvenation of the sun god, which allows for a new day and the stability of the order of the cosmos. The crucial event of the appearance of the sun on the eastern horizon takes place after an enigmatic unity between Osiris and Re.22 As crucial as this journey is, the god Re and his company on the boat face much opposition throughout their trip in the netherworld. “The god’s progress is opposed by the forces of chaos, chief among whom is the serpent Apep who has to be defeated and restrained.”23 Apophis, the giant monster who dwells in the sand bank of the subterranean river, tries to swallow the sun disk and dries up the river in order to abort the journey of Re’s bark. Because defeating Apophis was the most important and urgent event that would keep the power of chaos away from the ordered world, the Egyptians Texts include some variants found in Middle Kingdom coffins as well as on the walls of the Saite period priests’ and priestesses’ tomb-chapels at Thebes that date from almost two thousand years later”; Leonard H. Lesko, “Funerary Literature,” in The Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion (ed. Donald B. Redford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 139. 20 “Most of the funerary literature has in common the reconciliation of the two principle cults involved with death and afterlife, and both are related to the myth of divine kingship.” Lesko, “Funerary Literature,” 140. 21 John Taylor, Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001), 198. These compositions are the Books of the Underworld. This corpus of funerary literature is the most important collection of texts used in the tombs of the kings of the New Kingdom. The major writings of the Books of the Underworld, in chronological order of their appearance, are the Amduat, the Book of the Gates, and the Book of Caverns (Taylor, Death and the Afterlife, 198); see also Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999). 22 On the significance of the unity of Re and Osiris in Egyptian mythological worldview, see John Coleman Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, the SolarOsirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX (OBO 198; Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). This study concerns the unity of Osiris and the Solar deity which occurs in the Books of the Netherworld from the New Kingdom. In these works, cryptograms comprise an enigmatic hieroglyphic writing system paralleling the traditional hieroglyphic writing system; in the cryptographic compositions some signs took a different orthographic value. On the purpose of the religious cryptography, Darnell comments, “The Egyptians may have intended religious cryptography to be a means of testing a reader’s knowledge of the intricacies of the Netherworld” (ibid., 472). 23 Taylor, Death and the Afterlife, 198–199.

78

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

used rituals and liturgies in order to ensure Re’s victory over this gigantic serpent. These liturgies, which hoped for the destruction of Apophis once and for all, used magical spells: He is fallen to the flame, Apophis with a knife on his head. He cannot see, and his name is no more in this land. I have commanded that a curse be cast upon him; I have consumed his bones; I have annihilated his soul in the course of every day; I have cut his vertebrae at his neck, severed with a knife which hacked up his flesh and pierced into his head … I have made him non-existent … He is fallen and overthrown.24

After the defeat of Apophis, the Sun god Re appears on the eastern horizon, initiating a new day and ensuring the order of the cosmos.25 In addition to maintaining the order of the cosmos, Re’s victory over the powers of chaos also leads to the rebirth of the deceased king. “The kings’ rebirth is assured through his close identification with the sun god throughout his journey.”26 Interestingly, in the drawings of the journey of Re we find that the defeat of Apophis parallels the defeat of the enemies of the king.27

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double? II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

A. Beyond Structural Perspective In order to underline the necessity for adopting a complex approach towards monsters in the ancient Near Eastern mythologies, I will begin this section by highlighting a structural approach to the relationship between the divine pantheon and the monsters. This approach in itself provides a useful perspective; nevertheless it does not take into account the true complexity of such a relationship. Some interpreters of the combat between Tiamat and Marduk tend to read it through an approach of binary opposites. Wiggermann, for example, writes, 24

For the full text of this liturgy, see Raymond O. Faulkner, The Papyrus BremnerRhind (British Museum No. 10188) (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca III; Bruxelles; Édition De La Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1933), 42–88; and for an English translation see Faulkner, “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus: III: D. The Book of Overthrowing ’Apep,” JEA 23.2 (1937): 166–185; Norman Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001), 22; and “The Repulsing of the Dragon (Coffin Text 160),” translated by Robert Ritner (COS, 1.21:32). 25 For a psychological and a theological interpretation of the journey of the sun god as found in the book of the Amduat see, Andreas Schweitzer, The Sungod’s Journey Through the Netherworld: Reading the Ancient Egyptian Amduat (ed. David Lorton; forward by Erik Hornung; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009). 26 Taylor, Death and the Afterlife, 198–199. 27 See below (Fig. 1) a drawing from the book of the Amduat in which the slaying of the monster Apophis parallels the slaying of the enemies of Pharaoh.

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

79

Implicit in Marduk’s elevation is the elevation of his enemies and the promotion of the combat myth from good-versus-evil to Good-versus-Evil. … Tiamat, formerly only one of the enemies and a breeding place of monsters, is promoted to arch-fiend and cosmic power; the other monsters are made dependent on her as her children and soldiers.28

This structural approach is useful in unpacking one side of the coin with regard to the relation between the monster and the patron god of a specific divine pantheon. In the case of Enūma eliš, the structural approach underlines one important aspect of the relationship between Tiamat and Marduk, namely, their enmity and opposition. Yet the category that Wiggermann suggests (Good-versus-Evil) reduces a complex relation between gods and monsters into a dualistic opposition. After all Tiamat was the mother of the gods; even after she is defeated, she remains intimate to the cosmos since out of her body heaven and earth were created. Furthermore, the words “Good” and “Evil” are loaded terms and bring with them moral agendas that are foreign to the combat myth. Marduk and Tiamat share a similar characteristic in desiring sovereignty. The structural approach of binary opposites manifests itself once more in Wiggermann’s work. In the course of analyzing the Mesopotamian worldview with regard to the known and the unknown worlds, including the gods (especially the anthropomorphic deities) and the monstrous beings, Wiggermann provides the following chart, which divides the world between Center and Periphery:29 PLACE

TIME SOCIETY

28

Centre 1. Lowland cities 2. Surface of the earth 3. Surface of the earth 4. Present (being) 5. Civilization, just rule 6. Bound to gods

Periphery Deserts, border rivers, foreign nations, mountains, sea Underworld Sky (Primordial) past (becoming) Barbarian, enemy, witch Ungodly

Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 163. Myth, according to Wiggermann, is concerned with deviations from the norms, be it political, cultic, or historical. Unexpected events were explained as abrupt decisions by the gods. Combat myth played a large role in explaining the twisted realities of the ancient Mesopotamians. A combat between an anthropomorphic god and a monster signifies an anxiety about the order of the world; it was a combat over sovereignty between “rightful ruler and rebels” (Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 159). Wiggermann has a different notion of the relationship between the anthropomorphic gods and the monsters from that of Jacobsen: see Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 158 and Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 9, 128–129; and see also Jacobsen, The Harps That Once…: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987), 235. 29 Frans Wiggermann, “Scenes From the Shadow Side,” in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian (CM 6; ed. M.E. Vogelzang and H.L.J. Vanstiphout; Groningen: Styx Publications, 1996), 210–211.

80

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

ANIMALS SUPERNATURAL

7. Living beings, noise 8. Domesticated 9. Acting normally 10. Gods (cult) 11. Anthropomorphism

Spirits of the dead, silence Wild Acting abnormally Demons (no cult), mountain gods Animal gods, monsters, monstrosities

In terms of location, the “other world,” that is, the peripheral sphere, may be located directly underneath the earth, or at the edges of the world.30 In an ideal scenario, the two poles of the structure should remain separate and the boundaries between the two should be tightly maintained. When the peripheral enemies, demons or monsters invade the center in forms of societal or natural upheavals, Mesopotamians thought of these phenomena as signs of divine displeasure. The boundaries between the center and the periphery were not impassable. The monsters always threatened the ordered world.31 This structural perspective is helpful in understanding the Mesopotamian worldview with regard to the relation between the center and the periphery, and the relation between the anthropomorphic gods and the monsters; however, one must wonder whether this idealistic worldview of clear borders between center and periphery was experienced in reality at all times. Towards this complex relation between the gods and the monsters, the center and the periphery Wiggermann notes that “the peripheral world of the right column can be defined as the shadow side of the familiar world in the left hand column.”32 In addition to Wiggermann’s observation, I would add the following questions: Can one simply understand from the previous table that the two inhabitants of the center and the periphery do not have anything in common? Are they completely distinct and opposites? Before engaging with these questions, I would like to show how this structural approach was adapted in Mark Smith’s work on the concept of divinity at Ugaritic. Following Wiggermann, Mark Smith provides a similar structure from the Ugaritic culture.33 Smith deals with the structure of divinity at Ugarit and

30

“The latter we suspect to be an older view, since geographical terminology stems largely from the third millennium, and Sumerian cosmogony lacks an underworld and a god ruling it” Wiggermann, “Scenes From the Shadow Side,” 212. 31 Wiggermann, “Scenes From the Shadow Side,” 211. “The geographical interpretation of this mythology unequivocally proves its relation to the politics of the empire: the rebels live in the surrounding mountains, the traditional home of Mesopotamia’s most feared enemies.” Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 153. 32 Wiggermann, “Scenes From the Shadow Side,” 212. 33 Mark Smith, “Structure of Divinity at Ugarit and Israel: The Case of the Anthropomorphic Deities versus Monstrous Divinities,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. Gary Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis; Brown Judaic Studies; Providence, R.I.:, Scholars Press, 2006), 38–63. A similar discussion is to be found in

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

81

Israel focusing on the case of the anthropomorphic deities versus monstrous divinities. Smith posits that “deities inhabit places that are ‘near’ while ‘monsters’ or ‘demonic forces’ do not.”34 Benevolent Deities Anthropomorphism Domesticated Species Emblematic deities: Bull, calf, bird, cow

Destructive Divinities Animal gods, monsters Undomesticated species Emblematic of monsters: Snake, serpent

According to this diagram whereas the benevolent deities occupy the center, the destructive deities (including monsters) occupy the periphery. Representation of the deities expresses this structural scheme. In this way, benevolent deities are often rendered anthropomorphically while destructive divinities appear as monstrous in character. Moreover, theriomorphic representations reflect the dichotomy between the deities and cosmic enemies. Cosmic enemies are monstrous or undomesticated in character, while the animals associated with the benevolent deities (“attribute animals”) lie within the orbit of cultural domestication.35

Most often benevolent deities work for well-being. To the contrary, monsters bring chaos, destruction, death, and infertility. Monsters represent the peripheral threats to the order and well-being of the center. The downfall of Kirta’s house, for instance, is attributed in part to Yamm (KTU 1.14.I.19–20). 36 Mot brings death and destruction (KTU 1.127.30–32).37 Although the boundaries Mark Smith’s earlier work: Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 27–40. 34 Smith, “Structure,” 41. 35 Smith, “Structure,” 48. El is usually described as “Bull” (e.g., ṯr . ’i[l …] “Bull El” KTU 1.1.III.26), while Baal gets the title “bull-calf” (e.g., KTU 1.5.V.17–21; in this text Baal’s image as a young calf is assumed because he makes love with a heifer/cow. y’uhb . ‘glt . bdbr . prt . bšd . šḥlmmt “he [Baal] makes love with a heifer in the outback, with a cow in the field of the realm of Death) and Anat is associated with a bird (e.g., KTU I.108.8; ‘nt . di . dit . rḫpt “Anat of flying, she who flies, she who hovers”). The “cosmic enemies,” on the other hand, are associated with “snake-dragons” (KTU 1.3.III.40–42; lištbm . tnn . ištm[]h . lmḫšt . bṯn . ‘qltn . šlyṭ . d . šb‘t . rašm “Surely I bound Tunanna and harnessed him; I smote the Twisty Serpent, the Tyrant one with seven heads.” See below for further discussion of the translation, see Jeremy Hutton, “Ugaritic */Š/ and the Roots šbm and šm[d] in KTU 1.3.III.40,” Maarav 13.1 (2006): 75–83. For other examples on the portrayal of El, Baal and the monstrous deities, see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 32–33. 36 Smith, “Structure,” 46. As the text describes how Kirta lost his seven brothers, it reads: mṯdṯt . ġlm ym “a sixth the lad(s) of Yammu”; for a translation of the whole epic see: “The Kirta Epic,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.102:333–343, 333). 37 The text reads: hm qrt tuḫd . hm mt y‘l bnš bt bn bnš yqḥ ‘z w yḥdy mrḥqm “If a city is taken, if Mot attacks someone, the household of the son(s) of this person should take a goat and should look into the distance” (1.127.30–32). This example is cited in Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 31.

82

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

between the two poles should be maintained, the peripheral monsters “may impinge upon the center from the periphery.”38 Smith suggests a subdivision in the periphery. The subdivision is based on a “distinction between what humans experience in the periphery and what lies beyond this periphery.”39 Spatially, the distinction takes the following structure: Periphery Unpopulated zones (outback) mdbr, “outback” Near surface water

40

Beyond the periphery Underworld (’arṣ) Netherworld (e.g., Mot) 41 Waters beyond (thmtm; e.g., Yamm)

The wilderness/outback represents a “marginal or transitional” area; it is marginal because it is usually uninhabited and most of the human activities in it would be either hunting or grazing; it is transitional because it is on the border between the center and what is unknown in the periphery. “Accordingly, in the cosmic geography of the Baal Cycle, mdbr, ‘outback,’ is part of the designation for the locale where Baal meets Mot, the god of ‘Death’ (CAT 1.6 II 20; cf. 1.5 VI 6, 29); this place would appear to be the edge of the underworld (CAT 1.6 I 8–14). The mdbr is also the site where Baal’s foes are to be given birth and to confront him in 1.12 I 19–22.”42 The monsters occupy 38

Smith, “Structure,” 47. Ibid., 43. 40 What Smith includes under “beyond periphery” falls under the rubric “periphery” as well, but on the mythological level. His first category of periphery falls under the empirical geographical level (categories which Wiggermann suggests), though some aspects of it might have a symbolic element to it, such as the mdbr. It is a physical wilderness but it might stand for more than just a material location characterized with drought. It might have a symbolic reference of the scary margin. 41 Note that although El belongs to the centre, he is described often as staying at the ’apq thmtm “the channels of the double deeps” (e.g., KTU 1.4.IV.21–22). It seems that El “lies at the edge between what would be considered ‘near’ and ‘far’”; Smith, “Structure,” 44. 42 Smith, “Structure,” 44. Baal describes the destination of his messengers to Mot in KTU 1.4.VIII.1–4, 7–9: idk . al . ttn . pnm . ‘m . ġr . trġzz . ‘m . ġr . ṯrmg . ‘m . tlm . ġṣr . ’rṣ … w rd . bt ḫpṯt arṣ . tspr . byrdm . arṣ “Now you shall head out (lit. set your face) to mount TRĠZZ, to mount ṮRMG, the twin mounds at the edges of the earth … then descend into the seclusion of the netherworld, you shall be counted among those who go down into the netherworld.” The etymology of the names of the mountains is obscure; yet the meaning of the passage is clear: Baal’s meesengers must go to the edges of the earth in order to encounter Mot. The word tlm has two possible meanings: “mound,” when compared with the BH lt or “twin,” when compared to the Akkadian cognate talīmu. I understand the expression bt ḫpṯt in the light of the Hebrew expression tyIvVpDjAh tyEb “the house of separation” (2 Kings 15:5). For a fuller discussion of the different proposals of the meaning of this section of the Baal Cycle, see Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 711–716; and “Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS, 1.86:263–264). When Mot 39

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

83

the periphery, be it within reach of the human experience (e.g., wilderness), or beyond human reach (e.g., the underworld). This structural analysis highlights some aspects of the relation between the monstrous deities and the anthropomorphic gods in the Ugaritic pantheon. There is an apparent difference between the monster and the benevolent gods (especially the anthropomorphic gods). While the former poses a threat, the latter restore the order of things. Furthermore, while the monster occupies the periphery, the anthropomorphic gods occupy the center. Despite the ambiguity of the resources on the structure of the divinity at Ugarit, it is safe to assume that the relation between El (the head of the divine pantheon at Ugarit) and the major opponents of Baal was complex. Sometimes the texts speak of a positive relation between Yamm and Mot, on the one hand, and El on the other. This positive relation with (and tacit support from) El has occasioned a rethinking of the binary oppositions posed by earlier interpreters. For example, in his previous position on the structural relationship between the benevolent and the monstrous gods in the Ugaritic pantheon, which I just highlighted in the previous pages, Mark Smith underlined the “difference” and “Otherness” between the benevolent gods and the monsters. But Smith has subsequently revised his position in light of El’s close relationship to Baal’s opponents. In this reformulated position Smith argues: “Rather than looking at the enemies of Baal only as foreign and distant, we propose here that the Baal Cycle in particular emphasizes the nearness and close relationship of his enemies to the family of the gods.”43 Mot, for example, is described as part of the divine family who was granted authority over the netherworld (KTU 1.4.VIII.16, 30). For Smith and Pitard, the character known as Yamm or Nahar is different from Tiamat. The former is described as the “beloved one” of El (mdd ’il; KTU 1.2.I.16, 33, 36). The latter fully represents chaos and a dire threat not just to order, but to the assembly of the gods itself. She is also of the divine family but belonging to a far distant generation. Compared to Tiamat, Yamm is no longer cosmic in scope, i.e., he never threatens the entire pantheon or universe with destruction.44

I think Smith and Pitard overstate differences between Tiamat, on the one hand, and the chaos gods in the Ugaritic pantheon (Yamm, Nahar, Mot), on the other. It is true that Tiamat represents chaos and poses a threat over the was narrating to Anat where he encountered Mighty Baal in KTU 1.6.II.19–20, he described the place in the following manner: mġt . l n‘my . arṣ dbr . ysmt . šd . šḥlmmt “I arrived at the delight of the land of steppe/pestilence, to the beauty of a field of the Realm of Death.” This steppe, field or land of pestilence is the place that marks the edge of the earth, at the edge of the netherworld; this is where Mot lies. 43 Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II, 53. 44 Ibid., 53–54.

84

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

divine pantheon, yet as I will argue in the following pages, her relationship to the divine pantheon and the cosmos are far more complex than a binary opposition approach allows. After all, she was the mother of the gods and out of her body the cosmos was created. Furthermore, although the threat of these monstrous deities does not threaten the whole pantheon of Ugarit; the assembly of the gods still shakes when they see Yamm’s messengers (KTU 1.2.I),45 which points to an ambivalent relationship not only between Yamm and the pantheon. In addition, cosmological changes take place when Baal is defeated by his other foe, Mot the son of El. I agree with Smith and Pitard that the relationship between the benevolent gods and the monstrous gods is more complicated than a mere binary opposition between two structural poles (e.g., near-versus-far; same-versusdifferent). Yet the problem remains with the newly formulated position to which I referred above. While the first position focuses mostly on the difference between the gods and the monsters, the new position focused only on the similarities and affinities between these two categories. The new position that Smith and Pitard propose takes the other extreme of the spectrum, namely, highlighting only the nearness of Yamm and Mot to the divine pantheon and while marginalizing their hostility. Although the evidence is incomplete, I think both of Smith’s positions should be maintained and should remain in tension. These monsters are simultaneously near and far, double and Other, same and different. This is not an easy way of keeping two paradoxical suggestions under consideration, but rather, it takes seriously the data that we have; it takes into account the complexity of the relation between the monster and the divine pantheon. In the following section I will highlight this point, which I develop based on the work of Timothy Beal, Rene Girard, and Julia Kristeva, namely, that monsters could be heimlich, double, and same, and at the same time unheimlich, Other, and different. In other words, the benevolent gods and the monstrous gods at some points share some aspects of common identity and at other points are completely rivals and opposites. Monsters are horrific because they simultaneously represent Otherness and sameness. 45

KTU 1.2.I.19–29 narrates the arrival of Yamm’s messengers to the assembly of the gods and the reaction of the gods when they see them: hlm . ilm . tphhm . tphn . mlak . ym . t‘dt . ṯpṭ [.nhr] . tġly . ilm . rišthm . l ẓr . brktkm . w l kḥṯ . zblhm “When the gods see them, see Yamm’s messengers, the embassy of Judge [Nahar]. The gods lower their heads onto their knees, on their princely thrones” (KTU 1.2.I.21–24). On the various interpretations of the reaction of the assembly of the gods, see S. C. Layton, “‘Head on Lap’ in SumeroAkkadian Literature,” JANES 15 (1983): 59–62; and Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume I, 297–300. The body gestures of the gods, Baal’s rage at them and the submissive words of El in 1.2.I.36–38 underlines the impact that Yamm has over the assembly of the gods, but also function as a literary device that anticipate the combat between Baal and Yamm.

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

85

B. Complexity of Relationship Between the Monsters and Gods Although in various cases chaos can be defined as a state in which boundaries and borders between two structural poles are destroyed (life vs. death, fertility vs. sterility, victory vs. defeat, etc.), the relation between the divine pantheon and the monster that embodies chaos and disorder is more complicated than simply a binary opposition between absolute benevolence versus ultimate malevolence. A more nuanced perspective on the relation between order and chaos should take into account how the literary works that pertain the motif of Chaoskampf underlines the similarities as well as the differences between the divine pantheon and the monsters. Monsters are “paradoxical personifications of otherness within sameness.”46 The paradox that characterizes monsters can be noticed in the ancient Near Eastern myths. While various ancient Near Eastern mythologies feature a creation out of chaos, in some traditions, “the chaos out of and against which the world is created is personified as a ‘chaos god’ or ‘chaos monster’ who must be defeated by another god in order to create or maintain cosmic order.”47 The chaos monster gods “are paradoxical representations of radical otherness appearing within the order of things.”48 Beal suggests looking at the monster gods as unheimlich, because this concept allows for both sameness and difference. This means that chaos/monstrous gods represent the paradox of being in the world and sharing some of its characteristics (heimlich), yet still different (unheimlich). They are double and they are Other. They are divine and powerful on the one hand, yet threatening on the other. Because these monster gods are related to the divine pantheon, one must note here that chaos is embedded in the divinity. Although on the surface the god of order is always put in contrast to the god of chaos, keen analysis of literary works on chaos and order reveal another layer of relationship between the two poles, that of a shared aspects of a common identity. Now we will look at specific examples from ancient Near Eastern literature. Enūma eliš is a story of combat between chaos as embodied in Tiamat and cosmic order represented by Marduk. The reader of this text is able to see the contrast between Marduk on one side as a protector of the divine pantheon 46

Beal explains this “paradoxical” statement when he writes concerning monsters, “they are threatening figures of anomaly within the well-established and accepted order of things. They represent the outside that has gotten inside, the beyond-the-pale that, much to our horror, has gotten into the pale” (Timothy Beal, Religion and Its Monsters [New York: Routledge, 2002], 4). 47 Beal, Religion and Its Monsters, 15. And again: “Beneath faithful assertions in these stories [combat myth stories] that the cosmos is hospitable, secure and meaningfully ordered – in a word, heimlich – one senses the presence of a lurking unheimlich chaos within the divine that at any moment might come flooding back over everything” (ibid., 15). 48 These divine monsters reveal “deep insecurities within a cosmos that trembles in the balance between order and chaos”; Beal, Religion and Its Monsters, 15.

86

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

and Tiamat, who forms a threat to the well being of this divine pantheon. Tiamat, nevertheless, is not simply embodied chaos. She is the mother of the gods, “Matrix-Tiamat was she who bore them all” (I.4). And in I.7–9: “when no gods at all had been brought forth, None called by names, none destinies ordained, Then were the gods formed within the(se two);”49 and her body is the raw material through which the whole cosmos is created. To use Kristeva’s language, Tiamat is the abject m(Other). Her defeat marks a process of alienation, through which the identity of Marduk is established. Yet, this abject is not completely annihilated; it remains extant at the periphery of the newly ordered cosmos. In a sense Enūma eliš reasserts the supremacy of the cult of Marduk and the centrality of Babylon through the abjection of the monstrous mother, Tiamat. But under this abjection and Otherness of Tiamat one can still see the unitary sameness between this monster Tiamat and the patron god Marduk. Furthermore, the text shows the resemblance as well as the difference between Marduk and Tiamat. Tiamat, similar to Marduk, who later defends the divine pantheon against Tiamat’s threat, at first defended the gods against Apsû’s plans to destroy them.50 The two antagonists – Marduk and Tiamat – are described in analogous manners. Language of chaos and disturbance of order are associated with both. Beal notes that “[l]ike Tiamat, Marduk is associated with images of cosmic turbulence: he uses flood waves ‘to stir up Tiamat,’ he wields an ‘unfaceable’ flood weapon, a tempest, a tornado, and a whirlwind.”51 Marduk’s mighty weapons spread terror. The fiftieth line of the fourth tablet of Enūma eliš reads: narkabtu u4 mu la maḫri galitta irkab “He [Marduk] rode the fearful chariot of the irresistible storm.”52 Furthermore, Marduk is crowned with an “aura of terror” (mi lam mi rašubbati apiir rašuuššu “And on his head he wore an aura of terror; Enūma eliš IV 58).53 Thus horror is not just associated with Tiamat. Beal notes: “in fact, Marduk’s own description is monstrously and awesomely unnatural, defying the imagination. His limbs are said to be ‘beyond comprehension, impossible to understand, too difficult to perceive,’ he has four eyes and four ears, and fire blazes forth from his mouth whenever he

49

“These two” being Apsû and Tiamat; Enūma eliš I.4, translation that of Foster, “Creation Epic (Enuma-Elish),” (COS 1.111:391). 50 Note that it was the first generation of the gods that initiated confusion and disturbance (Enūma eliš, I.20–24). To their noise and disturbance Apsû reacts by attempting to silence them. Tiamat, however, “grew angry and cried out to her spouse”; she was opposing Apsû’s plans. (Enūma eliš, I.40–46). 51 Beal, Religion, 18. 52 Lambert, Babylonain Creation Myths, 88–89. See also CAD vol. 5 p. 71, vol. 11 p. 357, vol. 20 p. 154, where Ee IV 50 is cited. 53 Lambert, Babylonain Creation Myths, 88–89. CAD vol. 14 p. 212.

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

87

moves his lips.”54 The body of Tiamat is described as “monstrous” (Akk. kubu “monstrous shape”; IV.136).55 The body of Marduk is no less monstrous: “His body was splendid, fiery his glance.” Anu perfected Marduk’s appearance So that his divinity was strange, He was much greater, he surpassed them in every way. His members were fashioned with cunning beyond comprehension, Impossible to conceive, too difficult to visualize: Fourfold his vision, fourfold his hearing, When he moved his lips a fire broke out. Formidable his fourfold perception, And his eyes, in like number, saw in every direction. He was tallest of the gods, surpassing in form, His limbs enormous, he was surpassing at birth. (I.85–100)

Of course, this description is meant to speak of the awesomeness of Marduk. But his incomprehensible appearance speaks of Marduk’s Otherness, which spreads a sense of horror and awe. From another angle, moreover, Tiamat is not exclusively portrayed as a monstrous body. Whereas in IV.97–104 Tiamat is to be seen as a dragon with a monstrous maw, in I.29–34, II. 92, 144 she is portrayed anthropomorphically as a woman. From the previous observations I posit that Tiamat is a monstrous double to Marduk, that is, they possess some shared aspects of identity, muddied under apparent difference. It is important to assert, though, that they maintain both Otherness and sameness in tension. The representative of order and the antagonist that embodies chaos resemble each other not only in weaponry, but also in desiring sovereignty.56 As we move westward to the Mediterranean, we encounter the complex story of Baal and Anat and the defeat of both Yamm/Nahar and Mot. If one uses Girard’s category of the monstrous double, then the chaos-monster gods and the gods who seek order and resist chaos are two antagonists that desire the same object, namely, sovereignty and kingship. The notion that two rivals 54

Beal, Religion and its Monsters, 18. Foster translates line 136 of tablet IV “[t]hat he might divide(?) the monstrous lump and fashion artful things” Foster, “Epic of Creation (Enūma Elish),” COS 1.111:398; see also CAD vol. 8 p.487. 56 Note that Joan Goodnick Westenholz writes: “Although they were not gods, these monsters [the ones listed in Enūma eliš I, 133–144] shared certain aspects with divine beings in ancient Mesopotamia. They were considered to be responsible for certain natural phenomena (such as floods, high waves, rain, wind, etc.). These monsters were immortal but vulnerable, and their existence was taken as the cause of misfortune (such as illness), although they could also protect individuals from such mishaps.” Joan Goodnick Westenholz, “Hybrid Creatures in the Ancient Near East: Their Character and Role,” in Dragons, Monsters, and Fabulous Beasts (ed. Joan Goodnick Westenholz; Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004), 14. 55

88

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

share in a mimetic desire toward one object (e.g. kingship), though on the surface they cause conflict and clash, still underscores some shared facets of identity between these two rivals. Because of this mimetic desire one of the antagonists turns into a monstrous double.57 When we look at the narrative of the Baal Cycle, we can see that this dynamic is operative among the chaotic forces and the divine heroes. There was a conflict among the gods over sovereignty and kingship. In Girard’s analogy, these antagonists desire one thing, that is, kingship. When Yamm sends his messengers to the divine assembly so that it would deliver Baal into his hands, he declares his desire to seize power and riches. The messengers declare: tn . ilm . d tqh . d tqynh . [hml]t . tn . b‘l . w ‘nnh .

Give (up), O gods, the one you fear,58 The one you fear [O multitu]de,59 Give (up) Baal that I may humiliate him,60

57 See above in chapter two my discussion of Rene Girard’s work on the mimetic and the monstrous double. 58 Reading along with the fifth and fourth forms of the Arabic *wqy “to fear” (Lane 3059); the same verb in form one means, “to guard.” The obscurity of the context does not allow one to be decisive. The relation between Baal and the divine pantheon is vague. Why would Yamm ask the divine pantheon to hand Baal in to him if the divine pantheon “fears” and “submits” to Baal; the fact that Yamm is asking them means that the divine pantheon has some sort of power over Yamm (cf. El’s speech of submitting Baal to Yamm in 1.2.I.36–38). Yet, one cannot really speak of “guarding,” in an absolute sense because there seems to be a tension between Baal and the divine pantheon. Baal is the son of Dagan and does not belong to the family of El. 59 For the word hmlt “multitude” see Hebrew hlmh “crowd” (HALOT 251). N. Wyatt suggested that this word along with the word ’ilm refer to Baal. In this case the word hmlt would be translated as “the one of the Tempest” (cf. Jer 11:16; Ezek 1:24, BDB 242; N. Wyatt, “The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-god,” UF 24 [1993]: 403–424). The issue with this translation is that this description of Baal is not attested elsewhere. In Ugaritic the word hmlt is used in order to describe both a crowd of humans as in KTU 1.3.III.27–28, where it is found in parallelism with nšm “men,” and also of terrestrial beings as in this text (1.2.I.35); see A. Caquot, M. Sznycer and A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques I: Mythes et légendes (LAPO 7; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1974), 129; Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume I, 290; DULAT 342. 60 I read the word ‘nnh as an infinitive of the D-stem of the verb *‘nw “to humiliate” (Hebrew hn( “to oppress;” DULAT 172) see D. T. Tsumura “Vowel Sandhi in Ugaritic,” Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan; ed. Masao Mori; Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1991), 427–435, esp. 431; Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume I, 291–292. Others however translate the word ‘nnh as “servants, attendants.” For the meaning of ‘nn “servant” see DULAT 170; the word is usually compared to the Arabic ‘anna “to submit oneself, intervene” (Lane 2162) out of which one can deduce the meaning “representative.” In addition to the Arabic cognate, the Hebrew word Nn( “cloud” is brought to the discussion in order to give Baal’s attendants meteorological connotations (à la Tallay “Dewy”). See Cross, Canaanite Myth, 166; for the translation servants/attendants

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

89

bn . dgn . arṯm . pḏh The son of Dagan, that I may possess his gold. (KTU 1.2.I.35)

Yamm’s request for the gods to hand Baal over to him and ’Il’s words in KTU 1.2.I.36–38 declaring that Baal will be Yamm’s servant testify to the tension over kingship between Yamm and Baal. Yamm’s desire to take possession of the gold of Baal is echoed in ’Il’s words pronouncing that Baal will pay tribute to Yamm. Baal in turn would affirm his own kingship and his status in the divine pantheon by defeating Yamm/Nahar. When the god makes the weapons for Baal to capture Yamm and Nahar, he exhorts him to go and claim his kingship (KTU 1.2.IV.7–10). Not only that but when Anat speaks of her defeat of Yamm and the dragons, she concludes that she possessed the gold of Yamm (KTU 1.3.III–IV.51). Though on the surface the portrayal of Yamm/Nahar seem to be different from that of Baal, there lies beneath this difference a mimetic desire, namely a desire for kingship. This mimetic desire, which underlines some shared aspects of sameness between Baal on the one hand and Yamm/Nahar on the other plays a role in making Yamm/Naharu monstrous and horrific. The monster gods are not portrayed as simply remote Others. They are closely related to the divine pantheon. Prince Yamm is closely associated the goddess mother Athirat (Athirat of the Sea; KTU 1.6.I.43–47). Yamm and Mot are described as the “beloved of El “ and the “son of El” respectively (KTU 1.3.III.38–39; 1.4.II.34; 1.4.VII.46–47). Thus, the chaos monsters are related to the deity El, the head of the divine pantheon. “These chaos monster gods are part of a divinity that is deeply divided within itself about the future viability of the cosmos.”61 Although Baal and Anat are associated with maintaining and restoring the cosmic order by defeating the chaos monsters, they themselves are associated with deeds that disturb the order of life. When Baal appears in his theophany he causes lightening and storms (KTU 1.4.V.6–9; VI.25–31; 1.6.III). This meteorological language speaks of Baal’s power, yet at the same time it makes the god awe-inspiring. Despite the enmity between Baal and Mot, the see also “Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86:246). The issue with this translation is that when the Ugaritic texts speak of association between Baal and the clouds in order to refer to Baal as a “cloud rider” it does not use the word ‘nn, but rather rkb ‘rpt (KTU 1.2.IV.8). Furthermore, R. B. Y. Scott argued that the Hebrew word Nn( “cloud” is not used in order to refer to rain clouds; Scott, “Meteorological Phenomena and Terminology in the Old Testament,” ZAW 64 (1952): 11–25, esp. 24. See also Aloysius Fitzgerald, The Lord of the East Wind (CBQ 34; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2002). 61 As a result of the paradoxes that pertain to the gods and the monsters, Beal writes, “The precariousness of the world as a livable abode for humankind is believed to be rooted in a divinity in which creation and chaos are in perpetual and ultimately unresolvable tension with one another.” Beal, Religion and its Monsters, 22.

90

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

two of these deities experience death at one point in the narrative, yet they seem to reappear on the scene to fight again. Although, Baal was declared dead in KTU 1.6.I.41 and Mot’s body was hacked by Anat in KTU 1.6.II.30– 37, both Baal and Mot battle against one another in KTU 1.6.VI.16–22. Baal and Mot are not only similar with regard to disappearance and reappearance,62 they are also similar in the way they battle one another: ynṯkn . bṯnm . mt . ‘z . b’l . ‘z “They bite each other like serpents, Mot is fierce, Baal is fierce” (KTU 1.6.VI.19–20). Baal is usually seen as anthropomorphic deity, is biting like a serpent. In contrast, Yamm is often thought of to be embodied as a dragon, in the Baal Cycle he is ambiguously given both a monstrous and an anthropomorphic body.63 And Anat, who defeats Mot, finds joy in destruction and bloodshed (KTU 1.3.II.9–15): tḥth . k kdrt . riš ‘lh . k irbym . kp . k. qṣm . ġrmn . kp . mhr “Under her heads were like balls, above her hands were like locusts, heaps of hands of warrior were like grasshoppers” (KTU 1.3.II.9–11). Pardee comments on this image: “the verse contains three distinct images of destruction: (1) severed heads rolling like balls at the goddess’ feet, (2) severed hands flying through the air like locusts, then (3) being gathered together in heaps like grasshoppers after a plague.”64 After dismembering the bodies of her enemies, Anat puts these body parts around her back and waist; the body of the goddess is conjoined with dismembered body parts of the dead warriors. Anat and Baal, on the one hand, seem so different from Yamm and Mot, who threaten the order and the well-being of the divine pantheon. On the other hand, both antagonists share in divinity, a desire for kingship in the divine pantheon, and as a result their deeds, though speaks of their valor, are fearful. In other words, one cannot only look at the gods, Baal and Anat, and their adversaries, Yamm and Mot, as different. One must acknowledge the complexity in the relation between the gods and the monster gods. The line between chaos and order, god and monster, is fuzzy.65 62

The death and life of Baal has stirred much of scholarly debate concerning the applicability of the language of “dying and rising gods” to Baal. See the discussions in Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 104–134. For a different perspective see Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001). 63 See the discussion below in the following section. 64 “Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86:250, n. 75). This text speaks of Anat’s appetite for violence. The humanness of her enemies is underlined in the text, they are described as “peoples, tribes, clans” from both the east and the west. Because not much information is provided in the text about these victims, Pardee notes, “she smites for her own benefit” (ibid., 250, n. 73). See also Beal, Religion, 21, 22, for further discussion on Anat’s quasi-chaotic characteristics. 65 J. C. L. Gibson notes that the Baal Cycle “faces up the powers that be with both irony and circumspection, aware of the knife-edge that separates harmony from chaos and life

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

91

In Egyptian mythology the relation between the monster Apophis and the divine pantheon is a bit different from what I have just described concerning the relation between the monster and the divine pantheon in both Ugarit and Mesopotamia. Apophis is hardly associated with the divine pantheon66 (like Mot and Yamm) or with the primordial water (like Tiamat). Apophis, nevertheless, opposes the established order of the world and tries to cause the world to return to its chaotic watery and dark state as he opposes the barque of the sun god Re during its journey in the netherworld. This journey takes place during the twelve hours of the night. In some traditions, Re is portrayed as the main figure who defeats the monster of chaos. For example, in some of the hymns to the sun-god,67 Re defeats Apophis, the gigantic serpent of chaos, with his “uraeus snake.” In this case, it takes a snake to defeat a snake. Te Velde points out that in other instances of this combat myth, the barque of Re is full of other deities that represent needed divine attributes for the defeat of this monster of chaos.68 One of these attributes that is needed is Re’s aggressiveness against his opponent. “The Egyptians could choose among several mythical figures to specify the aggression of Re in a champion who had taken up his post at the prow of the ship.”69 As the image that I include below shows (Fig 3.1), the god Seth was one of these champions who were employed by Re in order to drive Apophis off. The reason for choosing Seth to accomplish this task was that he surpassed other mythical figures in his aggressiveness: “As the notorious and rowdy thunder-god, the opponent of Horus and the slayer of Osiris, he was eminently suitable to do the dirty

from death”; Gibson, “The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle,” Or 53 (1984): 202–219, cited in Beal, Religion, 22. 66 Ludwig D. Morenz, “Apophis: On the Origin, Name and Nature of an Ancient Egyptian Anti-god,” JNES 63 (2004): 201–205. See also Joanna Töyräänvuori, “The Northwest Semitic Conflict Myth and Egyptian Sources form the Middle and the New Kingdoms,” in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Herman Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis (ed. Joann Scurlock and Richard H. Beal; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 112–126. 67 These are hymns that were composed to praise the Sun-God, Amun-Re (18th dynasty onward), who creates and sustains the world. “Two Hymns to the Sun-God,” trans. Meriam Lichteim COS 1.27–28.43–46. In one of the hymns to Amun-Re from the Second Intermediate Period (12th–17th dynasties), the text praises the deity “who extends His arms to the one He loves, While His enemies fall to the flame. It is His Eye that overthrows the rebels, Placing its spear into the one who sucks up the Abyss [Apophis], Forcing the villain to disgorge what it has swallowed.” “The Great Cairo Hymn of Praise to Amun-Re,” translated by Robert K. Ritner (COS 1.25:37–40.38). 68 H. Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of His Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion (Probleme der Ägyptologie; herausgegeben von Wolfgang Helck; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 105. 69 Ibid., 106.

92

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

work.”70 Seth often represents the element of disorder and confusion in Egyptian religion. His presence on the barque of Re (Fig 1), though for a good purpose (e.g., to defeat the monster of chaos), represents a sense of anxiety and confusion within the seemingly well-ordered world of divinity. The slayer of Apophis, Seth, who represents the divine pantheon on the barque of Re, resembles Apophis. Seth is described as “evil being,” “instigator of confusion,” and his rage is strongly emphasized when he fights against Apo-phis.71

(Figure 1. In this image: Seth, who is at the prow of the barge of Re [the seated figure with the sun disc on his head], is using a spear in order to kill the gigantic serpent, Apophis.72 Photo Credit: HIP / Art Resource, NY. Illustrated by Armando Sultan).

Furthermore, in a later stage in Egyptian religion, Seth becomes identified with Apophis himself. Both Seth, who represents the divine pantheon on the barque of Re, and the monster Apophis, are believed to be the spittle of a goddess. Not until a late text in the temple of Esna is it related that Apopis73 (‘pp) originated from a spittle (p‘t) of Neith, the mother of Re, who was in the primordial waters. This spittle was 70

Velde, Seth, 106. Apophis in some cases is slain by both Seth and Horus. “The spear of Horus goes forth against thee. The lance of Seth is thrust into thy brow.” The two enemies Seth and Horus are united against the monster of chaos, Apophis (ibid., 71); see also R. O. Faulkner, “The Bremner Rhind Papyrus (IV),” JEA 24 (1938): 43. 71 Velde, Seth, 102. Further, “Seth in the solar barque might be interpreted as the violent aspect of Re” (ibid., 106). In the 6th hour of the day, Isis proclaims in her spell against Apophis, “let Seth Stretch forth his arm to let Apophis fall!” (Velde, Seth, 87). See also Alexandre Piankoff, The Tomb of Ramesses VI: Texts (ed. N. Rambova. Bollingen Series XL. 1; New York: Pantheon Books, 1954), 401. 72 The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (trans. Raymond Faulkner, with an Introduction by James P. Allen; New York: The Limited Editions Club, 1972; New York: Barnes and Noble, 2005), 70–71.

II. Monsters and the Divine Pantheon: Other or Double?

93

warded off and became a snake of 120 yards long, which was named Apopis and revolted against Re. This recalls the motif in the Pyramid texts that Seth was spat out by the pregnant goddess Nut. When in the late period both Apopis and Seth were accounted as enemies of the gods, they were identified with one another.74

The fact that Seth, who is perceived as an originator of confusion, is employed by Re in order to defeat Apophis the chaos monster strongly suggests that chaos and order, though polar opposites on the surface, have a complex relationship. In this relationship between the divine pantheon and the god-like monster, sameness and difference should be maintained in tension. C. Summary The observation that Mot, Yamm, Tiamat, and Apophis possess a relationship with the divine pantheon, points to the fact that the Chaoskampf traditions in the ancient Near East does not simply entail a purely dualistic system of binary opposition between absolute benevolence versus ultimate malevolence. The Chaoskampf highlights a complex relation between the two rivals. Their relationship maintains a tension between difference and sameness. What is terrifying about these monsters is that they embody otherness within sameness in the ancient Near Eastern concepts of divinity. It is true that the monsters do not act benevolently, yet they expose the monstrosity that is within the divine pantheon, especially when the gods of order act monstrously, thus resembling their rivals. In the previous section I showed that the literary works that evince a Chaoskampf motif show complexity in the relation between the monstrous deities and the anthropomorphic deities. Their relation is that of a shared identity, but at the same time they are still different. The full picture entails both sameness and difference in tension. Tiamat is the mother of the gods; out of her body the cosmos was created. Yet she resembles Marduk in some characteristics. Yamm and Mot are described as the beloved one and the son of El, respectively, yet they are the enemies of the patron god of the Ugaritic pantheon. In both cases the monstrous deities share in common with the patron gods a mimetic desire for sovereignty and kingship. In some cases of Egyptian mythology, it is Seth, simultaneously the god of confusion and representative of Re, who defeats the monster of chaos. This does not mean that both antagonists are precisely the same. Just as it is important to highlight that they partake in some shared identities, it is nec73

This is how Velde transliterates the name of Apophis. Velde, Seth, 104. Prior to the clear identification between the two (Seth and Apophis) a parallelism should be underlined. “Re is threatened by Apopis the monster of chaos, when he goes to sleep and when he awakens, so Osiris who must die is threatened, and that by his own brother Seth” (Velde, Seth, 81). Both Seth and Apophis pose a threat to the two prominent gods who unite enigmatically in the underworld. 74

94

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

essary to observe that they are still different and hostile to each other. Otherwise, why would we have combat between them? Their mimetic desire makes them similar, but it makes them enemies as well. Therefore, the excluded Others become monsters. An Otherness is projected upon them under which these similarities are muddied and hidden. This Otherness is reconstructed by ascribing a monstrous body to the monster. Furthermore, the god of order restores order by means of a defeat of the god of chaos. This defeat is evident in the notion of dismembering the body of the monster by the god of order. As we have seen and I will explore further below, in the various mythological systems of the ancient Near East, Monsters are almost annihilated by means of dismembering their bodies; yet their marginalized existence at the periphery of ordered creation threatens resurgence at any time.

III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

When one reads mythological accounts incorporating the motif of the Chaoskampf, one observes a special interest in the body of the monster and the dismemberment of this body. These literary works reflect the fact that the ancient Near Eastern worldview did not perceive chaos in an abstract way. Chaos was represented by a physical and a material entity. Therefore, in the various Chaoskampf accounts, chaos is assigned a body. The salty water, Tiamat, in Enūma eliš is embodied; Sea and Death in the Baal cycle have bodies; Apophis, in the Re-Apophis combat, is embodied as a gigantic serpent. This embodiment of the force of chaos functions as a literary device in these texts, which gives a concrete expression to the concept of chaos. Furthermore, this embodiment contains chaos in one body, that is, it confines chaos and it draws boundaries that limit any excess of disorder. Though on the surface chaos seems gigantic and out of control, the purpose of the combat myth is to assure the reader that this chaos is contained and will eventually be defeated. The unequal power between the god of order and the god of chaos reconstructs a monstrous body that represents chaos. The combat myth characterizes the monsters as outlaws, abnormal and different Others. The Chaoskampf stories of the ancient Near East confront the outlaws and monsters with their opponents, the rightful rulers gods, who are most often represented as anthropomorphic deities. “The mythology of combat and defeat naturally solves the tension between unnatural monsters and natural gods, outlaw freaks and rightful rulers, them and us. Just like anthropomorphism and monster form are general schemes distinguishing two groups of different beings, so the combat myth is a general scheme defining their relation.”75 The power relation between the god of order and the god of 75

Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 154.

III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

95

chaos produces a monstrous body that represents – in a concrete manner – the power of chaos. The identity of the monsters as creatures of horror and as representation of chaos is given an expression through their body, which is often portrayed as an anomalous and abnormal body. Conceptually the power of chaos, whether political or natural, was perceived as a state of disorder or anomaly, this power threatened the accepted norm in both nature and politics. Therefore, monsters, which embody the state of chaos, are often represented in a bodily form that is hybrid and that transgresses the norm. Unlike the anthropomorphic gods these creatures [i.e. monsters] were generally depicted as hybrid of the body parts (head, arms, legs, or torso) of humans and/or different animals (lion, snake, fish, scorpion, or bird). Each of the latter represented some supernatural power and partook of certain cosmological aspects. Particularly popular were the teeth and claws of lions and other predatory cats, as well as the beaks of the claws of the eagle and other birds of prey.76

These hybrid bodies of these monsters do not just speak of their supernatural power, but they also reflect the fact that chaos disturbs the known ordered world. An abnormal monstrous body represents a reversal and transgression of boundaries of the expected norm.77 “Contrary to anthropomorphic gods, 76

Joan Goodnick Westenholz, “Hybrid Creatures in the Ancient Near East: Their Character and Role,” in Dragons, Monsters, and Fabulous Beasts (ed. Joan Goodnick Westenholz; Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004), 13. The monsters, which Mother Hubur created to assist Tiamat are “awe-inspiring” creatures (Enūma eliš I.141–143). Some of them reflect a hybrid nature such as a scorpion-man and a carp-man; this hybridity highlights their awe-inspiring feature, because these creatures are abnormal. Abnormality is one way to speak of horror of the unknown. Furthermore, this abnormality shakes the established categories of species. Hence, hybrid monsters inspire terror particularly as they escape familiar categories. In addition to awe-inspiring features, these hybrid monsters represent a force of impurity. By transgressing established boundaries, these monsters become impure. Impure Others threaten the cultural norms of their own society. Hybrid monsters horrify and defile. Some monsters such as bison or awe-inspiring snakes are not composite in nature. Yet as Wiggermann observes: “the imaginary monsters only serve to make these awe-inspiring natural phenomena visible” (Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 147, 150). 77 Wiggermann discusses in details how monsters are created in some of the Mesopotamian literature. He classifies monsters into different categories. “The awe-inspiring animals of the first group (1–5) [which includes: Furious-snake, Bison (-Bull), Scorpion-Man and Carp-Man] are turned into monsters by the addition of animal and human parts, they are, so to speak, only half imaginary. The awe-inspiring phenomena of the second group (6–8) [which includes: Heavy-Cloud, Roaring-Day, Big-Day] are expressed by composites that are completely imaginary. It is logical to conclude that the process of monster formation started with the half imaginary ones, and that the completely imaginary one follows their example”; Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 148. Note that Wiggermann does not mention the Hairy-One, his number 9. For Wiggermann, the awe-inspiring characteristic of these monsters lie in the process of abstraction: “Although the awe-inspiring quality

96

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

monsters stand outside the normal order, they are supernatural freaks, unexpected extras, unpredictable, disquieting, threatening.”78 The bodily abnormality of the monsters stands for their Otherness.79 Tiamat embodies chaos. Tiamat’s body represents the chaotic force of the salty water and also the body of a monster that threatens the ordered world. “The battle with Tiamat may combine two traditions, in that this creature varies in Enūma eliš, being the Sea, and being a monstrous quadruped.”80 References to Tiamat’s body parts abound in Enūma eliš: she has lower extremities (Enūma eliš IV.129), a belly (I.23, IV.99, 101), udders (V.57), a neck (II.113, 115), insides (V.100, V.63), blood arteries (IV.131, IV.32), spittle (V.47), a tail (V.59), a head (V.53), a skull (IV.130), a mouth (IV.97, 100), lips (IV.98), nostrils (V.56), eyes (V.55), and a horn (IV.16).81 To be sure the identity of the body assigned to Tiamat is ambiguous: whereas in I.29–34, II. 92, 144 she is portrayed as a woman, IV.97–104 she is possibly to be seen as a dragon with a monstrous maw, in IV.137 she is said to be split like a fish.82

undoubtedly is rooted in observed fact, it was apparently not predicated to individual members of the species (snake, bison), but to the species as such, to an Exemplary Member (Snake, Bison), in other words, the awe-inspiring animals became abstractions” (ibid., 148). Wiggermann contends that the “visual expression” and the “artistic activity” played a major role in the transition from “Exemplary Member to monster”. He adds, “the monsters belong to the language of art and are novelties depending on regular artistic activity and the development of style” (ibid., 148). Composite monsters represent different phenomena depending on “the different composition of each individual monster image” (ibid., 185) the personified abstractions of these monsters “can be derived from their (later) associations with certain gods, from their behaviour in art and literature” (ibid.,185). The horrific character of each composite monster depends on the “natural symbolic values” of each component (e.g. snake = death, bison = firmness, lion = aggression and power, etc.). “We conclude that monster formation was an ongoing process” (ibid., 149). 78 Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 151–152. These outlaws monsters once were servants, then rebels, then defeated enemies. See the discussion on this in Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 153. This is an important observation because it shows us the complexity of the character of monsters. They are not just abnormal Others. At one point, they were familiar and heimlich. 79 Note that these hybrid bodies of the monster figure in biblical literature as well. Daniel 7 describes four beasts that come out of the Sea. These beasts are hybrid in form: First there is a lion with wings of an eagle, and then a bear with “ribs” (i.e., tusks) in its mouth, third a leopard with four heads, and finally an anomalous and unnamed dragon with eleven horns. 80 W. G. Lambert argues that various aspects of the character of Marduk in Enūma eliš are shaped after the character of Ninurta in Anzu (Lambert, “Ninurta,” 55–60, 57). Further, “The informed Babylonian was expected by the author of Enuma Elsih to note the total eleven monsters subdued by Marduk and finally attached to his foot (V 73–74), and to grasp that Marduk was replacing Ningirsu/Ninurta as the prime monster slayer” (ibid., 58). 81 Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective, 163. 82 Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume II, 255–256.

III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

97

The chaos of the salty water is assigned a body that enables the author to speak of the defeat and the disposal of the body of the monster in a concrete manner. In Enūma eliš (IV.136), after Marduk defeats Tiamat, the text describes her body as a “monstrous lump.”83 Her body is excessive; it is monstrous. In Enūma eliš, Marduk, whose body is described as majestic and aweinspiring (Enūma eliš I.85–104), takes on the task of defeating Tiamat. Equipped with many weapons, various kinds of wind, and a net, Marduk departs to battle with Tiamat. The gods send him forth saying: Go, cut off the life of Tiamat, Let the winds bear her blood away as glad tidings!84

Marduk and Tiamat engage in a dreadful combat. First the god Marduk uses his previously prepared spell: “He was holding a spell ready upon his lips” (IV.61, 91). Then both gods drew close to battle with one another. Tiamat does not get a chance to attack or threaten the all-powerful Marduk; rather Marduk instantly and fiercely attack her with one weapon after the other (net, wind, arrow): The Lord spread out his net,85 encircled her, The ill wind he had held behind him he released in her face. Tiamat opened her mouth to swallow, He thrust in the ill wind so she could not close her lips. The raging wind bloated her belly, Her insides were stopped up, she gasped her mouth wide. He shot off the arrow, it broke open her belly, It cut to her innards, it pierced the heart. He subdued her and snuffed out her life, He flung down her carcass, he took his stand upon it. (Enūma eliš IV.95–104) He made firm his hold over the captured gods, Then turned back to Tiamat whom he had captured. The Lord trampled upon the frame of Tiamat, With his merciless mace he crushed her skull. 83

Foster, “Epic of Creation (Enūma Elish),” COS 1.111:398. “In the Anzu myth the winds carry up Anzu’s feathers after his slaughter and so bear the news to Enlil afar. A very similar line in Enūma eliš has the winds bear up Tiamat’s blood for the same purpose;” Lambert, “Ninurta,” 59. 85 “Also certain details of the narrative in Enūma eliš very clearly give the impression of being déjà vu with Ninurta. In IV 95 Marduk spreads his net to enmesh Tiamat. A net is not particularly suitable for catching the Sea, though the obvious thing for a bird, and though the Anzu myth knows nothing of this, the netting of Anzu is alluded to in both the Erra Epic IIIc 33 and in a bilingual litany of Nabu, but based on Ninurta material.” Lambert, “Ninurta,” 59. Lambert is certainly correct on the relationship between Ninurta and Marduk; however, the net would be suitable since Sea/Tiamat is taking a physical body. Tiamat’s power of chaos is taking a concrete form. 84

98

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

He cut open the arteries of her blood, He let the North Wind bear (it) away as glad tidings. (Enūma eliš IV.127–132)

From these lines the reader observes that Tiamat, who is caught in Marduk’s net, has a body. Tiamat’s body is subject to the punishment of the powerful Marduk. The first weapon of Marduk is the wind, which goes through her mouth bloating her belly. 86 Her belly, innards and her heart are cut and pierced by Marduk’s arrow. The young god flings down her carcass. Marduk crushes her skull. When he cuts open the arteries of her blood, the wind carries it away as glad tidings, fulfilling the command of the gods when they sent him off to fight Tiamat. Tiamat’s body has become an open book; upon its pages her defeat is being inscribed.87 Her face, belly, innards, skull and blood have become signs that signify her defeat and Marduk’s victory. When Marduk tramples upon her body, he indicates that he is victorious and powerful. Tiamat’s dismembered and punished carcass becomes a warning message to whoever dares to rebel against the king of the gods, Marduk. In the Baal Cycle, the young and vigorous god Baal battles against Yamm/Nahar and Mot. These enemies are assigned bodies. The embodiment of Sea, River, and Death makes the battle possible. The abstract ideas of chaos, rebellion, danger, and immortality are contained by giving them concrete entities that are defeated, harnessed, or even dismembered by Baal and Anat. The god of crafts, Kothar-and-Hasis, prepares two weapons for Baal so that he can defeat Yamm/Nahar. The god commands the first weapon: hlm . ktp . zbl . ym . bn ydm . [ṯp]ṭ nhr ‘z . ym . l ymk 86

Strike88 the shoulders of Prince Yamm, Between the hands89 of Ruler Nahar Yamm is strong,90 he does not sink,91

This is not the first time in which wind is used by the gods against the Sea, Tiamat. At the beginning of Enūma eliš, after Marduk was formed in the midst of the Apsu, the god Anu made four winds for Marduk to play with. Coupled with dust these winds formed a storm which the god released against Tiamat: “He fashioned dust, he made a storm bear it up, he caused a wave, it roiled Tiamat, Tiamat was roiled, churning day and night.” (Enūma eliš I.105–109) 87 See chapter two where I discuss Foucault’s work on punishment and discipline that involves torturing the body of the outlaws. The notion of torture or dismembering the body of the rebels function as a public text that is inscribed on the punished body. This tortured body signifies the authority of the law and also spreads terror and horror. 88 hlm “to hit,” Huehnergard, UVST, 121. Hebrew Mlh HALOT, 249. 89 Scholars, based on etymological alternatives, debate which body parts of Yamm/Nahar were punished by Baal’s weapons. The weapon hits Yamm’s shoulders (ktp). The other body part is debated. The phrase bn ydm “between the arms,” is thought to either refer to the back or to the chest. For details of the discussion see Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume I, 346–347; “The Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86.248) 90 “In his battle against Baal in KTU 1.6 VI 17, 18, 20, Mot is also ‘strong’ (‘z), indicating that Baal’s victory over Mot is less definitive” Smith, Baal Cycle Volume I, 349.

III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster l tnġṣn [.] pnth . l ydlp tmnh

99

His joints92 do not shake,93 His frame94 does not collapse.95 (KTU 1.2.IV.14–15,18)

Because Yamm is still strong and that he did not collapse, a second weapon is commanded to strike different body parts of Yamm / Nahar: hlm . qdqd . zbl ym . bn ‘nm . ṯpṭ nhr yprṣh ym w yql . larṣ

Strike the head of Prince Yamm, Between the eyes of Ruler Nahar May Yamm collapse96 and fall97 to the ground (KTU 1.2.IV.22–23)

Although initially Yamm was able to stand still after the first attack from Baal using the first weapon, being hit with the second weapon on the head, the desired result that Yamm should “collapse and fall to the ground,” comes true as the narrative proceeds: yprsḥ . ym . yql l arṣ . tġṣn . pnth . w ydlp . tmnh yqṯ b‘l . w yšt . ym . 91

Yamm collapses, Falls to the ground; His joints shake, His frame breaks up. Baal drags98 Yamm and dismembers (him),99

Hebrew Kkm / Kwm “to fall, to sink, to become weak, to become low” HALOT 555, 580; BDB 557, 568. 92 Translating the Ug pnt as “joints” is explained by the Hebrew hnF@IpI “corner” HALOT 944. Corners are the joints that hold a building together. Thus the text uses an architectural language in order to speak of the body of Yamm. See Smith, Baal Cycle Volume I, 349– 350. 93 Arabic naġaḍa “to shake, to totter,” Lane, 2818. 94 This word is usually compared with the Hebrew hnwmt “form, manifestation” HALOT 1746. 95 Hebrew Pld “to leak” cf. Job 16:20; it has been argued, however, that the Hebrew word Pld could also mean “to crumble,” a meaning that is possibly found in Psalm 119:28. In Eccl 10:18 both verbs Pld “to leak” Kkm / Kwm “to fall, to sink” are found in parallelism: “through slothfulness the beam-work collapses; through slackness of hand the house crumbles.” C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 18C; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997), 331–332, 340. The image of a collapsing house, which in this context of Eccl 10:18 refers to a dynasty, is important because the Ugaritic text speaks of Yamm’s body as having a tmnh “frame or form.” 96 For the meaning of prsḥ see Del Olmo Lete, DULAT, 682. 97 Ug ql “to fall,” cf. DULAT, 697–698; the word refers to falling in a physical sense and also is used metaphorically to refer to two different notions: 1. Perishing 2. Paying homage. The use is this verb here to describe what happens to Yamm is significant, the fall and the collapsing of his body denotes the metaphorical sense of the perishing of the threat of chaos, and also Yamm who initially wanted to subjugate Baal and desired his gold is not the subject of prostration. 98 Multiple meanings have been suggested for the verb yqṯ: (1) “to drag out, pull out,” assuming the verb is derived from *qṯṯ (T. H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East [New York: Norton, 1977], 169; J. C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pat-

100

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

ykly . ṯpṭ . nhr b . šm . tg‘rm . ‘ṯtrt . bṯ l aliyn . b[‘l] bṯ . l rkb . ‘rpt k šbyn . zb[l . ym . k] šbyn . ṯpṭ . nhr w yṣa . … ybṯ.nn aliyn . b‘l ym . l mt b ‘lm . yml[k … l šrr …

finishes Ruler Nahar off. By name ‘athtartu reprimands (him): Scatter, O Mighty [Baal], Scatter, O Cloud-Rider, For Prince [Yamm] is our captive, [for] Ruler Nahar is our captive. he goes out … Mighty Baal disperses him Yamm is certainly dead100 Baal rei[gns] … Indeed he rules … (KTU 1.2.IV.26–33)

In the episode concerning the defeat of Yamm / Nahar by Baal, the body of the former is struck by the two skillful weapons that Kothar-and-Hasis has fashioned. While with the first weapon he is struck on the chest, he is struck on the head by the second weapon. The power of the weapons is measured by their impact on the body of Yamm. After being struck with the first weapon, the body still holds itself, and it does not fall. This body language signifies Yamm’s resistance. Yet, when struck with the second weapon, his defeat is tern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba‘lu: According to the Version of Ilimilku [AOAT 16; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1971], 138; J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myth and Legends [2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978], 44, 157; M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Baal Vernichtet Jammu (KTU 1.2 IV 23–30),” UF 17 [1986]: 117–121, esp. 118–119); (2) “to ensnare,” assuming the root is *yqṯ (Hebrew #$qy; E. L. Greenstein, “The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic,” MARAAV 3 [1982]: 195–216); (3) “to strike,” assuming that the verb is derived from *nqṯ (Hebrew #$qn). These suggestions are outlined and discussed in Smith, Baal Cycle Volume I, 351– 352. These three suggestions are plausible grammatically; however I prefer the first one for the following reasons. The verb nqṯ “to strike,” does not add much to the narrative, Yamm has been already stricken twice and the text narrates that its frame has collapsed. The verb yqṯ “to ensnare” is attractive, but the text lacks any reference to a snare or a hook among the weapons which Baal used against Yamm. Thus I prefer the first meaning to “drag out, pull out,” which sets up the stage for dismembering Yamm and scattering its body. 99 Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume I, 352–354 lists four possible roots out of which the verbal form yšt is possibly derived: (1) *nšt “to dry up” (J. A. Montgomery, “Ras Shamra Notes IV: The Conflict of Baal and the Waters,” JAOS 55 [1935]: 268–277, esp. 276; C. J. L. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat in the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel [Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot; Leiden: Brill, 1986], 87–88); (2) *šyt “to set” (de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, 138–139; Greenstein, “Snaring,” 201); (3) *šty “to drink” (Cross, Cannanite Myth, 115; E. T. Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1980), 57; and (4) *štt “to separate, disperse” (J. Obermann, “How Baal Destroyed a Rival: A Magical Incantation Scene,” JAOS 67 [1947]: 195–208, esp. 205; G. R. Driver, Cannanite Myths and Legends [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956], 143; Caquot and Sznycer, Textes ougaritiques I, 138; P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, “Le combat de Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques,” MARI 7 [1993]: 63–70, esp. 64). 100 Pardee, “The Ba‘lu Myth,” COS 1.86.248–249.

III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

101

inscribed upon his body: the body falls to the ground and it slumps, signifying weakness and Baal’s subjugation of Yamm. The next step that Baal undertakes is to dismember the body of Yamm and Nahar and disperse these body parts. The disintegration of the defeated body and its subsequent dispersal points to the impossibility of collecting the body. Therefore, dismemberment of the body is a literary device through which the author inscribes the disintegration of chaos. Although Baal is clearly the victor in this passage, another tradition embedded within the Baal cycle feature the goddess Anat as the one who defeats Yamm:101 l. mḫšt . mdd . il ym l klt . nhr . il . rbm lištbm . tnn . ištm[d]h104 mḫšt . bṯn . ‘qltn ŝlyṭ . d. šb‘t . rašm

Surely102 I have smitten103 El’s beloved, Yamm, Surely, I have finished off the great god Nahar. Surely I have placed a bit105 (in the mouth of) Tunnanu,106 (and) I have harnes[sed] (?)107 him, Surely, I have struck down the twisting serpent,108 The Tyrant109 one with seven heads

101 For a discussion on who killed the dragon, see Nick Wyatt, “Who Killed the Dragon?” in The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature (London: Equinox, 2005), 18–37. 102 John Huehnergard, “Asseverative *la and the Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic,” JAOS 103 (1983): 583–584. 103 Moshe Held, “mḫṣ/*mḫš in Ugaritic and other Semitic Languages (A Study in Comparative Lexicography),” JAOS 79 (1959): 169–176. 104 KTU2 reads l ištm . lh; here I follow Dennis Pardee, “Will the Dragon Never Be Muzzled,” UF 16 (1984): 254. 105 For this translation, see Hutton, “Ugaritic */š/ and the Roots šbm and šm[d],” 75– 83; different translation speaks of “muzzling” the dragon: E Loewenstamm, “The Muzzling of the Tannin in Ugaritic Myth,” IEJ 9 (1959): 260–261; M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “šb, š bm und UDN im Kontext von KTU 1.3 III 35B–IV 4 und KTU 1.83:8,” UF 14 (1982): 78–79; for further references see Jeremy Hutton, “Isaiah 51:9–11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies,” JBL 126 (2007): 271–303, esp. 284–285. Cf. James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (rev. ed.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 388–411. 106 On the vocalization of tnn see UVST 72, 186. This creature is certainly related to the Hebrew Nynt “dragon” (cf. Job 7:12; Ps 74:13–15; Isa 27:1; 51:9). 107 Following Hutton who proposes that a phonemic shift took place from *ṣ > š. Thus the intended verb would be *ṣmd which is graphically represented by *šmd. The verb ṣmd is well attested in Ugaritic and it means “to harness, bind” (DULAT 784), see the discussion in Hutton, “Ugaritic */š/,” 80–81. 108 The Ugaritic bṯn refers to snakes (KTU 1.17.VI.14) and dragon as we have it here in this text and in 1.5.I.1–2 (see Hebrew Ntp and Aramaic )ntp). This snake-dragon is described as a twisty one (‘qltn, Arabic ‘aqala “to bind a camel’s folded fore-shank and arm together,” Lane 2113). A similar description of the dragon appears in Isaiah 27:1 where the monster is described as Nwtlq( #$xn “the crooked snake.” 109 For this translation see DULAT 822 (cf. Hebrew +yl#$ “ruler,” and Arabic sulṭan).

102

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

In the case of Yamm/Nahar, this power of chaos sometimes assumes an anthropomorphic body, as in the text that I cited above (KTU 1.2.IV.26–33); at other times, chaos assumes the body of a dragon. Commenting on KTU 1.3.III.38–42, Smith and Pitard argue that the structure of this section “suggests the possibility that Tunnan is to be identified with Yamm/Nahar, as an alternative image of the deity who is portrayed anthropomorphically in KTU 1.2.IV. If this is correct, then the image of the dragon in the Baal Cycle is not an image of an unrelated deity divorced from the divine council.”110 This observation highlights the complexity of the tradition of the Chaoskampf not only in terms of the relationship between the different deities, but also in terms of the physical representation of the power of chaos and the concrete embodiment of the monsters of disorder. Yet, it is clear in reading the Baal Cycle that the threat of chaos was assigned a body, be it anthropomorphic or monstrous. Note that the monster, the Tannin, is described as a “twisting serpent,” with seven heads. The multiple heads of the dragon testify to its abnormality.111 After having a palace built for him, Baal decides to challenge the power of Mot (KTU 1.4.VII.45–52), son of El and the beloved warrior of El. Mot, according to Baal, claims to rule over the gods (KTU 1.4.VII.49–52). Baal, therefore, decides to challenge Mot’s dominion. If proven more powerful than Mot, Baal can then proclaim himself Ruler of the gods. When Baal sends envoys to Mot in the netherworld, he warns his messengers not to get close to Mot: “Lest he take you as (he would) a lamb in his mouth, lest you be destroyed as (would be) a kid in his crushing jaws” (KTU 1.4.VIII.14–20).112 Scholars have different perspectives on the identity of the body of Mot. While Margalit argues that Mot is represented as a snake-dragon, Smith and

110

Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume II, 54. See also their discussion on the relation between Yamm and tnn (ibid., 253–258). For a similar opinion that identifies Yamm (the Sea) with Tunnan (the dragon), see Aicha Rahmouni, Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (trans. J. N. Ford; HO 93; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 310. For a different perspective on the issue see Brendon C. Benz, “Yamm as the Personification of Chaos? A Linguistic and Literary Argument for a Case of Mistaken Identity,” in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Herman Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis (ed. Joann Scurlock and Richard H. Beal; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 127–145. 111 The multiple headed-dragon is also depicted iconographically on some ancient Near Eastern seals. A seal from Tel Asmar portrays a warrior fighting against a seven-headed dragon. See: ANEP #691; H. Frankfort, “Gods and Myths on Sargonid Seals,” Iraq 1 (1934): 1–29; G. A. Rendsburg, “UT 68 and the Tell Asmar Seal,” Or 53 (1984): 448–52; William D. Barker, “Slaying the Hero to Build the Temple. A New Assessment of the tell Asmar Cylinder Seal and the Temple-Building Motif in the Light of the Ningirsu/Ninurta Myths, UF 38 (2006) 27–40. The same imagery of a monster as a coiled and twisting serpent is found in Isaiah 27:1. Psalm 74 also speaks of Leviathan as having many heads. 112 “The Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86:263).

III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

103

Pitard posit that the description of Mot fits better with an imagery of a lion.113 In addition to the fact that the description of the body of Mot in the Baal Cycle is not decisive, textual evidence from the Old Testament (Isa 30:6; Ps 91:13), and pictorial representations from Egypt and Mesopotamia complicate the matter further because the lion and serpent are found in poetic parallelism and also both of these creatures are combined in various depictions creating a lion-serpent dragon.114 At any rate the crushing jaws of Mot represent the power of Death, which poses a threat to the body of Baal and his messengers. Mot first flatters Baal and then threatens him with the following words: ktmḫṣ . ltn . bṯn . brḥ tkly . bṯn . ‘qltn . [ ] šlyṭ .d . šb‘t. rašm tṯkḥ . ttrp . šmm . krs ipdk . ank 113

When you smote Litan,115 the Fleeing Serpent,116 Finished off the Twisty Serpent, The Tyrant one with seven heads, The heavens grew hot, they withered.117 Like ruin I shall tear you to pieces,118

Margalit, A Matter of Life and Death, 83, 102; Smith and Pitard, The Baal Cycle Volume II, 722–723. 114 Theodore Lewis, “CT 13.33–34 and Ezekiel 32: Lion-Dragon Myths,” JAOS 116 (1996): 28–47; Steve Vinson, “Narmer,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. Donald B. Redford; 3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 2:494–495; Scott C. Jones, “Lions, Serpents, and Lion-Serpents in Job 28:8 and Beyond,” JBL 130 (2011): 663–686. 115 John Emerton, “Leviathan and ltn: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon,” VT 32 (1982): 327–331; on the relation between Litan and Leviathan, see also A. Caquot, “Le Léviathan de Job 40,25 – 41,26,” RB 99 (1992): 40–69. 116 DULAT 236, 252; See the same expression in Isa 27:1 xrb #$xn “the fleeing serpent.” 117 For this translation see Mark Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” 141. Dennis Pardee translates this line “the heavens wither and go slack.” The problems that scholars encounter here is the lack of comparative evidence for the word tṯkḥ. The root ṯkḥ is thought to mean “to uncover, undress” (DULAT 902). Usually scholars compare this word to the Hebrew *xk#$ II “to burn, be hot, wilt, be passionate,” and with Arabic kaṯaḥa “to uncover” / kašaḥa “to sleep with a woman.” For a survey of the various meanings see HALOT 1490– 1491. The second word that describes what happens to the heavens ttrp is usually compared to the Hebrew hpr “to grow slack” HALOT 1276–1277. For another translation see William D. Barker, “‘And thus you brightened the heavens …’ A New Translation of KTU 1.5 I 1–8 and its Significance for Ugaritic and Biblical Studies,” UF 38 (2006) 41–52. 118 This line has been interpreted in different ways: (1) “like the folds (?) of your tunic,” (see “Ba‘lu Myth,” [COS 1.86:265]; this translation presupposes a haplography, thus reading krs as k-rks and appealing to the Akk riksum “band, belt”; further this translation reads ipdk in relation to the Hebrew dp) “designating a garment”; see also Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Baal, Leviathan und der siebenköpfige Drache Šlyṭ in der Rede des Todesgottes Môt [KTU 1.5 I 1–8 ⎜⎜ 27a–31,” AuOr 17–18 [1999–2000]: 55–80); (2) “But I will engulf you in my belly” reading krs in comparison with Arabic kirš / kariš “belly” and also reading ipdk in relation to Arabic fāda “to vanish, die (Lane 2456, 2470), HALOT (925) suggests the Ugaritic pd to mean “engulf,” the Ugaritic pdd according to

104

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

ispi . uṭm ḏrqm . amtm lyrt bnpš . bnilm . mt . bmh mrt . ydd . il ġzr

Let me devour119 spans of excrements120 and forearms.121 Surely you will descend into the throat of Mot, son of El Into the gullet of El’s Beloved, the warrior (KTU 1.5.I.1–8)

Mot acknowledges Baal’s victory over the other monsters, yet he confidently threatens to defeat, dismember and devour Baal’s body parts. Baal surrenders to Mot; the word of his death reaches El and Anat (KTU 1.5.V–VI). When Anat learns of Baal’s death by the power of Mot, she decides to search “every mountain to the heart of the earth [kbd arṣ], every hill to the heart of the fields” (KTU 1.5.VI.25–28). 122 Anat finds Baal’s body and buries him. “(There) she weeps for him and buries him, places him down amongst the gods of the underworld” (KTU 1.6.I.15–18). Anat takes on the task of defeating Mot: tiḫd bn . ilm . mt . bḥrb tbq‘nn . bḫṯr . tdry nn bišt . tšrpnn brḥm . tṭḥnn bšd tdr‘ . nn širh . litkl ‘ṣrm [.] mnth . ltkly npr[m . ] šir . lšir . yṣḥ

She seizes Mot, son of El, With a sword she splits him,123 With a winnowing-fork she winnows him,124 With fire she burns him, With a millstone she grinds him, In a field she sows him; The birds surely eat his flesh The fowl finish off his parts Flesh(-eaters) grow fat on flesh,125

DULAT (662) means “to fall to pieces, wear out”; and (3) “like drops I will tear you into pieces,” this translation reads krs as k-rs, with k as a preposition and rs derives from the geminate ssr “to splash, spray” (inf. Ezek 46:14); ssr II means “to crush,” which can be compared with the Akk râsu(m) “to slay, smash” thus HALOT points out the possibility that Ugaritic rs could mean “ruin” (1249–1250). The first translation refers to the idea of the heavens ‘becoming’ slack in the preceding line. The second and third translations point to the lines that follow, which narrate Mot’s attack on Baal. 119 sp’ “to devour, consume” (DULAT 766; Aramaic spy; see BDB lists the noun )wpsm “fodder” [Gen 24:25, 32; 704]). 120 Ugaritic ḏrq means “fragment, lump,” DULAT 289 (cf. Hebrew qrz “to sprinkle” HALOT 283; Arabic ḏ/zaraqa “to drop excrement;” Akk zarāku “to sprinkle, pour.” 121 Ugaritic amt means “elbow, ell” DULAT 74–75; HALOT 61–62. Pardee analyzes this word as first person of the first person singular of the root mt “to die” and the mem at the end is an enclitic mem; thus he translates this line as “like a piece of dung I die” “The Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86.265). 122 These lines use a body part (kbd “lit. liver”) in order to speak of the earth. Thus mixing the language of body and the language of nature. 123 See DULAT 234; HALOT 149. The verb bq‘ is used in KTU 1.19.III.10, 32 to refer to the opening of the entrails. 124 See DULAT 282; The Hebrew hrz means “to winnow” in the qal (Isa 30:24) and in pie‘l it means to “to scatter” (scattering bones Ezek 6:5; scattering a nation Ezek 5:10–12, 29:12).

III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

105

The core message of these lines is fairly clear: Anat defeats and decimates the son of El, Mot. Yet, the text fleshes out its message in an extremely vivid and rich way by means of describing what happens to the body of the defeated monster, Mot. The defeat of Mot and the victory of Anat are not just mediated by poetic lines and words, but also are inscribed on the body parts of Mot. This body suffers the punishment of Anat’s weapons: knife, winnowing fork, fire, and grindstone; in addition the parts of its body are left in the open field to become food for the birds. What is intriguing about this episode is that the body of Mot is pictured in two interwoven ways: Mot’s body is treated as if it were both a plant and an animal. Anat winnows it, burns it and grinds it; this imagery comes very close to harvest practices. She also splits its body in pieces as if opening its entrails, and the body parts that are sown on top of the field are food for the birds and the flesh eaters. Upon the winnowed, burnt, ground, dismembered, and devoured body of Mot a message is inscribed that speaks of Anat’s power. The broken pieces of Mot’s body speak of his humiliation and also warns anyone who would dare to oppose Anat or threaten Baal. These semiotics of the body are significantly underlined when we recall what Mot had planned to do to Baal (KTU 1.5.I.1–8). Mot, who had initially sought to devour the pieces of Baal’s body parts, is here being dismembered and devoured by the wild beast and birds. Apophis as an embodiment of primordial chaos threatens the order of the created world. Apophis was a gigantic, dragon-like serpent. In the Amduat, his length is 440 cubits.126 He is “Horrible of face” (nḥ3-ḥr).127 “He had no sense-organs. He could neither hear nor see; he could only scream. And he operated always in darkness. As the sun-god’s boat sailed through the underworld he tried again and again to block its passage by drinking up the imagined river on which it sailed.”128 The monstrosity of Apophis is reconstructed by highlighting its abnormality. Difference and Otherness as a marker for monstrosity is inscribed on its body. “Apophis is a god of darkness that threatens the sun’s coming and going and, therefore, cosmic regularity. … An 125

Usually this line is translated as “flesh to flesh cries out.” Reading the verb yṣḥ to stem from the hollow *ṣḥ “to cry out” (Smith, The Baal Cycle, 156). Here I am following Pardee in reading the verb yṣḥ stemming from the verb *nṣḥ which means to grow fat as translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86.270). Some scholars connect the dismemberment of Mot in this episode with the Egyptian motif of dismembering the body of Apophis, which will be discussed below; e.g., Paul L. Watson “The Death of ‘Death’ in the Ugaritic Texts,” JAOS 92.1 (1972): 60–64. 126 This description is mentioned in the 7th hour of the Amduat; for text, see The Egyptian Amduat: The Book of the Hidden Chamber (trans. David Warburton; rev. and ed. Erik Hornung and Theodor Abt; Zurich: Living Human Heritage Publications, 2007), 230. 127 Warburton, The Egyptian Amduat, 230. 128 Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come, 21.

106

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

eyeless, earless, screaming embodiment of primordial chaos, Apophis stands for the return of the cosmologically repressed.”129 Apophis as a monster is an embodiment of chaos, whose body stands in for what is horrific and frightening. The body of the monster Apophis that threatens the well being of the cosmos bears the divine punishment. The dismembered body of Apophis is not just a sign of the defeat of the outlaws, but also is a monstrous warning to those who disobey the divine and threaten the established order. Inscribing the defeat of Apophis and monstrifying its dismembered body is manifest in the funerary literature of the New Kingdom. Spell 39 in the Book of the Dead enables the deceased to repulse the serpent Apophis. The deceased addresses Re saying: “Apep has fallen to your destruction, the southern, northern, western, and eastern gods have bound their bonds on him ... and Re is content, Re proceeds in peace. Apep the enemy of Re has fallen.” Apophis is addressed, “Get back! You shall be decapitated with a knife, your face shall be cut away all round, your head shall be removed by him who is in his land, your bones shall be broken, your limbs shall be cut off; the earth-god has condemned you, O Apep, you enemy of Re.” The spell ends with the proclamation: “Re is triumphant over Apep.”130 The Amduat (that which is in the Duat [the netherworld])131 is one of the Netherworld Books, which depicts Re’s journey in the underworld during the twelve hours of the night.132 The book is divided into twelve sections, which correspond to the twelve hours of the night.133 In the chapter corresponding to the 7th hour, the book tells us of the defeat of the serpent Apophis, who is called “the Evil one” (hjw) and “Horrible of face” (nḥ3-ḥr), through the power of the words of Isis who is on the boat of Re.134 Lines 526 and 527 read: rn ni wnwt nt grḥ sšmt nṯr pn ‘3 ḫsft hjw ḥsqt nḥ3-ḥr “the name of the hour [the seventh hour] of the night guiding this great god [Re] is Repelling the «Evil one» and beheading «Horrible of face».”135 Thus the text speaks of “repel129

Beal, Religion and its Monsters, 19. The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (trans. Raymond O. Faulkner; ed. Carol Andrews; New York: The Limited Editions Club, 1972; Austin: University of Texas Press, rev. 1990), 60. 131 The “earliest complete copies [of the Amduat] stem from the Tomb of Tuthmosis III [18th dynasty, 15th century] and that of Useramun, the first of his viziers.” Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 28. 132 Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1999), 33–34. 133 Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 32. The Amduat is considered the “first completely illustrated text,” in which the text and the illustration constitute a literary unity. This is supported by the fact that the texts usually refer to the illustrations. 134 The role of Isis here could be comparable to the role of Anat in the Baal Cycle; the goddesses had also a role to play in the combat myth. 135 Transliteration and translation by Warburton, The Egyptian Amduat, 218. 130

III. The Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

107

ling” (ḫsft) “beheading” (ḥsqt) and “slaughtering” (š‘t) Apophis.136 The body of the monster bears the divine punishment. In the drawing corresponding to the text of the seventh hour we find that in the upper register the enemies of Pharaoh are decapitated and in the middle register the body of Apophis is hacked with knives. The image below is from the middle register of the seventh hour of the Amduat. In this register, “The sun barge is separated from the Middle Register by a double line, and from now on, the Sungod is encircled by the protecting serpent Mehen. The crew… is reinforced with the goddess Isis…, standing at the prow and stretching out her arms against Apophis, thus using her magic power to enchant him.”137

(Figure 2. Photo Credit: HIP / Art Resource, NY. Illustrated by Armando Sultan).

The Books of the Netherworld also include The Book of the Gates.138 The content and the structure of this book are similar to that of the Amduat. The content is a description of the journey of the sun god in the netherworld, and the structure is divided into twelve sections. However, in the book of the gates the twelve divisions are represented through gates that stand for the twelve hours of the night. In this book Pharaoh’s high status is celebrated through his rebirth in the morning as he accompanies Re.139 The first appearance of Apophis takes place in the third hour in the lower register. There he is 136 David Warburton, The Egyptian Amduat: The Book of the Hidden Chamber, 218, 219. See also Knowledge For the Afterlife: The Egyptian Amduat – A Quest for Immortality (trans. Theodor Abt and Erik Hornung Zurich: Living Human Heritage Publications, 2003), 90. See also The Tomb of Ramesses VI: Texts, trans. with introduction by Alexandre Piankoff, 280. 137 The Egyptian Amduat: The Book of the Hidden Chamber, trans. David Warburton, 228. E. Hornung, Texts zum Amduat (3 vols.; Aegyptiaca Helvetica 13–15; Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Letters, 1987–1994). 138 Originated during El-Amarna Period and continued to appear in tombs of Egyptian kings through the New Kingdom. “Following the end of the New Kingdom, portions of the book were used only sporadically.” Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 56. 139 Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 59.

108

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

a giant serpent that confronts Atum, “who is assisted by two Enneads in overcoming this archfiend.”140 Apophis appears again in the fifth hour, where he is called the “Retreater” in front of the barque; there he must again be fettered and held fast. The peak of the combat against Apophis takes place in the tenth hour, which is depicted in the middle register. In that register there are fourteen gods holding nets, which possess an overwhelming magical power that “renders Apophis defenseless.”141 The final victory over Apophis takes place in the eleventh hour. In the upper register Apophis “is bound, dismembered, and rendered harmless. The rope with which he and his assistants are bound is held by a giant fist emerging from the depths.”142 The defeat of Apophis and the dismemberment of its body allows for the boat of Re to reach its destination. The victory of Re over Apophis signifies the victory of order over chaos, and practically signifies the beginning of a new day. Apophis is bound by chains and its body is hacked into pieces by the followers of Re. The deceased Pharaoh experiences rebirth through Re’s victory over the forces of chaos, embodied in Apophis and his helpers. The drawings in the tombs reflect also the life of the king in the afterworld, victoriously defeating his enemies; “through these symbolic acts ... his power over rebels and his dominance over the world are confirmed.”143 Moreover, the body of the deceased Pharaoh, who accompanies Re on his daily journey, must be kept whole and incorruptible. Whereas the body of the monster is dismembered, the body of Pharaoh must be intact.144 A. Summary From the previous survey of instantiations of the combat myth in Mesopotamia, Ugarit and Egypt, we may highlight the following observations. Disor140

Ibid., 60. Ibid., 64. 142 Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 64. “The sun god arrives at the twelfth and last hour of the night, in which the miracle of the rebirth will occur, through the gate ‘with the mysterious entrance.’ the mystery of sunrise, into which the dead are here inducted, unfolds in several individual scenes, beginning in the upper register with gods who ‘carry the blazing light,’ which is represented concretely by the sun disks in their hands. Stars again prefigure the appearance of the sun, while goddesses seated atop serpents surround the solar child. Even here, his barque remains unchanged. In front of it lies Apophis, already in fetters; the fiend is unable to impede the sunrise, and he is held in check by god wielding knives and shepherd’s crooks. Behind him, four baboons announce the sun god in the eastern horizon, their hands in a gesture of jubilation” (ibid., 65). 143 Muller, “Afterlife,” in Ancient Gods Speak, 3. 144 Friedrich Abitz, Pharao als Gott: in den Unterweltsbüchern des Neuen Reiches (OBO 146; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). 141

IV. Annihilation versus Putting the Monster under Check

109

der and order for the ancient Near Eastern thinkers were embodied concepts. The body of the monster is an embodiment of Otherness; the monstrosity of the embodied chaos is further expressed by the dismemberment of the body of the monster. The authors of the Chaoskampf traditions intensified their message of the victory of the god of order and the defeat of the chaos monster by turning the body of the monster into a site of inscription. The semiotics of this inscription is mediated vividly upon the mutilated and dismembered body. The dismemberment of the body was not limited to the body of monsters; human enemies were dismembered as well. As I have shown above in the case of the defeat of Apep in the Egyptian myths, the dismembered body of the monster parallels and signifies the dismemberment of the human enemies of the king. The victory of the god of order and the king was signified on the body of the monster or the human enemies, through physical punishment and stigmata. The dismembered body of the monster is monstrous because its rough treatment is designed to frighten all those who dare to think about deviating from the established order. In other words, chaos is embodied by a monstrous body that deviates from the norm. The body of the monster becomes even more monstrous when it is dismembered as it spreads terror and horror among the masses who are under the dominant authority of the god of order. As we have seen, the power of chaos is ascribed the body of a monster. Upon this body, the god of order inscribes the defeat of this chaotic power. The body of the monster becomes a site of writing. Writing on the body invites the reader to visualize the defeat of the monster. One does not just read the account of a combat; rather, one also imagines it. The dismembered body of the monster signifies a threefold message. (1) it establishes the sovereignty of the patron god; (2) it underlines the weakness of chaos, even if it sometimes seems to prevail; and (3) it is a threatening message to whoever rebels against the established order by the patron god.

IV. Complete Annihilation versus Putting the Monster under Check IV. Annihilation versus Putting the Monster under Check

As we have seen, ancient Near Eastern myths displaying awareness of the Chaoskampf tradition often portray the divine warrior as defeating, hacking and almost completely eliminating the body of the monster that represents chaos. The ancients, who were fascinated with the Chaoskampf traditions around them, were quite aware that chaos is endlessly resurgent. In the ideal scenario, Chaoskampf traditions hoped to eliminate chaos completely so that the order of the cosmos would be safe and secure. However, in the realistic scenario, “the confinement of chaos rather than its elimination is the essence

110

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

of creation, and the survival of the ordered reality hangs upon the god’s vigilance in ensuring that those cosmic dikes do not fail, that the bars of the doors of the Sea’s jail do not give way, that the great fish does not slip his hook.”145 The continued existence of chaos after its initial defeat not only reflects a realistic perspective, but also reflects the intrinsic need of the established order for the continuing existence of chaos so that the established order would be able to construct its boundaries. Enūma eliš ends with a plea to “sound abroad the song of Marduk, how he defeated Tiamat and took kingship” (VII.161). Although the text speaks of her defeat and the dismemberment of her body, the text reflects the anxiety of the well-ordered structure when it declares that the chaos of Tiamat could break through anytime. After Marduk had used half of Tiamat’s body to make heaven “he stretched out the hide and assigned watchman, and ordered them not to let her waters escape. He crossed heaven and inspected (its) firmament” (IV.138–141). The author(s) of the text recognized that this ordered world is fragile and the power of chaos can return at anytime. Although Tiamat had been killed long, long ago, and her waters were supposed to be contained behind bars in the heavens – somehow she still existed, as a constant threat to the world order. As sea she was there, spread over much of what was known of the earth’s surface. More importantly, she was there as the supreme embodiment of chaos. As such she had to be periodically warded off and destroyed anew.146

Rituals were practiced in order to ensure the stability of the cosmos. One of the functions of the akītu festival was to ensure the defeat of the enemies and the establishment of the god of order, Marduk/Assur.147 “Through the akītu the hopes and fears of every Mesopotamian were answered; nature was renewed, society was consolidated, anxiety was quieted, chaos was warded off for another year.”148 This festival was celebrated in Babylon and Assur. The texts that describe the rituals of this festival make a number of allusions to Enūma eliš, and on the fourth day Enūma eliš was recited, hence reaffirming

145 Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco, Calif.: Harper & Row, 1988; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 17. 146 Cohen, Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come, 49. 147 W. G. Lambert, “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The Conflict in the Akitu House, A Summary,” Iraq 25 (1963): 189–90; Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi irub: die Kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akituProzession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BF 16; Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994); Alasdair Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 156–166; and Kenton Sparks, “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,” JBL 126 (2007): 625–648. 148 Cohen, Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come, 49.

IV. Annihilation versus Putting the Monster under Check

111

the order of the world under the supervision of Assur in Assyria or Marduk in Babylon.149 In the Baal Cycle, Yamm was defeated by Baal in KTU 1.2.IV.27–35: “Baal drags Yamm and dismembers (him), Sets about finishing Ruler Nahar off; By name ‘athtartu reprimands (him): Scatter, O Mighty [Baal], Scatter , O Cloud-Rider, For Prince [Yamm] is our captive, [for] Ruler Nahar is our captive. He goes out … Mighty Baal disperses him Yamm is certainly dead.” This passage speaks of dismembering (štt)150 and finishing off (kly)151 the body of Mot and Nahar by the Mighty Baal. The text ends with a declaration of the death of Yamm. According to this tradition Yamm is defeated and annihilated. Yet Yamm reappears again in 1.4.VI.3–4, a text that mentions the foes of Baal that might cast scorn upon him or spit upon him. Thus the Baal Cycle contains a tension between multiple traditions with regard to the defeat of Yamm; while some traditions speak of utter destruction of the power of chaos, other traditions speak of the return of chaos, denoting that chaos was not annihilated but rather harnessed or put under check. This tension is to be found in Anat’s claim of defeating Yamm and the Dragon in KTU 1.3.III.38– 46: “Surely I have smitten El’s beloved, Yamm, Surely, I have finished off the great god Nahar. Surely I have placed a bit (in the mouth of) Tunnanu, (and) I have harnessed (?) him, Surely, I have struck down the twisting serpent.” This episode paints a complex picture of the defeat of the power of chaos represented by Yamm and the Dragon. In this passage we encounter two verbs that speak of the tension that I described above: while Anat claims

149

Julye Bidmead, The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2004), 63–70. 150 See my discussion and translation of these lines above. 151 It is important to point out that the Ugaritic text of the Baal cycle uses the verb ykly (√kly “to finish off”) when it describes Baal’s intentions toward Yamm; yet ‘Athtart rebukes Baal by name, probably asking him not to dismember Yamm. The state of the text does not allow for a decisive opinion here. Furthermore, although in KTU 1.2.IV.27 it speaks of finishing Yamm and probably dismembering his body, Yamm reappears in the Baal Cyle in KTU 1.4.VI.3–4. Some interpreters (Ginsberg, ANET 131; E. L. Greenstein, “The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic,” Maarav 3 (1982): 195–216, 205) explain this paradox by suggesting a “modal interpretation of ykly.” Others (G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956], 83; Gaster, Thespis, 169) suggest that Baal was going to finish off Yamm but he was stopped by ‘Athtart. Mark Smith posits that such a tension is similar to what happened to Mot, who was killed in one episode (KTU 1.6.II) and was reported to be alive fighting again (KTU 1.6.VI). Further, Smith suggests that this tension could be related to a redactional development of the text, see Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume I, 355. I think the notion of the resurgence of the power of chaos could explain this tension between an optimistic desire for completely annihilating chaos represented and embodied here by Yamm and the realistic approach that chaos continues to exist. On this issue, see the last section of this chapter.

112

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

that she has finished off (kly) Yamm, she only harnessed152 the dragon of the Sea. The “chaos-monster Yam is not destroyed, only contained, held at bay – after all, he too is a god, ‘beloved of El.’”153 Though once defeated, Yamm still lurks at the periphery, threatening the kingship of Baal. In an analogous manner, the other major opponent of Baal, Mot, continues to pose a threat to Baal and the created world after his initial defeat and dismemberment. In KTU 1.6.II.30–37, Anat defeats Mot and dismembers its body and the fowl are supposed to finish off (kly) it body parts, yet in KTU 1.6.V.8–25, he reappears and is ready to fight with Baal (KTU 1.6.V.10–22), “Mot is strong, Baal is strong.” In this incident Baal’s defeat of Mot is granted by El via the goddess Shapsh. Margalit highlights the inconclusive defeat of Mot when he writes, In sum: Baal is ‘Life’, Mot is ‘Death’; and there is no question as to which of them is the stronger or who must eventually prevail. Baal’s kingship, like life itself, is a fleeting interval in non-existence, a temporary and periodically re-established state of equilibrium. Death, on the other hand, is never overcome. At best he is discomfited or talked into a truce.154

The revival of death after his dismemberment by Anat declares that although the power of chaos is put under check, still it forms a threat over against the cosmic order. The monsters of chaos are not defeated once and for all; they periodically come back to threaten the ordered world.155 The threat of the forces of chaos in the Egyptian combat myth between Re and Apophis was renewed daily. If Apophis had defeated Re once, “the sun would come to a halt and the ordered world come to an end.” Daily rituals in the Egyptian temples, such as Amun-Ra at Karnak, were conducted by the priests in order to assist the god and ensure the defeat of the power of chaos, embodied in Apophis. Using magic,156 these rituals aimed at annihilating Apophis completely; yet, conducting these liturgies everyday testifies to the awareness that Apophis still formed a threat to the ordered world. In the Book of Overthrowing Apophis157 the priest is supposed to recite the following statement: 152 153

84.

154

See translation and discussion of these lines above. Cohen, Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come, 124; Smith, “Baal Cycle,” 1997,

Margalit, “A Matter of Life and Death,” 203. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 17. 156 Robert Ritner, The Mechanism of Ancient Egyptian Magic (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 54; Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993), 84–87. 157 Faulkner, “The Book of Overthrowing Apep,” 167–175. Cohn (Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come, 22) summarizes the liturgy as follows, “The vast liturgy of which these phrases form a tiny part is contained in a work known as The Book of Overthrowing Apophis … the book also contains instructions for the fabrication of a wax figure Apophis. 155

V. Summary

113

He is fallen to the flame, Apophis with a knife on his head. He cannot see, and his name is no more in this land. I have commanded that a curse be cast upon him; I have consumed his bones; I have annihilated his soul in the course of every day; I have cut his vertebrae at his neck, severed with a knife which hacked up his flesh and pierced into his hide … I have made him non-existent … He is fallen and overthrown.158

The daily rituals in Egyptian temples like the yearly akītu festival witness to the observation that in Egypt and Mesopotamia people were aware of the fact that chaos is resurgent and needs to be kept under control. Jon Levenson notes that chaos, whether represented by the Sea or Leviathan, “is not always described as destroyed, hacked to pieces, never to rise again. On the contrary, often the waters of chaos are presented as surviving, only within the bounds that define creation.”159 According to Wiggermann and Smith, monsters in Mesopotamian and Ugaritic worldviews occupy the periphery, while the lawful members of the divine pantheon occupy the center. Boundaries and territorial limits form a relation between periphery and center.160 The center that holds the power reconstructs its identity by projecting an Otherness on the monster that occupies the periphery. Maintaining the boundaries promises the welfare and security of the ordered world of the center. The periphery, however, always lurks as a threat to this ordered world.

V. Summary V. Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to create a conversation between the monster theory that I outlined in the preceding chapter and the characteristics of the monster as attested in some of the ancient Near Eastern traditions related to the Chaoskampf motif. One of the key issues that I have dealt with in this chapter is the relationship between the monster and the divine hero. Traditionally the relation between the monster and the divine hero is perceived through a structural binary opposition. The monster is an Other, distant and harmful, while the divine hero is associated with the accepted norm, he occupies the center and is beneficent. I have shown that despite this apparent Oth-

This is to be placed on the ground, and the priest is to stamp on it with his left foot until it is reduced to a shapeless mass. Then it is to be cut up with a flint knife, finally it is to be thrown into a specially prepared fire. All this is to be done every morning, noon and night; and at times when the sun is obscured by clouds or rain, several such figures are to be burned. Despite all this, Apophis never was destroyed, he was immortal.” 158 Faulkner, “The Book of Overthrowing Apep,” 167–175. 159 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 15. 160 See chapter six for a further discussion of the ancient Near Eastern worldview with regard to the categories of center and periphery. There I will also discuss how this worldview is related to Ezekiel’s monsrification of Egypt.

114

Chapter 3: Chaoskampf in the Ancient Near East

erness, one cannot perceive the monster as the “ultimate Other”. The monster, though it is an Other, still shares a common identity with the divine hero. Further, in the preceding chapter on theory I highlighted the notion of inscribing punishment on the body of the outlaws as part of the maintenance of law and order. I have underlined Foucault’s discussion of the punishment of the body prior to imprisonment. This kind of punishment inscribes a message of the sovereignty of the law and also signals a message of warning to whoever tries to break or challenge the law and order of the community. I have argued that this notion can be useful in understanding the stories of the combat myth of Enūma eliš, Baal-Cycle, and Re and Apophis. The body of the monster that is defeated and dismembered witnesses to the power of the divine heroes (Marduk, Baal, and Re). Although the Chaoskampf traditions speak of the defeat of the monster, they still show an awareness of the continued existence and inevitable resurgence of the latter. This notion should be compared with Kristeva’s pattern of abjection and subjectivity, which I have highlighted in the preceding chapter. In both cases, identity, the proper self, and order are created against and out of a state of chaos, a state in which everything seemed to be the same. Further, similar to the fact that chaos is not completely annihilated and lurks at the periphery, threatening the newly created order, so is the abject in Kristeva’s theory. In the following chapters I will deal with the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel. I will discuss how the prophet embodies Egypt as a Monstrous Other. Then I will discuss why Ezekiel portrays Egypt as a monster in a time in which Egypt was supporting Judah against the Babylonian empire. Following that I will discuss how Ezekiel appropriates the Chaoskampf motif when he portrays YHWH as the divine warrior that defeats Egypt in order to restore order and put an end to the chaos. Finally, I will highlight a tension within the book of Ezekiel in which we see Egypt almost annihilated, but not quite. The prophet puts Egypt, the monster, under check.

Chapter Four

Egypt as a Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23 Introduction Introduction

In this chapter I will deal with one aspect of the key question of this project, namely, why Ezekiel represents Egypt as a monster. Before I lay out an argument in an attempt to answer this question, I would like to recapitulate the results of the former chapters. As I discussed in detail in the first chapter, there are two proposals that have come to the fore that attempt to explain Egypt’s monstrosity in the book of Ezekiel. Some scholars (e.g., John Day, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Mary Wakeman) appeal to other biblical accounts in which Egypt was portrayed as a monster. Isa 51:9–10 is a key example of another biblical tradition that portrays Egypt as a monster. Because this text connects the notion of Egypt’s monstrosity and the exodus from Egypt, some scholars appeal to the memory of the exodus as an explanation for the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel. My objection to this explanation is that when Ezekiel speaks of the exodus he does not speak of it in the traditional cycle of oppression and liberation. Rather, the memory of the exodus in Ezekiel 20 focuses on the threat that Egypt embodies, namely, that the Israelites worshiped Egyptian idols. In Ezekiel’s memory of the exodus, YHWH does not defeat Egypt, nor does he part the sea, but for his honor leads the idolatrous and unworthy Israel out of Egypt (Ezek 20:5–9). The second suggestion that has been proposed in order to account for the monstrification of Egypt in the book of Ezekiel focuses on the political alliance between Egypt and Judah prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Although it is clear to the reader of the book of Ezekiel that knowledge of the political situation of the 6th century is critical to understand Ezekiel’s severe criticism of Egypt, I have showed in the first chapter that appealing to the political alliance alone is not a sufficient answer to the question of why Egypt is represented as a monster. I have argued there – and I will develop this argument further in this chapter – that in addition to the political situation there is an unstated anxiety about the religious chaos prevailing in the life of Israel before and at the time of the exile. Many scholars (e.g., Margaret Odell, Steven Tuell) have pointed out that there is a deeper meaning for the political alliance in the book of Ezekiel; but the connection between this deeper meaning of the political alliance and the imagery of the monster went unexplained.

116

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

As I have discussed in Chapter Two a monster embodies the interstitial and the ambiguous; a monster represents anything that transgresses boundaries, be it social, political, racial, or religious. Although on the surface the monster seems wholly Other, its Otherness covers a shared sameness between the monster and its rival. René Girard speaks of a monstrous double, one of two rivals who desire the same object turns into a monster. Although one is monstrified and Otherized, the shared sameness between the protagonist and its monstrous double can still be noticed. Furthermore, the notion of abjection as discussed by Julia Kristeva sheds some light on the notion of monstrosity. According to Kristeva when the infant is born, the infant does not have a sense of borders, boundaries that constitute an identity. The infant shares with the mother a state of “unitary sameness.” However, through the process of abjection a distinction between the child and the m(Other) takes place. Because the sense of boundary between the child and the mother, self and Other, is non-existent, when the process of abjection takes place, the subjectivity of the infant is constructed by means of projecting an Otherness on the mother; yet, when the mother is abjected, a part of the self is abjected. The m(Other) that is abjected continues to exist and it continues to threaten the sense of autonomy, safety and identity. The monster as an abject is an Otherized same that does not respect borders, laws, and boundaries. The horror that the monster embodies lies in the fear of the loss of a boundary; it is the horror of sharing a common identity with the Other. These concepts of monstrosity, as I have shown in the preceding chapter, help us to nuance our understanding of the relation between the monster and the divine pantheon in the ancient Near East. The monsters Tiamat, Mot, Yamm, and Apophis represent on the one hand an Otherness and difference, but, on the other hand, they share some common ground with the divine pantheon. Although these monsters are perceived as rivals to the gods of order in their respective pantheons, they still share a common identity with these benevolent gods. This observation shows us that the relationship between the monsters and the gods of order in the ancient Near East is a complex relationship that maintains sameness and Otherness in tension. These monsters are Otherness within sameness, as Timothy Beal puts it, and they are monstrous doubles, whose sameness is muddied under an apparent difference (René Girard). These monsters, as the abject, threaten the ordered world and its boundary that is usually thought to be stable and secure; the threat they pose is the loss of boundary, the return to unitary sameness, and the state of primordial chaos (Julia Kristeva). That being said, the following two questions are still open for other answers, and the insights of monster theory can help us answer them. Why does the image of the monster seem appropriate to be applied to Egypt in the book of Ezekiel? And if the category of the monster embodies some sort of chaos

Introduction

117

(e.g., political, cosmological, and the like), then what kind of chaos does Egypt represent for the prophet? In this chapter I will argue that Ezekiel portrays Egypt as a monster because Egypt represents the threat of religious assimilation; Egypt, as a monster, embodies the fear of the loss of boundary between Israel and other nations. Jacqueline Lapsley notes, “As he [Ezekiel] describes Egypt’s failing, and Israel’s failings in connection with Egypt’s failings, the line between Israel and Egypt grows fuzzier. … Ezekiel seems to understand Egypt as a kind of double for Israel, a dark ‘other self’ through which Ezekiel explores the underside of Israel’s identity – the part of Israel that troubles Ezekiel’s God.”1 Based on my analysis of Ezekiel’s rhetoric about Egypt aside from his collection of oracles against Egypt, I will show in the following pages that the political alliance between Egypt and Israel at the time of the exile, according to Ezekiel, symbolized chaos in which the religious boundary between Egypt and Israel was transgressed. In other words, I argue that for Ezekiel Egypt’s continued involvement in Judahite political affairs symbolizes moral chaos in the life of Israel.2 Egypt threatens the order of Israel’s relation with YHWH. The tight boundary that defines Israel as YHWH’s people is breached when Judah and Egypt intermingle. The loss of boundary that distinguishes Israel from other nations is associated with chaos. I support my argument by highlighting Ezekiel’s reading of the history of the relationship between Judah and Egypt in which he proclaims that Egypt was the first place in which the Israelites worshiped idols (Ezekiel 20) and that the Israelites and the Egyptians are involved in an adulterous relationship that started prior to the exodus and keeps on reappearing in the history of Israel until the exile (Ezekiel 23). The impurity of idolatry and the metaphor of adultery,3 represent the transgression of boundary between Egypt and Israel. The border that formulates who Israel is, is breached when the Israelites intermingle with the Egyptians by worshiping Egyptian 1

Jacqueline Lapsley, “Ezekiel,” The New Interpreter’s Bible: One Volume Commentary (ed. Beverley Roberts Gaventa and David Petersen; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), 469. 2 I use the word Judah in order to refer to the political body in the southern Levant when I discuss specific historical situations or political alliances. I use the term “Israel,” however, to refer to the corporate identity of the people in their relationship with their God, YHWH. 3 Ezekiel, following other prophets, uses the impurity of adultery in order to speak, metaphorically, of the infidelity of the Israelites in their relationship with YHWH. This infidelity can be cultic (i.e. worshiping other idols) or political (i.e. forming political alliances with other nations). The latter could definitely be interpreted as a form of idolatry since the people are putting their trust in another power other than YHWH. For more on the use of this metaphor see my discussion below.

118

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

idols (20:6–9) and by continuing to show fidelity to Egypt over YHWH symbolized by an illicit sexual relationship. As the prophet reflects on the life of the Israelites from the exodus to the exile, he could not set apart Israel from Egypt. Because Egypt is associated with idolatry and figures prominently in the prophet’s use of the adultery metaphor, denoting boundary transgression and a state of religious and social chaos, such a threat can be embodied by a monster of chaos, then the Chaoskampf becomes handy for the prophet’s rhetoric concerning Egypt. Egypt is the monster that embodies the threat of religious chaos in the life of Israel. I will show later in the chapter that this chaos is both primordial and resurgent. Prior to dealing with the texts of Ezekiel 20 and 23, which discuss the relation between Israel and Egypt through the lens of idolatry and adultery, I would like to briefly highlight literary evidence beyond these two chapters through which one can detect a special relationship between Israel and Egypt. This literary evidence is the stock of “shared language” found in the book of Ezekiel that speaks of both Egypt and Israel. A shared identity and a special relationship between Egypt and Israel are established in the book by using similar terminology to describe them. I use expression “shared identity” in order to underline the many shared features, characteristics and similarities between Israel and Egypt as they are unveiled and constructed the text of Ezekiel. It points to the loss of boundary between the two; and it highlights the sense of chaos and confusion, as it gets difficult to set the two apart. However, after all the two were not identical in the text. Differences remained in many ways. And off course that was part of the divine program of restoring Israel, is to set it apart from the other surrounding nations including Egypt. (1) Both are associated with the word (Nwmh) “turmoil, roar, wealth, multitude” in 5:7; 7:11, 12, 13, 14 with regard to Israel; and in 29:19; 30:4, 10, 15; 31:2, 18; 32:12, 16, 18, 20, 31, 32, with regard to Egypt. (2) YHWH will “scatter” (hrz pi‘el) the Israelites in 12:15; 20:23; 22:15; 36:19 (niph‘al), and will scatter the Egyptians 29:12, 30:23, 26. (3) YHWH will “disperse” (Cwp hiph‘il) the Israelites in 11:16; 12:15; 20:23; 22:15; 36:19; and will disperse the Egyptians in 29:12; 30:23, 26. (4) YHWH will “gather” (Cbq pi‘el) the Israelites in 11:17; 20:34, 41; 28:25. 34:13; 36:24; 37:21; 38:8 (pu‘al); 39:27 from the places where they were dispersed (Cwp niph‘al) in 11:17; 20:34, 41; 28:25; and YHWH will gather the Egyptians from the places where they were dispersed 29:13. The shared language as a literary device amplifies the similarities between Israel and Egypt in terms of their moral chaos and in terms of the judgment that falls upon them. The shared language portrays Egypt as Israel’s double and thus it underlines the common elements of the shared identity between Egypt and Israel.

I. Describing Israel and Egypt with Similar Language

119

I. The Significance of Describing Israel and Egypt with Similar Language in Ezekiel I. Describing Israel and Egypt with Similar Language

Lawrence Boadt has drawn attention to the linguistic connections in the book of Ezekiel between the oracles against the nations in general and against Egypt in particular, on the one hand, and the oracles against Judah, on the other. Boadt writes, “Many unusual vocabulary words or expressions are applied to both [Judah and Egypt], hardly an accidental coincidence since almost all of these are unique to Ezekiel in the Bible.”4 I will follow Boadt’s lead in pointing out some of the key statements that are used of both Israel and Egypt in order to underline the unique relationship between the two. While one can point out shared vocabulary in Ezekiel’s discourse with regard to Israel and the many nations that are condemned in the book, the shared vocabulary between Egypt and Israel is numerous and diverse.5 A. Jerusalem’s Nwmh and Egypt’s Nwmh Sharing in a rebellion against Babylon and by extension against YHWH (Ezek 17:11–21), who employs Babylon as an instrument of judgment against the wicked, Egypt and Judah have both relied on their undependable military power, creating a state of turbulence in the Levant. The fact that both Judah and Egypt share a rebellious identity is underlined by the use of the word Nwmh in order to describe them both. Indeed, the prophet in Ezek 5:7 addresses Jerusalem saying: “Because you are more turbulent (Mknmh) than the nations that are all around you.”6 Although this word usually refers to a “multi4

Lawrence Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74; ed. J. Lust; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986), 182–200, 198. 5 For example the language of cutting off both animals and humans ( hmyhb Md) trk) is used by the prophet in order to proclaim words of judgment against Judah in 14:17, and against Edom in 25:13, and against Egypt in 29:8. The language of turning the land into a desolate (hbrx) is pronounced by the prophet with regard to Judah (5:14; 13:4; 33:24, 27; 36:4, 10, 33), Edom (25:13, 35:4), Tyre (26:20), and Egypt (29:9, 10; 30:12). The recognition formula “so that they/you may know that I am the LORD” (hwhy yn) yk (dy) is used 24 times of Israel/Judah/Jerusalem 5:13; 6:7, 10, 13, 14; 7:9, 27; 11:10, 12; 12:15, 16, 20; 13:23; 14:8; 15:7; 16:62; 17:21; 20:38, 42, 44; 22:16, 22; 24:27; 33:29, 7 times of the nations of Ammon, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon (25:5, 7, 11, 17; 26:6; 28:22, 23, 26), and 7 times of Egypt (29:9, 21; 30:8, 19, 25, 26; 32:15). 6 Some suggest emending the word (Mknmh) into (Mktrmh) “your rebellion” (cf. BHS); this suggestion is probably influenced by the context of the verse in which the word (hrm) “to rebel” appear (cf. Ezek 5:6). This suggestion does not work because it is difficult to perceive how the nations would be described as rebels against YHWH. Moshe Greenberg points that this emendation does not “reckon with the difficulty that the nations cannot be said to have rebelled against a God whom they did not know.” Greenberg, Ezekiel

120

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

tude,” or “wealth,” in Isa 17:12 it is used in correlation with the chaos and uproar of the Sea: “Ah, the roaring (Nwmh) of many peoples, they roar (Nwymhy) like the roaring (twmhk) of the seas! Ah, the roar of nations, they roar like the roaring of mighty waters!” Odell writes with regard to the description of Jerusalem with the word Nwmh: The use of the noun hamon is unusual. Of the some eighty-five occurrences of this noun in the Hebrew Bible, nearly one-third are found in Ezekiel, where it is used primarily in the oracles against Egypt. It can be used either in a quantitative sense to designate great numbers (i.e. multitudes) or to connote pomp or arrogance. The latter sense seems to be tied to chaos traditions, since hamon describes both the raging of the sea, and the tumult of attacking armies.7

Jerusalem has become more chaotic and disordered than the surrounding nations.8 In Ezek 7:11–14 the prophet proclaims divine judgment over the Nwmh of the land of Israel, that is, YHWH proclaims judgment over the wealth and the military power of the nation: 11 Violence grew into a rod of wickedness, no one of them, nothing of their multitude (MDnwømShEm), nothing of their wealth (MRhEmThRm),9 there is no lament among them. 12 The time has come, the day draws near; the buyer shall not rejoice, the seller shall not mourn, for wrath is against all of its wealth (;h`DnwømSh) 13 for the seller shall not return to the sale as long as they are alive, for the vision concerns all of its multitude (;h`DnwømSh); it shall not return. Each, because of their iniquity, shall not sustain their lives. 14 they have blown the trumpet and prepared everything, but no one is marching to battle, for all of my wrath is against all its multitude (;h`DnwømSh)

1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 112. The word (Mknmh) is taken to be a denominative of the word (Nwmh) (BDB 243; HALOT 251). 7 Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Georgia: Smyth & Hellwys Publishing Incorporated, 2005), 69. See also the discussion in Margaret S. Odell, “The City of Hamonah in Ezekiel 39:11–16: The Tumultuous City of Jerusalem,” CBQ 56 (1994): 479–489. Greenberg understands the word to mean “wild,” or “turbulent,” and he argues that the meaning is “that Israel has been wilder than the nations.” Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 112. 8 Jerusalem’s sinfulness is also underlined in Ezekiel 16 by means of a comparison with her immediate neighbors Samaria and Sodom. Both of these two cities seemed righteous when they were compared with the abominations that Jerusalem has committed (Ezek 16:45–63). This chapter is concerned with the Canaanite background of Jerusalem: “Your mother was a Hittite and your father was an Amorite” (Ezek 16:3, 45). 9 This word is obscure, while some take to mean, “lament,” others take it to mean wealth (see BDB 241).

I. Describing Israel and Egypt with Similar Language

121

Similarly, YHWH proclaims judgment over Egypt’s wealth and military power (Ezek 29:19; 30:4, 10, 15; 31:2, 18; 32:12 (twice), 16, 18, 20, 31, 32). The following is an example from the oracles against Egypt: By the swords of the mighty ones I will cause your hordes (ÔK‰nwømSh) to fall, All of them are the ruthless ones of the nations, They shall devastate the splendor of Egypt, All of its multitude (;h`DnwømSh) shall be destroyed (Ezek 32:12).

To be sure the prophet uses the word in order to describe various nations.10 Yet, the word Nwmh is used the most in association with Egypt (13 times) and Israel (5 times). Jerusalem has become more turbulent than the surrounding nations, yet because this notion of turbulence is used the most with Egypt, then it is plausible to assume that Egypt takes a prominent role in this prophetic comparison between Jerusalem and the nations. If it is true that the term is associated with chaos,11 and the word is used the most to describe Egypt, which is portrayed as a monster of chaos in Ezekiel, and Jerusalem is more chaotic than the nations, then this linguistic association underlines a deep significance of the relation between Judah and Egypt. The use of this word to describe both Israel and Egypt underlines the shared state of disorder, turbulence, and confusion that characterize the two. B. Scattering and Gathering Israel and Egypt When it comes to YHWH’s judgment, the prophet employs traditional language in order to speak of the condemnation that will befall Judah and Egypt. 10

The word Nwmh “wealth, multitude, turbulence” is used 86 times in the OT. Twentyseven occurrences of that word appear in the book of Ezekiel. Thirteen times the word is attested in Ezekiel’s oracles concerning Egypt (Ezek 29:19; 30:4, 10, 15; 31:2, 18; 32:12 (twice), 16, 18, 20, 31, 32) and five times it appears in his oracles against Jerusalem and land of Israel (Ezek 5:7; 7:11, 12, 13, 14). Three times this word is used to speak of Elam (Ezek 32:24, 25) and Meshech-Tubal (32:26). Four times the word is used to describe Gog of Magog (Ezek 39:11 (twice), 15, 16). One time the word is used in association with Tyre (Ezek 26:13) and another time with multitude of people who surround the two women of Ezekiel 23 (Ezek 23:42). 11 In his study of the word (Nwmh) Daniel Bodi lays out the various connotations of the word as used in the Old Testament and also it meaning in the light of some Akkadian cognates (ḫubūru/rigmu). For Bodi, the word in the book of Ezekiel is used metaphorically with the sense of “noise/din.” I agree with Bodi that the word in Ezekiel has connotations beyond just wealth and multitude. Yet I also would like to maintain the literal sense as well as the metaphorical sense; one cannot get noise and roaring without the multitude and the quantitative aspect of the word. Based on Psalm 65:8 and Isa 17:12 where the word is associated with the roaring of the Sea, I also think that a notion of chaos is present in this metaphorical layer of the meaning of the word. See: Daniel Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1991), 117–161.

122

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

The image of the exile is expressed by the root hrz (pi‘el) “to scatter”12 and the verb Cwp (hiphil and niphal) “to disperse.”13 In Ezekiel 22:15, for example, the prophet proclaims: “I will scatter (yItwøxyIpSh) you among the nations and disperse you (JKyItyîr´z) through the countries, and I will purge your filthiness out of you.” Interestingly, three times (29:12, and 30:23, 26) the prophet assigns the same fate and judgment to the Egyptians. YHWH declares: “I will make the land of Egypt a desolation among desolated countries; and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter (ytcphw) the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse (Mytyrzw) them among the countries” (Ezek 29:12). This language of scattering among the nations is used only of Judah and Egypt, not of any of the other foreign nations that are listed in the collection of the oracles against the foreign nations (Ezekiel 25–29). Similarly, the language of “gathering them” (Cbq pi‘el) from the land in which they were dispersed (Cwp niphal) is used of Judah and Egypt (cf. Ezek 29:13 and 20:34; 28:25). 14 A further striking similarity between the exile of Egypt and the exile of Judah involves the length of the exile of both nations. Both will be exiled for forty years (Ezek 4:6; 29:13).15 The language of exile and gathering from exile seems appropriate for Judah, which experienced such a disaster. As for Egypt, however, the use of such language is puzzling.16 Why does the prophet use the language of exile in order to speak of Egypt? In order to answer this question Zimmerli suggests, “In the categories ‘devastation of the land’ and ‘dispersal among the nations’ one can easily recognize the categories of those who have been deported into exile. It is only in these categories that they are able to conceive of judgment on Egypt.” I think there is more to the use of the language of the exile with regard to Egypt. God’s purposes in exiling the Israelites from their land have already been stated clearly in 22:15: “I will scatter you among the nations and disperse you through the countries, and I will purge your filthiness out of you.” Israel’s exile among the nations, for Ezekiel, is a means of 12

The verb hrz (Piel) is used 13 times in Ezekiel out of 39 occurrences for the root in the OT. In Ezekiel’s oracles of judgment this verb is used to describe YHWH’s judgment only with regard to Israel and Egypt. 13 These two verbs are the ones that are used the most in order to speak of the divine judgment over the house of Judah (and Egypt). Only three times does the prophet Ezekiel use the verb hlg “to exile” in order to speak of the deportation of the Judahites as a punishment for their sins (Ezek 12:3; 39:23, 28). I take these verbs to denote exile. 14 Ironically in Ezek 16:53 the language of “restoring the fortunes” (NRhVtyIbVv_tRa yI;tVbAv◊w) is used of Sodom, Samaria and Jerusalem. However the use of the verb Cbq (Piel) is used only with regard to Egypt and Judah. 15 Walther Zimmerli also notes these similarities in his treatment of the first oracle against Egypt. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (trans. James Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 114. 16 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 114.

I. Describing Israel and Egypt with Similar Language

123

purification. As I hope to demonstrate, it is probable that Egypt will be similarly exiled, precisely because the prophet perceives Egypt as the nation perpetuating religious chaos in the life of Israel (see my discussion below on Egypt’s negative influence on the religious life of Israel). Because Egypt and Israel share a common identity of impurity, both of them will be sent into exile, scattered among the nations. The shared language reflects Ezekiel’s perception of profound affinities between Egypt and Israel. C. “A Mighty Hand and Outstretched Arm” There is yet another striking example of shared language. Here I am specifically referring to a phrase traditionally associated with Egypt, but which in Ezekiel is used to describe Israel.17 In Deut 5:15 Moses reminds the Israelites that they were slaves in Egypt and that YHWH led them out of there with “a mighty hand and outstretched arm” (hyw+n (rzbw hqzx dyb; cf. Deut 4:34; 26:8; Ps 136:12). In the exodus from Egypt YHWH used his strong hand and 17

This is one example of the many themes, which the book of Ezekiel shares with the “Pentateuchal traditions.” In the book of Exodus Pharaoh’s heart is hardened in (bl h#$q; Exod 7:3, traditionally assigned to the Priestly tradition), in Ezekiel 3:7, however, the expression is used in order to describe the Israelites. For a recent and a detailed study of Ezekiel’s relation with the Torah, see Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSupp 358; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), esp. 72, 76–77, 87. See also S. Kreuzer, “Die Verwendung der Mächtigkeitsformel ausserhalb des Deuteronomiums: Literarische und Theologische Linien zu Jer, Ez, dtrG und P,” ZAW 109 (1997): 369–384. Furthermore, some of the shared language and themes between the book of Ezekiel and the Holiness Code gets to be used in the book of Ezekiel in order to describe the judgment that falls upon both Israel and some of the surrounding nations chief among whom is Egypt. Lyon notes that, “I can find no evidence that Ezekiel is purposefully employing H locutions in Ezek 25:1–7 (Ammon), 25:8–11 (Moab), 25:15–17 (Philistia), or 26:1–28:19 (Tyre). They are only used in the oracles against Edom (25:13 and 35:3–15), Sidon (28:23), and Egypt (chs. 29, 30, 32).” Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHB/OTS 507; New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 121. Lyons provides a list of the locutions from the Holiness Code that appear in the oracles against the nations in Ezekiel. 10 passages from Ezekiel’s oracles against Egypt contain locutions from the Holiness Code. Only 3 occasions of the Holiness Code language appear in oracles against Edom and Sidon. Thus when it comes to the parallelism between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code Egypt figures prominently. And some of these occasions, that is, where Ezekiel and the Holiness Code are using the same locution, describe both Egypt and Israel (cf. “I will bring a sword against” l( brx yt)bh [Lev 26:25; Ezek 5:17 of Judah; Ezek 29:8 of Egypt]; “scattering” hrz [Lev26:33; Ezek 6:8 of Judah; 29:12 of Egypt]). Lyons points out the use of the expression “breaking the bars” t+m rb#$ in the book of Ezekiel and the Holiness Code. In Lev 26:13 YHWH speaks of breaking the bars of the yoke of slavery on behalf of the Israelites. The expression appears in Ezek 30:18 where YHWH will break the bars of Egypt as an act of judgment upon Egypt, while in Ezek 34:27 YHWH will break the bars of the yoke of the Israelites, an act of salvation from those who have enslaved them (ibid., 121).

124

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

his outstretched arm against the oppressive Egyptians (Deut 4:34; 5:15). In Ezekiel, however, this traditional formula is used in order to speak of YHWH’s judgment against Israel. In Ezek 20:33–34, which recounts the new exodus, Israel becomes like Egypt, if not even worse. Israel will fall under the power of YHWH’s strong arm, his outstretched hand, and under his poured wrath. “As I live, says the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out (hkwp#$ hmhbw hyw+n (wrzbw 18 hqzx dyb), I will be king over you” (Ezek 20:33). The prophet employs traditional language, which was originally used in Deuteronomy to describe YHWH’s mighty hand against Egypt at the first exodus in order to describe YHWH’s dealing with the Israelites at the new exodus. Greenberg writes: We conclude that Ezekiel characteristically utilizes a traditional phrase with a shocking twist: in the new Exodus the ferocity that tradition asserted was unleashed upon Egypt in the old one will be turned against rebellious Israel in order to force it finally to accept what it never had before – God’s kingship over it in the land he chose for it. 19

Ezek 20:33, as clarified by Greenberg’s comment, is critical for understanding how the prophet evaluates Egypt’s and Israel’s relationship with each other throughout the history of the nation of Israel. The thrust of the shared language underscores the unique relation between Israel and Egypt. Thus, the prophet rhetorically equates Egypt and Israel when he employs similar language to describe the new exodus. Shared language brings to the fore some shared elements of identity between Egypt and Israel. D. Summary These are just a few examples 20 of how Ezekiel uses similar language in order to describe Egypt and Israel. These examples insist that there is a deeper level of relationship between Israel and Egypt scattered throughout the oracles of 18

Eichrodt observes that Ezekiel is using traditional language that is usually associated with the first exodus from Egypt, a formula to which Ezekiel adds one of his unique phrases, namely, “outpoured wrath” (hkwp#$ hmh). Then Eichrodt writes concerning the use of the phrase “mighty hand and outstretched arm”: “in a prophetic and paradoxical manner, [Ezekiel] transforms the boastful cultic invocation of God into a threat by God to come not to show his power to save but to chastise as a wrathful judge”; Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970), 279. 19 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 372. 20 Pharaoh and the king of Judah share further similarities in Ezekiel’s rhetoric. Both kings are likened to young lions. Both kings are likened to young lions (Ezek 19:3–5; 32:2). Both have helpers (12:14; 30:8; 32:21). In 12:13 and 32:3 YHWH uses the net (yI;tVvîr_tRa yI;tVcårDp) to capture the king of Judah and Pharaoh the monster, respectively (cf. 19:8). Hooks (My$IjAj) are used as well in capturing both kings in 19:9 and 29:3 respectively.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

125

Ezekiel. Language embodies the chaotic state of Judah and its double, Egypt, and also fleshes out the judgment that befalls both of them. Further, the shared language sets the stage as we now turn to further aspects of the shared identity of Egypt and Israel as found in Ezekiel 20 and 23. By recounting the history of Israel from exodus to exile, the prophet Ezekiel takes the nation on a journey of self-understanding. The prophet seeks to uncover the roots of Israel’s unfaithfulness in its relationship with YHWH manifest in idolatry and also articulated as an adultery metaphor. This journey starts and ends with encounters with Egypt. Israel’s rebellion against YHWH evident in its idolatrous practices and metaphorized as adultery started in Egypt, argues Ezekiel, and these acts of idolatry and “adultery” manifest the darker side that Israel shares with its double, Egypt.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in the Revisionist Histories of Ezekiel 20 and 23 II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

A. Idolatry and Adultery as Impurities: Transgression of Boundaries Like many disasters, the exile has become a time of reflection; the prophet Ezekiel reflects upon the rebellious behaviors of Israel that led to such a crisis. As we will see, the prophet claims that Israel has been rebellious throughout its history, that is, from the period prior to the exodus from Egypt up to the time of the exile. For Ezekiel, the political alliance between Egypt and Judah in place at the time of the exile is part of this history of rebellion; therefore, the prophet’s discourse concerning this political alliance takes a different level of significance in Ezekiel’s revisionist histories (chapters 20 and 23).21 The political alliance is perceived not just as a relation between two nations involving only military or political decisions; rather, Ezekiel, like other prophets that preceded him, draws connections between the political alliance and the abominable behavior of idolatry, which is underlined by the use of the metaphor of adultery. For the prophet Ezekiel being caught up in a political alliance is like committing idolatry. It is necessary to situate Ezekiel’s condemnation of the Israelites’ idolatrous and adulterous (used metaphorically) behaviors in the priestly discourse on impurity and its consequences. Sexual transgressions (including incest Lev 21

I use this “revisionist histories” terminology in order to underline Ezekiel’s creativity in reinterpreting the history of the people of Israel in both of these two chapters (20 and 23). Prominent among these revisions is Ezekiel’s omission of oppression of the Israelites in Egypt and his omission of the parting/crossing of the Sea of Reeds. What is intriguing about Ezekiel’s revisionist histories is his claim that the Israelites – prior to the exodus – worshiped Egyptian idols and committed adultery with the Egyptians, the latter being a metaphor for this infidelity.

126

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

18:6–18, adultery v. 20, homosexuality v. 22, and bestiality v. 23) and idolatrous abominations (Lev 18:21; 20:2–6; non-P, Isa 30:22; Ezek 7:19–21) are listed among the so-called “prohibited impurities.”22 D. P. Wright notes, “the locus of the uncleanness may be the person, but prescriptions talk more of the pollution of the sanctuary or land.”23 Sexual transgressions pollute the land Lev 18:20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30. Worshipers of idols are polluted (Jer 2:23; Ezek 20:7, 18, 26, 31; 22:3–4; 23:7, 13–14, 17, 30; 36:25, 29, 33; 37:23; Ps 106:36–40); idolatry pollutes the sanctuary (Jer 7:30; Ezek 5:11; 23:37–39) and defiles the land (Jer 2:7–9; Ezek 36:17–18). People who defile the land will be expelled from it (Lev 18:25, 28); they will be “cut off” (18:29).24 Underlying the Priestly notion of pollution/impurity is the priestly interest in borders and boundaries between the holy/clean and common/unclean:

rwáøhDÚfAh Ny¶Eb…w a™EmDÚfAh Ny¶Eb…w lóOjAh Ny∞Eb…w v®dëO;qAh Ny¶E;b ly$î;dVbAhSlá…w

“To distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and clean” (Lev. 10:10).

On the notion of pollution Mary Douglas writes, Pollution is a type of danger which is not likely to occur except where the lines of structure, cosmic or social, are clearly defined. A polluting person is always in the wrong.25 He has developed some wrong condition or simply crossed some line which should not have been crossed and this displacement unleashes danger for someone.26

According to this worldview pollution/impurity takes place when this distinction or separation fails to take place, i.e. when boundaries that separate the holy and the common, the clean and the unclean are transgressed. Being a member of a priestly family, the prophet Ezekiel is naturally concerned with the aforementioned boundaries. Indeed, Ezek 22:26 states explicitly that it 22

D. P. Wright, “Unclean and Clean (OT),” ABD 4.730. In a more recent article, Wright replaces the term “permitted” with “tolerated”; Wright, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. Gary Anderson and Saul Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 150–81. 23 Ibid., 730. 24 Ibid., 734. See also Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David N. Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. P. O’Conner; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 399–414. 25 The statement “a polluting person is always in the wrong” does not mean that Douglas identifies pollution with sin. For more details on the issue of relationship between impurity and sin see Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 3–42; he cites this statement on page 9. 26 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger, 140. It is important to note that Douglas’s analyses are established in terms of crossing the boundaries within the same culture. Yet, she also pays attention not only to internal lines, but also to external lines. The latter is the lines and the boundaries that I am interested in here, that is, how the lines and the boundaries are crossed in inter-relation between Judah and Egypt on both levels politically and religiously.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

127

was the responsibility of the priests to separate between the holy and the profane and to teach the difference between the unclean and the clean (cf. Ezek 44:23). The boundary between these twofold dichotomies is what constitutes order for the priestly mindset.27 The holy and the clean should always be distinguished from the profane and the polluted.28 The notion of transgressing boundaries is suitable to explain the impurity that results from idolatry. By worshiping other peoples’ gods (a form of idolatry) the Israelites lose the most unique aspect about their religion and their identity, that is, their relationship to YHWH (cf. Deut 32:8–9).29 Idolatry is a

27

Richard Nelson, Raising up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminister/John Knox Press, 1993), 17–38. 28 The relation between the pairs holy/profane and clean/unclean is debated among scholars. One of the ways scholars understood the relation between these pairs to be is through the lens of equation. Thus this perspective would equate the holy with the clean and the profane with the unclean (cf. William Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions [London: Black, 1894]; Philip J Budd, “Holiness and Cult,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives [ed. Ronald E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989], 275– 298). The more recent trends in scholarly discourse on the relation between these two pairs have moved into a more complex relation between what is holy, and what is clean and what is unclean in relation to what is profane. The following studies provide different ways through which scholars have tried to make sense of this complex relation between the aforementioned pairs: James Barr, “Semantics and Biblical Theology – A Contribution to the Discussion,” in Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971 (ed. G. W. Anderson et al.; VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 11–19; Jacob Milgrom, “Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of Impurity,” Semeia 45 (1989): 103–109; P. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). At the end of his summary of the different perspectives Ka Leung Wong writes, “The point is that the two pairs holy/profane and clean/unclean are neither totally overlapping nor totally separated.” Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 87; Leiden, Brill, 2001), 124. 29 Deut 32:8–9 speaks of the people of Israel as the inheritance of YHWH. “The poem of Deuteronomy 32 begins by recounting how Israel became associated with Yahweh. Verses 8–9 first specify how (El) Elyon divided the world into nations as the inherited portion for the various gods. Then the passage says how Jacob (i.e. Israel) became Yahweh’s allotment.” Mark Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 139. The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls of Deut 32:8–9 differ from the MT. While in the former the divine allotment took place based on the number of the “sons of God,” in the latter it was made according to the number of the “sons of Israel.” For a discussion of the textual witnesses of this text, see Julie A. Duncan, in Qumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Urlich and F. M. Cross; DJD XIV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 90. For a discussion of the passage see Konrad Schmid, “Gibt es ‘Reste hebräischen Heidentums’ im Alten Testament? Methodische Überlegungen anhand von Dtn 32:8f und Ps 82,” in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des alten Testaments (ed. Andreas Wagner;

128

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

sign that Israel has become like the other nations, and the religious boundary between Israel and these nations blurs.30 Worshiping YHWH functions as a line that differentiates Israel from the other nations. When the Israelites worship other gods, they cross the line, pollution takes place and religious chaos happens. The perspective of separating the Israelites from the surrounding nations, according to the priestly mindset, reaches the realm of sexual practices. In Leviticus 18:3 YHWH urges the Israelites not to act sexually like the Egyptians31 or the Canaanites.32 Instead, they are exhorted to follow the statutes of YHWH and his ordinances. This is followed by a list of commandments and sanctions against adultery and other illicit sexual behaviors.33 Leviticus tries to separate the Israelites from both the Egyptians and the Canaanites. Sexual behavior reflects and maintains the boundaries between Israel and the surrounding nations. The identity of the Israelites can be constructed by being distinguished from both the Egyptians and the Canaanites. If the Holiness Code does not endorse acting sexually like the Egyptians, how much worse of an abomination is it to have an illicit sexual relation with the Egyptians? Israel’s transgression and defilement occur not only through the act of adultery itself; they occur through adulterous relations with foreigners, which is used by the prophets as a metaphor for Israel’s infidelity in its relationship BZAW 364; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 105–120; see also the discussion in Smith, God in Translation, 139–143, 195–212. 30 Moses convinces YHWH to go in the midst of the Israelites on their journey through the wilderness, despite the faithlessness of the Israelites who worshiped the golden calf; the point that Moses makes is how else will the Israelites be distinct among the nations (Ex 33:16). Dennis Olson writes, “Moses insists on nothing less than the tabernacle-with-Goddwelling-in-the-midst-of-Israel plan being reinstated in all its original glory. Moses knows that the only thing that makes Israel distinct from every other nation is that God is ‘with us/in our midst’ (33:16). Otherwise, Israel is like Egypt or any other nation.” “Exodus,” in Theological Bible Commentary (ed. Gail O’Day and David Petersen; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 38. 31 Human sexuality occupied the imagination of the biblical authors as one of the many different and important modes of human interaction. Biblical traditions in Genesis 12 and the story of Joseph (Genesis 37) seem to portray that Egyptians – both male and female – were coarse sexual maniacs. To be sure the sister-wife stories appear in Genesis 12, while Abram and Sarai in Egypt, it also appears in Gen 20, while Abraham and Sarah were in Gerar, and finally in Gen 26, while Isaac and Rebecca were residing in Gerar. While Abimelech, king of Gerar gets to be warned against approaching Sarah, when she was in his palace, Pharaoh does not get this warning rather he gets to be punished. 32 Daniel Nussbaum, “The Priestly Explanation of Exile and its Bearing upon the Portrayal of the Canaanites in the Bible” (MA Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1974), pp. 34–89, 90–115, cited in Hilary B. Lipka, Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible (HBM, 7; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2006), 56; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1520. 33 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1519.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

129

with YHWH. The adultery metaphor34 highlights the danger of defilement and it underlines Israel’s vulnerability to impurity. The marriage metaphor is especially suited to depict the defilement of Yahweh’s temple. If the city is a woman, then the temple is her vagina, and the offense of Jerusalem’s granting illicit ‘access’ to foreign men and competing gods becomes plain, both as legal transgression and a personal injury to the husband. … If Yahweh’s temple is, symbolically, a female body, then the temple is always in risk of pollution, either through menstruation or through illicit sexual activity. … Ezekiel therefore depicts Yahweh as ultimately driven to destroy his hopelessly polluted temple.35

The metaphor of adultery delivers Ezekiel’s reasoning for the judgment upon Jerusalem and the temple. Hillary Lipka has demonstrated that adultery is not just mere transgression against the husband or the father. Rather, adultery is a transgression against the deity and the community. When adultery is committed, religious and communal boundaries are transgressed: The conception of sexual transgression against religious boundaries entails the belief that sexual relations with certain people or under certain circumstances poses a threat to the order of the universe. Such a belief is widely attested in biblical literature, where it manifests itself primarily in the characterization of certain sexual acts as transgression against Yahweh.36

Understanding this priestly worldview enables us to appreciate Ezekiel’s emphasis on the impurity of idolatry and its metaphorical articulation as an adultery. When Ezekiel accuses the Israelites of being idolatrous by means of the adultery metaphor, the prophet underlines the transgression that happened to the legal, social and religious boundaries. The Israelites have become common, and unclean; they have also profaned the name of their God, YHWH (Ezek 36:20–22). Ezekiel’s concern for the boundaries between Israel and the nations is particularly emphasized in the following verses, which come from chapter 20 and 23 in which the prophet revisits Israel’s history from their time in Egypt until the time of the exile. Israel’s problem for Ezekiel boils down to their desire to become like the nations, that is, their dismissal of YHWH’s plan for them to be holy, i.e. separate and distinct.

34

See below my discussion on the prophetic appropriation of the impurity of adultery as a metaphor for the unfaithfulness of the people of Israel. 35 Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife (SBLDS 130; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), 87–88. 36 Lipka, Sexual Transgression, 42. In the Decalogue the Israelites are commanded “you shall not commit adultery” (P)nt )l; Exodus 20:14; Deut 5:12). Although this command does not include a threat of divine punishment in the case of breaking it, the divine authority still emphasizes that breaking the commandments of the Decalogue is a violation against YHWH himself.

130

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

And that which has come upon your spirit – in that you uttered: let us be like the nations, like the tribes of the lands, by worshiping wood and stone – will never come to pass (Ezek 20:32). Your lewdness, and your harlotry brought37 all of this upon you, because you have fornicated with the nations, on the account of polluting yourself with their idols (Ezek 23:29bβ– 30).

Although Israel defiled itself with the idols of the nations (20:32) and metaphorically committed adultery with many nations (23:30), Egypt figures prominently in Ezekiel’s condemnation of Israel’s idolatry. In the revisionist histories (chapter 20 and 23), Ezekiel not only connects the impurity of idolatry and its metaphorical expression as an adultery with Egypt’s role in Israel’s life, but he also reveals an anxiety about the relation between Israel and Egypt. Because the Israelites worship the Egyptian idols, the religious boundaries between the two were transgressed. Egypt is a monstrous double that threatens the ordered life of the relation between YHWH and Israel. The established relationship between Israel and its double, Egypt, takes the hearers and the readers of Ezekiel on a voyage towards self-understanding.38 Israel’s relationship with Egypt underlines how Israel has become sinful. The fact that Egypt is Israel’s double and that Egypt is mirrored in the religious and social life of Israel is horrific and is monstrous to the prophet Ezekiel. 37

The MT reads an infinitive. Some manuscripts read w#(. Zimmerli comments on the MT’s vocalization of the word at hand and writes, “a vocalization embarrassment made necessary in consequence of the false verse division.” Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 476. 38 This implication is inspired by literary works that deal with the double or the Doppelgänger. In such literary works the main character encounters his/her double who functions as his/her darker side. Encountering this double enables the protagonist to understand his/her self in a deeper manner. Ezekiel’s rhetoric about the relationship between Israel and Egypt can be illumined by Joseph Conrad’s “The Secret Sharer.” Like Conrad’s captain, who discovers his own identity through his encounter with a man named Leggatt, Israel discovers itself through its encounter with a darker “double.” Through his exploration of the political alliance between Egypt and Judah (begun in Ezekiel 17) Ezekiel takes Israel on a voyage of self-understanding. Egypt functions similarly to Leggatt, the captain’s double in “The Secret Sharer,” in that Egypt helps Israel to look into its darker side. The character of Egypt, as drawn by Ezekiel, helps the prophet to shape his message about who Israel is. For an edition and work on the theme of the double in the Secret Sharer see: Joseph Conrad, The Secret Sharer (ed. Daniel R. Schwarz; Boston: Bedford Books, 1997); C. F. Keppler, The Literature of the Second Self (Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press, 1972), 113; Robert Rogers, A Psychoanalytic Study of the Double in Literature (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970), 44; R. D. Laing, The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness (London: Tavistock Publications, 1960), 69; Daniel Schwarz, “Creating a Second Self: Transference as Narrative Form in ‘The Secret Sharer,’ in Approaches to Teaching Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ and ‘The Secret Sharer’ (ed. Hunt Hawkins and Brian Shaffer; New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002), 83. These sources explain the notion of the double in literature and how many literary works expose the anxieties of the self by means of encountering one’s own double.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

131

B. Worshiping Egyptian Idols as a Marker for Boundary Transgression: Ezekiel 20 For Ezekiel “idolatry is the quintessential cause of the Babylonian exile.”39 When one browses through the book of Ezekiel, one realizes that idolatry plays a central role in the prophet’s oracles of judgment and his program of salvation.40 The question then arises, how far back does the prophet go as he searches the history of Israel in order to figure out the origin of the problem of idolatry? The answer to this question can be found in Ezekiel 20, the socalled “revisionist history.”41 In Ezekiel 20, as we will explore in this section, the prophet claims that idolatry goes far back in the Israelite history, all the way to their time in Egypt prior to the exodus. After revealing himself in Egypt to the Israelites as their god,42 YHWH commanded the Israelites not to defile themselves anymore by worshiping Egyptian idols: “Cast away the detestable things your eyes feast on, every one of you, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the LORD your God” (Ezek 20:7; see also vv. 8–9). The first part of the com39 John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 25. 40 The prophet in chapter 8 establishes the fact that the temple, the center of the religious life of Israel, has been defiled by idols. For the scholarly discussion on how much Ezekiel 8 reflects the historical context of the religious practices of 6th century Judah, see Susan Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1992), 47–51. The pollution of idolatry also spread through the capital city of Jerusalem (Ezek 5), the hill-country (Ezek 6) and the whole land of Israel (Ezek 7). In the salvation oracles YHWH will throw or sprinkle water upon the Israelites in order to purify them from all types of defilement; but YHWH particularly mentions the defilement of worshiping idols (36:25). After that YHWH will give them a new heart (cf. Ezek 14:5; 11:19). Ezekiel 14 shows that the idols estranged (turned aside) the Israelites and their hearts from YHWH. Yet, YHWH invites the people to return away from their idols and their abominations. The Israelites are exhorted to turn their faces toward YHWH. Furthermore, Ezekiel 37:23 emphasizes that the risen Israel will not be defiled any more with idols. They will be a people for YHWH and he will be their god after they have been purified. Indeed, Ezekiel 43:7, 8, 9 proclaims that YHWH will dwell in the midst of the Israelites after their purification from their abominations. In the new world, which Ezekiel imagines, those who worship idols have no place. Ezekiel 44:10, 12 mention those who can be admitted to the sanctuary and who should not enter the sanctuary. Among these are those who worshiped idols and went after them, and ministered before them; and thus became a stumbling block before Israel. 41 Leslie Allen, “The Structuring of Ezekiel’s Revisionist History Lesson (Ezekiel 20:3–31),” CBQ 54 (1992): 448–462; this article offers a survey of different interpretations of this chapter. 42 Although Ezekiel refers to the election as an event that took place in Egypt, the prophet’s reference to “the house of Jacob” (v. 5) shows some awareness on part of Ezekiel of the ancestral traditions. This is crucial as it underlines YHWH special relation with the Israelites, who belong only to YHWH.

132

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

mand is that the Israelites should throw away the loathsome things of their eyes. The “detestable things” are emphatically highlighted by their word order, preceding the verb and the subject in the sentence. 43 The people of YHWH are urged to separate themselves from the transgressions that surround them in Egypt. YHWH commands the Israelites in Egypt to throw away the detestable things of their eyes. The word Cwq#$ stems from the root Cq#$ “feel loathing or abhorrence.”44 The term is used 28 times in the OT, nine of which occur in the book of Ezekiel (5:11; 7:20; 8:10; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23). In various texts in the OT the term is used by itself in order to designate detestable things in the religious sense (cultic, ritual, improper worship and the like – Ezek 20:30). This religious connotation is usually nuanced by adding the words Mylwlg or twb(wt (Ezek 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8; 37:23).45 Kohn notes that “in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History Mycwq#$ / Cwq#$ always refer to idolatry. In P, however, Cwq#$ describes various creatures unfit for human consumption, but it is never used in connection with idolatry.”46 In Deuteronomy 29:13 Moses reminds the people of Israel of their time in the land of Egypt and their journey through the different lands that led them to the borders of the Promised Land. Moses points out

M`RhD;mIo r¶RvSa b™DhÎz◊w PRs¶R;k NRb$RaÎw X∞Eo M¡RhyElU;lˆ…g t™Ea◊w M$RhyEx…wê;qIv_tRa ‹…wa√rI;tÅw You have seen their detestable things and their idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold, that were in their midst.

Similar to Deuteronomy Ezekiel acknowledges the fact that the Israelites have seen “detestable things” and “idols” in the land of Egypt. Unlike Deuteronomy, however, Ezekiel claims that the Israelites worshiped these idols and the detestable things. This leads us to the second part of the command in 20:7 in which YHWH urges the people “do not defile (w)m+t, hithpael) your43 A similar structure is used with the same verb in Ezek 18:31. Ezekiel used the same imperative in that verse, where the verb Kl#$ “to throw” also appears in the Hiphil as one would expect, and precedes the object. In Ezek 18:31, YHWH commands the Israelites to “throw away” their transgressions. Listed among the transgressions of the people in this chapter is the impurity of idol worship (18:6, 15). 44 BDB, 1054–1055; see HALOT, 1646, which mentions some scholars who take the word to be a shafel from the root Cwq. See Christopher North, “The Essence of Idolatry,” in Von Ugarit nach Qumran (BZAW 77; ed. J. Hempel and L. Rost; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1958), 151–160. 45 The word twb(wt is used 42 times in the book of Ezekiel out of 117 occurrences in the Old Testament. Aside from Ezekiel the word is used in a in a big range of contexts (dishonesty Deut 25:16; gender violations Deut 22:5; idolatry Deut 7:25). The use of the word in the book of Ezekiel can sometimes be obscure (Ezek 9:4; 18:24), but in many cases the word is used in order to denounce idolatry (Ezek 18:20; 22:2). See P. Humbert, “Le substantif tô‘ēbâ et le verbe t‘b dans l’Ancien Testament,” ZAW 72 (1960): 217–237. 46 Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul, 90.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

133

selves with the idols of Egypt.” The word Mylwlg “idols” is by far Ezekiel’s favorite word with which to designate idol worship. This term is used 48 times in the OT, 39 of these occurrences are attested in the book of Ezekiel (8 times in chapter 20 alone; vv. 7, 8, 16, 18, 24, 31, 39 [twice]). Ezek 20:7–8 warns the Israelites – prior to the exodus – about being defiled by worshiping the idols of Egypt.47 Although the etymology of the word Mylwlg is ambiguous, Bodi suggests that the semantic field of the root gl/gll includes two meanings: “roundness” and “excrement.” Thus interpreters understand the word to literally mean “dung balls.”48 If this suggestion is true, then Ezekiel’s point is emphatically put forth. These idols are worse than a heap of round stones; they are dung balls that defile ()m+) those who worship them. The Israelites rebelled and refused to obey YHWH, that is, they continued to worship the idols of Egypt. YHWH declares, “But they rebelled against me and did not listen to me; not one of them cast away the detestable things of their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt” (Ezek 20:8). YHWH in his wrath decided to lead them out of Egypt. YHWH did so not because they were oppressed, but because of their shared elements of identity with Egypt that was played out through worshiping the same idols like the Egyptians.49 It was a step in which YHWH tried to set the boundaries and the lines between his people and their double Egypt. According to Ezek 20:8–9, the idols of Egypt did not leave the land of Egypt, but the Israelites, who did not abandon the Egyptian idols, did. Leaving Egypt did not solve the problem. In the wilderness the behavior of the Israelites did not change much from when they were in Egypt. The prophet declares: “their heart went after their idols” (Ezek 20:16). It is important to note here that the idols are not associated with Egypt anymore, but rather with them, that is, the Israelites. This association is ambiguous because the text does not specify whether these idols are the ones the Israelites worshiped in 47 The Mylwlg “dung balls” are usually mentioned in relation to the Israelites (8:10; 18:6, etc.). In 23:30 the idols are associated with the nations in general. Whereas the idols are associated with the Assyrians in 23:7, the idols are associated with the Egyptians in 20:7, 8 and 30:13. 48 Daniel Bodi, “Les gillûlîm chez Ézéchiel et dans l’Ancient Testament, et les différentes partiques cultuelles associées à ce terme,” RB 100 (1993): 481–510. In this way Bodi combines the other two suggestions that were put forth in previous scholarship. W. W. Graf Baudisin understands the word to derive from gll (I), which means “to roll.” In that case the word would be referring to sacred stones. Bodi, “Die alttestamentliche Bezeichunung der Götzen mit gillūlīm,” ZDMG 58 (1904): 395–425. Moshe Greenberg supports this view, Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 132. The other view understands the word to stem from gll (II), which means “to be dirty.” H. D. Preuss, “MyIl…w;lˆ…g, gillûlîm,” TDOT 3.1. See also Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHB/OTS 482; New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 90. See the discussion in Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 33–34. 49 Diana Lipton writes, “Ezekiel, at least, was far more concerned with assimilation, a natural partner with idolatry, than with persecution” (Lipton, Longing for Egypt, 26).

134

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

Egypt (i.e. Egyptian idols) or new idols that the Israelites formed in the wilderness.50 Note that Ezekiel does not mention any reference to the golden calf incident in Exodus 32.51 This ambiguity supports my argument with regard to the loss of the boundary between Israel and Egypt; one cannot even tell which idols are being worshiped in the wilderness. In other words, the idols are transferred from being associated with Egypt to being associated with Israel. Israel worshiped the idols of Egypt; they share the same idols. Assimilation has taken place between Israel and Egypt. They share a double identity.52 In Ezekiel, Egypt’s abominable polytheistic religion is mirrored in the Israelite religious practices to the point that those idols that the Israelites refused to abandon in Egypt come to be identified with the Israelites after their departure from Egypt. This can be evident when we look at the next warning against idol worship proclaimed to the new generation. “You shall not follow the statutes of your ancestors and their ordinances you shall not keep, and by their idols (MRhyEl…w;lˆgVb…w) you shall not defile yourselves” (Ezek 20:18). This is a warning to the new generation of the Israelites against worshiping the idols of their ancestors (Ezek 20:24). Again, the symptoms of the rebellion of the Israelites, which started in Egypt, resurfaced in the land. Although Egypt geographically was at a far distance, the chaos that it stands for in Israel’s religious life, the threat of assimilation represented by idolatry, did not abate. In Ezekiel’s vision of the abominations of the temple in chapter 8 the prophet saw images of “all kinds of creeping things, and loathsome animals” (X®qRv hDmEhVb…w cRm®r tyˆnVbA;t_lDk) (8:10).53 While YHWH names these images as 50 It is interesting to note that Ezek 8:10 and 18:6, 15 speak of “the idols of the house of Israel.” The first time this phrase is attested is in the context of the temple vision. The other two occurrences appear in the context in which Ezekiel defines the righteous and the wicked. One criterion used to define the righteous is that this person would not worship “the idols of the house of Israel.” 51 Cristiano Grottanelli treats the episode of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 as a mythical episode in which the prophet Moses smashes a (calf) monster, in a way that is similar to Anat’s destruction of Mot. Grottanelli uses psalm 68:30–31, where there is a plea to YHWH to “rebuke” the “calves of the peoples followed by a reference to Egypt bringing tribute to YHWH. “The implication is that, since Yahweh is king, and the ‘foreign’ kings are also false gods, fighting against those kings (e.g. against Pharaoh) is in itself a religious act, a way of establishing the correct order and a precise equivalent to the mythical cosmic battle against the monster.” Grottanelli, “The Enemy King is a Monster: A Biblical Equation,” in Kings and Prophets: Monarchic power, Inspired Leadership, and Sacred Texts in Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 47–72, esp. 50. 52 The identity of the Israelites was in question since they disobeyed YHWH and refused to cast the idols of Egypt away. Odell (Ezekiel, 250) writes, “The Israelites rebel against this divine command, and their failure to give up the idols signifies rejection of their holy identity as the people of Yahweh.” 53 The OG omits the phrase “every image of moving things and beasts” (hDmEhVb…w cRm®r tyˆnVbA;t_lDk). Ackerman believes that this gloss is a misunderstanding on behalf of the MT

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

135

“the idols of Israel,” it is possible that the images that are referred to in Ezekiel 8:10 have some association with Egyptian iconography. Albright compares the relief of the unclean animals with those that appear in the Egyptian Book of the Dead: “The depiction given by Ezekiel points to a syncretistic cult of Egyptian origin, … only in this way can an archaeologist explain the reptiles (“creeping things”) and unclean animals. One has only to examine any illustrated manuscript of the Book of the Dead from the Bubastite or Saite period (first half of the last millennium B.C.) to see how often serpents, crocodiles, beetles, baboons, lions, etc. figure in it.” 54 Note also that the commandment in Deuteronomy (“the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground [cEmOr_lD;k tyˆnVbA;t], the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth” [Deut 4:18]) is immediately followed with a reference to Egypt as the place in which idols are being formed: “But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his

and the addition of this phrase in the Hebrew is due to an influence from another tradition that is found in Deut 4:18. She argues that the word šeqeṣ refers to a banquet, since it is used in various places in the OT in order to prohibit eating unclean animals (Lev 11:10, 11, 12). She compares this banquet to the phenomenon of marzēaḥ (Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, 70–79). Even if the MT reflects a misunderstanding, I still believe that Ezekiel is not denoting a marzēaḥ. The marzēaḥ in Amos 6:4–7 and Jer 19:5–9 is not condemned on a religious basis. For a discussion on the marzēaḥ in the prophetic literature see John L. McLaughlin, The Marzēaḥ in the Prophetic Literature: References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence (VTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 196–204. Andrew Mein, writes, “to introduce the notion of a marzeaḥ feast only adds unnecessary complication to a scene that is difficult to understand as it is, and distracts attention from the main crime.” Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 126. These objects are detestable idols of abhorrent creatures. Further, Ezekiel uses the word šeqeṣ in relation to idols on various occasions (see, e.g., Ezek 20:7–8; which is used in a context about Egyptian idols). 54 William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel: The Ayer Lectures of the Colgate-Rochester Divinity School 1941 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1942), 166–167; Zimmerli also suggests an Egyptian influence, that is, Egyptian zoomorphic deities (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 240–241). Blenkinsopp argues that “this scene is reminiscent of Egyptian burial chambers, the walls of which were covered with brilliantly painted images of deities in animal form, including Anubis, the jackal-headed god who weighed the souls of the dead. Egyptian influence was pervasive in Judah from the death of Josiah, beginning with the first four years of his successor Jehoiakim, who ruled as an Egyptian puppet.” (Ezekiel, 55). Eichrodt takes this to be a reference to an Egyptian influence. For a different perspective see Margaret Odell, “Creeping Things and Singing Stones: Iconography of Ezek 8:7–13 in Light of Syro-Palestinian Seals and The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean (ed. Martti Nissinen and Charles E. Carter; FRLANT 223; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 195–210. In Odell’s perspective “the elders’ abomination is not that they engage in idolatry but that they have relinquished their right to come before God and have handed it over to the intermediaries.”

136

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

very own possession, as you are now.” Whether in Ezekiel55 or in Deuteronomy, Egypt (and its idols) embodied the threat of assimilation to the relation between Israel and YHWH as its sole God. In summary, the prophet establishes Egypt’s relation with Israel as its double by proclaiming that both worshiped the same idols in Egypt. Worshiping Egyptian idols is not the only sign of the fuzziness of the boundaries between Egypt and Israel. There is yet another avenue that the prophet took in order to highlight the relation between Israel and Egypt, namely, the adultery metaphor. C. The Adultery Metaphor: Nudity as a Shared Element of Identity Between Egypt and Israel 1. Adultery as a Metaphor The prophet Ezekiel uses the metaphor of a city-wife in order to speak of the infidelity of Jerusalem (and Samaria) in its relationship with YHWH (Ezekiel 16, 23). The prophet does not use a metaphor foreign to his ancient Near Eastern context or to his Israelite traditions. Instead, the prophet has used a metaphor that is well at home in his ethnic and religious context. Various ancient Near Eastern texts speak of capital cities as female consorts of the cities’ respective patron deities.56 Yet unlike the ancient Near Eastern texts, which divinize the capital cities, the OT writers view the capital city as a mere human institution. Nonetheless, the biblical traditions still speak of the capital city, metaphorically, as a wife of YHWH. This wife commits “adul-

55

It is important to note that the relationship between Judeans and Egyptians flourished during the time of Psammetichus I, who “stationed garrisons at all important border points: Eliphantine in the south, Daphnae in the northeast, and various places on the western frontier. These garrisons were manned by soldiers of many nationalities, such as Libyans, Semites (including Jews) from Asia, and Greeks”; Karol Mysliwiec, The Twilight of Ancient Egypt: First Millennium B.C.E. (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000), 117. On Ezekiel’s knowledge of Egyptian beliefs see Shmuel Ahituv, “Ezekiel and Egypt,” in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from The Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʻal (ed. Mordechai Cogan and Danʼel Kahn; Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2008), 21–25. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger offer valuable discussion of iconographic evidence of an Egyptian religious influence during Iron Age IIB and Iron Age IIC; see Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Godesses, and Images of God: In Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas Trapp; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1998), 265–276, 350–353. 56 See M. Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification, and Personification of Cities in the ANE,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (ed. W. W. Hallo, et al.; Scripture in Context 4; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 173–194.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

137

tery,” insofar as Israel’s cultic or political infidelity towards YHWH is portrayed metaphorically as adultery.57 The biblical use of the adultery metaphor is best understood in the light of the covenantal relation between YHWH and his people Israel. In its sociopolitical sense, the covenant is a treaty between YHWH, the suzerain, and Israel, the vassal (Hos 8:1; Exod 24:7–8; Deut 29:1; Josh 24:19–28). The vassal swears exclusive loyalty to its suzerain. The suzerain YHWH provides protection and blessings to Israel, the vassal, who is obliged to be loyal and to worship YHWH alone. Actions such as worshiping other gods or allying with other political powers are considered a rebellion by the vassal, Israel, against its suzerain, YHWH. This rebellion brings the curses of the treaty upon the head of the disloyal vassal. The OT uses the sexual behavior of adultery in order to speak of the infidelity of Israel towards YHWH.58 Hosea 1 and 2 use the image of an adulterous woman in order to represent the political and the cultic unfaithfulness of both the inhabitants of the land and the capital city of Samaria. 59 Jeremiah often depicts Jerusalem as YHWH’s wife (Jer 2:2). Like Hosea, Jeremiah highlights a honeymoon period in the relation between YHWH and Israel: the period of the wilderness is depicted positively (2:16–17; Eng. vv. 14–15). However, Ezekiel – as I will explain in the following section – argues that Jerusalem and Samaria were adulterous from the beginning. Jeremiah 2:16–25 affirms that the wife has abandoned her husband; Jerusalem has turned into a prostitute. Indeed, she 57

For differences between the ancient Near Eastern and OT portrayal of the capital city, see Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 25–27. 58 Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 offer examples of these lists of blessings that follow obedience and curses that follow disloyalty. See D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964). C. T. Begg, “Berit in Ezekiel,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 77–83; P. Kalluveetil, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1982); D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: A Survery of Current Opinons (Oxford/Richmond: Basil Blackwell/John Knox, 1972); E. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986); M. Weinfeld, “berith,” TDOT I, 253–79. 59 Brad Kelle, Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), esp. 103. Scholarly work on the adultery metaphor includes Nelly Stienstra, YHWH is the Husband of His People: Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1993); Raymond C. Ortlund, Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (New Studies in Biblical Theology 2; Leicester, England: Apollos, 1996); Phyllis A. Bird, Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997) 197–247; Gerlinde Baumann, Love and Violence: Marriage as Metaphor for the Relationship between YHWH and Israel in Prophetic Books (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004). Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

138

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

loved and followed strangers (Jer 2:25). Egypt and Assyria, the implied lovers, will bring shame upon her (Jer 2:36).60 2. Nude Bodies as a Shared Element of Identity Between Israel and Egypt In Ezekiel 23, the prophet portrays Jerusalem61 and Samaria as adulterous women who defiled themselves by illicit sexual relations with the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians. This chapter has been interpreted with reference to the political history of both Samaria and Jerusalem, namely, their political interaction with Assyria, Egypt and Babylon.62 However, trying to 60 On the use of the Hebrew verb bh) “to love” in a political sense similar to its Near Eastern cognates, see: W. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87; and J. Thomson, “Israel’s ‘Lover’,” VT 27 (1977): 475–81; Susan Ackerman, “The Personal Is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’āhēb, ’hăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 52 (2002): 437–58. Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–369. For further explanation on this issue, see Kelle, Hosea 2, 114–118. 61 The prophet has already portrayed Jerusalem as an adulterous woman in chapter 16. Although Ezeki 16:24–25 emphasize the fact that the adulterous woman fornicated with everyone, 16:16, 28, 29 single out the lust that this woman had toward the Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Chaldeans, in that order, as a metaphorical way of talking about the trust that the Israelites has put in these foreign powers to protect them. Ezek 16:26 talks – in a very brief manner – about Israel’s adulterous relation with the Assyrians, Chaldeans and the Egyptians. Ezekiel 23 develops this metaphor, focusing on some distinctive features. It seems that while Ezekiel 16 deals with YHWH and Jerusalem, Ezekiel 23 focuses on a description of Samaria’s and Jerusalem’s partners of adultery. The difference between the two accounts lies in Ezekiel’s focus on YHWH and what YHWH does for Israel versus what those sexual partners do for the nation. It has been suggested that Ezekiel 16 differs from Ezekiel 23 in the way these two chapters use the metaphor of adultery. Whereas the former is thought to focus on cultic motifs, the latter is thought to have a political emphasis. It is difficult to create such a dichotomy between religious/cultic and political spheres. Even though the emphasis in Ezekiel 16 is on cultic aspects of the adulterous relation, one still finds support for a political relation. The same is true about chapter 23. Although Ezekiel focuses on military and hence political relations, he still uses cultic and religious terminologies ()m+ Mylwglg , 23:7,37). “Ezekiel 16:22–34 also explicitly uses hnz to describe the city Jerusalem’s improper political relationships with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon: “You (f.sg.) fornicated (ynztw) with the Assyrians in your insatiable lust; you fornicated (Mynztw) but you were not satisfied” (16:28; see also 16:22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34). In the first part of this chapter, there are uses of hnz as a religious metaphor (see 16:15–17, 20). In these instances, the language is explicitly religious (e.g. “shrines,” “sacrifice”) and, even in verse 17, provides the object of worship (“male images”). In 16:22–34, however, not only is there a focus on a personified capital city (Jerusalem), but there are also no objects of worship given and other political entities are named.” Kelle, Hosea 2, 103. 62 This chapter has been interpreted with reference to the political history of both Samaria and Jerusalem, namely, their political interaction with Assyria, Egypt and Babylon. For the episodes of the history of Samaria scholars were able to identify points in her history of political alliances with Ezekiel’s metaphorical representation. Samaria had a politi-

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

139

make every single detail in the metaphor correspond with historical events makes the story lose part of its power.63 Indeed, Ezekiel is probably not concerned with detailed historical information as much as he is concerned with the meaning of the past in relation to the present. He ascribes, for example, the division between Samaria and Jerusalem to a pre-exodus time. Both sisters – Jerusalem and Samaria – have a long history of adultery that goes back to their time in Egypt. Ezekiel shows that the boundaries between Egypt and Israel disappear, exactly as happens in sexual intercourse between a man and a woman: they become one body (see Gen 2:24). By employing the impurity of adultery as a metaphor for speaking of the political relation between the two sisters and the Egyptians the prophet underlines the transgression of boundaries that took place between the people of YHWH and the Egyptians.64 cal alliance with Assyria in 842–841. On the relationship between Assyrian imperialism and religious practices, see M. Coogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B. C. E. (SBLMS 19; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1974), 44–49; M. Tsevat, “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel,” JBL 78 (1959): 199–204. However, almost a century later during the reign of Hoshea, Samaria rebelled, along with Egypt, against Assyria (2 Kgs 17:3–4). The history of Samaria came to an end by the Assyrian exile in 722 BCE. Jerusalem’s history of foreign political alliances is more complicated to reconcile between what we know from history and Ezekiel’s revision. Jerusalem’s relation with Assyria could have started with Assyria’s relation with Samaria. However, Jerusalem’s abandonment of the Assyrians in favor of the Babylonians, whom she also left for the Egyptians, is more complicated. Ezekiel’s revision, on the one hand, could refer to the 714–705 situation during the reign of Hezekiah, who welcomed the ambassadors of Merodoch-baladan, who proved to be unable to continue his rebellion against Assyria, a fact that led Hezekiah to seek an Egyptian support against the Assyrians. On the other hand, Ezekiel’s revision could very well refer to the period beginning around 605 down to Ezekiel’s time. In this period, while Judah was an Assyrian vassal, it probably welcomed the rise of Babylon as the sole empire in the Levant after the defeat of the Assyrians and the Egyptians in the battle of Carchemish. Then, however, Judah allied with Egypt against Babylon, a rebellion that led to the exile. 63 Historical explanations shed great light on the interpretation of the text. However, as mentioned in the preceding footnote, various historical situations could be good candidates to explain Jerusalem’s relationship with the Assyrians and the Babylonians, namely, the situation of the 8th or 7th centuries. Both of these suggestions merit consideration as the background behind Ezekiel’s revision. Ezekiel’s description that Jerusalem abandoned Assyria for the sake of Babylon is best understood in the light of the 8th century events, because although in 605 also Judah became a Babylonian vassal, one can hardly describe that as abandoning Assyria in favor of Babylon, because the former was already defeated and destroyed by the latter. However, the 6th century events are supported by the observations that Ezekiel was concerned the most with his own time’s events and that the text of Ezek 23:22–35 refers to the punishment of Jerusalem as yet to happen in the future. Ezekiel could very well be combining elements from both eras in order to argue that Jerusalem’s infidelity has deep roots in her history. 64 Ezek 23:36–45 shows that the adulterous women sent for “men from afar” and for a less noble group of drunken men from the wilderness. At a “seat of glory,” before which

140

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

Ezekiel starts to describe Samaria and Jerusalem as two indefinite women: (MyIvÎn MˆyA;tVv) “two women” (23:1–3). The identity of these two women is marked by their adultery in Egypt. In their youth they whored in Egypt. In other words, one cannot talk about the identity of these two cities without mentioning their relationship with Egypt. Whoring with Egypt is Ezekiel’s way of introducing these two sisters. This is how they are identified both before they are named and before they become wives to YHWH, bearing children to him (23:4). Before they came under YHWH’s patronage, defilement was their trademark; as prostitutes they were defined. Before moving on to describe the history of the infidelity of each of these two women, Ezekiel does not forget to name them. Oholah and Oholibah are their names. Although both became wives for YHWH and bore children for him (23:4), both of them showed infidelity to their husband by playing the harlot with foreign men. Although the two sisters transitioned from one partner to the other,

are placed YHWH’s incense and oil, the women encountered these men, who dress her with bracelets and crowns. Galambush explicates, “Oholibah, like Oholah before her, has been ‘entered’ the way one would enter a prostitute. Yahweh’s explanation in v 43 relies, not on the legal aspect of the adultery metaphor (that the city, like an unfaithful woman, has broken the covenant), but on the physical analogy between the topography of the sacred city and the anatomy of a woman’s body” (Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 120). The analogy here is that Jerusalem’s allowing “men from afar” to enter the sacred space of the sanctuary is similar to a woman allowing men, who should be denied access to her private parts, to enter into her tent. Corrine Patton writes, “To what extent did this alliance involve, whether officially or in the ‘populace’, recognition of and perhaps worship of Egyptian deities? Ezek. 23.19 makes an explicit connection between the activities of Oholibah in Egypt before her covenant with Yahweh (23.3) and that of her relationship to Egypt that led to her judgment. Both verses use the verb znh to describe her sin. Because of the implied sexual relationship between Yahweh and Israel, the activity of sexual misconduct connotes infidelity to Yahweh, infidelity by the worship of other gods. Ezekiel therefore asserts that the sins that led to the exile included the worship of Egyptian deities.” Corrine Patton, “‘I Myself Gave Them Laws That Were Not Good’: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus Traditions,” JSOT 69 (1996): 73–90, 77. Galambush suggests that this metaphorical rendezvous, though not with complete certainty, can be connected with “Jerusalem’s reception of Egyptian officials (the ‘men from afar’), and also of representatives from smaller nation-states in the region (the rabble from the wilderness) to form a rebellious alliance” (Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 121). The Egyptians played a role in the political rebellion against Babylon. In addition, the presence of Egyptians in Jerusalem and probably in the temple defiled YHWH’s tent that was inside Jerusalem. Since Psammetichus II’s triumph tour in the Levant included priests and some of them stayed in Jerusalem after the return of the king back to Egypt, Galambush suggests that the sexual metaphor is criticizing allowing “men from afar” to enter into the sanctuary (Julie Galambush “The Northern Voyage of Psammetichus II and its Implications for Ezekiel 44:7–9” in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets [ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis; JSOTSupp 408; London: T & T Clark International, 2004], 74.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

141

Egypt continues to be their favorite sexual partner. In this way Egypt acts as a catalyst in unleashing defilement in the religious life of Israel. The transgression of boundaries is reconstructed by Ezekiel as he paints a picture of the nude bodies of the two sisters (Oholah and Oholibah, Samaria and Jerusalem)65 and their sexual partner the Egyptians. Ezekiel uses vivid words to describe what happened to the two sisters in Egypt: NRhyEl…wtV;b yé;då;d …wÚcIo MDv◊w NRhyédVv …wkSoOm “their breasts were caressed there, and their virgin bosoms were fondled” (Ezek 23:3).66 A similar description appears when the prophet explains the particularity of the two sisters’ lust for their relation with the Egyptians (23:8, 21).67 By shining the light on how the illicit sexual relation between the Egyptians and the two sisters is being conducted the prophet uncovers the body of the two sisters.68 Note that the prophet does not use such language when he speaks about the two sisters’ relations with the Assyrians and the Babylonians (23:5–7, 11–17).69 The nudity of the bodies is a sign 65 These two names have been understood to refer to symbolic meaning. Whereas Oholah means “her own tent” and Oholibah means “my own tent is in her”. 66 I take these expressions as a metonymy for intercourse. The use of the verb hnz “to play the harlot,” in the same verse, supports this assumption. Ezekiel 23:8 looks back at what happened earlier in Egypt, summarized in 23:3 as sexual intercourse. Greenberg writes: “Handling the girls’ breasts awakened and seduced them to venery. In v. 8 sexual intercourse is ascribed to the girls’ Egyptian period, but here the beginning of their corruption is described” (Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 474). 67 S. Tamar Kamionkowski helpfuly notes that the “woman’s crime, in ch. 23, is twofold: she desires and she allows men to take her.” Kamionkowski critiques interpreters who put all of the blame on the woman, who, according to these interpreters, offered her body to her lovers. Kaionkowski writes “The woman offers nothing; she is taken, and this is her crime.” It is true that the Egyptians “pour their lust upon” the woman (23:8b), yet the point remains that Jerusalem remains responsible since it did not abandon its “promiscuous behavior (23:8a). Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup 368; Shiffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 142–143. 68 The way the prophet speaks of the two women in this chapter has stirred various feminist criticisms to the masculine portrayal of women. For these feminist critiques, women in this chapter are humiliated, portrayed as possessions, and are violently abused. See F. Van Dijk-Hemmes, “The Metaphorization of Women in Prophetic Speech: An Analysis of Ezekiel xxiii,” VT 43 (1993): 162–170; J. C. Exum, “Prophetic Pornography,” in Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women (JSOTSup 215; Gender, Culture, Theory 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 101–128; M. E. Shields, “An Abusive God? Identity and Power, Gender and Violence in Ezekiel 23,” in Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader (ed. A. K. M. Adam; St. Louis: Chalice, 2001), 129–151; for a different perspective, however, see C. L. Patton, “‘Should Our Sister be Treated Like a Whore?’ A Response to Feminist Critiques of Ezekiel 23,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (ed. M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong; SBLSS 9; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2000), 221–238. 69 In 23:18a, the text speaks of the younger sister “Oholibah” that she “uncovered her nakedness” (;hDtÎw√rRo_tRa lAgV;tÅw). This clause has been understood as a later expansion because it interrupts the sequence of the actions of the younger sister, who despised the Baby-

142

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

not only of the intimate relation between Egypt and Israel, but also is a sign of their shared sameness, both of them are nude, exposed and uncovered. Ezekiel writes on the body70 of the two sisters their lust for the body of the Egyptians, whose bodies the prophet exposes as well. Ezekiel is unique among the prophets who used adultery as a metaphor for religious apostasy and political alliances, in that he describes the partner of Samaria or Jerusalem in a sexual manner. Indeed, in Ezekiel 16:26, the prophet started to expose the body of the Egyptians, whom the prophet describes as “large of flesh” (rDcDb yEl√dˆ…g), that is, large of phallus.71 Furthermore, when animating the relation between the sisters and the Egyptians, Ezekiel explains that Oholibah’s lust was for the concubines (MRhyEv◊gAlIÚp lAo hDb◊…gVoA;tAw),72 whose flesh is like the flesh of an ass (M∂rDcV;b MyîrwømSj_rAcV;b rRvSa); and whose issue/fluid is like that of a horse (M`DtDm√rˆz MyIs…ws tAm√rˆz◊w) (23:20).73 The stigmatization of the Egyptian male as possessing animal features underscores the impurity that results from the sexual relation with this hybrid creature. In addition, when this stigmatization is accompanied by the explicit prophetic discourse that describes the body and the sexual organs of the two sisters the shared sameness between the Egyptians and the two sisters becomes evident. This exposure points towards the unique relation between these two sisters and the Egyptians. This point is amplified when one compares Ezekiel’s description of Assyria and Babylon, on the one hand, and Egypt as the unique lover of the two sisters, on the other. Whereas Ezekiel undresses the Egyptian male (Ezek 23:20), he focuses on the majestic look of the clothes of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. On the one hand, when Ezekiel describes Oholah’s attraction to lonians (17b), and then turned to the Egyptians (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 487). This suggestion is probable. Yet, the text as it stands verse 18 should be read in the light of what happens in the following verses 19–21. Thus the nakedness of the younger sister that is mentioned in verse 18 anticipates the fuller description of the illicit relation between the younger sister and the Egyptians. 70 For the notion of writing on the bodies in Ezekiel, see Jacqueline Lapsley, “Doors Thrown Open and Waters Gushing Forth: Mark, Ezekiel, and the Architecture of Hope,” in The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God (ed. Beverly Gaventa and Patrick Miller; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 141. 71 The word r#b usually means “skin, flesh.” However, in a few cases in the OT (e.g. Lev 15:2–7), this word is used as a euphemism in order to refer to the male organ. BDB, 142; HALOT, 164. 72 The word #$glp is usually used in the Old Testament to refer to female concubine. Generally, though, commentators on this text, take this instance as a reference to male servants. 73 Zimmerli comments on this verse and writes “in all this we can raise the question how far here, aside from the exaggerated language which sets out in drastic metaphors the power of Egyptian political conspiracy, we are to find any actual evaluation of national character.” Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1–24, 487.

II. Egypt as Israel’s Monstrous Double in Ezekiel 20 and 23

143

the Assyrians, his description is as follows: the men were the best choice in Assyria, they were composed of “staff officers,”74 – who wear the blue-violet thread – “governors,” and “rulers,” in addition to warriors who ride on horses. Similarly, when he describes why Oholibah was attracted to the Assyrians and then the Babylonians, his description is as follows: governors, rulers and staff officers, who were dressed in purple, warriors who ride on horses, all of them were of the choicest of the Assyrians. The Babylonian men have belts around their waists, with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them looking like officers (Ezek 23:5–6, 15). Whereas Ezekiel describes the outward appearance of the Babylonians and the Assyrians, he is concerned with the size of the sexual organ of the Egyptians and their discharge. Greenberg comments, “In contrast with the conquering Assyrians and Babylonians, the ineffective Egyptians are depicted not as virile and warlike but as voluptuaries.”75 The Assyrians and the Babylonians attract the two sisters with their power. The two sisters’ attraction to Egypt is completely erotic.” Greenberg continues, “Egypt can seduce Samaria and Jerusalem into abandoning their Mesopotamian lovers but cannot defend them against the evil consequences of such fickleness.”76 Greenberg is correct that there is a difference between the Assyrians and the Babylonians, on the one hand, and the Egyptians on the other. Ezekiel’s metaphor says more than that, though. To be sure, he also condemned the adulterous relation Samaria and Judah had with both the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Focusing on the outlook of the Assyrians and the Babylonians, Ezekiel shows the superficiality of the adulterous relation with Assyria and Babylon. The undressing of both the two sisters and the Egyptians, however, reflects the “raw sexual energy” between these two partners. The military images of the Babylonians and the Assyrians are contrasted with the power of memory of the two sisters’ first illicit sexual relation with the Egyptians in Egypt. Israel chose her old “flame,” that is, Egypt. Although Samaria and Jerusalem had illicit relations with the Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Egyptians, the last of these occupies a high rank among all the nations. It is noteworthy that although the two sisters “whored” with these nations, Assyria and Babylon, unlike Egypt, are perceived as a divine instrument to punish the two sisters (23:9–10, 22–30). This is really interesting for the role Egypt plays as the repeating sexual offender, but never as the upstanding, cuckolded (but vengeful) lover: when Oholah abandons the As74

See Daniel Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1–24, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1997), 738, who argues that the word Mybwrq should be read as an Aramaism from qrb “battle, war,” and to be taken as the first in the list of the Assyrian officers whom Samaria lusts for. 75 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 479. 76 Ibid., 492.

144

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

syrians and goes back to her Egyptian lovers, YHWH uses the Assyrians in order to punish the older sister (23:9). A similar scenario takes place when Oholibah abandons the Babylonians for her Egyptian lovers: YHWH used the Babylonians in order to punish her for whoring with Egypt (23:22–23). Never in his discourse does the prophet proclaim that YHWH would use Egypt as an instrument in order to punish Israel for her adultery. Only Assyria and Babylon get that honor; Egypt, however, remains as Israel’s partner in the illicit sexual relationship that shatters Israel’s relation with YHWH. Adulterous relations with Egypt, nevertheless, are singled out as a marker for the beginning and the end of the histories of these two sisters. Indeed, adultery with Egypt is the archetype of any adulterous relation that Israel practices. Their whoredom in Egypt is imprinted in the history of these two cities. The adulterous relation between Samaria and Jerusalem with both Assyria and Babylon seems to be tied to a certain point in history. However, the relation between these two sisters and Egypt seems to be rooted deeply in the history of these two cities; it is rooted in the memory of the nation so much that it has become the archetype or the climax of any adulterous relation in which these two cities participate. Whoring with or in Egypt reappears in the history of the two kingdoms. Adulterous relations with Egypt occupy the communal memory of YHWH’s wife. This memory shapes the identity of who this nation is. D. Summary In the previous section I argued that Egypt’s monstrosity in Ezekiel is partially constructed through imagery indicating some shared elements of identity between Egypt and Israel. The prophet criticizes Israel for committing idolatry and adultery. While discussing the histories of these two impurities in the life of Israel, Ezekiel’s text unveils an intimate relationship between Egypt and Israel. According to the prophet, Egypt and Israel worshiped the same idols prior to the exodus (Ezekiel 20); later in the chapter idols are not associated with Egypt, but rather with Israel. Furthermore, the prophet emphasizes the intimate relationship between Egypt and Israel by their nudity and undressing them in his discussion of the adultery issue in chapter 23. These markers point to a special relationship between these two nations in Ezekiel’s rhetoric. Although the two sisters transitioned from one partner to the other, Egypt continues to be their favorite sexual partner. In this way Egypt acts as a catalyst in unleashing defilement in the religious life of Israel. Egypt is mirrored in Israel and the shared language and imagery suggests that Egypt is Israel’s double. Israel’s sinfulness is emphasized by pointing to her double. This double is monstrous because it threatens the sense of a distinctive identity.

III. Idolatry and Adultery as Primordial and Resurgent Chaos

145

As we have seen in the previous chapter the relation between the monster/ the Other to the self is a complex relation. The monster is not just the ultimate Other; but rather the monster shares a common identity with the presupposed norm. According to René Girard’s perspective on the monstrous double, it is the erosion of difference that makes the double a monster. Julia Kristeva’s notion of the abject stresses that before the infant creates its borders and sense of subjectivity, it shares a unitary sameness with the mother. In the case of Ezekiel, Egypt’s monstrosity is not just about difference between Egypt and Israel, but it also is about a relationship of a common identity between the two. The loss of the sense of boundary between Egypt and Israel is what makes Egypt a monster in Ezekiel.

III. Idolatry and Adultery as Primordial and Resurgent Chaos III. Idolatry and Adultery as Primordial and Resurgent Chaos

There are two analogous insights to be highlighted between Kristeva’s notion of abjection, which I have discussed in Chapter Two, and some aspects of the ancient Near Eastern cosmological worldview (i.e., Enūma eliš, Egyptian mythologies)77 and the monstrosity of Egypt in Ezekiel. These two analogous in77

For example, in Enūma eliš, Tiamat and Apsu represent the watery state prior to the theogony and the cosmogony. The text of the myth starts with the following lines: “When on high no name was given to heaven, nor below was the netherworld called by name, Primeval Apsu was their progenitor, and matrix-Tiamat was she who bore them all…” (“Enuma Elish,” translated by Benjamin Foster [COS 1.111:390–402]). Before the birth of the gods, the creation of the cosmos, and the establishment of Babylon or the sovereignty of Marduk, there was the watery chaos. When Marduk defeats Tiamat and splits her body into two pieces in order to create the cosmos, the divine king maintains the boundaries between the ordered cosmos and chaotic primordial water. The theme of primordial water is also present in the Egyptian creation mythologies. Unlike Enūma eliš there is no combat between the creator and the cosmological water. In Coffin Text 714, the background of creation is described according to a speech delivered by the primordial waters itself: “I am the waters, unique without second.” This is followed with a speech by Atum, “That is where I evolved”; here the god Atum refers to this watery state prior to his evolution and prior to his work of creation; “From Coffin texts Spell 714,” translated by James P. Allen (COS 1.2:6. A similar idea is expressed in Papyrus Bremner-Rhind (pBM 10188), in which Atum speaks, “I am the one who evolved as Evolver. When I evolved, evolution evolved. All evolution evolved after I evolved, evolutions becoming many in emerging from my mouth, without the sky having evolved, without the earth having evolved, without the ground or snakes having been created in that place. I became tied together in them out of the Waters, out of inertness.” “From Papyrus Bremner-Rhind,” Translated by James P. Allen, (COS 1.9:14–15). This text is part of “a collection of theological treatises and magic spells against the dangers of the Netherworld (represented in sum by the demon Apophis).” Whereas Apophis seeks to obstruct the journey of the sun god Re and hence cause the world to return to the state of primordial chaos, we read in this text an assurance by the god Atum that he will maintain the order of the world. For a detailed treatment of the

146

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

sights are concerned with two further points. First, chaos, as a state of lack of boundaries and form, precedes the act of creation. In the case of abjection, unitary sameness is the common state between the child and the mother out of which the child’s subjectivity emerges; in the case of the ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, the primordial water had no boundaries and form, out of which the world was created; and in the case of Egypt’s monstrosity in Ezekiel, Egypt symbolizes the religious chaos, represented by the two impurities of idolatry and adultery, out of which the nation of Israel was constituted. In all of these cases identity/proper-self/order are created against and out of a state of primordial chaos, a state in which everything seemed to be the same. Second, chaos and the monster of chaos, that is, the abject, do not respect boundaries, are not completely annihilated; the monster and the abject lurk at the periphery, threatening the newly created order. As a matter of fact, chaos often breaks in and disturbs one’s sense of identity. Unitary sameness and chaos, that is, the sense of the loss of boundary, are resurgent. The following section will focus on the point that for Ezekiel, the chaos of Egypt is primordial and the religious chaos that Egypt stands in for is resurgent; Israel was created as YHWH’s people out of the chaos of idolatry and adultery in Egypt prior to the exodus. Israel’s idolatry and adultery in Egypt represented a unitary sameness and, simultaneously, a chaos in which boundaries and borders between Israel and Egypt – or, writ large, order and chaos – were fuzzy and ill defined. A. Egypt’s Chaos as Primordial in Israel’s History Chapter 20 in the book of Ezekiel has attracted scholars because of the way it recounts the history of the Israelites. The so-called “revisionist history” evaluates the periods of the exodus and the wilderness in a different manner from the way we find it in the book of Exodus. The analyses of this chapter highEgyptian theology and philosophy on creation, see James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts (Yale Egyptological Studies 2; New Haven, Conn.: Yale Egyptological Seminar, 1988). In the Memphite theology, there is a primordial hillock that appears in the midst of the water, upon which the god Ptah creates the world. The Ta-tenen (“Rising Land”) is a “deified Primeval Hill” that represents “the first instance of created matter.” “From Ramesside Stela,” translated by James P. Allen, (COS 1.13:20). In some of the ancient Near Eastern traditions including Israel, chaos is primordial and the ordered cosmos is created out of this chaotic state. Although chaos was put at bay at the beginning of establishing the ordered cosmos, these ancient cultures were aware of the fact that chaos was never completely annihilated. As for Genesis 1 prior to recounting God’s creative work, the text informs us that there was water and darkness. “Nowhere in the seven-day creation scheme of Genesis 1 does God create the waters; they are most likely primordial” (Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 5. In the beginning there was water and primordial chaos.

III. Idolatry and Adultery as Primordial and Resurgent Chaos

147

light Ezekiel’s point, namely, that the Israelites are a house of rebellion throughout their history. The prophet declares to the elders of the exiled community a new reading into history. The exodus does not stand anymore as a sign for the liberation of the oppressed people of Israel. Instead, it is an event through which YHWH acted for his own sake and his own glory in the sight of other nations.78 YHWH works to protect his name from being defiled because of the abominations of the Israelites. Oppression and slavery are not the conditions of the Israelites in the land of Egypt according to Ezekiel’s account. Instead, the focal point is their transgression and rebellion at the point of their constitution as a nation, prior to their exodus from Egypt. For Ezekiel the constitution of Israel as a nation took place in Egypt while Israel is engulfed in the chaos of idolatrous practices. In Ezekiel’s representation of the religious life of the Israelites prior to the exodus, when YHWH revealed himself to the Israelites he commanded them to abandon the idols of Egypt. This shows that the Israelites knew idolatry in Egypt. The context of the Israelites in Egypt prior to the exodus was like the primordial water prior to the creation; Israel was not formed yet, because the Israelites were worshiping the idols of Egypt. The Israelites did not heed his command. Each one of them did not throw away the detestable things of their eyes, nor did any one of them abandon the idols of Egypt. Unlike Ps 106:7, which describes the rebellion of the Israelites at the Sea of Reeds, Ezekiel insists that they had rebelled already while still in Egypt.79 In the book of Exodus the rebellion took place in the wilderness as attested in the golden calf incident (Exod 32).80 YHWH’s concern for the divine reputation among the nations is the only reason the Israelites were saved from his destructive wrath. This theme is reflected here in Ezek 20:8–9 and also in the speech of Moses in Exodus 32. The only difference is that in Ezekiel the origin of the rebellion takes place in Egypt, before reaching the wilderness. The chaos of idolatry and the rebellion of the Israelites, according to the 78

In the book of Exodus YHWH acts on behalf of the Israelites so that both the Egyptians and the Israelites may know that YHWH is God (cf. Exod 7:5; 14:18). Ezekiel puts aside the issue of liberating the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, and underlines YHWH’s honor in the sight of the nations if YHWH decides to destroy the Israelites in Egypt or in the wilderness (Ezek 20:8–9, 13–14). This is similar to the argument that Moses put forth in order to convince YHWH not to destroy the Israelites after the incident of the golden calf (Ezek 32:12). 79 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 629. 80 Risa Levitt Kohn notes “unlike Ezekiel 20:7, neither P nor D record instances of idolatry or punishment in Egypt.” Kohn, “‘With a Mighty Hand and an Outstretched Arm’: The Prophet and the Torah in Ezekiel 20,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchal World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton; SBLSS 31; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 159–168, 166. Joshua 24:14 speaks about the idols of the Egypt and Mesopotamia. However, Ezekiel is not concerned at least in this chapter with the idols of Mesopotamia. Egypt occupies his imagination.

148

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

prophet, originated in Egypt (cf. Ezek 2:3–5). YHWH called Israel as a nation into being, by revealing himself to it, while the whole people were submerged in the chaos of idolatry. Ezekiel 23 recounts the story of Samaria and Jerusalem by using the metaphor of the adulterous woman. Although the chapter describes the whoredom of Jerusalem and Samaria with Assyria and Babylon and Egypt, it highlights Egypt as the first place in which these two women knew adultery. Furthermore, adultery in Egypt becomes the archetype and model of adultery in the history of Israel. Greenberg comments on Ezek 23:35: “Thus while the oracle lists all the partners to the sisters’ harloting, what rankles YHWH most is their reversion time and again to their ‘original sin,’ the affair with Egypt.”81 Adultery in Egypt was at play at the origins and the beginnings of Israel. Ezekiel has his own agenda as he recounts the history of Jerusalem and Samaria. Their adulterous relationship with Egypt prior to the exodus and again at the time of the exile mark the beginning and the end of their story. The Hebrew adverb M#$ “there” is repeated twice in 23:3 in order to emphasize the geographical location of the act of whoring. It was there, in Egypt, where the two women committed adultery; their breasts were squeezed and the nipples of their virginity were pressed, there, in Egypt. The impurity of idolatry and its metaphorical articulation as adultery is rooted in the history of Israel. They go all the way back to the beginning, a point in which a unitary sameness with Egypt occurred. One could not distinguish between Israel and Egypt. Similar to the world that was created from the primordial water of chaos in Egypt and Mesopotamia, so was Israel born as a people to YHWH. As YHWH led the Israelites out of Egypt, that is, out of the chaos of idolatry and adultery in the land of Egypt, he intended to draw the lines of their identity as his people. However the chaos that Egypt represents was never completely eradicated. B. The Chaos that Egypt Represents Is Resurgent The chaos that Egypt represents in the religious life of Israel is resurgent. Idolatry and adultery did not just start in Egypt. Ezekiel’s text suggests that they kept on coming back, reappearing in the religious life of Israel throughout its history. As I have discussed in the preceding section, the dilemma of idolatry for Ezekiel started when the Israelites were in Egypt. Indeed, as I have elaborated, “Egyptian idols” were the primary challenge to the relation between YHWH and Israel. This threat, however, was not completely annihilated; rather, Egypt’s threat continued to appear in the religious life of the different 81

Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 489.

III. Idolatry and Adultery as Primordial and Resurgent Chaos

149

generations of the Israelites. Although the Israelites were led out of Egypt, the land of idols, the issue of idolatry was not completely solved. We read in Ezek 20:16 that this same generation worshiped idols in the wilderness. The symptoms of the rebellion of the Israelites reappear in the wilderness. Although Egypt was left behind, its impact still haunts the Israelites. Indeed, this is how Egypt and Israel fail to maintain the boundaries; the geographical distance did not separate the two. The idols remained as an active source of defilement to the Israelites. The second generation, which was led into the Promised Land, also defiled itself with the idols of their ancestors (Ezek 20:24). Again, the symptoms of the rebellion of the Israelites, which started in Egypt, resurfaced in the land. Although Egypt geographically was remote, its primordial chaotic influences keep coming back. Although Egypt faded in the background geographically, its power of chaos broke in and was manifest when the Israelites worshiped idols. The political alliance between Egypt and Judah is a surface under which lies a religious chaos of idolatry that originated in Egypt, but also came back to the fore in the 6th century BCE.82 The problem of worshiping idols occupies the thinking of the prophet as he imagines the new exodus. The experience of worshiping Egyptian idols in Egypt at the beginning of the history of Israel still lurks in the imagination of the prophet. Even if Egypt fades in the background and occupies the periphery, what Egypt represents still haunts the Israelites. Egypt is not just a threat in the past. Rather, it is a threat in the present (the time of the exile). The ancestors had worshiped idols in Egypt; the contemporary generation, though punished for idolatry, might get enticed into more idolatry, mimicking their ancestors (cf. 20:30–32). Therefore, Ezekiel proclaims a new plan, which YHWH will implement in order to abate the experience of the Israelites in Egypt. The issue at stake for Ezekiel is his fear that the exile would provide an occasion, as Egypt had in the past, for enticing the Israelites to worship new idols in Babylon.83 Instead of functioning as a way of purging the land 82 It is interesting to note that Ezekiel does not pay a great deal of attention to the role of the peoples of the land (e.g., the Canaanites) and their negative impact on the Israelites, an approach that dominates the Deuteronomistic History. Joshua 23 warns the people of Israel as they enter the Promised Land not to be like the other nations by worshiping their gods. The books of Judges and Kings speak of the threat that the Canaanites formed upon the religious fidelity of the Israelites toward their God YHWH throughout their history in the “Promised Land.” To be sure the prophet talks about the people’s improper worship in the land in 20:28. However, it was also in Egypt that the Israelites began to worship idols. Even if Egypt fades in the background, and occupies the periphery, its impact still haunts the Israelites. 83 This is supported by Ezekiel’s question to his contemporary generation in 20:30–32, in which Ezekiel confronts this generation by inquiring if they will follow the way of their ancestors and whore after the detestable things of their predecessors. See also the prophet’s

150

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

and expiating it from the pollution of the Israelites, the exile for Ezekiel carried within it the threat of the availability of idolatry to the Israelites; in this sense the exile is similar to the people’s origin in Egypt. A new exodus will take place; but YHWH will make sure that only those who do not worship idols will get back into the land (20:38). The prophet is imagining a new plan in which the boundaries between Israel and the other nations and their idols would be clearly maintained. The importance of the new exodus is that the experience of the ancestors in Egypt would not be re-produced in the exilic period.84 In the old exodus, the Israelites who did not abandon the Egyptian idols transferred idolatry to the following generations. In the new exodus, the mighty hand of YHWH will impose his kingship over the Israelites. Hence YHWH will not grant them their wish to be like the nations (20:32).85 The resurgence of the chaos that Egypt represents is more manifest in the metaphor of adultery (Ezekiel 23). Although Oholah lusted with the Assyrians, she did not abandon her whoring in the land of Egypt (Ezek 20:5–9). Greenberg points out that “when the temporal mn ‘from (a time)’ is prefixed to a place-name, the place name represents time spent at that place.”86 Comparing our reference with Exodus 33:6 and Hos 13:4, Greenberg comments, “so here: during her affair with Assyria Israel kept whoring with Egypt, as she had been doing since her sojourn there.”87 Whoring with Egypt is an ongoing behavior conducted by Oholah throughout her history, according to

discourse with regard to defiling the name of YHWH among the nation to which the Israelites were exiled (Ezek 36:20–22). 84 Reading Ezekiel 20 as a coherent composition Ellen Davis argues that that the purpose of retelling the story of Israel in such a dramatic manner that underlines their rebellion is to challenge Ezekiel’s contemporary to understand the current judgment and to ponder on the future in the light of the past. Ellen F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Synamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy (JSOTS 78; Sheffield: Almond, 1989), 105–126. 85 In 1 Sam 8:6–9 the elders of Israel ask Samuel to appoint a king upon them similar to the surrounding nations (see also 10:17–27; 12:19–25). In the context of 1 Sam 8, YHWH takes the people’s request to have a king similar to the surrounding nations as a rejections for YHWH’s kingship upon the people (1 Sam 8:7). YHWH considers this as a part of the people’s rebellion since they were led out of Egypt and is analogous to their worship of other gods. Ezekiel, however, does not mention the people’s request to have a king but simply points out the underlying problem of this request, namely, becoming like other nations by worshiping other deities. Ezekiel 20:33 solves this problem by portraying YHWH as a king who forcefully rules on the people. Paul Joyce (Ezekiel, 152) comments on Ezek 20:32–33, “it is likely … that the people’s position is presented as one of defiance. …[t]his verse [33] employs royal language of YHWH for the only explicit time in Ezekiel … [f]or Ezekiel in exile, again in a ‘wilderness’ situation (cf. 19:13, with no legitimate human king, it is YHWH who reigns as divine king and who judges his people.” 86 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 476. 87 Ibid., 476.

III. Idolatry and Adultery as Primordial and Resurgent Chaos

151

Ezekiel. Whoring with Egypt marks the beginning and the ending of the story of Samaria (23:3, 8, 9). It is important to note here that Ezekiel (23:8) uses the same verb (bz() in order to describe the ongoing adulterous relation between Samaria and Egypt, a verb which he used in order to describe Israel’s refusal to abandon Egyptian idols in Ezekiel 20:8. The Israelites clung to Egyptian idols and to an adulterous relation with the Egyptians. Time has passed, but nothing has changed about the adulterous relation between Samaria and Egypt. Lapsley comments: “the return again to the time spent in Egypt at the beginning of Israelite history is not insignificant: like the return of the repressed in psychoanalysis, Egypt keeps popping up in Ezekiel’s historical account because the origins of the sisters’ problems are of particular concern to him.”88 Oholah’s younger sister, Oholibah, fell in love with the Assyrians and after them the Babylonians. However, Oholibah became disgusted89 with the Babylonians and therefore she abandoned them. “Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt” (Ezek 23:19).90 Once again the adulterous relationship with Egypt reappears in the life of Jerusalem; Oholibah, explains Ezekiel, intensified her whoring by remembering the days of her youth when she whored in the land of Egypt (20:19). An adulterous relation between Judah and Egypt is part of the communal memory of this nation. She recalled the days when she first knew what an adulterous life is. The danger of the adulterous relation with Egypt is that it lies at the roots of the communal memory. It is the memory that never dies. In Ezekiel 23:35, Oholibah forgot about YHWH; she threw him behind her back (cf. 20:7). Oholibah forgot (xk#$) YHWH but remembered her adulterous youth in Egypt. Whereas the identity of Israel should be shaped by its relation with YHWH, in Ezekiel’s time it is the memory of the adulterous relation with Egypt that shapes the identity of Israel.

88 Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel (BZAW 381; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 89. This idea of the return of the repressed is significant because Egypt, the monster, the unheimlich, represents the return of the primordial chaos, that preceded the creation of Israel as a nation when they were led out of Egypt. It is what keeps coming back to occupy the house, but does not belong to the house. 89 The Hebrew verb (qy / n “to dislocate” (cf. Gen 32:26) is used in this unique sense in this chapter in 23:17, 18, 28 and in Jeremiah 6:8. BDB, 229; HALOT, 431. 90 Odell (Ezekiel, 303) notes: “While commentators often remark on Oholibah’s conduct, they overlook the narrator’s depiction of the lovers, which is meant to highlight the extent to which Oholibah brings chaos on herself through her behavior.” This statement supports my assumption that looking at Israel’s partners will reveal a great deal about how Ezekiel proclaims his message of judgment.

152

Chapter 4: Egypt as a Monstrous Double

Note that the prophet uses the root rkz “to remember” in 23:19. This is important because it is the same word used by the Deuteronomic code, which exhorts the Israelites to remember their time in Egypt: “Remember (trkz) that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day” (Deut 5:15; cf. 15:15). However, Deuteronomy has a different memory in mind. Whereas, the memory of the Israelites in Egypt for Ezekiel is one of adultery, the memory of Egypt in Deuteronomy is of the liberation of the Israelites from the land of slavery. The prophet remembers the adulterous relation between Israel and Egypt and reminds Israel that her relation with its double in the present is an intensified rejuvenation of that memory. The relation between Egypt and Israel appears in the form of a political alliance. Yet for Ezekiel this relation of the 6th century recalls a long-term relationship between Israel and Egypt. The memory of this relationship shapes who Israel is. The purpose that underlies this process of remembering and reminding is twofold. First, the prophet invites Israel to look into its double so that it can see how disloyal it is to its husband YHWH. Israel’s relation with Egypt, which is a resurgent memory, leads it to the deadening experience of the exile. Second, Ezekiel’s act of memory enforces Ezekiel’s message that for Israel to live, it needs to get rid of its memory of its double Egypt.91 Egypt must be reconstructed as a monstrous Other to be defeated and kept at bay.

IV. Summary IV. Summary

In this chapter I have put forth an answer to the question of why Egypt is represented as a monster in the book of Ezekiel. I have argued that Egypt is a monster because Egypt threatens the borders and the sense of a clean and pure Israelite identity. Egypt is a monster because Egypt stands in for the threat of religious assimilation. Egypt is Israel’s double that shares with it a common identity. The inability to distinguish Egypt from Israel is horrific to the prophet, and therefore, Egypt is portrayed as a monster. I have supported my argument on three grounds. First, I showed the special relationship between Egypt and Israel appears in the shared language that the prophet uses in order to describe them both. This shared stock of terms indirectly informs us that we are dealing with two intimate partners. Second, since the issue of idolatry is critical for Ezekiel’s 91

In Ezek 23:35, Oholibah forgot about YHWH; she threw him behind her back (cf. 20:7). Oholibah forgot (xk#$) YHWH but remembered her adulterous youth in Egypt. Whereas Israel’s relation with YHWH should shape its identity, in Ezekiel’s message it is the memory of the adulterous relation with Egypt that shapes the identity of Israel.

IV. Summary

153

explanation of the event of the exile, it is important for us to realize that the prophet accuses the Israelites of worshiping Egyptian idols prior to their exodus from Egypt. They did not obey YHWH; they did not discard the idols of Egypt. In Ezekiel 20, the Israelites worshiped Egyptian idols, and later in the chapter the idols became identified with the Israelites. Worshiping the same idols is a marker for the loss of religious boundary between Israel and Egypt. Third, when the prophet speaks of Samaria’s and Jerusalem’s adulterous relation with the foreign nations, he gives a special place to Egypt in these two women’s hearts; Egypt is their first and preferred lover. The unique relation between the two sisters and the Egyptians is enhanced by exposing their bodies. The shared elements of identity between Egypt and Israel are what make Egypt a monstrous double. Lying under the political alliance is the dilemma of the identity of Israel and the identity of Egypt. The chaos that Egypt stands in for is like the unitary sameness that takes place between the child and the mother, to use Kristeva’s notion of abjection. There is no sense of borders and boundaries between Egypt and Israel. This chaos, which is evident in idolatry and adultery, came back to the surface at the time of Ezekiel in the form of a political alliance. The circumstances of the 6th century for Ezekiel is a return to that primordial stage of unitary sameness. The fact that Egypt enjoys such a relation with Israel is terrifying for the prophet Ezekiel. Egypt’s monstrosity represents the fear and the terror of Israel’s loss of a distinctive identity from Egypt. Egypt is not just Israel’s double who reflects Israel’s sinfulness, but also a monstrous double that always embodies the fear of the loss of identity. Throughout his discourse the prophet fleshes out Egypt as the monstrous double who is in the house but does not belong to the house. Yet Ezekiel simultaneously flips this coin on its other side; he uses the combat myth, as we will see in the next chapter, in order to make Egypt’s monstrosity speak for the difference between it and Israel. Through his use of the combat myth the prophet will abject Egypt. In other words, we are about to see that the prophet uses the combat myth in order to restore the difference, the boundaries, the borders between Egypt and Israel. This we will see in detail in the following chapters.

Chapter Five

Egypt as the Abject: Embodying Egypt as a Monster and the Dismemberment of Its Body Introduction Introduction

The disorienting crisis of the Babylonian exile inaugurated a process of reflection on the corporate identity of Israel. Evident in Ezekiel’s oracles against Jerusalem and also against the foreign nations, a prominent interest lay in answering the question: who is Israel? In Ezek 5:7 the prophet condemns Jerusalem because it has become more turbulent than the surrounding nations. When Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, the Moabites’ inference from this event was that “the house of Judah is like all the other nations” (Ezek 25:8). The words that are put in the mouths of the Moabites reflect Israel’s own anxiety with regard to its status among the nations. Israel’s distinctive identity was questioned when they first defiled themselves and then when they were punished like the rest of the nations at the time of the exile. The anxiety about Israel’s identity is the reason underlying Ezekiel’s severe judgment of Egypt. I have argued in the preceding chapter that in Ezekiel’s discourse on the relationship between Israel and Egypt one cannot keep the two nations entirely separate in the prophet’s recitation of the origin and the history of the defilements that led the people into exile (idolatry and the metaphor of adultery). The prophet uses a stock of shared language when he speaks of Israel and Egypt. Such a rhetorical feature constructs some shared elements of identity between these two nations, especially when it comes to describing their state of chaos and in describing the judgment that will befall them. Furthermore, Ezek 20:7–8 accuses the Israelites of having worshiped Egyptian idols, and they refused to cast them away. When the Israelites worship Egyptian idols, they lose their key distinctive marker for their identity, that is, their sole worship of YHWH. Moreover, as the prophet speaks about the illicit relations of Oholah and Oholibah, Egypt takes the prominent place among the lovers of these two sisters. Their adulterous affair with Egypt was their first illicit relationship; throughout their respective personal histories they abandoned all other lovers just to get back to Egypt. Not only that, but the intimate relation between Egypt and Israel, their overlapping identity, is inscribed on their nude bodies. As I argued in the previous chapter, it is only the Egyptians and the two sisters whom the prophet exposes in chapter 23.

Introduction

155

This relation that I have just summarized attests to a state of religious chaos in which the boundary between Israel and Egypt was blurred and illdefined. This state is somewhat analogous to the stage of “unitary sameness” between the mother and the child, as described by Julia Kristeva. In this stage the child does not have any sense of borders or difference from its mother. Through abjecting the mother, however, the child starts to construct its subjectivity. When we consider the relation between Israel and Egypt in Ezekiel, we find that Israel lost the boundary distinguishing it from Egypt. For Israel to have an independent identity Egypt must be abjected. Just as the child abjects its mother in order to construct its “I,” its subjectivity, so should Egypt be abjected from the life of Israel.1 I will argue in this chapter that the combat myth motif which the prophet appropriates in chapter 29:1–16 and 32:1–16 functions in a way similar to the process of abjection. The course of this process goes through two different steps in Ezekiel’s appropriation of the combat myth. First, the prophet ascribes to Egypt the body of a monster, which represents Egypt as an Other.2 Not only does the body of the monster represent the way the prophet perceives who Egypt is, namely, that Egypt poses a threat to Israel’s religious identity, but it also prepares the way for the combat between YHWH and the monster of chaos. Second, this monstrous body will be dismembered and mutilated after YHWH defeats the monster. The spectacular punishment inflicted on the body of the monster will both witness to the supernatural power of YHWH and work as a message of horror to whoever disturbs YHWH’s law 1 There are notable differences between Kristeva’s notion of abjection and Ezekiel’s discourse on Egypt as a monster, which I have discussed in Chapter Two (pp. 58–62). For the sake of convenience, here I will briefly mention these differences. Kristeva’s notion of abjection is characterized by the following: (1) it is a process that centers on the psyche of the individual (infant); (2) The child unconsciously abjects the mother; (3) It is process that involves only the mother and the child. Monstrosity in the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf and Ezekiel’s appropriation of this motif differs in the following: (1) it moves beyond the psyche of the individual to the realm of the socio-religio-political, which is mediated through a literary work; (2) the notion of monstrosity/abjection/Otherness is a conscious act on the part of the prophet or the composer/editor of the literary work that constructs a figure as a monster/abject/Other; (3) these literary works involve more than just the self and the Other; the prophet (as an agent of YHWH), for example, is a third party who through his prophetic imagination constructs Egypt as a monster/abject/Other, in order to construct Israel’s identity. 2 In chapter two I discussed monster theory, the monster of the Chaoskampf of the ancient Near East, and the way in which the monster as an Other represents the fear, the anxiety, and that which is loathsome in a society. The monster embodies the unknown. Therefore, most often the monster is ascribed a body that transgresses the known boundaries and order. Monsters are usually gigantic, hybrid and a treacherous mix of dreadful creatures that are not usually seen in normal circumstances. Monstrous bodies represent their Otherness and difference from accepted and established norms.

156

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

and order. Egypt’s dismembered monstrous body, which will be neither gathered nor buried, but rather will be devoured by the birds and the beasts, further portrays Egypt as a repulsive abject. The divine act to annihilate the monster of chaos aims at protecting Israel from the threat of assimilation. By abjecting Egypt, Israel can formulate its identity over against Egypt as an Other; annihilating this monster, however, underlines a desire to eliminate the threat that Egypt poses to Israel’s relation with YHWH, yet, as we will see in Chapter Six, this abject will not completely vanish. And if Egypt must continue to exist, it must only be at the periphery. The boundary between it and Israel must be maintained. All in all, this process of literary abjection reveals the true identity of Egypt. Ezekiel’s words of judgment against Egypt not only focus on the incapability of Egypt to support Judah against Babylon (Ezek 29:6–7), but also on Egypt as a representation of chaos (29:3; 32:2; cf. 29:16). Judah’s political alliance is an external sign that signifies the fact that Judah and Egypt share common elements of identity with one another. When Egypt is embodied as a monster and its body is dismembered, the prophet is able to distinguish Israel from Egypt. The following discussion will focus on Ezekiel’s literary embodiment of Egypt as a monster and the ensuing dismemberment of the body of the monster.

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

Jacqueline Lapsley argues that the human body is one site upon which the prophet Ezekiel inscribes his message.3 The reader of the book can perceive a

3

The body signifies meanings and, metaphorically, makes statements about itself and about its world. It is a central player in the field of semiotics. “Reading” the body reveals knowledge about the socio-political worldview of its surroundings. The “textualized body,” that is, the body that is fleshed out in writing and the writing that takes place on the body, becomes a great source in understanding political and social relations. This is particularly true in cases in the ancient world where artifacts and material culture are not available. See Joanna R. Sofaer, The Body as Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006). This interest in the social and political meaning of the body has attracted the attention of scholars of the Old Testament. Interest in the body in Old Testament studies has dealt with a wide range of themes including: the royal body (Mark W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel [Biblical Interpretation Series 78; Leiden: Brill, 2005; and Mark K. George, “Body Works: Power, the Construction of Identity, and Gender in the Discourse on Kingship” [Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1995]); the household body (Jon L. Berquist, Controlling Corporeality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel [New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002]); the disabled body (Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

157

tension in “Ezekiel’s writing about bodies, or more specifically, his writing on bodies. The human body appears throughout Ezekiel as the site of conflict; it is both the means of communication for, and subject of, the divine message of punishment and salvation.”4 The body of the Israelites will bear signs of the divine punishment for their sins; however, the body will also mediate the promise of salvation for the nation. “The body is punished even as it delivers the divine word (e.g., chaps. 16, 23). Yet elsewhere deliverance is written onto the body (e.g., chap. 37).”5 In addition to inscribing his message of judgment and salvation on the body of the Israelites, the prophet Ezekiel also brings the other nations into his semiotics of the body, such that non-Israelite bodies also play a role in disseminating the prophet’s words to the people of Israel. The divine punishment upon Egypt, for example, is inscribed on Pharaoh’s body. However, this section will show that prior to inscribing divine punishment upon Pharaoh’s body – an issue which I will deal with later in this chapter – Ezekiel ascribes the body of a monster and a monstrous body to Pharaoh/Egypt. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt who supposedly has a human body, is assigned the body of a monster that lies in the waters of the Nile. The process of ascribing a monstrous body to Pharaoh/Egypt discloses Egypt’s identity in relation to Israel. Egypt should not be perceived as a political ally and as a source of trust and confidence; rather, it stands in for religious chaos and political turbulence. Through embodying Pharaoh as a monstrous Other, Ezekiel seeks a theological reconceptualization of who Egypt is and how Israel should relate to it. The role that the body plays in representing the category of the monster is noted by Margarit Shildrick when she writes, Normative discourse, which is propelled by the notion of discrete and autonomous sites of being and agency, sets itself against such a luring of distinctions and attempts to maintain physical and moral detachment from those for whom the boundaries of embodied selfhood are uncertain or plainly breached. Now those lines of separation are not merely symbolic, but are realized quite literally in the material of the body.6

For Ezekiel, the body is the starting point for reconstructing Pharaoh’s and Egypt’s identity. In Ezek 29:1–16 and 32:1–16 the prophet Ezekiel addresses Pharaoh as a monster.

Story [LHBOTS 441; London: T. & T. Clark, 2006]; and Mary E. Mills, Alterity, Pain and Suffering in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel [LHBOTS 479; London: T. & T. Clark], 2007). 4 Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Doors Thrown Open and Waters Gushing Forth: Mark, Ezekiel, and the Architecture of Hope” in The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God (ed. Beverly Gaventa and Patrick Miller; Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 139–153, 141. 5 Ibid., 141. 6 Margrit Shildrick, Embodying the Monster: Encounters with the Vulnerable Self (London: Sage Publications, 2002), 51.

158

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

A. Ascribing the Body of a Monster to Pharaoh in Ezekiel 29:1–3 and 32:1–2 In Ezek 29:1–3 and 32:1–2 the prophet Ezekiel addresses Pharaoh as the great dragon who inhabits the waters of the Nile. The fact that Ezekiel addresses Pharaoh as a monster that inhabits the waters twice, once in ch. 29 and once in ch. 32, signifies the importance of this motif for Ezekiel. Before offering a fuller exegetical discussion of each of these texts, I will discuss a question that has occupied interpreters of Ezekiel: the identity of the animal to whom Pharaoh is compared. 1. Monster Or Crocodile? In Ezek 29:3 and 32:2, the Hebrew word that is translated dragon/monster is Mynt, where we would expect Nynt (cf. Gen 1:21; Isa 27:1; 51:9; Jer 51:34). I take the word to refer to a Nynt “dragon” and not to “jackals” (sing. Nt). This reading is supported by multiple Hebrew Manuscripts that read Nynt, a variation that is reflected in the Targum ()nynt) and the OG (δρακοντα). Furthermore, the adjective (lwdgh) “the great”7 that describes the dragon that lies in

the Nile is in the singular denoting a singular noun.8 The meaning of this word is debated. The debate focuses on whether the word has a mythological reference (so, to be translated specifically as “dragon”) or whether it is demythologized (and thus to be understood as a terrestrial creature, such as a crocodile). The latter translation (as “crocodile”) would provide a geographically specific, localized nuance, giving the creature an Egyptian color, but the mythic translation (as “dragon”) would universalize the creature’s geographic range. Day, for example, takes the word Nynt to be a mythological reference in both Ezekiel 29 and 32.9 Zimmerli argues that this

7

In Gen 1:21, the Mnynt “monsters” are described with the same adjective Myldg “great,” where both the noun and the adjective are in the plural. 8 Furthermore, Boadt lays out the issues: “Since Ezekiel is consistent in both tannîm spellings, either the mem is a scribal confusion of tannîm ‘jackals’; or possibly a case in which the scribe, aware of dialectical peculiarities which employed an ‘aramaized’ -n for masculine plural endings, hyper-corrected what appeared to be an erroneous form in dialect to the standard Hebrew ending -m; or else, the confusion was already becoming widespread in general. The exchange of mem and nun is well-attested in Semitic languages, including Akkadian, Ugaritic, Moabite, Hebrew and Arabic” (Lawrence Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 [BibOr 37; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980], 26). 9 John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 93–95. For a similar view, see Philippe Guillaume, “Metamorphosis of a Ferocious Pharaoh,” Bib 85 (2004): 232–236, 233, who takes both instances of Nynt Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2 in a mythological sense. Wakeman reads the word as a “generic term, ‘the monster.’” Mary Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 72.

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

159

word in 29:3 refers to a “crocodile;”10 thus, for Zimmerli this translation works as a demythologization of the term Nynt. Zimmerli believes that the same notion of demythologization of the term Nynt took place in Genesis 1:21. Interestingly, however, Zimmerli takes the reference in 32:2 to be a mythological reference. Although he translates the word as “crocodile,” he writes, “the characteristics of the uncanny size of a mythical dragon can be explicitly noted in the parallel reference to ‘seas’ and ‘streams.’”11 Boadt, who takes the word to refer to a “dragon,” argues, on the other hand, that although Ezekiel uses mythic language, “God deals with a very concrete pharaoh and his threat of self-divinization.”12 Underlying this debate are two different questions. First, what is the relation between myth and history in the ancient Near Eastern worldview? Second, does describing the monster as a crocodile take away its mythological connotations? I think the answer to the issue should not be bound to an either/or approach; this way of thinking creates a dichotomy between history and myth, which oversimplifies the situation. In the worldview of the ancient Near East, myth and history are interrelated; the one can be used to explain the other and vice versa. An historical event can refer to mythological references, and a mythological worldview can be used to explain historical events. Myth and history are interconnected. 13 Having a concrete Pharaoh in mind and situating the prophet’s oracles against Egypt in a historical moment by using the date system does not negate the fact that Ezekiel is ascribing a mythological and a cosmological aspect to YHWH’s defeat of Egypt. There are precedents in the ancient Near East, such as when Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, made use of Enūma eliš in order to speak about one of his battles.14 10

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 111, 159. Greenberg follows a pattern similar to that of Zimmerli, namely that the reference in 29: 3 is a crocodile but the reference in 32: 2 is more mythical in nature (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1983], 601, 651). G. A. Cooke takes both references as a crocodile (A Critical And Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, 346); see also Kathryn Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary (vol. 6; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 1404–1405; and Sudhi Kumar Minj, Egypt: The Lower Kingdom (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Land, 2006), 33–34, 72. This word tannîn is used in Deut 32:33 and Ps 91:13 paralleling the word peṭen (asp). Such evidence shows that the word tannîn could refer to a snake-like creature; see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 110. 11 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 159. 12 Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles, 28. 13 See the discussion of this issue above in chapter one, pages 18–19. 14 Elnathan Weissert, “Creating a Political Climate: Literary Allusions to Enuma Elish in Sennacherib’s Account of the Battle of Halule,” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten (ed. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997), 191–202. Note that allusions to Enūma eliš also appear in the inscriptions of Sargon II (see Weissert, “Creating a Political Climate,” 195 and n. 32). Moreover, “Several texts were

160

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

In the Amduat the enemies of Pharaoh are slaughtered in a parallel to the defeat of Apophis by Re.15 Thus, Ezekiel’s portrayal of Egypt as a monster in a given historical context should be read in light of this evidence from the ancient Near East. Ezekiel uses his mythological worldview in order to speak about what Egypt is doing historically in the life of Israel. The creature that Ezekiel describes lies in the Nile and has jaws, scales, and feet. Would this be a crocodile? One can only guess. If this text does indeed describe a crocodile, does this mean that this is a raw demythologization, describing only a mundane reptile? Not necessarily. The ancient Egyptians spoke mythologically of a crocodile-god, named Sobek, as the god of the Nile.16 In other words, even if Ezekiel had a crocodile in mind, this does not mean simply that he is demythologizing the Chaoskampf motif just because he is using a local animal. A crocodile represented Sobek, the Egyptian god, who controlled the Nile.17 Pharaoh, according to Ezekiel, as we will see in the following section, claimed to have created and to possess the Nile and its branches (Ezek 29:3). YHWH reverses this imagery by portraying Pharaoh as a monster, a defeated one, not as a creator of anything; and the proof is that YHWH will drag it out of its zone of power, namely, the Nile. Pharaoh’s body turns out to be a monstrous body that has the features of a local Egypcomposed during the reign of Sennacherib and played a key role in his anti-Babylonian theological reforms allude to the ‘Epic of Creation’. The inscription on the bronze gate of the Bit-Akit (sha) seri, the ‘Marduk Ordeal’ and the recently published inscription describing Ashur’s tablet of destinies may be noted here in passing” (Weissert, “Creating a Political Climate,” 196). Note that – perhaps during the reign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib – Assyrian scribes made some changes to Enūma eliš, which included praising Assur instead of Marduk (see H. Zimmern, “Marduks (Ellils, Ashshurs) Geburt im babylonischen Weltschöpfungsepos,” MVAG 21 (1916), 213–220; P. Machinist, “The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some reflections,” Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Jahrbuch 1984/85, 359; W. G. Lambert, “The Assyrian Recension of Enuma Elish,” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: XXXIXe Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Heidelberg, 6.–10. Juli 1992 (ed. Hartmut Waetzoldt, Harald Hauptmann; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997), 77–79. 15 See chapter three Figure 2. 16 Some traditions speak of Sobek as the son of the goddess Neith, “a goddess who embodied the primeval waters. … Sobek was the Lord of the Winding Waterway, the Lord of the Nile, and the one ‘who greens the Two Banks,’ an epithet he shared with the inundation god Hapy.” Sobek was not always perceived as a benevolent deity; a spell in the Coffin Texts speaks of him as a rebel. In other cases he is identified with Seth, the god of confusion. Yet from the New Kingdom onward he was also seen as a form of the sun god, “Sobek-Ra.” Geraldine Pinch, Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 200–202. Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003), 218–220. 17 Denise M. Doxey, “Sobek,” in Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion (ed. Donald Redford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 336.

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

161

tian animal, namely, a crocodile,18 but at the same time it has mythological overtones as well.19 This claim is supported by the reference to Sea and River in the parallel passage of Ezekiel 32:1–3. In 32:2 words like “Sea” and “River,” are cosmogonic terms, as Greenberg notes, and “evoke the primeval water monsters whose uprising God crushed (e.g. Isa 51:9–10; Ps 74:13) but whose menace will not be finally removed until the eschaton (Isa 27:1).”20 Ezekiel uses cosmological and mythical elements in order to highlight the fact that the political actions of Pharaoh are not just mere opposition to Nebuchadnezzar. Instead, this political action has a cosmological and mythical dimension: it is in opposition to YHWH himself.21 2. The Gigantic Monster in the Nile 1 In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth day22 of the month, the word of the YHWH came to me: 2 Mortal, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt; 3 speak,23 and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: I am 18

A hymn to Thutmose III contains an address from the god Amun: “I have made them see thy majesty as a crocodile, Lord of fear in the water, unapproachable” (James Henry Breasted, A History of Egypt: From the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest [2nd, rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1909], 319, cited in Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 111; see also M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973], 40). 19 See also Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC, 29; Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1990). Allen accepts both views that the creature is a crocodile but it also has a mythological aspect to it. He writes, “It is probable that both conceptions are in view, and that this particular crocodile is larger than life and invested with mythological overtone” (p. 105). 20 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 651. See also the discussion in Friedrich Fechter, Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch (BZAW 208; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1992), 228–230. 21 After mentioning some examples in which some biblical traditions appropriate the Chaoskampf motif Odell writes, “One may therefore suggest that the exchange of metaphors is intended to heighten the mythic and cosmic dimensions of Pharaoh’s political actions. He has not simply opposed Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, he has challenged the sovereignty of Yahweh, the God of the heavens and the earth.” M. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2005), 404. 22 The OG reads mia “the first.” It seems that the Hebrew text, which the OG translated did not have the Hebrew rDcDo MyEnVvI;b “the twelfth.” The OG, then, assumed that it is the first day of the month. α´ and θ´ support the MT as they read τη δωδεκατη “the twelfth.” 23 Because the OG does not translate the imperative rbd “piel, speak,” some scholars (e.g. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 107) judge this word not to be part of the “original text.” The pair rbd + rm)) can be found elsewhere in Ezekiel (cf. 14:4; 20:3, 27; 33:2). To be sure the pair in 14:4; 20:3; 33:2 appear in different formulae from the one we have here in 29:3. Yet, the fact that these two verbal forms appear together makes their appearance in 29:3 plausible.

162

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, O great dragon24 who is lying in the midst of its Nile branches,25 saying, “My Nile is my own; I made it for myself.26

In the first oracle against Egypt, which is dated to January 587 BCE, during the final siege of Jerusalem,27 YHWH addresses Pharaoh, “I am against you.” The divine command to the prophet “set your face”28 (29:2) anticipates the opposition between YHWH and Pharaoh. Although on the surface Pharaoh seems to possess power, his power is by no means comparable to that of YHWH. In Chapter Two I discussed Deleuze’s understanding of the relation between unequal power and the production of the body, and his observation that a body is created when two unequal powers come into a relation.29 The prophetic word exercises YHWH’s power over Pharaoh by assigning him the identity of a monster.30 Ezekiel’s discourse starts off by identifying the recipient of the divine oracle as “Pharaoh the king of Egypt.” Pharaoh is a word that is derived from the Egyptian pr-‘3 which means “great house” and had come to signify royal majesty.31 YHWH qualifies it with the title “king of Egypt.” Yet, as the words of the oracle are disclosed, the humanness of the king is supplemented by identification with a monster of chaos. And his majesty is replaced with a description of how gigantic the monster is in its size. The monster is uncan24

Reading the definite article as a vocative, see GKC §126e. Reading with the MT, taking the plural of r)y to refer to the Nile and its channels. In the following line the MT vocalizes the word as a singular. Emending the vowels of the MT to make it plural is unnecessary (cf. OG reads oi˚ potamoi÷ “rivers”), since the word could possibly refer either to the main body of the Nile or the Nile and its branches. 26 Pharaoh claims power to himself as a creator. The Hebrew word ynty#( in the MT means “I made (for) myself.” The OG renders this word as kai« e˙gw» e˙poi÷hsa aujtou/ß “I made them,” referring back to the Nile channels. Greenberg, following Kimhi, suggests that the “direct object of the verb is unexpressed” (cf. 29:9, “I made [it]”). Further, he posits that “the object suffix is dative”; that is the whole phrase would mean, “I who made the Nile for my benefit or glory.” Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 602. 27 R. Parker and Waldo Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75 (Brown University Studies 19; Providence: Brown University, 1956). It is important to note that the chronology in the book of Ezekiel refers to the exiled king Jehoiachin, not the sitting king Zedekiah. 28 S. C. Layton, “Biblical Hebrew ‘To Set the Face,’ in Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic,” UF 16 (1986): 169–181. 29 Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy (trans. Hugh Tomlinson; New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), 40. 30 The power of YHWH is manifest through the body of his agent Ezekiel. This bodily manifestation is apparent by highlighting the contrast between Ezekiel’s body and Pharaoh’s body. While the human identity of Pharaoh is in question, YHWH affirms the humanness of the prophet: YHWH addresses Ezekiel in his book as “son of man.” This Md) is in a strong contrast with Pharaoh’s description as a monster. The embodiment of Pharaoh as a monster is a strong device that enforces the humanness of the prophet. 31 Redford, “Pharaoh,” ABD 5.288–289. 25

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

163

ny.32 The prophet pronounces YHWH’s word: “I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, O great dragon (lwdgh Nynth) who is lying down in the midst of its Nile branches” (Ezek 29:3).33 Pharaoh is represented as the monster that lies in the midst of “his” Nile. The word Cbr “lie (down)” is used in the Hebrew Bible to describe both domesticated animals (e.g., sheep in Gen 29:2) and wild animals (e.g., lions in Ezek 19:2). The monster is lying in its zone of power and security. Its bodily position signifies a message of apparent stability and security.34 Ezekiel’s reconstruction of Pharaoh’s body takes a satirical twist when the prophet describes the monster by the word lwdg, “great” or “big.” The word that sometimes is used in order to describe the greatness of the king (Jer 25:14; 27:7; Eccl 9:14) and describes YHWH as a great king (Ps 47:3; 95:3; Mal 1:14) is employed by Ezekiel in order to speak of the size of the monster (Ezek 29:3; cf. Isa 27:1). In Ezekiel 17:17 the prophet declares that the “mighty army” lwdg lyx of Pharaoh will not be able to save the Judahites from the Babylonians. Using the device of “massification”35 in the process of describing the monster of the Nile, Ezekiel evokes a sense of horror. The massive and gigantic size of the monster signifies the difficulty of defeating and controlling this terrific creature. Pharaoh, “the great house” is described by Ezekiel as “the great dragon”. The prophet reverses the greatness of the king from one who possesses constructive power into one who possesses destructive power. The amount of chaos this monster is producing matches its

32

Zimmerli highlights the abnormality of the monster when he notes, “The characteristics of the uncanny size of a mythical dragon can be explicitly noted in the reference to ‘seas’ and ‘streams’ … the echoes of cryptic, mythical allusions to the political ‘world power’ in chapter 31 are also to be heard in the background here too” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 159); see also Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel), (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2001), 406. 33 Some commentators take the reference to the plural “branches,” to entail a mythological overtone. In various places, whether in Ugaritic literature (KTU 1.3.III.42, where TNN / YM is described as dšb‘m r’šm “the one with seven heads”) or in biblical traditions, (Psalm 74:13), the monster of chaos is referred to as possessing multiple heads (Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Egypt, 28). In Isaiah 11:15 YHWH threatens to divide the “sea of Egypt” into seven channels. See also a text from the Converse Tablet line 16 which relates that the Nabu killed the seven-headed snake; see W. G. Lambert, “The Converse Tablet,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), 350. 34 Greenberg notes that “in the west-central part of the Delta lay Sais, the capital of the twenty-sixth (Saitic) dynasty contemporary with Ezekiel where Pharaoh ‘couched’” (Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 602). 35 Noël Carroll, Philosophy of Horror, or, Paradoxes of the Heart (London: Routledge, 1990), 45–52.

164

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

power.36 Nevertheless, the size of this monster, which YHWH is about to challenge and defeat, signifies how powerful YHWH is, because he is about to tame this huge monster. Pharaoh, the great king of Egypt, is a great monster; he is a destructive creature that represents chaos. Although the prophet seemingly portrays Pharaoh as a great monster, ultimately for the prophet, despite the chaos that he perpetuates, Pharaoh is ultimately a weak human before YHWH. Not only does Ezekiel exercise YHWH’s power over Pharaoh by ascribing him the body of a monster, but Ezekiel also deconstructs Pharaoh’s claims. Pharaoh is criticized on account of his claim: “My Nile is my own; I made it for myself.” The oracles against the nations use the technique of attributing quotations to the addressee. According to David Fishelov, this device is used to “clarify the ground for the satirical attack.”37 Ezekiel 29:3, and v. 9 use the verb rm) in order to present a quotation from Pharaoh, who claims ownership and creation of the River Nile.38 Between Pharaoh’s claim and the prophetic word that Ezekiel is about to proclaim we have a “speech war” between the prophet and the monster. “Ezekiel has created a literary structure admirably suited for directing the battle of opposing ideological forces, and the balance is heavily weighted in God’s favor.”39 It is a combat in which discourse constructs reality. Pharaoh’s monstrous identity is highlighted through the contrast between his own self-inflated image and the image of how YHWH views him. Ezekiel quotes Pharaoh’s claim perceiving 36

The prophet uses the imagery of the monster “to suggest not only the savage uncontrollable strength of the crocodile but also the characteristics of the mythological power of chaos in its opposition to the Creator of the world, as a revelation of the real nature of the heathen world-power” (Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970], 403). 37 David Fishelov, “The Prophet as Satirist,” Prooftexts 9 (1989): 195–211, 198. “Typically Ezekiel quotes the accused’s own words in his indictment. As the king of Tyre claimed divine status (28:2), so the Egyptian king claims ownership of the Nile, source of Egypt’s existence, by virtue of his own creative act” (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel [Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990], 128). 38 It is interesting that YHWH judges Pharaoh because he claims that he created the Nile; ironically, at the same time, YHWH uses suffixed pronoun to identify Pharaoh’s possession of the Nile (29:3, 4). The word r)y is an Egyptian loanword, which makes the quotation more powerful because it uses a native Egyptian word (see, e.g., Thomas Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” JAOS 73 [1953]: 145–155, 151. The Nile is the source of life in Egypt. Zimmerli writes “what is expressed here about the representative of Egypt is his unrestricted right of ownership of the precious waters of the Nile from which Egypt lives, a right which is justified on the basis of his own creative activity” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 111). 39 Ellen F. Davis, “‘And Pharaoh Will Change His Mind …’ (Ezekiel 32:31): Dismantling Mythical Discourse,” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Bervard S. Childs (ed. Christopher Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 224–239, 231.

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

165

himself as the owner – and even the creator – of the Nile and its channels. A Scarab of Thutmosis III reads, “The Nile is at his service, and he opens its cavern to give life to Egypt.”40 Pharaoh claims to be in control of the Nile, which is the source of life in Egypt.41 The god Sobek, which was represented by a crocodile, was perceived as a “royal symbol, leading several late Middle Kingdom pharaohs to incorporate his name into their own,” since this deity was associated with the Nile and its flood and came to be known as both a benevolent god who creates and also a destructive god who annihilates. Ezekiel, however, counters such a claim when he associates Pharaoh with the figure of the monster, which is a source of chaos, disorder, and even death. 3. “Not a Lion But a Dragon” Projecting monstrous Otherness over Egypt by means of reconstructing Pharaoh’s body and identity as a monster continues in Ezekiel 32:1–3. The prophet pronounces another oracle against Egypt, which is dated to March 3, 585 B.C.E. according to the MT or March 13, 586 B.C.E. according to the OG.42 Both of these dates point to the fact that the word of YHWH came to Ezekiel after the capture of the city of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (587 BCE). Even after the fall of Jerusalem, Egypt still occupies the attention of the prophet. In Ezekiel 32:1, YHWH commands the prophet to lift up a dirge over Pharaoh, the king of Egypt.43 In the eleventh 44 year, in the twelfth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 2 Mortal, lift up a dirge over Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him: 40

Cited in Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 612. For more connections between the Pharaoh and the Nile, see H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 57–60, 194–195. 41 Denise M. Doxey, “Sobek,” 336–337, 336. 42 Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 28. See also Karl Freedy and Donald B. Redford, “The Dates of Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian, and Egyptian Sources,” JAOS 90 (1970): 462–485, 468. For an explanation on this difference, see note 44 below. 43 The imperative hnyq )# “lift up a dirge” is used in the book of Ezekiel three times. In 19:1, the prophet is asked by YHWH to lift up a dirge over the princes of Israel, in 28:12 the dirge concerns the King of Tyre, and finally in 32:2,16 the dirge is to be lifted up over Pharaoh king of Egypt. 44 The MT reads hérVcRo yE;tVvI;b “in the twelfth year,” which the BHS suggests to emend to yt%#:$(ab%i “eleventh.” The logic behind this emendation is to follow the chronological order of the seven oracles against Egypt in Ezekiel 29–32, bearing in mind that only the oracle in 29:17–21 does not follow the chronological order. Note also that the LXXA reads e˚ndeka¿twˆ “eleventh”; see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 154. For a different opinion that follows the MT, see G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936; repr., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960), 346.

166

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

You have been like a lion of the nations: but45 you are like a dragon in the seas and you have bubbled forth in your streams46 you have troubled water with your feet, you have disturbed (muddied) your streams.47

In the dirge the prophet challenges a propagandistic image that Pharaoh has promulgated about himself, namely, that he is a lion.48 Ezekiel, instead, declares that Pharaoh is not a lion but a monster that promulgates chaos. Ezekiel’s prophetic discourse reconfigures Pharaoh’s body, and by extension, his identity. Rather than proclaiming a simple and direct oracle of judgment over the monster of chaos, the prophet embeds his oracle in a particular discourse, that is, a lament.49 Both Ezek 32:2 and 32:16 identify the oracle in verses 2–16 as a hnyq. Zimmerli observes that the hnyq meter (typically thought of as 3+2) is undoubtedly present in 32:2b.50 However, the meter changes in the rest of the poem.51 Usually one does not expect the messenger formula in the genre of lament; nevertheless, this formula is used in 32:3. Moreover, Zimmerli notes that the lament is not concerned with a past event; rather it is speaking of a futuristic judgment. He writes, “it is no longer a question of a (prophetic) lament over an event which has already taken place and which is spoken of in retrospect in the perfect sense, but of a clear divine announcement about the 45

169.

On the adversative use of the waw in this clause see my discussion below on page

The BHS suggests emending the Hebrew word K11ytewGrhjnAb:% into K1yrEyxin:bi% “by your nostrils” (following the description of Leviathan in Job 41:12 [Heb.; Eng. 41:20]) or the singular form K1t;rfxjnabi%. I believe the emendation that the BHS suggests is unnecessary. The MT is supported by the OG: potamoi√ß “rivers.” Although ryxn “nostrils” is used in Job 41:12 in order to describe Leviathan, the verb xyg “to bubble,” which appears here in Ezek 32:2, does not appear in Job 41:12 in association with ryxn “nostrils.” Thus the text as it stands makes perfect sense of the monster bubbling forth and muddying its rivers and replacing “in your rivers” with “through your nostrils” would complicate the meaning. 47 The MT reads M`DtwørShÅn “their streams.” Emending the suffixed pronoun into the second masculine person makes a better sense and it parallels the preceding line “you muddied your streams.” Further, this is supported by the OG, which reads potamou/ß sou “your streams.” 48 See below my discussion on the image of the lion in connection to the Egyptian Pharaohs. 49 A funeral dirge can be defined as “a composition whose verbal content indicates that it was composed in honor of a deceased person sometimes eulogizing the individual, sometimes merely bewailing the loss. It was apparently used by either individuals or by groups at funeral observances” (Paul Wayne Ferris, The Genre of Communal Lament in the Bible and the Ancient Near East [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992], 11). 50 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 157. 51 Hedwig Jahnow, Das hebräische Leichenlied: Im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung (BZAW 36; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1923), 229. 46

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

167

future in which Yahweh himself is the speaker.”52 This divine announcement is presented as an instantiation of the combat myth between YHWH and the dragon. In other words, the genre of lament is combined with the genre of judgment oracle that is pronounced by using the motif of the combat myth. Applying rigid conditions of genre led Zimmerli to conclude that the kernel of the unit of 32:1–16 as a whole is “formed by a short hnyq (‘lament’) (or by the fragment of a longer hnyq ‘lament’?)”53 Zimmerli is not alone: Greenberg describes this unit as “an aborted pseudo-dirge over Pharaoh.”54 Zimmerli does not rule out the suggestion that this section either has started as a lament and then been expanded with an oracle, or the other way around, as an option for explaining the formation of this text. Instead, he writes, “but then the possibility must also be left open that this deviationary continuation might come from the prophet himself.” 55 This, in my view, shows that even traditional form criticism, which dominates Zimmerli’s analysis, leaves room for the prophet’s decision to deviate from the expected form of the lament. When one applies rigid criteria in identifying certain genres, one might discard the possibility that the author intended to modulate a generic mixture, and therefore not ask or answer the question: What does it mean for the author to deviate from the genre of lament? More specifically, what does it mean for Ezekiel to depart from lament to an oracle of judgment that employs the motif of the combat myth? This is a very critical question because it is clear from other dirges that the prophet is familiar with the form of the lament (Ezekiel 19, 27, and 28); also, he has already spoken against Pharaoh and Egypt using the motif of the combat myth (Ezek 29:1–5). Bearing these questions and observations in mind, I suggest that in Ezek 32:1–8, the prophet subverts the Egyptian claim of power by means of integrating a funeral dirge with the combat myth. This subversion plays out through the divine evaluation of the identity of Pharaoh, who thought himself to be a lion. Instead, argues Ezekiel, he is a dragon. The bracketing of the combat myth within a framework of a lament intensifies the satirical aspect of the oracle against Pharaoh. The lament framework of the combat myth not only recalls the context of the combat myth between Re and Apophis, which is usually found in Egyptian funerary literature, but also subverts it through a reversal. Pharaoh, who was usually identified with the sun god Re, is now identified with the serpent dragon that perpetuates chaos. This satirical diatribe developed even more fully when YHWH destroys the body of the dragon and when YHWH declares the pervasiveness of darkness over the land of Egypt, 52

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 158. Ibid., 157. 54 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 655. 55 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 158. 53

168

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

thus reversing the cosmological results of the defeat of Apophis in the Egyptian myth. Through lament the prophet highlights his discursive reconstruction of Pharaoh’s body and his identity: normally, a lament begins with authentic praise and then it moves to describe the destruction that came upon the deceased (e.g. 2 Samuel 1).56 But here, the dirge deals first with merely perceived glory preceding the reality of demise. Pharaoh is not a lion; he is a dragon. This change of identity prepares the way for the transformation of the lament into the combat myth in which YHWH fought the dragon.57 The lament in Ezekiel 32 does not speak extensively of Pharaoh’s past glory; even the quasi-positive remark, namely, that Pharaoh is portrayed as a lion, can be read as a mere repetition of Pharaoh’s personal, but ineffective, propaganda.58

56

In the book of Ezekiel, laments appear only in 19:1 concerning the Princes of Israel, 27:2 concerning Tyre and 28:12 concerning the king of Tyre, and chapter 32:2, 16, 17 concerning Egypt, its king, and its hordes. It is noteworthy to point out that in 19:9 the king of Judah is brought to an end; and therefore, his leonine roaring will not be heard in Israel. Tyre and its king “will not be anymore” (27:36; 28:19); and the king of Egypt will descend to Sheol (31:18; 32:17–32). In contrast to the imperatives of lifting up a dirge over these kings, in Ezekiel 24:15–27, the prophet is commanded not to mourn the death of his wife, thus serving as a prototype for the inhabitants of Jerusalem who will not be able to mourn the dead because the city is under the Babylonian siege and will suffer destruction soon. Lament, then, in the book of Ezekiel, either prohibited or commanded, highlights the divine wrath on Jerusalem and also on the kings of Judah, Tyre, and Egypt. 57 It is worthy to note that other instances of the combat myth occurring in the Old Testament are embedded in a context of a lament (e.g. Psalms 74, 89); see John B. Geyer, Mythology and Lament: Studies in the Oracles about the Nations (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2004), 148. 58 Ezekiel 19:10 and 27:32, which begin the other two laments that the prophet proclaims over other kings (those of Judah and of Tyre), also use the verb hmd, which is used here in Ezek 32:2. Note that the prophet Ezekiel uses the root hmd abundantly in his vision of the glory of YHWH in chapter 1. While the word is variously repeated in Ezekiel’s vision of YHWH in order to conceal the divine identity, it is used in the laments over the earthly kings in order to reveal their true identity. “The social dimensions of mourning the dead are many and varied, … Social rank may be conferred or rejected by participants in mourning. Treaties between ruler or political entities may be embraced, reworked, or broken. A king’s authority is tested by the ritual response of his followers to his precedentsetting behaviour” Saul Olyan, Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). The way Ezekiel deconstructs the image that Pharaoh propagates about himself should be put in contrast with how Ezekiel speaks of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. In Ezek 31:11 there is mention of one who is Mywg ly) who will destroy the cosmic tree that at one time signified Assyria, but now signifies Egypt. Thus, in Ezek 31:11, the reference to the “mighty of the nations” or the “ram of the nations” stands for Nebuchadnezzar. Ezekiel does not question the image of the king of Babylon as the “mighty one among the nations.” Nevertheless, in 32:2–6, Ezekiel questions the image and the perception of Pharaoh among the nations.

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

169

The imagery of the lion was used in the ancient Near East in order to speak of royal power.59 The lion in ancient Egyptian literature was used to represent royal and divine motifs. Ramses II describes himself in the Karnak records as “the living lion ... slayer of his enemies.”60 Ramses III uses the same imagery when he describes his defeat of the Libyans, “the lion who rages when he sees his assailant.”61 Moreover, in the Elephantine Stela it is recorded of the Saite king, Amasis (570–526 B.C.E.), in his battle against Apries, “His majesty fought like a lion, he made slaughter among them, whose number was unknown.”62 These Egyptian texts show that picturing the victorious Pharaoh as a lion was a common image in Egyptian propaganda.63 Ezekiel quickly reverses the image of Pharaoh as a lion into an image of Pharaoh as a dragon. While Ezekiel would be familiar with the Mesopotamian lion-reptile dragons (as T. J. Lewis64 has argued), he is splitting this dual nature in ch. 32 into its composite parts: the lion, which symbolized the power of the king, and the reptile, which embodies the forces of chaos. Almost as if refining an ore, the prophet removes the valuable ‘metal’ (lion) from Pharaoh’s self-conception, leaving only the ‘dross.’ The contrast between the imagery of the lion and the imagery of the monster is underlined when the second clause is introduced by hD;tAa◊w, which has an adversative force in a nonverbal clause as is the case in Ezek 32:2.65 Pharaoh, who propagates an image of himself as a young lion, is emphatically portrayed by the prophet as a “dragon” that perpetuates confusion and chaos.

59 For an extensive study on the imagery of the lion in ancient Israel and the ancient Near East, see Brent Strawn, What is Stronger than a Lion: Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO 212; Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic Press Fribourg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005). 60 E. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols.; New York: Pantheon Books, 1953–68), 7.46. 61 Ibid., 46. 62 Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents, From the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest (collected, edited, and translated with commentary by James Henry Breasted; 5 vols.; London: Histories and Mysteries of Man LTD., 1988), vol iv, p. 512, § 1005. In the same volume, iv, § 921, the lion imagery is used of the Atum, “Atum is he for the people, lord of two horns, ruler of the living, ... victorious in might on the day of battle, ..., like a fierce-eyed lion” (p. 468). 63 Lion imagery was not unique to the Egyptian royal propaganda, it is well attested in Assyrian literature and iconography. See Gordon H. Johnston, “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158:631 (2001): 287–307; and Michael B. Dick, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Lion Hunt and Yahweh’s Answer to Job,” JBL 125 (2006): 243–270. 64 Theodore J. Lewis, “CT 13.33–34 and Ezekiel 32: Lion-Dragon Myths,” JAOS 116 (1996): 28– 47. 65 See also Ezekiel 28:9 and 1 Sam 28:12; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 651.

170

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

The monster was lying down in Ezekiel 29. In contrast, the monster according to Ezekiel 32 is active. The way Ezekiel describes the dragon strongly reflects how he perceives the actions of the Egyptian Pharaoh. The dragon is causing chaos. The impact of the three verbs used in 32:2 (xyg,, xld,, spr) is very powerful; the poetic image personifies the mythical dragon in a manner that pictures its body parts (e.g., its legs) as creating disturbance in the water, its habitat. The dragon in 32:2 bursts forth, stirs up, and disturbs its rivers.66 The verbs xld, spr designate a sense of muddiness; the actions of the monster befoul its own home. The waters in which the monster lies down will be disturbed to the point that it will not be good for drinking. The same verb spr is used in Ezekiel 34:18 in order to, metaphorically, criticize those who drink from the “clear water,” and yet “muddy it” with their legs. In Ezekiel 32:13 YHWH declares that he will destroy all the animals of Egypt so that the “mighty waters” would not be muddied by animal’s hoofs or human legs. The “mighty” waters will not become “muddy” waters. Greenberg notes that the verb xyg usually appears with the preposition mem (e.g. Judg 20:33; Job 38:8); however, here in Ezekiel it is with the preposition beth, which highlights “motion that, vigorous as it may be, is confined to bounds.”67 In the book of Job 38:8 this verb xyg “burst forth” is used in order to describe the way in which the “Sea” bursts out from its source. Yet, the “Sea” is under the divine control that shuts its gates. The same verb is used in Job 40:23 in order to describe the gushing Jordan of which Behemoth is not frightened. When these two examples are compared to Ezekiel’s use of the verb xyg “burst out” in order to describe the monster in Ezekiel 32:2, two insights come forth. The monster does not “burst forth” as an act of creation but rather, bursts forth in its rivers, that is, causes it to be disturbed. The monster is not responsible for bringing forth the “rivers” but rather disturbing them. Furthermore, this disturbance that happens to the Jordan (Job 40:23), which does not frighten Behemoth, is similar to the disturbance that the monster of Ezekiel 32:2 brings forth, yet the actions of the monster of Ezekiel brings it under the divine judgment. Although Pharaoh is, for Ezekiel, a dragon causing chaos, this dragon is nevertheless subject to divine sovereignty. The body of the monster that lies in its water (29:3) and that perpetuates chaos in its rivers (32:2) will soon enough be the object of the divine punishment.

66

Eichrodt notes that the imagery of disturbing the water, though it seems at the outset as fitting for the crocodile, is intended by the prophet to go beyond a simple association with a local Egyptian animal. This chaos and confusion that Egypt, the monster, is causing coincides with Egypt’s policies that Eichrodt describes as “mysterious and so productive of uncertainty” (Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 432). 67 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 651.

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

171

B. Constructing Egypt’s Monstrous Body in Ezekiel 16, 23, 30, 31 Having dealt with the embodiment of Pharaoh/Egypt as a monster in Ezekiel 29 and 32, I will now highlight three places in the book of Ezekiel in which Egypt seems to be characterized as monstrous. In other words, the monstrosity of Egypt, of its body that transgresses the boundaries and represents chaos, is evident in other places in Ezekiel’s discourse outside the two accounts of the combat myth in Ezekiel 29 and 32. The prophet Ezekiel describes the body of Egypt as an excessive entity. It transgresses the norms. This bodily excessiveness is fleshed out in Ezekiel’s description of the Egyptian male (Ezek 16:26; 23:20), the unhealing wound of Pharaoh (Ezek 30:21), and the cosmic tree, which is watered by Mwht (Ezekiel 31). The prophet ascribes to Egypt an improper body that exceeds the normal and transgresses the familiar. In this way the prophet imputes to Egypt a body that coincides with the way he evaluates its role in the life of Israel. Egypt is the monster that perpetuates chaos; therefore, it is ascribed an improper body that transgresses boundaries. By doing this, the prophet attempts to reconstruct Egypt’s identity and concomitantly reconstruct Israel’s identity and thereby clearly distinguish the two. 1. The Egyptian Phallus In his discourse concerning the adulterous relation that Jerusalem (Ezek 16, 23) had with the Egyptians, the prophet Ezekiel provides a distinctive description of the body of Egypt. As he criticizes Jerusalem the prophet declares, You played the whore with the Egyptians, your neighbors of big phallus,68 multiplying your whoring, to provoke me to anger. (Ezek 16:26)

The Egyptian male is described as having a large phallus (r#$b yldg). In 23:20, the size of the Egyptian male organ continues to occupy the prophet’s description of the lustful relation between Jerusalem and Egypt. She lusted after their concubines whose phallus is like that of donkeys and whose emission is like that of stallions. (Ezek 23:20)

The prophet declares Jerusalem’s lust was for the male concubines,69 whose phallus is “like the flesh” of an ass;70 and whose issue/fluid is like that of a

68

The word r#b usually means “skin, flesh.” However, in a few cases in the OT (e.g. Lev 15:2–7), this word is used as a euphemism in order to refer to the male organ. BDB, 142; HALOT, 164. 69 The word #$glp is usually used in the Old Testament to refer to a female concubine (Gen 22:24; 35:22). Generally, though, commentators on this text take this occurrence as a reference to male servants.

172

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

horse (23:20; cf. 16:17). Although the prophet accuses Jerusalem of being involved in illicit sexual relations with the Babylonians and the Assyrians, Egypt is the only nation that is personified as a male of large phallus.71 The exaggeration of the size of the sexual organ and the discharge points to a monstrous body that combines human and animal characteristics.

(Figure 3. Courtesy of The Egypt Exploration Society. Illustrated by Armando Sultan)

The amalgamation of a human being with animalized sexual characteristics creates a grotesque image. Bakhtin describes the grotesque in this way: “the artistic logic of the grotesque image ignores the closed, smooth, and impenetrable surface of the body and retains only excrescences (sprouts, buds) and orifices, only that which leads beyond the body’s limited space or into the body’s depths.” 72 Those humans have a large phallus like that of the donkey; it produces a vast discharge like that of the horse. The body of the Egyptians is an anomaly. The anomaly of the Egyptian body signifies impurity by means of transgressing the boundaries between two different categories (i.e., human and bestial). The Egyptian body is hybrid; it has human and at the

70

Perhaps not coincidently, the Hieroglyphic word ‘a “a donkey” ends with a determinative of a large phallus, suggesting that Egyptians themselves found the size of the quadruped’s member worthy of note. Ezekiel may thus have been using a conception indigenous to Egypt in his comparison. 71 Zimmerli speaks of Ezekiel’s description of the Egyptian phallus as “coarse sensuality” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 487). 72 Bakhtin extensively discusses the “grotesque body” in Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World (trans. H. Iswolsky; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1984), 317–318. Also on the grotesque in Ezekiel see: Lapsley, “Doors,” 141–142, and Jeremy Schipper, unpublished paper mentioned in Lapsley’s article.

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

173

same time animal characteristics. This embodiment of Egypt makes it monstrous because it is “human and non-human simultaneously.”73 The following image represents a sample of various images of a phallus figurine unearthed in Egypt.74 It seems that these figurines and Ezekiel’s portrayal of the Egyptian male hark back to the same Egyptian ideal of large phalli. 2. Unhealing Wound of Pharaoh’s Arm In Ezek 30:21 YHWH addresses the prophet Ezekiel: Mortal, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; it has not been bound up for healing by placing a bandage so as to bind it, so that it may become strong (enough) to wield the sword.

The word (wrz is used in the OT in a literal sense in order to refer to the “arm” as a member in the human body (Judg 15:14; Ezek 4:7; 13:30) and it is also used symbolically as a way to refer to power and strength (e.g. Job 35:9; Ps 44:4; 71:18; Prov 31:17). In Ezek 30:21, when the prophet speaks of YHWH breaking Pharaoh’s arm, the text refers to the divine destruction of the military power of Pharaoh.75 Not only will YHWH break Pharaoh’s arm, but also YHWH declares that this broken arm will not be healed. The arrangement of the oracle emphasizes the latter point, namely, that the broken arm will not get the appropriate therapeutic actions that would enable curing: no bandage will be put on it. Only one clause is dedicated to speak of YHWH’s actions to break Pharaoh’s arm, while multiple clauses speak of the failure to treat the broken arm. The unhealing arm of Pharaoh is further damaged when put in contrast to what happens to the ones with broken bones among the Israelites according the salvation oracle found in Ezek 34:16. Unlike the wicked leaders of Israel, 73

Andrew Sharpe, Foucault’s Monsters and the Challenge of Law (New York: Routledge, 2010), 30. Hybrid creatures are monstrous because of “their exposure of the redundancy and instability of the ontological hygiene of the humanist subject.” These hybrid creatures show that the presupposed normality of the human body as the only accepted norm is not that stable. See Elaine L. Graham, Representations of the Post-Human: Monsters, Aliens, and Others in Popular Culture (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 12. 74 The image is taken from Lise Manniche, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt (London: KPI, 1987). 75 Most scholars take this oracle in the sense that YHWH will put an end to Pharaoh’s power by means of destroying his arm (Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Egypt, 87). For a comparison between the theme of the hand of YHWH and the hand of Pharaoh see: James Hoffmeier, “Egypt as an Arm of Flesh: A Prophetic Response,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland Harrison (ed. Avraham Gileadi; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1988) 79–97.

174

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

who are portrayed as shepherds and who did not look after the people, YHWH, the faithful shepherd of his people, will heal the ones who are injured and have broken bones: vObTjRa t®rR;bVvˆ…nAl◊w “I will bind up the broken.” Pharaoh’s body will remain injured, whereas the body of the Israelites will be healed. The human body can be perceived as a closed entity that has its own boundary. The wound in the body is monstrous because it transgresses the boundaries between the inside and the outside of the body.76 As Amy Kalmanofsky argues in her study of monsters in Jeremiah, the wounded body “mars the integrity of skin, revealing and releasing the blood and pus inside the body. Thus a wound is abject because it violates the boundaries of the body, crossing the border between inside/outside and between whole/part.”77 The arm that will continuously be broken and injured overlaps with Kristeva’s notion of the abject in that both violate the boundaries. The unhealing arm violates the boundaries of the body that is expected to be whole. Pharaoh’s body with the broken arm is an abject that is impure, horrific and repulsive.78 3. The Monstrous Cosmic Tree: Ezekiel 31 On June 21, 587 – two months after the date in 30:20 and still during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem,79 the prophet Ezekiel pronounces the fifth oracle concerning Egypt: 1 In the eleventh year, in the third month, on the first (day) of the month, the word of YHWH came to me, saying: 2 Mortal, say to Pharaoh, King of Egypt and to his hordes, To whom are you comparable in your greatness? 3 Behold, Assyria80 a cedar in Lebanon

76

It is worth noting that whereas YHWH will break Pharaoh’s arm and the wound will not be treated and therefore it will not heal, YHWH himself will heal and look after those who are wounded among the Israelites. In one of his salvation oracles, Ezekiel speaks of YHWH who will look after the wounded ones of the Israelites (Ezek 34:4, 16). 77 Amy Kalmanofsky, Terror All Around: Horror, Monsters, and Theology in the Book of Jeremiah (LHB/OTS, 390; New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 72–73. 78 See Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 102, where she writes concerning any mark on the body other than circumcision: “any other mark would be the sign of belonging to the impure, the non-separate, the non-symbolic, the non-holy.” 79 The defeat of two relief columns sent by Hophra king of Egypt to aid Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege is probably in view here; see Karl Freedy and Donald Redford, “The Dates of Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian, and Egyptian Sources,” Journal of American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 462–485. 80 The MT reads “Assyria.” The editors of BHS suggest emending this word to rw#)t “Cypress”, which is based also on an emendation in 27:6. The emendation is unnecessary,

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

175

With beautiful branches, and forest shade, and of a great height And among the clouds is its top.81 4 Waters made it great, Tehom made it tall. It led82 its rivers round about the place where it was planted, And it had sent out its streams to all of the trees of the field. 5 Therefore it grew higher than all of the trees of the field, And its boughs became numerous, and its branches became long Because of abundant water in its channel.83 6 In its boughs nested all the birds of the air, And under its branches all the beasts of the field gave birth, And in its shade dwelt all mighty nations. 7 And it became beautiful in its greatness, because of the length of its branches, For its roots reached abundant water. 8 Cedars could not overshadow it in the garden of God. Cypress of fir (junipers) could not compare with its boughs, Plane trees had nothing like its branches. None of the trees of the garden of God could compare with its beauty. 9 I have made it beautiful on the account of the mass of its branches; all of the trees of Eden, which are in the garden of God, have envied it.

The word of YHWH was a command to address Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and his hordes (31:1–2a). Surprisingly the word of YHWH proclaimed in the following oracle does not start with the messenger formula, which appears for the first time in this chapter only in verse 10. Rather, the word of YHWH addresses Pharaoh with a rhetorical question: To whom are you comparable in your greatness? The question presupposes a certain category of comparison; this category deals with greatness and glory (31:2c). It seems that the prophet Ezekiel is concerned with the issue of “image” and “likeness.” The issue appears again in the following oracle (32:1–2) against Pharaoh (DtyEm√dˆn MIywø…g ryIpV;k) and in the last oracle (D;tVmDoÎn yI;mIm) in 32:19. While the likeness and image of God at the beginning of the book is concealed, the image and the likeness of the earthly kings are unearthed. Ezekiel emphasizes that the concealed image of God testifies to God’s transcendence and true greatness while the unveiled image of the earthly king, Pharaoh, reveals his external quasi-great appearance that hides mortal nature.

and the versions support the reading of the MT. The OG reads Assour and the Targum reads hDa∂r…wtAa. 81 I take the Hebrew twb( to be an anomalous plural for the masculine b( “cloud” (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 142; and Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 646; Ezek 19:11; Ps 77: 18 and 2 Sam 23: 4). 82 Emending JKElOh into hkfyliho following the suggestion of the editors of the BHS; this emendation is supported by the OG which read h¡gagen “it led”. 83 Following Greenberg’s suggestion of reading wxl#$b as “water conduit” (cf. Neh 3:15; see GKC, § 85).

176

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

In a poetic narrative, the oracle of YHWH answers the question metaphorically (2b–9). The prophet uses Assyria as a reference for answering the question of the incomparability of Pharaoh. Modern scholars (e.g., Zimmerli, Boadt) suggest emending the Hebrew word rw#$) “Assyria” into rw#$)t “cypress.” However, MT and the versions are consistent and in agreement as they all read “Assyria.” Moreover, Greenberg points out that the pronoun mî in v.3 invites comparison with a human, not a tree.84 Although the metaphor of the cosmic tree speaks of the greatness of Assyria, Egypt should remain in the center of our focus since this is an oracle against Egypt. This is underlined by the relational question which the prophet addressed Pharaoh and his hordes with at the beginning of the oracle: ÔKRl√dÎgVb DtyIm∂;d yIm_lRa “to whom are you compared in your greatness?” Although Assyria is the answer that the prophet provides to this rhetorical question, this nation that is portrayed as a cosmic tree, is just an example that the prophet uses in order to reveal who Pharaoh and Egypt are.85 Assyria, and hence Egypt, is portrayed as a cedar of Lebanon.86 However, once the prophet moves on to elaborate on the greatness of the tree, one real84

Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 646–647. Referencing Assyria, however, does not flatten the rich mythical metaphor that follows in 3b–9. Contrast Greenberg, who understands the mention of Assyria as flattening the mythical or the metaphorical rhetoric of the poem. He writes, “The rhetorical situation is better met by comparison of Egypt to fallen Assyria than to a mythical-metaphor cedar” (Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 647). In other words, the Assyrian king is presented in the oracle in terms of the cosmic tree, which offers a lesson that is applied to Pharaoh the king of Egypt. Note however that the metaphor is free of any political references (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 147). This observation means that the metaphor in this case, which is applied to Assyria, becomes a model for Egypt. The reason for the prophet to connect Egypt with Assyria might be historical. Egypt and Assyria were allies against Babylon; Egypt’s effort to assist Assyria before the fall of Nineveh and the battle of Carchemish stresses the connection between Egypt and Assyria. (Nah 3:9 undermines Nineveh by comparing it with Thebes, the Egyptian capital, which has fallen.) In addition to these historical connections, Ezekiel’s hearers were probably familiar with the greatness of Assyria. The theme of greatness is not just highlighted by the word “greatness” in the question of comparability, but also by including the “hordes” of Pharaoh as part of the addressee in 31:2, which prepares the reader to hear an issue of pride in the following oracle; see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2,148. 86 For a description of the greatness of the cedar in biblical tradition see Pss 29:5, 37:35; Isa 2:13; Hos 14:4; Zech 11:1; Song 1:17. Ancient Near Eastern literature witnesses to the great appearance of the cedar tree as well. The Egyptian official of Thutmoses III reports about the cedar: “their tops are in the clouds” (Pitchard, ANET, 243) The cosmic tree in Sumerian is described similarly: “That tree has grown high with heaven and earth; its branches reach the sky; its roots are set in the earth.” (For a full account of different cosmic tree mythologies of various cultures from throughout the world, see: Moyra Caldecott, Myths of the Sacred Tree: Including Myths from Africa, Native America, China, Sumeria, Russia, Greece, India, Scandinavia, Europe, Egypt, South America, Arabia [Vermont: Destiny Books, 1993]). The use of the metaphor of the cedar tree to describe the 85

I. Embodying Egypt as a Monster

177

izes that it is not just any normal cedar tree; it is a cosmic tree. The use of Mwht, clouds, and Sheol – images which have mythic significance in contexts featuring the Chaoskampf – leads us to believe that this cedar tree has cosmic and mythopoetic aspects as well. Using various descriptive motifs, the metaphor intensifies and affirms the greatness of the tree. The tree is beautiful, creates shade because of its large size, and its height and its top reach the clouds of the sky. The great appearance of the tree is summarized in v. 3c, 3d, 3e. The appearance of the tree includes: beauty, fullness of the leaves and the branches (width), and height. It is important to note that these three elements of the appearance of the tree are explained in detail in the following depiction – in reverse order, however. The height of the tree is described in detail in 3f–5b. The fullness and width of the tree is highlighted in 5c–6. And finally the beauty of the tree is elaborated upon in verse 7. This great appearance has a reason that is put forth in verses 4, 5e, 7b–c: the source of water is what makes the tree great. The text also shows the greatness of the appearance of the tree in comparison with other trees (of the field, in Eden, plane trees, etc.). In other words, this tree is not like any other normal or familiar tree. The fact that this tree cannot be classified with the normal and the familiar is emphasized when we consider the source of its waters. The references to 87 Mwht in 31:4, twrhn in 31:4, and Mybr Mym in 31:5, 7, provide a mythologgreatness of Assyria, and hence Pharaoh, opens the door for many possible meanings of the metaphor. Those meanings fall into categories of immortality (longevity, regrowth of leaves; Gilgamesh, the tree of life becoming the tree of death), kingship (the Sumerian king Shulgi is praised as a great cedar), and divinity, which might be the purpose behind describing the king of Tyre as a cosmic tree in Ezek 28:2. Here in this case with Assyria, and therefore Egypt, it is an issue of kingship and immortality (31:6, 14). These nations think they rule and that they will last forever. However, Ezekiel shows that it is God who rules and the destiny of these nations is death and their abode will be Sheol (see Ezek 32:22). 87 Ezek 31:9 brings into the picture God’s responsibility for making this tree beautiful and great. All of the trees of Eden that are in the garden of God were envious of this great and beautiful tree. Although the incomparability of the other trees of the field and the trees of the garden of God with the cosmic tree has been put forth already, this verse emphasizes the reaction of these personified trees (of Eden) to the greatness of the tree. It is a reaction of jealousy. The statement “I made it beautiful” shifts the focus from a descriptive mode into a course of action. The subject of the verb is ambiguous. Is it God or Mwht? Mwht as an answer to the question follows the same line of thought offered and repeated in the earlier account (31:4). In other words, this phrase could be read as a personification of Mwht, in which it reports its active role in making the tree great. On the other hand, however, the answer could be YHWH. The purpose then of this clause is to highlight the sovereignty of YHWH: YHWH is not absent from the history of this world. Scholars such as Zimmerli think that this line (“I made it beautiful”) is a later addition (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 145; his reason for thinking that it is a later addition is based on the absence of the statement in the OG). This might be so; but what does this text mean as it stands now? If YHWH is the

178

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

ical background for the greatness of the tree. “The deep” is investing in making this tree great. These mythical agents (often described as sources of chaos and chaotic powers) are the source of its growth. The imagery here explains to the reader the reason for the extraordinary growth of the tree; it is the water. The water made the tree become a great one; Mwht made the tree grow very high. Mwht has provided the major rivers to water the tree, while its small branches and pools water the rest of the plants of the field. The text here asserts a notion of superiority and even abnormality of this cosmic tree when compared with the trees of the field (31:4f; 5b). Ezek 31:5 highlights the result of this distribution of the water, namely, that the tree has grown much higher than the rest of the trees of the field. The boughs of the tree have become numerous and also extremely long.88 The use of various Hebrew words to describe the boughs and the branches of the tree reflects the abundance and the greatness of those branches. Verse 7 highlights the aspect of beauty along with the greatness of the size of the tree. The reason for this beauty and greatness is found in the source of the water that the tree is enjoying. The roots of the tree were sunk in mighty waters. Yet this tree is not only a thing of beauty; it is monstrous as well, because it gets its water from the primordial ocean, Mwht. Reaching to the edges of the known world, with its roots tapping into the deep and its branches reaching up to the heavens, this tree is monstrous because it connects two separate worlds. Moreover, it is incomparable in its beauty and size to any of the other known trees, even those in the Garden of Eden. In short, the tree’s monstrosity consists of its unfamiliarity and its transgression of familiar boundaries. C. Summary I have argued that Ezekiel is trying to reveal to the Judeans who perceive Egypt as a political ally that Egypt is a monster that perpetuates chaos. The subject of the verb “make”, then the phrase means that God is in control even of the powerful empires (i.e. Assyria and Egypt). Moreover, God is in control even over the growing empire of Babylon. The fact that God is in control of the empires is not strange to the prophets of Israel. Isaiah 10 reflects this ambiguous situation in relation to Assyria; God used Assyria to punish Israel for its sin, but its heart led it to hubris, therefore, it was punished by God (10:5–15). Habakkuk reflects a similar pattern concerning Babylon. God uses Babylon to punish the injustice in Judah, but its power became its god, and therefore, God punished it for its pride (Hab 1:10). The insertion of the phrase that pictures God as also responsible for the growth of the tree in addition to the role of Mwht “the deep” seems to be a way of defending divine control over the world empires. 88 According to Ezek 31:6 the tree, because of its great branches, its numerous boughs and its shady nature, became a secure and peaceful place for nesting, giving birth, and resting (cf. Jer 22:23; Ezek 17:23; Ps 104:17; and Daniel 4:9). Note here the repetition of the word lk. This repetition signifies the totality of the security and peace that all birds, all animals, and all nations enjoy under this tree.

II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

179

prophet gives a concrete expression to this perception of Egypt when he ascribes to Egypt the body of a monster and a monstrous body. When the prophet addresses Pharaoh as “Tannin,” the prophet assigns Pharaoh a body of a monster; but when the prophet speaks of the unhealing body of Pharaoh, or the grotesque image of the Egyptian male or the cosmic tree, the prophet does not ascribe Egypt a body of a monster, but rather a monstrous body. Whether through sexual discourse, the invocation of an unhealing wound, or comparison to the cosmic tree, the prophet Ezekiel inscribes difference on the Egyptian body by ascribing monstrous characteristics to its body that transgresses the norm. Furthermore, the prophet does not deal with Pharaoh as an enthroned, powerful king who portrays himself as a lion and who claims the power of life by regenerating the channels of the Nile. Rather, Ezekiel treats Pharaoh as a monster that lies in the Nile and perpetuates chaos. YHWH’s incomparable power enables the prophet to represent the body of Pharaoh and therefore his identity as a monster of chaos. Egypt for Ezekiel represents a threat to the religious identity of Israel. Therefore, he embodies Egypt as the abject monster that does not respect borders, rules, or lines. As the prophet tries to distinguish Egypt from Israel, the prophet projects an Otherness onto Egypt by assigning it the body of a monster; this monster will be treated as an Other, an outlaw and an abject that should be cast out.

II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

After embodying Egypt as a monster, the prophet sets the stage for the combat between YHWH and the monster of chaos. In both chapters 29 and 32, YHWH hunts the monster out of its zone of power, that is, its waters, and dismembers its body. Ezekiel reaches this goal of representing Egypt as a monstrous Other not only through the notions of ascribing a monstrous body, but also by inscribing the divine punishment upon the body of the monster. Egypt as a monster is embodied, defeated and dismembered. That Ezekiel’s monster has a body is not a foreign concept to the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf tradition. Indeed, in the Chaoskampf traditions in the ancient Near East such as the Enūma eliš, Baal Cycle, and Re-Apophis combat myths, the power of chaos takes a bodily form. Foucault has argued that the body prior to the rise of prisons in medieval Europe was a site upon which the authority of the sovereign is inscribed.89 The punished body pronounces a monstrous message of horror to those who disobey the law and order imposed by the sovereign. Similarly, the body of the monster (e.g., 89

See the discussion of the work of Michel Foucault on punishment above in chapter two (pages 55–59).

180

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

Tiamat, Mot-Yamm-Nahar, Apophis) bears the divine punishment in the various ancient Near Eastern instantiations of the Chaoskampf. This body is the site of punishment by the god of order (e.g. Marduk, Baal, Re). In the same manner, the monstrous body of Egypt in Ezekiel is going to be punished and dismembered. The body of the monster, which embodies rebellion against the divinely established laws, bears the punishment of the god of order. The monster’s dismembered body proclaims a message of terror. Through the defeat and the dismemberment of the body of the monster, the mutilated body proclaims a message of horror and terror to those who consider opposing YHWH. The dismembered pieces of the monster spread a sense of horror and loathing among those who see it. The mutilated body takes the form of the abject, in that it is repugnant and repulsive. YHWH’s punishment upon the body of the monster and the body of the cosmos does not simply proclaim YHWH’s sovereignty, but also announces death as Egypt’s fate, which signals YHWH’s subjugation and harnessing90 the power of chaos that Egypt represents in the life of Israel. That Egypt will remain deceased should be seen in contrast to the resurrection of Israel in chapter 37 of the book of Ezekiel. A. YHWH’s Combat with the Monster In Ezekiel 29:4–5 and 32:3–6 the prophet animates a combat between YHWH and the monster. 4 I will put hooks in your jaws, and make the fish of your channels stick to your scales. I will draw you up from your channels, all the fish of your channels shall stick to your scales.91 5 I will fling you into the wilderness, you and all the fish of your channels; you shall fall in the open field, 90

See the next chapter, in which I deal with the tension between the complete annihilation of the monster and the notion that monsters continue to exist. 91 The use of the definite object marker in the clause “qD;b√dI;t ÔKyRtOcVqVcåqV;b ÔKy®rOa◊y tAg√;d_lD;k tEa◊w” is striking. Grammatically, ÔKy®rOa◊y tAg√;d_lD;k “all the fish of your Nile” seems to be the object of the verb qD;b√dI;t “to cling,” in which the verb is parsed as 2ms, rather than as 3fs. Greenberg notes “the subject ‘all the fish’ of the intransitive verb ‘shall stick’ (vs. 4bß) is preceded by the marker ’t under the influence of the preceding transitive construction (4bα) as though it were absorbed into it: “I will haul you up … [you] and all the fish.” Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 603. Mark Rooker lists this verse among multiple examples in which the particle t) appears before the nominative. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSupp 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 88–90.

II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

181

and not be collected and gathered.92 To the animals of the earth and to the birds of the air I have given you as food. (Ezekiel 29:4–5) 3 Thus says the Lord God: I will spread out my net on you in the midst of an assembly of many peoples and I will bring you out93 with my dragnet 4 I will lay you out on the ground, upon the face of the field I will cast you I will cause all the birds of the air to dwell on you; I will let all of the beasts of the earth gorge themselves on you;94 5 I will spread your flesh on the mountains; I will fill the valleys with your putrid flesh95 6 I shall water the earth with your outflow of your blood to the mountains;96 the channels will be filled with you. (Ezekiel 32:3–6)

The fact that Ezekiel starts his oracles against Egypt with the image of the monster and the defeat of this monster by YHWH is critical. Although the prophet declares in various places throughout the oracles against Egypt that YHWH is about to employ Nebuchadnezzar as an agent for the defeat of the Egyptians (Ezek 29:17–21; 32:11), the defeat of Egypt was initiated by YHWH himself. In other words, Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Egypt is merely an actualization of the cosmic defeat in which YHWH defeated the monster of chaos.

92

Reading Ps) and Cbq “to collect” and “to gather” as a metaphor for gathering a deceased and possibly a dismembered body for the purpose of burial. Because the Targum rAbVqtIt reads “to be buried,” some modern scholars tend to emend Cbqt into rbqt. 93 The MT reads K1w%l(ehew; “they will bring you out,” which probably takes the “many peoples” as the subject of the verb. The OG reads και αναξω σε “I will bring you out.” This reading corresponds to the rest of the verbs in the section, where YHWH is the subject. 94 The MT literally reads “the beasts of all of the earth.” The OG reads pa¿nta ta» qhri÷a pa¿shß thvß ghvß “All the animals of the whole earth”. That is the OG seems to be reading another lk prior to the Hebrew word tyx “animals.” 95 The MT reads K1tew%mrF which means “your height.” The OG reads touv aiºmato/ß sou “your blood.” I follow the emendation of this word into K1ytem%fri. In Arabic rimmat means “old and rotten bones”; see Lane 1:1151b and HALOT, 1241, “tmr.” 96 This line is corrupted. The word K1t;pfcf is a hapax legomena; it is thought to be derived from the root Pwc “to overflow.” The OG translates the whole line into as kai« potisqh/setai hJ ghv aÓpo\ tw◊n procwrhma¿twn sou aÓpo\ touv plh/qouß sou e˙pi« tw◊n ojre÷wn “and the land will be filled with your excrement, because of your multitude upon

the mountains.”

182

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

1. YHWH the Hunter (29:4; 32:3) Ezekiel 29:1–3, skillfully, sets up the stage for the combat between YHWH and the monster of chaos. The reader anticipates the first attack from the divine warrior, YHWH, who initiated his verbal assault with “I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt” (29:3b). Yet, the first offense is delayed, not for too long, until YHWH first reveals Pharaoh’s identity as a monster of chaos who claims an ownership of the source of life in Egypt, the Nile, and who also claims to possess the power to continuously generate this source of life. The first divine offense against this great monster, which magnifies itself, is placing hooks in its jaws.97 The expression, “I will put hooks in your jaws,” is also used in 38:4 to speak of the judgment of YHWH against Gog of Magog: “I will turn you around and put hooks into your jaws, and I will lead you out with all your army.” The idea in both passages is to emphasize that the semi-divine, mythic opponent – the monster Egypt in chapter 29 and the mythical figure Gog in chapter 38 – is under the control of YHWH.98 The same image can be found in passages aside from Ezekiel. In the divine speech in Job 40:26, YHWH raises the question of whether Job or any human can pierce Leviathan’s jaw with a hook: wøyTjRl bwø;qI;t AjwøjVb…w wøÚpAaV;b Nwøm◊gAa MyIcDtSh “Can you place a reed in its nose? Or pierce its jaws with a hook?” Whether in Ezekiel or in Job, YHWH’s power is manifest through hunting the monster by a hook.99 Although the jaws of this creature are probably the most power-

97

Egyptian resources inform us that in some periods the crocodile was a famous deity; hence we would not find a drawing of hunting it in the Old Kingdom. The case is different in the later period, as we find descriptions of hunting crocodile in Herodotus (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 111–112; see also Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 602). The term Myyxx “hooks” is used also in 19:4, 9 to describe the judgment that YHWH is declaring against the Judean king. In 19:4, 9 the intention of the image of the lion there is to show how powerful those young lions are. Yet despite their power, they are not beyond the control of YHWH, because they will be caught and turned over to their lords. 98 Fishelov writes, “Suddenly, the horrid and frightening sea-monster is caught as any other fish is caught, and the powerful myth collapses.” Fishelov, “The Prophet as Satirist,” 205. Note, however, that the word “hook” is never used to describe a fishhook, nevertheless. 99 In YHWH’s speech to Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, as recorded in 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37, YHWH threatens “I will place my hook in your nose, and my bit between your jaws” (2 Kings 19:28; Isa 37:29; for images of Assyrian captives portrayed as pierced with a hook through the lips see, ANEP, fig. 447; fig. 524). This last reference is of particular interest because Ezekiel makes use of another statement from that context. This time Ezekiel quotes from the words of the messenger of Sennacherib. In 2 Kings 18:21, Rabshakeh addresses Hezekiah saying, “You rely, of all things, on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which enters and punctures the palm of anyone who leans on it! That is what Pharaoh king of Egypt is like to all who rely on him” (cf. Ezek 29:6–7). For the prophetic reaction to Assyrian propaganda, see, e.g., Amos 4:2–3.

II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

183

ful parts in its body, they become the site upon which YHWH manifests his power. At the beginning of the oracle YHWH instructed the prophet to prophesy against Pharaoh, the king of Egypt and against all of Egypt. The Egyptians are not left behind in the course of the combat between the divine warrior and the monster of chaos. YHWH declares that he will cause the “fish of the Nile” to stick to the scales of the monster. The scales that function as a layer of protection are subdued here under the power of YHWH and are used in order to bring death and destruction to the fish that surround the monster of chaos. The inclusion of all of Egypt in the divine combat against the monster anticipates the divine judgment against all of Egypt, a judgment that is mediated through natural and cosmological disasters (i.e. drying up the Nile and darkening the luminaries; Ezek 29:8–11; 32:7–8). The combat scene is set up in Ezekiel 32:1–3 in a way that is similar to what we just have encountered in Ezekiel 29:1–4. The identity of Pharaoh is configured by the prophet, namely, that the king of Egypt is not a young lion, but rather a monster that is perpetuating chaos (32:2). In Ezekiel 32:3, YHWH unveils the divine plan for defeating the monster. YHWH declares, “I will spread (#rp) my net (t#$r) upon you in the midst of an assembly of many peoples; and I will bring you up with my net (Mrx).”100 The divine use of the net here is underlined by employing two different words to designate the tool by which YHWH hunts the monster. Furthermore, this tool (the net) is a possession of the divine warrior (my net). The defeat of the monster of chaos is ultimately the task of YHWH. The hunting of the monster is portrayed as a public spectacle and divine punishment; YHWH will drag the monster with the net in the midst of the assembly of many nations. This crowd (Mybr Mym() will be dismayed and horrified on the account of the defeat of the monster (cf. Ezek 32:9–10). The purpose of piercing the jaws of the monster with hooks and dragging it with the net is taking it out of its zone of power, the Nile, out of its zone of life into death in the wilderness and the open field. Both accounts of the combat in 29:4 and 32:3 use the verb (hl(; hiphil) “to bring up” in order to unveil the divine plan of removing the monster, and the fish, from its habitat. Furthermore, both accounts use the same verb (#$+n) “to leave” with YHWH as its subject and the monster as its object in order to describe the next step 100 The image of spreading the net is used in Ezekiel 12:13; 17:20; and 19:8 in order to speak of the divine judgment over the king of Judah by the Babylonians. The use of the same imagery with the king of Judah, who is pictured as a lion, amplifies the point that the prophet is trying to make, namely, that the kings of Judah and Egypt, though they may possess some power, they cannot escape the net that YHWH causes to be spread over them. On the connections between Ezekiel’s reference to the net and the Mesopotamian context see: Daniel Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 162–182.

184

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

after dragging the monster out of the water of the Nile. Although both accounts use different terminology in order to describe the destination where YHWH forsakes the monster (rbdm in 29:5, Cr) and hd#h ynp in 32:4), 101 both accounts ultimately seek to underline the removal of the monster to a peripheral location. The open field102 and the wilderness signify uninhabited areas. Ezekiel 29:5c states that the monster will fall (lpn) upon the face of the field. The agency of YHWH in the process of casting out the monster is more evident in Ezekiel 32:4b, YHWH declares: “I will cast you (lw+, hiphil) out upon the face of the field.” The verb (lw+, hiphil) denotes both distance and speed (cf. 1 Sam 18:11; 20:33; Jer 16:13; 22:26). The monster will be removed to where it belongs, which is the margins of the human community.103 Even if this is all in the Egyptian territory, still the monster of chaos should not participate in the ordered world; rather it should always remain at the edges of the inhabited world. It belongs to the desert, to the unknown, to the open field. The divine power should be put in contrast with the limited power of the monster. Though chaos at some point seems horrific, disturbing, excessive, and out of control, the prophet announces that ultimate control belongs to YHWH. On the one hand, the chaos that the dragon perpetuates is limited to its waters, which declares the weakness of this chaotic dragon on any level beyond its zone of power. In both cases, either by a hook or a net, the monster is under the power of YHWH. Similar to the monsters of other ancient Near Eastern exemplars of the Chaoskampf, Egypt as monster is hunted by a net.104 Catching the monster by a net initially gives the impression that the divine warrior is merely subjugating the monster and that in itself is not necessarily a deadly action against the monster. Yet, as we have seen in the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf, the narratives also reflect the view that these

101

This is one of the curses that haunts whoever breaks a treaty; see D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BO 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 68–69. 102 Note that the field (ysmt . šd . šḥlmmt “a beautiful field in Mot’s realm) is used in the Baal cycle to refer to the place where Baal encounters Mot and where Anat first searches for Baal before he revives from death (KTU 1.5.VI.6, 29; 1.6.I.8–14; 1.6.II.20). 103 See the next chapter for a discussion of this motif in the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf traditions and in Ezekiel’s discourse about Egypt. 104 In Enūma eliš Marduk catches Tiamat by his net (Ee IV.95). Note also the net was used by the gods in the Egyptian combat myth fought by Re and Apophis. In the Book of the Gate there is a register that describes what happens during the 10th hour of the night: “The fourteen deities holding nets are specially striking. In their nets, which they hold above them, magical power is contained as though in a force field, and it renders Apophis defenseless.” Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 64, 75.

II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

185

monsters were eventually killed and also dismembered.105 In Ezekiel, the body of the monster will be subject to further divine judgment; the body of the monster will be offered as food for the wild animals and as a prey to the birds of the sky. B. Dismembering the Body of the Monster (29:4–5 and 32:4–6) Ezekiel describes in great detail what befalls the body of the monster of chaos. YHWH dismembers its body – a dismemberment that underlines the divine ability to annihilate the monster, that is, Egypt. The divine sovereignty is inscribed upon the body of the monster. The combat between the monster and YHWH moves to the wilderness and the open field. The body of the monster that will fall upon the face of the open field will not be gathered (Ps) and Cbq; niphal). The use of the niphal here denotes the isolation of the monster and the absence of anyone who would have any concern for the monster of chaos. These two verbs are usually paired in order to speak of the divine restoration of the people of Israel (cf. Ezek 11:17 [piel and qal]; Mic 2:12 [piel and qal]). In Ezekiel 29:13, the verb Cbq is used in order to speak of YHWH’s gathering of the Egyptians who have been exiled. Here, however, the prophet declares that the monster of chaos, which represents all of Egypt will not be gathered. The verb Ps) in the niphal when accompanied with (wym( / wytb) l)) refers to death and burial (Gen 25:8–17; Judg 2:10).106 The meaning here in Ezekiel 29:5 is that the monster will die and will not be properly buried. The body of the dead monster is left unburied in the wilderness and upon the face of the field for a purpose. In Ezekiel 29:5b, YHWH will offer its carcass as a food (hlk)) for “the beasts of the earth” (Cr)h tyx) and the “birds of the sky” (Mym#$h Pw().107 “The carcass lying in the desert is eagerly seized by birds and wild beasts which complete the work of destruction, thus shattering human pride.”108 This imagery is picked up and expanded in Ezekiel 32:4b. YHWH will cause the birds of the sky to “dwell” (Nk#$, hiphil) upon 105 It is important to recall here what happens to the body of Apophis, the dragon, in Egyptian mythology, the bodies of Mot/Nahar/Yamm in the Baal Cycle, and the body of Tiamat in Enūma eliš. The body bears the divine punishment: where the body of Tiamat is used as raw material for creation, the body of Apophis and Mot are just hacked into pieces. 106 B. Alfrink, “L’expression wy`D;mAo _lRa PDsTa‰n,” OTS 5 (1948):118–131. 107 In KTU 1.6.II.35–37, after Anat defeats Mot and dismembers his body, the text speaks of his body that is sown upon the field being eaten and devoured by the birds and the fowl. širh . ltikl / ‘ṣrm [.] mnth . ltkly / npr[m.] šir . lšir . yṣḥ “the birds eat his flesh, the fowl finish off his body parts, flesh (-eaters) grow fat on flesh.” The word yṣḥ is usually thought of to derive from the middle weak root ṣḥ “to cry out;” I follow Pardee, who takes the word to be derived from the root nṣḥ, which is attested in Arabic and means “to grow fat” “The Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86:241–274, 270). 108 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 404.

186

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

the body of the monster and YHWH will cause the beasts of all of the earth to be satisfied ((b#, hiphil) by its flesh (cf. 31:13). Unlike the body of the monster, Tiamat, who was also hunted by a net, and out of her body Marduk created the cosmos according to Enūma eliš, the monster in Ezekiel is good for nothing but being a meal for the birds and the beasts. The slain, devoured and snatched body of the monster will intermingle with the natural order represented by the mountains, the valleys and the earth. YHWH will set (Ntn) the flesh (r#b) of the monster (i.e. its limbs and tissues) upon the mountains, and YHWH will fill ()lm) the valleys with the monster’s putrid flesh (tmr). Referencing both mountains and valleys signifies the totality of the topoi, which will come in contact with the flesh of the slain monster. The death of the monster will reach the mountains and the valleys. Furthermore, the fact that the body of the monster fills mountains and valleys, denotes not only the gigantic size of the monster, but also the power of YHWH who hunts this monster and causes the birds and the beasts to devour its body. The mountains and the valleys will not be seen without encountering the limbs, the tissues, the body parts of the monster. This sense of coupling the natural order with the body of the monster is further underlined when YHWH declares: “I will water the earth with your outflow, from your blood up to the mountains, and the channels will be filled with you” (32:6). Although the earth is usually moistened with water, YHWH will now irrigate it with the outflow – that is, the blood – of the monster. The blood, normally the source of life, signifies death instead, when poured on the ground. The body parts and the blood that fill the earth are dangerous because that can pollute those who touch or come in contact with them (cf. Ezek 39:11–16; Num 35:33–34).109 The phrase “upon the face of the field you shall fall”110 (Ezek 32:4) is used in various places in the Old Testament in order to signify judgment and 109 In a few instances the Priestly materials speak of removal of the corpses outside of the camp (Lev 10:4–5; Num 5:2–4). According to Deuteronomy 21:23 when a person dies hung on the tree, the burial should take place on the same day, lest the land will be defiled. See the discussion in David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 115–128, 224–228, and, “Purification from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19–24,” VT 35 (1985): 213–223. 110 This phrase is used as well to describe YHWH’s judgment over the mythical Gog of Magog (Eze. 39:5). See F. Stavrakopoulou, “Gog’s Grave and the Use and Abuse of Corpses in Ezekiel 39:11–20,” JBL 129 (2010): 67–84. Stavrakopoulou comments on Gog’s grave: “the pile of corpses buried in the valley takes on the form of a mortuary monument, marking the defeat of Israel’s invading enemy and asserting Yhwh’s territorial claim on the land” (ibid., 78). On the mythological connotations in the Gog of Magog pericope see Paul E. Fitzpatrick, The Disarmament of God: Ezekiel 38–39 in Its Mythic Context (CBQMS37; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004); and on the connections between the pericope with the final oracle against Egypt in Ezekiel

II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

187

defilement in cases related to blood and dead corpses.111 For example, the book of Numbers warns against touching those who were killed by the sword: “Whoever in the open field touches one who has been killed by a sword, or has died naturally, or a human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days” (Num 19:16). Similarly in 2 Kgs 9:36: “the corpse of Jezebel shall be like dung on the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, ‘This is Jezebel.’” In the open field corpses of dead people or animals witness to divine wrath and also become a source of impurity. Unlike Ezek 39:12 where the dead bodies are collected and gathered in order to sanctify and make the land of Israel holy by cleaning it from the dead bodies,112 the mountains and the wadis where the monster’s body and blood are left remain unholy because the dead bodies are not gathered. The monster is humiliated113 by being left unburied and therefore is assigned a shameful death. This cast-out body becomes outcast: it will be left out as food for the birds and the beasts. As YHWH casts out the body of the monster upon the open field, which is usually perceived as the border of the known society, the monster is treated as an Other and as an outsider. When the monster was alive, its body was abnormal because it exceeded the norm in size. When it is dead it is contaminating because it is broken into pieces (cf. Num 19:11–16). The dismembered body of the monster is the abject that is repulsive and repugnant. Kristeva writes, It is the corpse … that takes on the abjection of waste in the biblical text. A decaying body, lifeless, completely turned into dejection, blurred between the inanimate and the inorganic, in transitional swarming, inseparable lining of a human nature whose life is undistinguishable from the symbolic – the corpse represents fundamental pollution. A body without

32:17–32, see M. Nobile, “Beziehung zwischen Ez 32,17–32 und der Gog–Penkope (Ez 38–39) im Lichte der Endredaktion,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 74; ed. J. Lust; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986), 255–59. 111 In addition to the concern of impurity matters, proper burial is a way of honoring the deceased, as in 1 Sam 31 and 2 Sam 21:10–12. 112 Ka Leung Wong characterizes this implicit defilement of the land that is caused by the corpse as a “ritual impurity,” which he would distinguish from the defilement of the land that is caused by idolatry and bloodshed which is “moral impurity” (cf. Ezek 36:18). Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 136. 113 On shame as a result of mutilation of the body of the enemies see: T. M. Lemos “Shame and Mutilation of Enemies in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 125 (2006): 225–241. Although Lemos’ discussion focuses on the enemies who are mutilated, yet still alive, it is a helpful discussion with regard to importance of the body and the shame that is inscribed on this tortured body.

188

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

soul, a non-body, disquieting matter, it is to be excluded from God’s territory as it is from his speech.114

Ultimately, the dismembered body also functions as a repulsive abject and a polluted object, an unclean body over against which the prophet reconstructs Israel’s identity anew. There is an interesting comparison here between what happens to the body of the monster Egypt and what happens to the bones of the Israelites in the very famous vision of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37. After hunting the monster with a hook in when YHWH captures the gigantic monster in its jaws, YHWH brings the great monster out of its zone of power, the Nile, along with its fish (29:4). In Ezek 37:1–14 YHWH promises to revive the Israelites by bringing them out of their tombs. Here, in Ezekiel 29, YHWH brings the monster up from its habitat to meet its deadly destiny. We can notice here that the body of the Israelites will be revived and a new life will spring in it. The body of the monster, on the other hand, will be left in the wilderness. Israel’s new identity is constructed by ascribing it a new body that is emphatically contrasted with the body of the monster. Ezekiel inscribes this spectacle of punishment, which YHWH brings upon Pharaoh, upon the body of the monster. Hamilton comments on YHWH’s defeat of Egypt, the monster, “the zoomorphic icon of the king’s body became index of his defeat.”115 The body of the monster is publicly defeated. This body also functions as a warning message to whoever attempts to rebel against YHWH. When YHWH drags the monster out of its zone of power in Ezek 32:4–5, there will be many peoples witnessing this event. The presence of an assembly of many peoples is echoed later in the chapter in verses 9 and 10, which reflects the grief over the disastrous fall of Egypt/Pharaoh (cf. 38:6, 22). The divine punishment is public; it brings horror to those who encounter the dismembered body of the monster. YHWH will cause “mighty people,” “many people” to be vexed116 when YHWH brings Egypt into exile among 114

Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 109. Mary Douglas comments on the Israelite worldview with regard to the body in the following words, “in their belief all the bodily issues were polluting, blood, pus, excreta, semen, etc. the threatened boundaries of their body politic would be well mirrored in their care for the integrity, unity and purity of their physical body.” Douglas, Purity and Danger, 148. While Douglas underlines the boundary of a particular society in relation to the outsiders, H. Eilberg-Schwartz points out that the political layer that is reflected in some of the regulations of impurity has to do with internal structure of the Israelite society. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1990), 179–194. See also the discussion in Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 172. 115 Mark Hamilton, The Body Royal, 251. 116 The word “to be angry, provoke anger” is used in Ezekiel mainly to describe YHWH’s anger and disappointment because of the wickedness of the Israelites (cf. Ezek 8:17; 16:26, 42; 20:28). It is interesting to note that in Ezek 16:26 Jerusalem provokes

II. Defeat and Dismemberment of the Body of the Monster

189

the nations.117 Many peoples will be troubled by the fate that is about to befall Egypt. Furthermore, the fall and defeat of Egypt, which is manifest in the dismembered body of the monster, will be a source of “horror” to many nations and their kings. Ezekiel 32:10 emphasizes the result of the defeat of the monster upon the nations who had placed their hope in Egypt: I will make many peoples appalled at you; their kings shall shudder because of you. When I brandish my sword before them, they shall tremble every moment for their lives, each one of them, on the day of your downfall.

These nations will be in a state of dismay; they will be terrified concerning their life that is at risk. The body of the monster is a site of divine punishment and is a mythic, corporeally-inscribed “text of terror” that spreads horror in the hearts of the surrounding nations. Evidence from ancient Near Eastern literature underlines the horrific judgment of one’s enemies by leaving and spreading their bodies all over the mountains and the open field.118 Tiglath Pileser I (1118–1078) claims: “the bodies of their warriors I have flung down the mountain heights like a cloudburst; their blood I have made flow over ravines and mountain peaks.”119 Similarly, Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE) asserts: “With their blood I dyed the mountain red like red wool, (and) the rest of them the ravines (and) torYHWH’s anger by engaging in adultery with Egypt. Here, however, in Ezek 32:9, it is YHWH who makes others angry or disappointed because of the exile of Egypt. The fate of the Egyptians is the exile to other lands, which they have not known before. 117 YHWH will make Egypt a desolation among the lands, and her cities will be devastated among the destroyed cities. The word that Ezekiel uses in order to describe the process of making Egypt a desolation comes from the root Mm#$ “to be desolate,” or “to be appalled.” This term brings together both a description of the land and a description of a human bodily reaction to horrific events. Lev 26:32 brings both meanings in one verse: “I will devastate (yItO;mIvShÅw) the land, so that your enemies who come to settle in it shall be appalled (…wmVm`Dv◊w) at it.” Ezek 3:15 uses this root to describe Ezekiel’s state among the exiles after the word of the Lord came to him. And Ezek 4:17 describes the state of the Israelites who are looking for food and cannot find it. Ezek 32:10 states that YHWH will cause many nations to be appalled when they hear of the fall of the monster. 118 “Historians of the ancient Near East hardly need to be introduced to the parade of ghastliness here: enemy bodies displayed as stacks of severed heads, skulls, or heaped-up piles of unburied bodies; impaled on poles; as flayed skins hanged over city walls; corpses burned to deny burial; severed heads hung on trees surrounding defeated cities.” Seth Richardson, “Death and Dismemberment in Mesopotamia: Discorporation Between the Body and Body Politic,” in Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean (ed. Nicola Laneri; The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; Oriental Institute Seminars 3; Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2007), 189–208. See also Lloyd Worley, “Impaling, Dracula, and the Bible,” in The Monstrous and the Unspeakable: The Bible as Fantastic Literature (ed. George Aichele and Tina Pippin; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997), 168–180. 119 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 162.

190

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

rents of the mountains swallowed ... [I] dyed the mountain red with their blood, (and) filled the ravines (and) torrents of the mountains with their corpses.”120 An inscription of Ninurta-kudurri-usur (mid-eighth century BCE) reads: “I captured those who tried to get away; I made their blood run like the water of a river. Eagles and vultures hovered over their corpses. I filled the mountains and wadis with their skulls like mountain-stones; birds made (their) nests in their skulls.”121 It seems from these citations that the destruction of the bodies of the enemies was a common thing in the ancient Near East. The action of punishing the bodies of the enemies and the action of writing these accounts function as a message to warn any other enemies that dare to oppose the order of the sovereign. As Richardson notes: “Burial mounds stigmatized the enemy as the ‘Other,’”122 that is, these enemies do not belong to the ordered and civilized world. As Foucault has noted, torture is by its very nature spectacle, so that it restores order by means of spreading horror. When people see the rebel punished physically, they will obey the law. The dismemberment of the monster in Ezekiel will be witnessed by other nations; hence, the punishment is spectacle. The “many peoples” who were present when YHWH captured the monster by the net will be appalled. Since punishment and dismemberment of the body are public spectacle, the parts of the mutilated body function as signs in the semiotics of the body. The message that is inscribed over the body of the monster is that YHWH is powerful and that chaos is punished.123 YHWH’s punishment of Egypt will cause people to be dismayed and appalled.

120

Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 656. Grant Frame, Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of the Assyrian Dominations (1157–612–BC) (vol. 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), 296, 302. Younger provides another translation with a little modification: “I captured those who attempted to escape. I caused their blood to flow like waters of a river. The road with their corpses was visible to the eagles and vultures. I filled the mountains and the wadis with their skulls like mountain stones. Birds made nests in their skulls.” “Ninurta-Kudurri-Usur – Suhu Annals #2,” translated by K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (COS 2.115B.279–282.280). 122 Richardson, “Death and Dismemberment,” 195. 123 C. L. Crouch argues that “Ezekiel’s use of cosmological mythological motifs in his oracles against the nations was directly related to the theological threat to Yahweh’s status that was posed by the military defeat of Judah. The cosmological imagery, identifying Egypt and Tyre as chaotic forces and describing their defeat by Yahweh, was deployed by Ezekiel as a means of affirming the power of Yahweh as divine king and creator.” Crouch, “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against the Nations in Light of a Royal Ideology of Warfare,” JBL 130 (2011): 473–492, 492. 121

III. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos

191

III. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos in the Ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf and in Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt III. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos

A. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos in the Ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf YHWH’s spectacular defeat of the monster is followed by cosmological disasters that YHWH inflicts upon Egypt. Because there seems to be some correlation between cosmological events and the defeat and the dismemberment of the monster, I shall discuss briefly the cosmological consequences that correlate to the defeat of the monster in the combat myth traditions of the ancient Near East.124 Then we will look closely at how YHWH brings cosmological disasters upon Egypt. 124 Here I am using the word cosmos to refer to the natural order, including what is on earth and what is in heaven. In the ancient Near Eastern worldview, interrelatedness between the body and the cosmos takes different forms. One of the ways we can see an interrelation between body and cosmos is in the language that we use in order to describe both entities. It is noteworthy to mention that Adam (Md)) was created out of the earth (hmd)). In addition, the Hebrew language uses the term (hd#h ynp) in order to refer to the surface of the ground. In this expression the Hebrew language uses the word hnp “face” in order to refer to the surface of the field; thus the language uses a word that refers to a body part in order to refer to an element of the natural order. In addition to the linguistic interrelatedness between the body and the natural order, there is another manner in which the cosmos and the body are interrelated. In some cases, as in the science of omens in Mesopotamia, for example, cosmological events anticipate the infliction of the body of the king, the death of the enemy king and the victory of the home army. Bahrani mentions the following text: “Teumman planned evil, and Sin (the moon god) planned portents of evil for him. In the month of Tammuz, there was an eclipse of the moon. From daybreak until daylight it rested. The moon god went into eclipse, so Šamaš (the sun god) saw this and, like him, darkened and rested, presaging the end of the dynasty of the King of Elam and the destruction of his land” (Zainab Bahrani, Rituals of War: the Body and Violence in Mesopotamia [New York: Zone Books, 2008], 43; see also Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Historical Prism Inscriptions [Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1933], 60–65; and R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996], 97, 224). In this text we find a prediction of the defeat of a foreign king and his death paralleled with lunar and solar eclipses (Bahrani, Rituals of War, 45). Sometimes an eclipse, full or partial, represents the death of the king. For example, an omen reads “eclipse in the middle part; it became dark all over and cleared all over: the King will die. Destruction of Elam” (Bahrani, Rituals of War, 45; Fransesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture [Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 68–69). The king of Elam, Teumman, suffered physical disorder in his eyes and his lips prior to his death. These bodily disorders were understood as “somatic” and “physiognomic” omens that functioned as portents for his death and the destruction of his kingdom and consequently the victory of the

192

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

In the Chaoskampf traditions in Mesopotamia, Ugarit and Egypt, if the monster of chaos ever were to defeat the god of order, such an event would bring disorder to the cosmos. Or to look at it another way, any natural phenomena (such as drought, eclipses, etc.) were viewed to disclose a cosmological reality, in which the monster of chaos had temporarily escaped the boundaries that had been set up by the god of order. The chaos monsters always threatened the order of the cosmos; they were always at work. For example, in Egypt “in every access of darkness – in an eclipse, in the waning of the moon, in a cloudy sky, but above all in those critical moments, the onset and the end of night – Apophis was at work.”125 The opposite is also true, that is, the defeat and the dismemberment of the monster of chaos restored order to the world. For instance, dismembering the body of Apophis, either in rituals or in funerary texts, signified that the order of the cosmos would be restored, evidenced in the rise of the sun in the eastern horizons. The story of the conflict between Baal and Mot informs us that cosmological reactions occur in relation to the results of a combat between the patron god and the embodiment of chaos. When Mot (Death) takes control of the world and appears to be an unchallenged chaotic power, the surrounding cosmos, represented by the sun goddess, Shapsh, reacts. Mot’s effect on Shapsh can be recognized in the following statement: “The Divine Lamp, Shapash, is red; the heavens are weak in the hands of the Beloved, Di[vi]ne Mot” (KTU 1.3.V.17–18; 1.4.VIII.21–24; 1.6.V.4).126 There is another cosmological consequence that takes place when chaos, represented by Mot, prevails. When Baal dies, the fields wither.127 However, when Baal is revived and his body is taken back from Death,128 El sees a dream of this important event, which results in cosmological renewal: Assyrians (Baharani, Rituals of War, 48). Here we realize that body and cosmos are interrelated in that the cosmological disorder signifies some sort of a disorder related to the body of the king or even more the death of the enemy king’s body. 125 Norman Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001), 21. 126 Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume II: Introduction with text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4 (SVT 114; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 704. A Similar cosmological disorder takes place when Mot devours Baal (the Sun grows hot and the heavens grow weak). See also 1.5.I.1–8 tṯkḥ . ttrp . šmm The heavens grew hot, they withered.” 127 “The Ba‘lu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS 1.86:241–274, 271). 128 This narrative conforms to the assumption that in the ancient Near Eastern worldview body and cosmos are interrelated. The cosmos is threatened by chaos. When the body of the god of order Baal is devoured, cosmological events take place. Yet, it is also true that when the body of Mot is annihilated, cosmological events occur. Let us recount again the defeat of Mot by Anat, a text that shows how the body of the monster is related to cosmos and nature in another particular way. This relation is not just about signifying chaos or order by the semiotics of the body, but rather it is a relation in which language

III. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos

193

the heavens will rain down oil the wadis will run with honey (KTU 1.6.III.6–7)

Enūma eliš offers other insights into the relation between the cosmos and the body of the monster. When Marduk defeats Tiamat, he investigates how to make use of her carcass: Marduk creates heaven and earth using her body: He calmed down. Then the Lord was inspecting her carcass, That he might divide (?) the monstrous lump and fashion artful things. He split her into two, like a fish for drying, Half of her he set up and made as a cover, heaven. (iv.135–138) He set down her head and piled [ ] upon it, He opened underground springs, a flood was let flow (?). He stopped up her nostrils, he left … He heaped up high-peaked mo[unt]ains from (?) her dugs. He drilled through her waterholes to carry off the catchwater. He coiled up her tail and tied it as(?) “the Great Bond” (v.53–59) He set her crotch as the brace of heaven, Spreading [half of] her as a cover, he established the netherworld. (v.62–63)129

As Andrea Seri observes, Marduk “creates the heavens and the earth out of his rival’s corpse. … Marduk establishes dwelling places in the enemy’s body, as Ea had done before him, but Marduk does this in a grandiose way, superseding his father.”130 Using the body of the defeated monster in order to create the cosmos emphasizes two things. First, ontologically, chaos still exists and will exist, since it is in every aspect of the created ordered of the cosmos. Therefore, the created order is vulnerable and can suffer chaos and disorder at any time. Second, there is a close connection between the body of the monster and the well-being of the cosmos, that is, when the monster is defeated and dismembered, cosmological events occur. The monster’s destiny, either rising or falling, has an impact on the cosmos. The body signifies cosmological events. mingles both body and nature/cosmos together. The text reads: “She [Anat] seizes Motu, son of ’Ilu: with a sword she splits him, with a winnowing-fork she winnows him, with fire she burns him, with grindstones she pulverizes him, in the field she sows him” (KTU 1.6.II.30–35). The body of the monstrous Death is portrayed as a plant. The body and the natural world of plants are treated in a similar way. This is significant because when YHWH dismembers the monster in Ezekiel 29, this episode is followed with scattering the Egyptians, which is a popular metaphor for the exile. The dismemberment of the monster in Ezekiel precedes the disintegration of the body politic by means of dispersing the Egyptians through exile. 129 “Creation Epic (Enūma-Elish),” translated by Benjamin Foster (COS 1.111.390– 402.398, 399). 130 Andrea Seri, “The Fifty Names of Marduk in Enuma Elish,” JAOS 126.4 (2006): 507–519, 517.

194

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

B. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos in Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Egypt In Ezekiel the dismemberment of the monster131 is followed by cosmic disasters that include desertification and darkness.132 YHWH punishes the cosmos of Egypt by drying up the Nile and darkening the luminaries.133 The two natural disasters selected by the prophet Ezekiel, those of drying up the Nile and the darkening of the luminary, are of special importance in the context of the 131

When YHWH defeats the monster, its body is left in the wilderness and on the surface of the field (29:4–5; 32:4–6). The defeat of Pharaoh, the monster, which is inscribed on his dismembered body, anticipates the devastation of the body of the land of Egypt and its cosmos. The verb #$+n “to forsake, allow, leave, or let” is used in Ezek 29:5 and 32:4 in order to describe YHWH’s decision to leave and forsake the body of the defeated monster in the wilderness and upon the surface of the earth. In Exod 23:11, the same verb is used in a commandment to let the earth rest so that the animals of the fields can find something to eat: “But the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild animals may eat. You shall do the same with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.” Noteworthy to mention is that the same verb is used in relation to a body of a monster and a body of the land. The body of the monster and the body of the land are connected in another manner in Ezekiel’s discourse. YHWH proclaims that the body and its blood will fill the mountains and irrigate earth. This image signifies a particular relation between body and earth. This image brings two bodies in one portrait. The body of the monster dismembered and its blood flowing will be connected and embraced by the body of the land. Bringing these two bodies together creates an impure and shameful character of both the body of the unburied monster and the defiled body of the earth that embraces the flesh and the blood of the defeated monster. 132 These cosmological disasters sometimes appear in texts that are part of curse formulae that have nothing to do with either combat myth or dismembering the body of the monster. These curse formulae share with the combat myth a worldview that focuses on cosmological reactions as a response to cosmological misdeeds on behalf of the created world (see Leviticus 26 and most of Ezekiel’s judgment oracles). Julie Galambush argues that in Ezekiel there is a clear connection between the land and those inhabit it: “their actions are its actions and its punishment is their punishment. It is precisely this identification between the moral status of the land and people in Ezekiel that allows the land to serve as the ‘site of injury’ in the conflict between YHWH and the people.” Galambush, “God’s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchal World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton; SBLSS 31; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 91–108, 101. 133 Wiggermann speaks of connections between monsters and rivers on the one side and stars on the other (F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts [Groningen: STYX & PP Publications, 1992], 156–167). Anzu was considered the source of the river; see F. A. M. Wiggermann, “Tishpak, His Seal, and the Dragon Mushhushshu,” in To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon (ed. O. M. C. Haex, H. H. Curvers and P. M. M. G. Akkermans; Rotterdam: Balkema, 1989), 117–133, esp. 118, 125. This might be relevant because with the defeat of the monster in Ezekiel, YHWH dries up the river Nile and then darkens the luminary of Egypt.

III. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos

195

Egyptian Chaoskampf between Re and Apophis.134 The monster, Apophis, threatens the journey of the boat of the Sun god Re during the twelve hours of the night. One of the ways Apophis threatens the journey is by drying up the subterranean river (the cosmological counterpart of the Nile) through which the barge of Re sails.135 In the account in Ezekiel, YHWH, after defeating the monster, dries up the Nile. Furthermore, all that Re, the Sun god, is trying to do is to appear again on the eastern horizon, and thus signify world order. Apophis however tries to swallow the sun disk and oppose the rise of the sun, hence establishing chaos and a return to the chaotic stage. YHWH in Ezekiel 32, after defeating the monster, darkens the luminary. In both cases YHWH unleashes chaos upon the land of Egypt. One cannot emphasize enough how central the Nile was for the life of Egypt. But not only is the river a topographic feature of particular importance: when one is familiar with the climate in Egypt, one also realizes how rarely the sun is obstructed from appearing.136 Indeed, these two concerns of the drying up of the Nile and darkness appeared as twin signs of chaos over the land of Egypt in various pieces of literature. The famous Prophecy of Neferti reads: “The sun is covered and does not shine for the people to see, no one can live when the clouds cover (the sun). … The river of Egypt is empty, one can cross on foot.”137 This example shows how in Egyptian literature these two cosmological disasters were very prominent. 134 Note that Ps 74:15–17, which speaks of YHWH defeating the many-headed dragon announces two important creative actions performed by YHWH that are related to the desertification and the darkness that falls upon Egypt: YHWH makes channels of water and also makes firm the luminary in heaven. 135 Colleen Manassa, The Late Egyptian Underworld: Sarcophagi and Related Texts from the Nectanebid Period (Ägypten und Altes Testament, 72,1: Sarcophagi and Texts; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007), 143. 136 “The very life of Egypt has always depended on the Nile. Most of the country is desert and rainfall is inadequate to support crops or livestock. Agriculture is possible only in a narrow strip of land on either side of the great river, and never could have been practiced but for the annual inundation that flows northwards for some 600 miles between late June and late September. Ancient Egyptians were deeply impressed by the contrast between the ‘Black Land’, as it was called after the deep black mud deposited by the inundations, and the ‘Red Land’, the desert, fearful and deadly. And then there was the erratic behaviour of the Nile itself. Until modern technology enabled dams to be built, the river might overflow one year, fall too low the next – and either meant famine. All this helped to generate a sense of a world perpetually endangered. And so did the contrast, always so dramatic in Egypt, between day and night: bright day, when the sun, splendid, omnipotent and sustainer of life, sailed high over the land, and the night that so abruptly swallowed up the sun – a time full of menace, when life was suspended” (Cohn, Cosmos, 4). 137 See “The Prophecies of Neferti” translated by Nili Shupak (COS, 1.45.106– 110.108). Biblical traditions reflect this centrality of the Nile particularly in the oracles of Isaiah 19 and Jeremiah (2:18) against Egypt. Also among the plagues against Egypt, YHWH turns the water into blood. This calamity most likely reflects Egyptian traditions

196

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

1. Drying up the Nile The first cosmological event that Ezekiel describes YHWH inflicting on Egypt is the drying up of the Nile, thereby turning the land into a desolation. After the dismemberment of the body of the monster in Ezek 29:3–4, the focus of the oracle moves from the body of the king of Egypt, who is embodied as a monster, to the body politic of Egypt which was pictured as a fish clinging to the body of the monster when YHWH brought him out of the Nile. As the body of the monster is punished, so too is the body politic. YHWH is about to punish the body of the land of Egypt by making it desolate and by dispersing its inhabitants throughout the nations. YHWH’s plan for Egypt is to make it a desolate land. YHWH proclaims that he is against Pharaoh and his River Nile and its branches (29:10). The oracle of judgment shows that it is YHWH who is in control of the cosmos and not the monster who claims to create the channels of the Nile by controlling the flood.138 If the Nile is the source of life in Egypt, YHWH is going to create death and destruction out of it, surely by drying it out. Self-evidently, YHWH is the one who is in control of the Nile and not Pharaoh; this power will be manifest in turning Egypt into a devastated land for 40 years. The body of the monster and the body of its inhabitants are subject to the power of YHWH.139 The monster that claimed control of the Nile (29:3) is unable to stand against YHWH’s judgment; the monster’s lack of power is further underlined when YHWH dries up its own habitat, the Nile. As YHWH has defeated the monster and dismembered its body, now YHWH turns to the land of Egypt. The Egyptian natural order that depends on the Nile is going to suffer punishment, as did the body of the monster. The land of Egypt will turn into a desolation. YHWH’s sword will come against Egypt: “I will bring against you a sword” (brx).140 It is interesting to note also reported in the Admonitions of Ipuwer, in which the Egyptian sage proclaims: “indeed, the river is blood” (“The Admonitions of An Egyptian Sage: The Admonitions of Ipuwer,” translated by Nili Shupak [COS, 1.42.93–98.95]). 138 Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 58; cited in many commentaries (e.g., Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 111). 139 If Pharaoh claims that it is he who creates, Ezekiel deconstructs this by showing that it is YHWH who is able to create disaster and desolation for Egypt: “Against the background of divine self-assertion in ‘I, Yahweh, have spoken and ‘I will do it’ (yty#(w)’ (17:24; 22:14; and elsewhere), anyone who has heard Ezekiel’s words can hear quite clearly the insufferable hubris of the Egyptian claim” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 111). 140 It is worth noting that YHWH uses the sword against the forces of chaos elsewhere as well. In Isaiah 27:1, for example, the oracle declares, “On that day YHWH with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.” Anat defeats Mot using a ḥrb “sword, knife” (KTU 1.6.II.32). A fragmentary text from the Baal Cycle (KTU

III. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos

197

how the prophet plays with the sound of the root brx, which means “to be desolate, to be dry, dry up” and also “to fight, to kill” a meaning that is essentially related to the word brx “sword.” In Leviticus 26:33 YHWH warns the Israelites: “And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you; your land shall be a desolation, and your cities a waste.” This is a similar oracle to the one we have here, in that it combines the motif of the sword,141 desolating the land, and threatening exile. The devastation of Egypt will cover the whole land from Migdol (northeastern Egypt, see Jer 44:1) to Syene (in the south, near modern Aswan). The destruction of Egypt will cover geographically the whole land from the north to the south and will reach both animals and humans. This desolation shall continue for 40 years. In these 40 years the land will be waste and the cities will be devastated (see also in 30:23, 26) and “neither human’s foot nor animal’s foot shall pass through it” (;hD;b_rDbSoAt aøl hDmEhV;b l‰g®r◊w M∂dDa l‰g®r ;hD;b_rDbSoAt aøl).142 1.2.iv.3–5) mentions Baal’s use of the sword against Yamm: “There with the sword I will lay waste, I will assault (his) house: The powerful one will fall to the earth, The mighty one to the dust.” This is how Dennis Pardee translates it. See Pardee, “The Ba’alu Myth,” (COS 1.86.241–274.248). Mark Smith’s translation reflects the fragmentary nature of the text: “And in Yamm will be the sieve of destruction, and in Yamm will be the breast of de[ath?] (?), [… Judge] River will be … )?). There the sword I will destroy (?). I will burn the [ho]use (?)” (Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume I: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2 [VTSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994], 321, 331–333). 141 The sword plays a large role in Ezekiel’s oracles of judgment against both Israel and the nations. In Ezekiel 5:2 YHWH declares that a third of the population of Jerusalem will be destroyed by the sword, which YHWH unleashes after them. Ezekiel 21:14–22 recites a hymn for the sword. The sword is being prepared to accomplish utter destruction. It has been whetted and polished so that it may be handed into the hand of the slayer. The sword that is unleashed against Jerusalem is also the sword that YHWH unleashes against the land of Egypt (cf. Ezek 30:4, 5, 6). YHWH will cut off from the land of Egypt both humans and animals (similar oracle is pronounced against Judah in Ezek 14 and against Edom in Ezek 26, 35). YHWH’s sword, which has been introduced already in Ezekiel’s discourse against Egypt (29:8; 32:10), is handed into the hands of the king of Babylon (cf. 30:24–25). The sword of the king of Babylon is coming against Egypt, proclaims YHWH. 142 Some scholars, who approach the book of Ezekiel from a contemporary ecological hermeneutics have criticized and accused the book for silencing the land. “The Silence of the Lands: The Ecojustice Implications of Ezekiel’s Judgment Oracles,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchal World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton; SBLSS 31; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 127–140, 138; Keith W. Carley, “Ezekiel’s Formula of Desolation: Harsh Justice for the Land/Earth,” in The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets (ed. N. C. Habel; Earth Bible 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press / Cleveland: The Pilgrim, 2001), 143–157. These approaches remind us as readers of these biblical texts that the created world is not just about humans. It is important, however, to remember that the biblical ecological worldview differs from our contemporary ecological aspirations.

198

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

The relation between the body of the monster and the body politic takes another aspect in Ezekiel’s discourse. YHWH will scatter the Egyptians in the midst of the nations (29:12; 32:9). We have seen earlier how Baal scatters the dismembered body of Yamm and how Anat scatters the dismembered body of Mot. In the latter case, it appears that the body of the monster and the body of nature are mingled together linguistically as the body of the monster is viewed as a plant going through harvest and planting; therefore, by the death of Death life comes about again. The text in the Baal Cycle uses the verb drh “to scatter,” (KTU 1.6.II.33) which is cognate with the Hebrew verb hrz which is used in Ezekiel and the rest of the OT to describe the experience of the exile. It is interesting to note that YHWH will also “scatter” (hrz) and “disperse” (Cwp) the Egyptians (Ezek 29:12; 30:23, 26; cf. 32:9). That is to say that the body politic of Egypt will be treated in a way similar to what Anat did to the body of the monster that represents Death.143 The disintegration of the identity of Egypt is inscribed on the body of the monster.144 When the monster is defeated and the body of the land is turned into a desolation, the result of YHWH’s actions will be that “no human foot shall trouble them any more, nor shall the hoofs of cattle trouble them. Then I will make their waters clear, and cause their streams to run like oil, says the Lord GOD.” The verb (xld) “to stir up” is used by Ezekiel to describe the chaos that the monster brings about in 32:2. YHWH will bring quietness and order to the waters of Egypt when the monster is defeated. The animals and the humans will not stir the chaotic waters of the monster. YHWH’s defeat of the monster brings about paradoxes: it occasions cosmological disorder in Egypt, and yet order to the “mighty water.”145 The removal of the monster out of the Nile restores the waters to an undisturbed state. It is interesting to note that these statements are similar to the dream-report that we have mentioned from 143

Ezekiel 29:12 speaks of an exile for the Egyptians, using traditional language about the exile of the Judeans (cf. the Hebrew verbs hrz and Cwp in 22:15). Zimmerli correctly argues, “In categories ‘devastation of the land’ and ‘dispersal among the nations’ one can easily recognize the categories of those who have been deported into exile. It is only in these categories that they are able to conceive of judgment of Egypt” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 114). 144 The judgment that falls upon the monster’s body is that its body will not be gathered or buried. These two verbs Cbq and Ps) are used together to denote the opposite message to the exile. They are usually used together in order to indicate YHWH’s promise to gather the Israelites from the exile. While the monster’s body is not going to be gathered, the body politic of the Egyptians will be dispersed and scattered at the first stage. After 40 years, however, Egypt will be gathered and minimized into an insignificant nation. 145 Ezekiel does not just write on the body of the monster. He also inscribes on the land of Egypt a message of judgment. YHWH will destroy all of Egypt’s livestock that lies beside the “mighty waters” (32:13). The reference to “mighty waters” evokes a cosmological aspect to this statement. Just as the monster is defeated and put to death, so is the land of Egypt and its livestock: like body, like land.

III. The Defeat of the Monster and the Cosmos

199

the Baal Cycle earlier. When Baal is resurrected El reports: “the heavens will rain down oil, the wadis will run with honey” (KTU 1.6.III.6–7). The defeat of the monster that represents Egypt is analogous to the defeat of the monster Death in the Baal Cycle. 2. Darkening the Luminaries (Ezekiel 32:7–8) 7 I will cover the heavens at your extinguishing;146 I will make dark their stars; the sun I will cover with clouds; and the moon will not shine its light; 8 all the shining lights in the sky I will darken above you; I will set darkness on your land, says the Lord GOD.

The sun is as crucial to life in Egypt as is the Nile. The second aspect of the cosmological judgment reaches to the heavens of Egypt and its luminary. Unlike what happens in the Egyptian mythology of Re-Apophis, after the defeat of the monster in Ezekiel, the sun does not appear on the horizon; rather YHWH darkens it. YHWH informs Pharaoh, the defeated dragon, that there will be darkness upon his land. The word rdq is used twice in this verses 7 and 8 to denote the activity of God, who will darken the heavens and its stars. In 32:7, YHWH declares that clouds will cover the heavens and the sun; the stars will be dark and the moon will not give its light. Verse 8 seeks to be inclusive as it mentions all of the heavenly bodies that give light; they will be dark above it (the dragon); YHWH will set darkness upon its land. This series of cataclysmic events recalls many biblical references. Two will suffice to illustrate the major biblical motifs. In Exod 10:21, 22 we read about the plague of darkness upon the land of Egypt. In Joel 2:10, 4:15 we read about a similar phenomenon as part of the day of the YHWH. In Ezek 32:1–8, darkness and cosmological chaos follow the defeat of the monster. Whereas the omens in Mesopotamia predict the death of the enemy king through cosmological disasters, Ezekiel proclaims that it is YHWH who brings judgment over both the body of the monster and the body of its land and cosmos represented by a desertification and darkness. The purpose of this discussion has been to show that YHWH’s punishment over Egypt testifies to the argument that Egypt is not just a political power; rather it plays a cosmological power in the reality of the exile. Egypt is not just going to be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, but it will also suffer on the cosmological level. YHWH will make it a desert and will make it a dark 146

The OG reads εν τω σβεσθηναι “when you are extinguished.” We can repoint the MT to read the verb in the Pual stem: K1t;w$b%ku; this tactic is especially possible because the Piel is attested.

200

Chapter 5: Egypt as the Abject

place. Ezekiel appropriates the motif of the interrelatedness between the body of the monster and the body of the cosmos in order to force this cosmological punishment over Egypt.

IV. Summary IV. Summary

As I argued in the Fourth Chapter of this book, Ezekiel, in his revisionist histories of chapters 20 and 23, underlines an intimate relation between Israel and Egypt. These two nations have a shared common identity; both of them worshiped the same idols (Ezek 20:7–9) and also they are involved in an illicit sexual relationship. These two impurities speak of the state of the religious chaos, which Israel experienced prior to the exile. Worshiping Egyptian idols and being involved with the Egyptians in a sexual relation, which is a metaphor for Israel’s unfaithfulness, witnesses to the loss of boundary between Israel and Egypt. This is terrifying for the prophet. Therefore, the prophet Ezekiel ascribes a monstrous body to Egypt. It is a body that coincides with the chaos that Egypt perpetuates in the religious life of Israel. Constructing Egypt as a monster is similar to the process of abjection, as described by Julia Kristeva. The process of abjection aims at constructing the subjectivity of the child who, when born, does not have a sense of borders and difference from the mother. The state of impurity and defilement that pervaded the life of Judah prior to the exile, and its relation with Egypt with regard to idolatry and adultery, is similar to the state of the unitary sameness which the mother and the child share. The monstrification of Egypt is like the process of abjection, through which Ezekiel attempts to set apart Egypt from Israel. Ezekiel’s use of the Chaoskampf motif comprises the longest account of combat between YHWH and a monster of chaos in the Old Testament. YHWH appears as the divine warrior who hunts, dismembers and disgracefully punishes the monster of chaos. In Ezekiel’s appropriation of the Chaoskampf Pharaoh’s monstrous body bears divine punishment and judgment. By hunting the body of the monster and dismembering it YHWH affirms his cosmological power. Furthermore, the dismembered body of the monster becomes a corporeally-inscribed “text” of horror and terror to those who dare to oppose YHWH’s plans. When ascribed an unclean body that is dismembered and mutilated, Egypt becomes a repugnant and repulsive abject. Over against this unclean body, the prophet speaks of the hope to reconstruct Israel anew through the resurrection of the body in the famous vision of chapter 37. When YHWH dismembers the body of the monster, YHWH attempts to completely annihilate the chaos that Egypt represents. However, because the prophet is aware of the history of the relationship between Egypt and Israel, which he revisited in Ezekiel 20 and 23, he knows very well that the defeat of the monster is not the end of the story. The repressed abject will probably

IV. Summary

201

come back in the future and perpetuate its chaos in the religious life of Israel again in the future. Because the defeat is not enough, the boundary between Egypt and Israel should be tightly maintained and the monster of chaos must be put under check. This is the issue that I will deal with in the following chapter.

Chapter Six

Putting the Monster under Check: Geopolitical Minimization of Egypt (Ezek 29:12–16) and Pharaoh’s Descent into Sheol (Ezek 32:17–32) Introduction Introduction

Egypt, according to Ezekiel, is a monster that poses a threat to Israel’s religious identity. Given this danger that Egypt represents, the prophet speaks of a divine combat against this monster of chaos. As discussed in the preceding chapter of this project, in the combat YHWH defeats and dismembers the body of the monster (Ezek 29:3–5; 32:1–5). Although the combat gives the impression of eradicating the existence of the monster through the annihilation of its body, we are confronted with Egypt’s ongoing survival as the prophetic oracles continue to unfold. Egypt, the monster, was not completely annihilated; though defeated, the monster continues to exist. The prophet Ezekiel speaks of Egypt’s continuing existence when he proclaims that YHWH will restore the Egyptians after sending them into a period of exile (Ezekiel 29:13–14). YHWH announces, “I shall gather Egypt from among the nations where they were scattered” (29:13).1 This positive remark of Egypt’s survival is perplexing. Zimmerli writes, One cannot suppress the question why precisely with regard to Egypt there should be recounted this sacred, saving postscript which keeps Egypt’s name from extinction, whereas there is no such postscript with regard to all the other groups to which the foreign oracles were addressed.2 1

Although the verb Cwp “to scatter” is in the Niphal, denoting a passive voice, we know from the preceding verse that YHWH is the one who scattered the Egyptians (MˆyårVxIm_tRa yItOxIpShÅw). 2 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (trans. James Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 115. Greenberg also notes the special place that Egypt has in Ezekiel’s oracles against the nations. Greenberg writes, “The treatment of Egypt separately from the nations mentioned in chs. 25–28 accords with its differing political-military stance toward Israel. Israel’s smaller neighbors are blamed for rejoicing over its fall or exploiting the event for their own advantage. In Tyre’s case a crass theological offense is added: the king of Tyre’s claim to divinity. Egypt, however, differed on both counts: it was a failed ally, but an ally, of Judah; and its king’s hubris, as Ezekiel describes it, stopped short of claiming divinity. Hence its

Introduction

203

Out of the seven nations who fall under the divine judgment in Ezekiel (25– 32),3 Egypt is the only nation that is promised a return from the exile and a continuing existence. Let us examine the fate of the other nations, by way of comparison. The rest of the nations fall under the divine judgment without any promise of restoration; as a matter of fact some of these nations are said to completely perish; they will not be remembered or exist anymore (Ammon in 25:7, 10; Moab in 25:10; Edom in 25:13; the Philistines in 25:16; Tyre in 26:21; 27:36; 28:19). In the case of Ammon YHWH declares, “I will cut you off from the peoples and I will make you perish from the lands; I will destroy you” (Ezek 25:7). Along with Ammon goes Moab; YHWH will deliver both of them into the hand of the people of the East. Although the oracle in Ezek 25:8–11 is concerned with Moab, the prophet declares that Moab and Ammon will have the same fate, and they will not be remembered anymore. “As a possession I will give it [Moab] along with Ammon to the people of the East, for the Ammonites will not be remembered among the nations anymore” (Ezek 25:10). To be sure, this language of annihilation and eradication was also pronounced against Egypt. When YHWH dismembers the body of the monster, YHWH intends to eradicate Egypt’s existence through shameful death (Ezek 29:4–5; 32:4–6). Furthermore, in Ezekiel 23:27 YHWH declares, “So I will put an end to your lewdness and your whoring4 brought from the land of Egypt; you shall not lift up your eyes to them, and you shall not remember Egypt anymore.” While YHWH declares that a nation like Ammon will not be remembered among the nations, here in 23:27, YHWH’s concern is that Egypt should not exist anymore in the communal memory of Israel. YHWH will put an end to the lewdness of Judah and its desire for a relation with Egypt; Judah will not remember Egypt anymore. In a sense the prophet declares that YHWH will annihilate the influence of Egypt upon Israel through eradicating the memory of Egypt in the communal memory of the Israelites. chastisement is lesser: it will be humbled but not annihilated” (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997], 613). For similar observations see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 144–145; see also P. Höffken, “Zu den Heilszusätzen in der Völkerorakelsammlung des Jeremiabuches,” VT 27 (1977): 398–412, 409. 3 These seven nations include Ammon (25:1–7), Moab (25:8–11), Edom (25:12–14), the Philistines (25:15–17), Tyre (26:1–28:19), Sidon (28:20–23), and Egypt (29:1–32:32). 4 The MT reads Ktwnz which occurs again in 23:29. In other places the text usually uses the noun Kytwnzt (16:25, 26; 23:19, 29, etc.). In both cases Ezek 23:27 and 23:29 the word Ktwnz is preceded by a word that ends with a t which might have caused dropping the t; thus the MT reads Ktwnz when it would usually read Kytwnzt.

204

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

The book of Ezekiel betrays this goal, since it contains the largest corpus of oracles against Egypt in the whole prophetic section of the OT.5 In other words, how can the reader of the book forget Egypt when it occupies as much space in the book as it does? What is so peculiar about Egypt that despite the chaos it perpetuates it continues to exist? How can we explain the tension between the desire to completely annihilate Egypt and its memory, and the fact that it surprisingly continues to exist? In this chapter I will argue that although the prophet optimistically wishes to completely annihilate Egypt and put an end to Egypt’s threat to Israel’s religious identity, the prophet realistically (although implicitly) acknowledges that this is impossible. Israel continues to need Egypt in order to define itself. Zygmunt Bauman suggests that “society can only define itself against its strangers.”6 The complete annihilation of Egypt would leave Israel without an Other against which it can reconstruct its identity. Caught between the danger and the necessity of Egypt to exist, the prophet hopes for a complete annihilation of the memory of Egypt but realistically knows that Egypt has to exist in order for Israel to formulate its identity. Ellen Davis asserts, “Egypt is too central to Israel’s history.”7 If Egypt must exist nonetheless, the boundaries between Egypt and Israel must be strongly maintained. Ezekiel’s oracles against Egypt intend to remove Egypt, the monster of chaos, outside of the world of Israel by removing it to where it belongs, to the periphery. I believe that Ezekiel accomplishes this goal in two different ways. First of all, YHWH minimizes Egypt geographically and politically by making it a lowly kingdom that occupies the southern region of the land of Egypt; therefore it will be at a greater distance from Israel (Ezekiel 29:14–16). Secondly, by sending Pharaoh and Egypt’s hordes, rhetorically, into Sheol (32:17–32), YHWH positions Egypt at the periphery of the cosmos, where it occupies even the periphery of the netherworld. There Egypt will be accompanied by the impure uncircumcised and those slain by the sword (cf. 31:18).

5

See the Introduction note 1 for a comparison between Ezekiel and the other major prophets with regard to their judgment over Egypt. The word-verse count testifies to the near-obsession of Egypt in Ezekiel’s book. 6 Zygmunt Bauman, “What Prospects of Morality in Times of Uncertainty?” Theory, Culture and Society 15 (1998): 11–22, 12. See also the treatment of the category of “stranger” in Bauman, Postmodernity and its Discontents (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 17–45, cited in Andrew Neville Sharpe, Foucault’s Monsters and the Challenge of Law (London: Routeledge, 2010), 2. 7 Ellen F. Davis, “‘And Pharaoh Will Change His Mind …’ (Ezekiel 32:31): Dismantling Mythical Discourse,” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Bervard S. Childs (ed. Christopher Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 224–239, 235.

I. Recalling Some Insights from the Preceding Chapters

205

Because Egypt is associated with impurity, and therefore death,8 the geopolitical minimization and the descent into Sheol will strengthen the boundaries between purity/life (Israel), on the one hand, and pollution/death (Egypt), on the other. Before I discuss these issues in detail, I will recall some insights from the preceding chapters, and then I will briefly outline a structural perspective on the relation between center and periphery with particular attention given to the ancient Near Eastern worldview of empirical and mythological geographies. These brief discussions will prepare the way for my argument that the monster, Egypt, will be put under check when it is removed to the periphery of both empirical and mythological geographies. In this way, the boundary between Egypt and Israel will be strengthened.

I. Recalling Some Insights from the Preceding Chapters: I. Recalling Some Insights from the Preceding Chapters

I noted in the third chapter of this project that in the ancient Near Eastern worldview the monsters were defeated but not completely annihilated. Chaoskampf traditions portray the divine warrior as defeating, hacking and almost completely annihilating the body of the monster that represents chaos. However, in the realistic scenario, the confinement of chaos rather than its elimination is the essence of creation, and the survival of the ordered reality hangs upon god’s vigilance in ensuring that those cosmic dikes 8 In Ezekiel 4, YHWH commands the prophet to make his food using human dung for fuel (4:12). YHWH’s command signifies the severity of the siege that Jerusalem will go through (4:13) and also puts the prophet-priest Ezekiel at the risk of impurity as he comes in contact with human dung (cf. Deut 23:12–14). The prophet sighs and objects to YHWH’s command claiming that he has been following the priestly statutes of purity and that he has never eaten any unclean meat (Ezek 4:14; cf. Ezek 44:31; Lev. 7:18; 11:44; 17:15; 19:7). It is interesting that Ezekiel’s response to YHWH goes beyond the direct concern of being impure by cooking food using human dung as fuel. Odell observes, “Since Ezekiel’s protest is that he has never come into contact with death, he is concerned with much more than ritual purity. Or perhaps purity signified far more to Ezekiel than we have yet understood. Maintaining ritual purity involved separating oneself from death, with the larger goal of delivering the community from death” (Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel [Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Hellwys Publishing Incorporated, 2005], 65). Among the various proposals that attempt to explain the rationale behind the priestly laws with regard to impurity, Milgrom proposed that there is an association with what the priestly tradition deemed as impure and the force of death. For example, the genital discharge is perceived as a source of impurity because in the loss of semen or the loss of blood there is a representation of a loss of a potential life (Lev 12): “Because impurity and holiness are antonyms, the identification of impurity with death must mean that holiness stands in for life” (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004], 12).

206

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

do not fail, that the bars of the doors of the Sea’s jail do not give way, that the great fish does not slip his hook.9

Although the monsters of chaos, Tiamat, Mot-Yamm-Nahar, and Apophis, were defeated by Marduk, Anat-Baal, and Re respectively, these monsters and the chaos they represent are known to be resurgent; they always come back. By including Enūma eliš in the celebration of the akītu festival, the Mesopotamians celebrated the defeat and the re-defeat of the power of chaos. In some temples in ancient Egypt, rituals that included recitations from Egyptian funerary literature (i.e. the Books of the Netherworld) were conducted daily in order to ensure the defeat of the monster of chaos, Apophis. The Baal-Anat Cycle witnesses a revival of the power of chaos represented by Mot. The defeat of chaos is not the end; these monsters must be put under check and be restored back to where they belong, that is, the periphery of the cosmos. They need to be kept at bay, away from the ordered world. They have been defeated and for the time being they are powerless and kept under control. This continued existence of chaos not only reflects a realistic perspective on reality, but it also underlines the need to have an Other in the process of constructing one’s identity; the ordered world constructs its boundaries over against that which is chaotic. The tension that is going on in the ancient Near Eastern combat myth and in Ezekiel’s discourse concerning Egypt, namely, the desire to completely banish Egypt/the monster and the fact that Egypt/the monster continues to exist, is somewhat analogous to the notion of the abject as described by Kristeva. In Kristeva’s perspective, when the child is born it imagines itself in a unitary sameness with the mother, that is, the child is unable to perceive itself as an independent identity, separate from the mother. Through the process of abjection, a distinction between the child (the self) and the mother (the other) takes place. This process enables the child to construct his/her identity over against the identity of the abject, the mother. Ideally the banishment of the abject would create a better sense of security and safety. However, the abject is never completely annihilated; but rather remains at the border, haunting and threatening the child’s sense of autonomy and pure identity. It always comes back and threatens the boundaries between self and Other. Kristeva’s insights help to explain the tension that is going on in Ezekiel’s discourse with regard to Egypt.10 Egypt, the monster, is like the abject and is like the monsters of the ancient Near East: they are defeated and almost anni9

Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row Publishers, 1987; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 17. 10 On the limits of using Kristeva’s work in an analogy to the notion of monstrosity in both the ANE and Ezekiel see chapter two (pages 68–69).

II. Center : Periphery

207

hilated, yet they continue to exist. If the monster must exist, it must be kept at bay and the boundaries between order and chaos, the normal and the abnormal, self and Other must be tightly maintained. These monsters, this Other, must occupy the periphery and the fringes of the ordered world. The ordered world as perceived by the center and those who possess power is able to formulate its identity over against the periphery and the monsters that occupy it. Now I will turn to discuss the relation between the center and the periphery.

II. Center : Periphery II. Center : Periphery

Some sociologists such as Edward Shils analyze societies in terms of center and a periphery.11 The central zone has to do with geographical sites and also has to do with the system of the values and beliefs that govern each society.12 The zone of the center “partakes of the nature of the sacred.”13 When beliefs and values are connected with the sacred and are espoused by the authorities of any society, they form a “central value system,” which is “the central zone of the society.”14 The periphery is the location of those who are subject to the authority of the central zone. 15 In other words, periphery and center do not simply refer to geographical realities; they also refer to a worldview through 11

Edward Shils, Center and Periphery: Essays in Macrosociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 3. Mark Smith makes use of the insights put forth by Shils in order to analyze the relation between the monsters and the anthropomorphic gods in Ugarit (Mark S. Smith, “Structure of Divinity at Ugarit and Israel: the Case of the Anthropomorphic Deities versus Monstrous Divinities,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. Gary Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis; Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 38–63. 12 Shils argues that “the central zone … has, however, nothing to do with geometry and little with geography” (Shils, Center and Periphery, 3). For the ancient Near Eastern societies the geographical element played a large role in constructing the center of each particular society. As geographical sites the temple and the palace were crucial places in shaping the central zone. J. D. Schloen affirms this statement with regard to Ugarit: “the social ‘center’ is ‘the center of the order of symbols, of values and beliefs, which govern the society;’ thus the terms ‘center’ and ‘periphery’ do not necessarily imply spatial separation. For Ugarit, however, it can be argued that the social center was focused in the physical center of the kingdom at Ras Shamra, which appears to have been the locus of administration, of ritual, and of literary activity. In this case, then, ‘urban-rural’ is more-or-less synonymous with ‘center-periphery’” (J. D. Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001], 317 n. 1; cited in Mark Smith, “Structure of Divinity,” 40). 13 Shils, Center and Periphery, 3. 14 Ibid., 4. 15 The peripheral residents might reject, or affirm the central value system or in many cases they might show “an intermittent, partial, and attenuated affirmation of the central value system” (Shils, Center and Periphery, 10).

208

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

which a society reconstructs the relationships of its institutions. The relation between center and periphery is usually constructed by sets of binaries: civilized/savage, normal/abnormal, lawful/outlaw, security/danger, and the like. In various historical contexts,16 the relation between center and periphery was governed by a type of evolutionism that “was part of an ideological mode of thought which justified a radical break between civilized center and savage periphery to legitimate exploitation without responsibility.”17 Rowlands argues that “the way centers and peripheries are culturally constructed also has to be viewed as the product of long transformational processes that are rooted in a common ontological problem of constituting identity through either the eradication or the creation of difference.”18 The center projects an Otherness on the periphery in order to define itself and in order to legitimate its worldview of what is normal. The periphery, where the unknown, the abnormal, and the outlaws live, always poses a threat to the well-ordered world of the center. Despite the threat of the periphery to the ordered world of the center, the latter needs the former in order to formulate its identity. A. Cosmological and Empirical Geographies In the worldview of the ancient Near East there were two types of geographies: one we can call “empirical” and the other “mythological.” While the first reflects “practical geographical knowledge” needed for travel, trade and military purposes, the latter reflects ancient Near Eastern mythological views

16

Such as the 19th century CE, which is an example that Rowlands highlights in his analysis. Edward Said has discussed such a relationship between the empire and the colonies during the 19th century; see Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1978; repr., New York: Vintage Books, 1994). In the section “Orientalism Now” Said gives a summary of such a worldview: “but the principal dogmas of Orientalism exist in their purest from today in studies of the Arab and Islam. Let me recapitulate them here: one is the absolute and systematic difference between the West, which is rational, developed, humane, superior, and the Orient, which is aberrant, undeveloped, inferior. … A fourth dogma is that the Orient is at bottom something either to be feared … or to be controlled” (Said, Orientalism, 300–301). This perspective is helpful in analyzing the relation between the center and the periphery, which can shed some light on power relations in the ancient Near East and the process of monstrifying the Other in an imperial context. Ezekiel, who is a marginalized captive himself, creates a “literary reality” in which Israel occupies the center and Egypt occupies the periphery. 17 Michael Rowlands, “Center and Periphery: A Review of a Concept,” in Center and Periphery in the Ancient World (ed. Michael Rowlands et. al; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 8. Edward Said and other postcolonial critics would agree with this suggestion; see Said, Orientalism, in which he discusses the dichotomy between them and us, East and West. 18 Rowlands, “Center and Periphery,” 8.

II. Center : Periphery

209

of the unknown world.19 A late Babylonian Mappa Mundi (Map of the World; BM, 92687) 20 reflects both empirical and mythological geographies. This Late Babylonian map, which highlights empirical places such as Babylon, Assyria, Susa, etc., still reflects a mythological point of view when it draws a cosmic river that surrounds the earth. This river is called marratu “ocean” and on the obverse of the accompanying text to the Mappa Mundi this river is called Tâmtu ‘Sea,’ ‘the name of Marduk’s arch-enemy in Enūma eliš.’21 The obverse text of the map mentions that Marduk settled on two Sea monsters, those of Viper (bašmu) and Dreadful Snake (mušḫuššu) and that Marduk created on top of the Sea wild animals.22 Horowitz notes, “These beings may have been considered the fauna of distant lands, and as such would have provided a tangible link with the faraway places on the map.”23 In this map, the monstrous and the wild are associated with the edges and margins of the world.24 In the third chapter of this project I have discussed Wiggermann’s and Smith’s arguments on the relationship between the monsters and benevolent gods in both Mesopotamia and Ugarit. In their analyses the monsters occupy the periphery of the known world, while the benevolent gods occupy the center.25 The monsters are associated with the wilderness, the sea, and the neth19

Frans Wiggermann, “Scenes From the Shadow Side,” Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian (CM 6; ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout; Groningen: Styx Publications, 1996), 208. This tension was originally proposed by James S. Romm in his book The Edges of The Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992). While Romm’s discussion mainly focuses on Greek thought, Wiggermann’s argument proposes that a similar tension can be found in the Mesopotamian worldview as well. 20 For a transliteration, a translation, and a discussion see Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 20–40. 21 Wiggermann, “Scenes From the Shadow Side,” 208. See also Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 20–42. 22 The animals include mountain goats, gazelle, water buffalo, panther, lion, wolf, red deer, hyena, monkey, female monkey, ibex, ostrich, cat, chameleon, and three other monsters: the Anzu-bird, the Scorpion Man (girtablullu), and the Bull Man (kusarikku); Wiggermann, “Scenes From the Shadow Side,” 208. 23 Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 36. 24 The liminal places, which monsters occupy, are sea, earth, sky and the underworld; see Joan Goodnick Westenholz, “Introduction,” in Dragons, Monsters, and Fabulous Beasts (ed. Joan Goodnick Westenholz; Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004), 12. 25 In the third chapter I suggested that the relation between the monster and the divine assembly is a complex one and it goes beyond a simple binary opposition. This, however, does not mean that the ancient Near Eastern worldview did not operate in this structural scheme. In the third chapter I wanted to emphasize that looking at only the differences between gods and monsters focuses only on one aspect of the relation between the two. Looking at the similarities as well as the differences gives us a more nuanced analysis of the notion of monstrosity. In this chapter, however, I am arguing that despite the similari-

210

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

erworld. The periphery that the monsters occupy can be divided into two subdivisions: one that is within human reach (wilderness and sea) and the other is beyond the human’s reach (netherworld). The center, where the gods and the monarchy collaborate, gain legitimacy by means of projecting an Otherness on the periphery that is usually portrayed as monstrous, dangerous, and chaotic. B. Center : Periphery :: Israel : Egypt The structure that operates in Ezekiel’s worldview with regard to Israel and Egypt is similar to the structure that informs the relation between the monsters and the deity of order.26 In Ezekiel’s cosmological and geographical structure, Israel/Jerusalem is the center of the universe: “Thus says the Lord GOD: This is Jerusalem; I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her” (Ezek 5:5; cf. 38:12). Jerusalem is put in contrast with the nations;27 prominent among them is the monstrous Egypt. The Wadi of Egypt marks the southern boundary to the land of Israel in Ezek 47:19: “On the south side, it shall run from Tamar as far as the waters of Meribath-kadesh, from there along the Wadi (hDlSjÅn) (i.e., of Egypt)28 to the Great Sea. This shall be the south side.” Whereas Jerusalem/Israel is set at the heart of the world, Egypt is set at the periphery marking the southern border of the land of Israel. Although Wiggermann’s and Smith’s discussions focus on the structural opposition between the anthropomorphic deities and the monstrous deities, their approach and results can be instructive in understanding Ezekiel’s oracles against the monstrous Egypt. In the following section I will show how Ezekiel appropriates this structural worldview in order to maintain the boundaries between Israel and Egypt, between order and chaos, center and periphery: Center

Periphery

Israel The promised Land

Egypt Pathros, pushing the borders southward

ties between the monster and the divine assembly, the monster is still treated as an Other, which should be defeated and annihilated. 26 See the preceding section and chapter three. 27 Norman Habel divides Ezekiel’s cosmos into three layers: the city, land/lands, and beyond the lands. “Beyond the ‘lands’ lie the desert and the deep, the untamed and the tameable world of the wild.” Habel, “The Silence of the Lands: The Ecojustice Implications of Ezekiel’s Judgment Oracles,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchal World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton; SBLSS 31; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 127–140, 132. 28 The boundary marker appears in full (Myrcm lxn) in Josh 15:4, 27; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 24:7.

III. Geopolitical Minimization The Land of the Living Purity and Holiness Life

211

The Netherworld, Land of Death Impurity and Defilement Death

This structural scheme maintains the tension, which is prevalent in Ezekiel’s discourse concerning Egypt, that is, Egypt is a political entity, yet it is represented as a mythic monster of chaos. For the prophet, Egypt is a nation that is involved with Judah in a political alliance (Ezekiel 17); nevertheless, when the prophet represents Egypt as a mythological monster (Ezek 29:1–3; 32:1– 3), the prophet assigns another level of significance to Egypt’s relation with Judah. This relationship has some cosmological and mythological connotations. Here the prophet maintains both the historical/empirical and the mythological/cosmological character of Egypt in tension. Therefore in his judgment of Egypt, the prophet speaks of a divine defeat of the monster, but at the same time he speaks of the defeat of Egypt by the Babylonians.29 When YHWH attempts to remove Egypt to the periphery he accomplishes this on both levels of geography, the empirical and mythological.

III. Geopolitical Minimization III. Geopolitical Minimization

In the last segment of his first oracle against Egypt (Ezek 29:12–16) the prophet Ezekiel proclaims: 12. I will make the land of Egypt a desolation among desolated countries; and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them among the countries. 13. Thus says the Lord GOD: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered; 14. And I will restore the fortunes of Egypt, and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin; and there they shall be a lowly kingdom. 15. It shall be the most lowly of the kingdoms, and never again exalt itself above the nations; and I will make them so small that they will never again rule over the nations. 16. It (i.e., Egypt) shall never again be a reliance of the house of Israel, but rather a reminder of iniquity, when they turned their face toward them. Then they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.

After the defeat of the monster in the first incident of Ezekiel’s appropriation of the Chaoskampf motif (Ezek 29:4–5), the prophet declares that YHWH will dry up the Nile (Ezek 29:9–10), which will result in turning Egypt into a desolate land, and that YHWH will disperse the Egyptians into exile. For for-

29

In addition to the defeat of Egypt as a monster, Ezekiel proclaims a divine judgment over Egypt by means of a political defeat (Ezek 29:17–20; 30:24). YHWH will use his agent the Babylonians in order to defeat Egypt (Ezek 32:11). There will be no longer be a prince from the land of Egypt, because it will be a vassal state.

212

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

ty years Egypt will be a desolation and the Egyptians will be dispersed among the nations (29:12). In 29:13–16,30 the text announces YHWH’s plan to minimize Egypt’s influence on Israel. YHWH will accomplish this in two different ways in this text. Egypt will be restored to its southern borders and it will be a lowly nation. In other words, in terms of empirical geography, Egypt will occupy the southern part of its land; therefore it will be at a great distance from Israel. Furthermore, on the political level, Egypt will be a lowly nation so that it will not interfere in the internal politics of small nations and it will not be a source of confidence for the Israelites. A. Restoring Egypt to Its Southern Origin The prophet proclaims that after the forty31 years YHWH will gather and collect the Egyptians.32 YHWH will restore the Egyptians from captivity to be restored to Pathros, which is described as the southern part of Egypt and also as their land of origins.33 As a location Pathros is mentioned in other places in 30 It is possible that Ezekiel 29:13–16 dates to the Persian period when Egypt was defeated by the Persian king Kambyses in 525 BCE. See Friedrich Fechter, Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch (BZAW 208; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1992), 251–252; see also Johan Lust, “‘Gather and Return’ in Jeremiah and Ezekiel,” in Le Livre de Jérémie: le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (ed. Pierre Bogaert; Louvain, Belgique: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 1981), 119–142, esp. 141. 31 Here the 40 years of devastation and exile is the connecting element of the section vv. 9–12 and vv. 13–16. On the unity of the whole section of Ezek 29:1–16, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 109. 32 Minj argues that returning to Pathros has a theological significance: “Beyond the historical-political meaning of the expression, there lies a deeper theological meaning. This is the restoration of Egypt, i.e. a bringing back the captives to settle them in Pathros, their native land where their roots as Egyptians lie (cf. Isa 11,1). This signifies both their territorial and political restoration, which is equally linked to their historical origin. However, it has an important theological significance, which means bringing them back to the LORD through inner conversion of their hearts” (Sudhir Kumar Minj, Egypt the Lower Kingdom: an Exegetical Study of the Oracle of Judgment Against Egypt in Ezekiel 29, 1–16 [Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006], 192). In my perspective, I believe that the emphasis on Pathros in Ezekiel lies in creating greater distance between Judah and Egypt. Restoring Egypt to its southern origin is not an act of salvation. It is rather an act that aims at maintaining the boundaries between Judah and Egypt; in this way Egypt will not be a source of confidence to the Israelites. 33 Zimmerli raises the question: “Is there a reflection here of the correct historical recollection that the Egypt which under the Saites had its political center in Ezekiel’s day in the Delta had in earlier periods its political center in the Nile valley, for example in the Thebes of the Middle and New Kingdoms? Or is there a geological theory of the nature of the statements transmitted by Herodotus? According to this, the Delta had been ‘as the Egyptians themselves say ... alluvial land and but lately (so to say) come into being,’ so

III. Geopolitical Minimization

213

the Old Testament (Isa 11:11; Jer 44:1, 15; Ezek 30:14). These references inform us that Pathros indicates the southern part of ancient Egypt. The name Pathros comes from the Egyptian name pa ta rsy “the Southland.”34 This sense of southern-ness is indicated by Isaiah’s (11:11) tripartite division of Egypt. According to this reference YHWH will restore the Israelites from Misraim (Egypt, probably the northern part), Pathros (the southern part) and Cush (the southern border). Similarly, in one of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions (ca. 671 BCE) the three aforementioned territories signify the totality of the Egyptian land under the reign of Taharaqa.35 During the time of Ezekiel, Egypt was governed by the Saite Dyansty, which ruled in the Delta area. The presence of Egyptian power in the Delta area poses a temptation to the Judahites to appeal for help from their southern neighbors. Thus when YHWH restores Egypt to its southern part, Pathros, the distance between Egypt and the Levant will be great. B. Egypt as a Lowly Kingdom: Minimization of Political Power In addition to creating this distance between Egypt and Israel by pushing Egyptian borders southward, Ezekiel proclaims a political minimization to the power of Egypt. Egypt will become a lowly kingdom; a nation with minthat even Herodotus is of the opinion that ‘as the land grew in extent many of them spread down over it, and many stayed behind” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 115). One might not be sure about the geographical and the historical aspects of Ezekiel’s prophecy here, it is clear, however, that YHWH is constraining the Egyptian power to the south, into the Nile valley. In terms of origin, the prophet Ezekiel is concerned with the question of where these different nations have come from and what their past signifies (cf. Ezek 21:35; 16:3). In the table of the nations (Gen 10:14; cf. 1 Chr 1:12) the Pathrusim are mentioned as descendants of Misraim (Egypt). The land of origin is used various times in Ezekiel (21:35 of Babylon; in chapter 16 of Jerusalem; and here in 29 of Egypt). It seems that the origin of each nation should play a role in disclosing where they come from and who they currently are. Memory of origins shapes the way one reconstructs an identity. In the case of Jerusalem, their origin signifies hybridity, defilement, and foreignness; in the case of Babylon, they will be judged in the place of origin; and finally, in the case of Egypt the place of their origin signifies a geographical minimization southward. 34 Baker, “Pathros,” ABD 5.178. 35 The inscription mentions the parts of Egypt Musru (Egypt; the Delta), Paturisi (the Southland, Upper Egypt), and Kusu (Cush). “The Saite kings of the 26th Dynasty (664– 525 B.C.) separated off the Southland and treated it as an administrative unit once again. It was assigned a governor and a master of commercial shipping, mainly for purposes of taxation; while for purposes of cultic continuity, a princess of the royal line was installed at Thebes as ‘Divine Worshiper of Amun.’ A foreign garrison, including a paramilitary (?) unit from Judah, was installed at Elephantine on the S border. The Persians continued the Saite practice of assigning a single governor to the Southland and maintained the garrison, but did away with the role of the Divine Worshiper.” (Donald Redford, “Pathros,” ABD 5.178).

214

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

imal political power. The Hebrew word hlp#$, translated above as “lowly,” describes the way YHWH portrays Egypt, namely, as a “low kingdom” and, perhaps, as a vassal state (29:14).36 In Ezek 17:14 the same expression was used in order to speak of the kingdom of Judah as a “low kingdom”: “…so that it would become a lowly kingdom (hlp#$ hklmm) and not lift itself up, and that by keeping his covenant it might stand.” The context there is the Babylonian imperial subjugation of the Judean royal family that was exiled and of Judah that was made a “low kingdom,” that is, Judah was turned into a vassal nation. Ezekiel’s prophecy against Egypt will put limitations on the geography that Egypt imagines for itself and also turns Egypt into a vassal nation subjugated to Babylon. The nation that once was an empire (during the New Kingdom), extending from the far south of Egypt all the way to the Euphrates River in the northeast, will be turned into a small nation that occupies only the south. Egypt is brought low not only in terms of geographical space, but also in terms of its political power. The prophet makes his point even stronger as he puts in contrast the words “low” (hlp#$) and “rise” ()#&n, hitpa’el) in 29:14–15. Egypt will become the lowest among the nations so that it will not raise itself up over the nations; that is to say, it will not attempt to rule over any of the surrounding nations. YHWH turns the empire into a small and colonized nation. Ezekiel imagines a new world order in which Egypt occupies the south and becomes a powerless nation so that it would not abuse the smaller nations through its power. C. The Result of the Geopolitical Minimization There are two interrelated results of the geographical and the political minimization of Egypt. On the one hand, because Egypt will be at a far distance from Israel and a liminal political power, Israel will never again put its trust in Egypt. On the other hand, because Israel will not put its trust in Egypt, then Egypt will not function as a reminder of the iniquity of the Israelites who had once turned toward Egypt to find security. All in all, removing Egypt to the periphery of the world of Israel in terms of the empirical geography will grant Israel a safer and a more secure world in which Egypt will not be a source of temptation, infidelity, and an occasion for divine punishment. The security of Israel is a key theme in Ezekiel’s oracles of salvation. This theme is prevalent in an oracle that is interpolated right after the oracle against Sidon and immediately before the oracles against Egypt (Ezek 28:24– 26). 36

See M. Tsevat, “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel,” JBL 78 (1959): 199–204.

III. Geopolitical Minimization

215

Ezek 28:25 Thus says the Lord GOD: When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and manifest my holiness in them in the sight of the nations, then they shall settle on their own soil that I gave to my servant Jacob. 26 They shall live in safety in it, and shall build houses and plant vineyards. They shall live in safety, when I execute judgments upon all those who surround them who despised them. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God.

This oracle focuses on the security of Israel that will be granted to the returnees from the exile. In this short oracle the word (x+b) “to trust, to be secure,” is repeated twice (28:26).37 In the last segment of the first oracle against Egypt, when YHWH minimizes Egypt’s political power and when he minimizes its geographical space, Egypt will not be a source of “trust or security” (x+b) for Israel (29:16). Both of these statements concerning Israel’s security (28:26; 29:16) are preceded with two similar oracles with regard to the restoration of both Egypt (29:13)38 and Judah from their exile (26:25). Israel will be more secure if Egypt is at enough of a distance so that Israel would not put its trust in it.39 One of the places in which the motif of the return of the Israelites to their land is expressed explicitly comes from Ezek 20:32–38. In this context the return to the land of Israel meant the separation of the faithful Israelites from the unfaithful ones.40 The return of the Israelites to their land is an act of sep37

The word “to trust, to be confident, or to rest safely” (x+b) is used in Ezekiel to describe Jerusalem in her wickedness before the exile (Ezek 16:15; Jerusalem trusted in her beauty) and is used to describe the state of the inhabitants of Israel after the return from the exile. In Ezek 34:25, 27–28 YHWH promises to make the returnee from the exile rest safely in Israel. These verses prepare the way for the account of Gog of Magog in Ezekiel 38– 39, who attempts to attack those who are resting safely in the land of Israel. 38 To the contrary however, the dead body of the monster of the Nile will not be gathered (Cbq). Pharaoh’s body is dishonored and left unburied in the rbdm, the periphery where it belongs. Whereas YHWH will be holy in the sight of the nations upon the return of the Israelites to their land, the ungathering of the body of the monster will bring defilement and disgrace upon Pharaoh. In Ezek 32:17–32, the prophet speaks of the descent of Pharaoh and Egypt’s hordes (the monster) into Sheol (see below). 39 Minj suggests that “Israel’s peaceful existence in the Promised Land and her covenantal fidelity, i.e. faithfully belonging to the LORD, are both connected with the fate of Egypt.” This is an important observation, which Minj develops as he argues: “the new prospect of life for Egypt in Pathros as a low kingdom brightens hope for a secure and peaceful dwelling for the captives of Judah-Israel because Egypt will no longer interfere in God’s plan for Israel” (Minj, Egypt the Lower Kingdom, 192). I would further support this statement by pointing to Ezekiel 20 and 23 in which the prophet highlights the danger that Egypt poses on the relation between YHWH and Israel. However, I differ from Minj’s attempt to describe this oracle as a salvation oracle for Egypt; it is instead an oracle in which Egypt is humiliated by YHWH (Minj, Egypt the Lower Kingdom, 193–199). 40 According to Ezekiel 20, YHWH will replace the old exodus that is associated with Egypt with a new exodus – the return from the exile. In the first exodus YHWH led the Israelites out of Egypt although they did not discard the idols of Egypt. During the new exo-

216

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

aration.41 When both Egypt and Israel return back to their lands YHWH attempts to set Israel and Egypt apart by maintaining firm boundaries. Both will return to their lands; therefore, both will not intermingle or be in a relationship. When YHWH brings the Israelites back to the land they will be secure and will know that YHWH is their God. When Egypt is brought back to its land as a “lowly” nation, the Israelites will no longer put their confidence and trust in Egypt. If Israel puts its confidence in Egypt, then they will be reminded42 of their iniquity, namely, that they put their trust in another power other than YHWH. The expression Nw( rykzm is attested in Ezek 21:28 (English 21:23). The text reads: “But to them it will seem like a false divination; they have sworn solemn oaths; but he brings their guilt to remembrance (Nw( rykzm), bringing about their capture.” The capture of the city of Jerusalem will function as an eternal sign and a reminder of the sin of the Israelites. In Ezekiel 29:16, Egypt, who played a major role in the historical context of the fall of the city of Jerusalem, will not do that in the future. No more trust in the Egyptians, proclaims Ezekiel. If the Israelites succeed in not putting their confidence in the Egyptians, Egypt will not function as a reminder of the Israelites’ sin of infidelity. Through YHWH’s act of relegating Egypt to its proper place and restoring Israel to its land after the exile, a situation is rendered possible in which each of these two nations can no longer intermingle and in which appropriate boundaries will be reestablished. Furthermore, this distance between the land dus, however, in the wilderness of the peoples the rebellious Israelites will be distinguished from the faithful Israelites. Only the faithful ones will enter the land. Unlike the new generation of the wilderness after the first exodus who followed the ways of their ancestors, worshiped their idols, and entered the land, in the exilic generation only the faithful ones will make it to the land. In the first exodus the influence of Egypt was carried along with the Israelites who worshiped idols; in the new exodus, those who intend to be like the nations will be left in the midbar, outside of the land, where they belong with the nations. This notion of separation between Israel and the nations (including Egypt), which YHWH is forcefully about to accomplish, will keep Israel holy and sanctified for the worship of its sole God, YHWH. For the theological implications of this proclamation by Ezekiel, see Paul Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHB/OTS 482; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 154. 41 Zimmerli notes, “Just as the restoration of Israel, according to 20:32–38, was connected with a decree aimed at separating out the sinners, so here the restoration of Egypt is connected with the setting of rights of what was wrong with this world power.” Zimmerli argues that the restoration of the Egyptians from their exile will set them in the right. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 114. 42 On the language of memory in Ezekiel see Simon De Vries “Remembrance in Ezekiel: A Study of an Old Testament Theme,” Interpretation 16 (1962): 58–64. See also Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel (BZAW 301; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 126–129.

IV. Mythological Marginalization

217

of Israel and the borders of Egypt will be strengthened, when YHWH restores Egypt to its land of origin, Pathros, which is in the south. Thereby, YHWH separates the two nations. Finally, by minimizing Egypt’s political power, YHWH will give no room for the Israelites to trust again in Egyptian military aid. Therefore Egypt can no longer be a reminder of the Israelites’ iniquity because they will not put their trust in Egypt anymore.43 They will not turn their faces to the Egyptians. Boundaries between Egypt and Israel will be maintained. The chaotic power of Egypt will be kept at bay.

IV. Mythological Marginalization: Ezekiel 32:17–32 and Egypt’s Descent into the Nether World, Associating Egypt with Impurity and Death IV. Mythological Marginalization

Because Egypt is not just a political power, but rather has a cosmological significance, there is yet another way to maintain the boundaries between Israel and Egypt. In the sphere of cosmological and mythological geography, Egypt, the monster, was slain by YHWH and now it should descend into Sheol. Egypt does not belong to the land of the living and the land of the pure. Egypt for Ezekiel perpetuates chaos through impurity and hence is a power of death. Therefore, Egypt must be gathered with the impure in the land of the dead, in Sheol. The monster that was left in the rbdm (Ezek 29:3– 5) and upon the face of the field (Ezek 32:4–5) is now sent down into Sheol (32:17–32). A. Ezekiel 32:17–32: A Translation 17. In the twelfth year, on the fifteenth day of the month,44 the word of YHWH came to me saying: 18. Mortal, wail over the hordes of Egypt and send it down: Her along with mighty 43

It is interesting to note that YHWH commanded the prophet to set his face (hnp) against Pharaoh. Furthermore, when YHWH tames and kills the monster and minimizes Egypt into a lowly kingdom, the Israelites will not turn (Mtwnpb) toward them. Turning toward Egypt should only happen for the sake of bringing judgment on this former ally. 44 Note that this date formula does not mention the name of the month. The OG, however, adds touv prw¿tou mhno\ß “the first month.” The Greek translation seems to be assuming one of the most obvious candidate months of the year, namely the first month, to fill the gap. For the most part Ezekiel’s oracles against Egypt are arranged in a chronological order except for the second oracle (29:17–21), which is dated to the twenty seventh year. Dating this oracle to the first month makes it at odds with the preceding oracle (32:1– 16), which comes from the twelfth month of the same year. It does not make sense however to have an oracle from the first month (32:17–32) to be preceded by an oracle from the same year but from the twelfth month (32:1–16). Furthermore, it is plausible to assume that the month was not mentioned because it is the same month as the one that was mentioned in the preceding oracle, namely, the 12th month of the year. Thus the oracle in Ezek

218

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

nations45 to the land below with those who descend into the Pit. 19. Whom do you surpass in beauty? Go down! And lie with the uncircumcised! 20. Among the slain by the sword they shall fall; [it/Egypt] was handed to the sword; they seized46 her and her hordes; 21. The chiefs of the mighty ones will speak to him from the midst of Sheol along with his helpers: the uncircumcised and the ones slain by the sword have gone down and have lain down. 22. Assyria is there and all of her assembly, round about its graves. All of them are slain, fallen by the sword, 23. Whose graves were assigned the utter most parts of the Pit. There was its assembly surrounding its grave. All of them are slain, fallen by the sword, Those who spread terror in the land of the living. 24. Elam is there with its entire horde surrounding her grave. All of them are slain, fallen by the sword, Who went down uncircumcised to the land below, Those who spread terror in the land of the living, They shall bear their shame with those who descend into the Pit. 25. In the midst of the slain they assigned a resting place for her, Given that all of her hordes surrounding her grave, All of them are uncircumcised, fallen by the sword, For their terror was spread in the land of the living. They shall bear their shame with those who descend into the pit, Being placed in the midst of the slain. 26. Meshesh-Tubal is there and her horde, surrounding her grave(s). All of them are uncircumcised, slain by the sword, For they have spread terror in the land of the living. 27. They will not lie down with the warriors, the ones fallen47 of long ago,48 Who went down to Sheol with their instruments of battle. They placed their swords under their heads And their shields49 upon their bones

32:1–16 is followed with another oracle that comes within two weeks; both of these two oracles share the motif of lament. 45 Literally “daughters of the nations”; Zimmerli suggests emending twnb “daughters” to Kwtb “in the midst.” I think it is an unnecessary emendation; one can deduce from the conjunctive particle that Egypt and the mighty nations are going down together. 46 For the use of the verb K#$m “to pull, seize” in relation to capturing a city and putting it to the sword, see Judg 20:37. In this way, Ezekiel is not assigning Egypt a status among the slain by the sword, but he also is assigning a fate, that is, Egypt is also slain by the sword. This is a theme that Ezekiel has already proclaimed in 29:9–10, etc. 47 Here we have a word play between Mylpn (who fell) and Mylypn “Nephilim” (cf. Gen 6:1–4). 48 The MT reads Mylr(m “of the uncircumcised,” which is probably influenced by the context in which this particular word is repeated various times. On the other hand the OG reads aÓpo\ ai˙w◊noß “from eternity,” which is probably reading Mlw(m. I follow the OG because I assume that these warriors of verse 27 are in a better status in Sheol than Egypt and the rest of the uncircumcised nations.

IV. Mythological Marginalization

219

For terror of the mighty ones is [spread] in the land of the living. 28. However, in the midst of the uncircumcised you shall be broken and shall lie down with those slain by the sword. 29. Edom is there, her kings and her princes, who are placed with their might with the slain by the sword, they shall lie down with the uncircumcised and with the ones who descend into the Pit. 30. The chiefs50 of the North are there, all of them; and all of the Sidonians who have gone down with the slain because of their terror; because of all of their might they will be ashamed; they have lain down uncircumcised with the slain by the sword; they have borne their shame with those who descend into the Pit. 31. Pharaoh will see them (all) and will console himself for his entire horde; slain by the sword are Pharaoh and his army, an oracle of YHWH. 32. For he has spread his terror51 in the land of the living, therefore he shall be laid among the uncircumcised along with those slain by the sword; Pharaoh and all of his horde, says the Lord YHWH.

Ezekiel’s last oracle against Egypt richly interweaves various themes together. The text sheds light on issues of death, shame,52 and the topography of the netherworld. It shows that nations and kings who spread terror in the land of the living will one day taste death and Sheol will be their destiny. The text speaks about honorable warriors (32:27) as opposed to other personified dead nations who dwell in the netherworld in shame with those who are slain by the sword and uncircumcised (23:22, 24, 26, 29–30). It deals with the topog49

The MT reads Mtnw( “Their iniquities.” Most of modern commentators emend this word into Mtwnc “their shield,” which makes a better sense here. See for example Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 168. 50 On the rare attestations of the word Kysn “chief, leader” see HALOT 702 and BDB 651. 51 According to the MT this phrase reads: “for I have spread his terror in the land of the living;” one has either to emend the subject of the verb Ntn or the suffix pronoun attached to the noun tytx, unless one would read it as presented by the MT, in the sense that when YHWH makes Pharaoh descend to Sheol, YHWH will spread terror over other nations (cf. 32:9–10). I emend the subject of the verb Ntn so that Pharaoh would be responsible for spreading terror in the land of the living. 52 On the theme of shame in the Old Testament see Lyn M. Bechtel, “Shame as Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” JSOT 49 (1991): 47–76; Victor Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, ed., Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible (Semeia 68; Atlanta: Society of Biblical literature, 1996); Saul M. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment,” JBL 115 (1996): 201–218; and more specifically on this theme in the book of Ezekiel, see Margaret S. Odell, “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63,” JSOT 56 (1992): 101–112; Jacqueline Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? 136; and Lapsley, “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s Vision of the Moral Self,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong; SBLSS 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 143– 174. On the theme of shame in this oracle of Ezekiel 32:17–32, see John Strong, “Egypt’s Shameful Death and the House of Israel’s Exodus from Sheol (Ezekiel 32:17–32 and 37:1– 14),” JSOT 34 (2010): 475–504.

220

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

raphy of the netherworld: in 32:21 it speaks about the center of Sheol, and in 32:23 it speaks of the fringes of this place. In the following section I will argue that when Ezekiel rhetorically sends Pharaoh/Egypt and its hordes into Sheol, the prophet removes Egypt to the periphery of the cosmos. Even in the netherworld Egypt lies at the periphery of Sheol itself. The monster that was defeated and dismembered is finally thrown into the pit and placed in Sheol. Egypt will be confined in the netherworld with the uncircumcised and those slain by the sword; these two categories were excluded from the community. By its descent into the land of the dead, Egypt is excluded from the land of the living and is also put in contrast with Israel, which although suffering the death of the exile (Ezek 33:10–16, 21–22), is revived from death in Ezekiel 37.53 Egypt belongs to the land of the dead, while Israel belongs to the land of the living. Egypt, which apparently once perpetuated impurity in the religious life of Israel (idolatry), which led to the exile and the death of Israel, is now thrown into death and Sheol.54 I believe that this oracle (Ezek 32:17–32) should be read in relation to the preceding oracle (32:1–16), which represents Pharaoh/Egypt as a monster whose body YHWH defeats and dismembers. The time span between both oracles is only two weeks. In Ezek 32:1 the word of YHWH comes to the prophet in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first day of the month; and in the second oracle according to 32:17, the word of YHWH came to the prophet in the twelfth year, in the fifteenth day of the month. This latter date formula does not mention the month; therefore many commentators take it to be referring to the same month of the preceding oracle.55 It is as if the prophet is about to bury the monster that had been killed by YHWH two weeks before. 53

On the relationship between this oracle in Ezek 32:17–32 and Ezek 37:1–4, see Daniel I. Block, “Beyond the Grave: Ezekiel’s Vision of Death and Afterlife,” BBR 2 (1992): 113–141; Strong, “Egypt’s Shameful Death,” 475–504. 54 N. Wyatt argues that “for the Hebrew mythological mind Egypt signified death. It is a country of funerary monuments of stupendous dimensions. Whatever may be the historical status of a sojourn in Egypt, for the pentateuchal tradition it was rather a symbol of the exile, signifying the death of a people. One always ‘goes down’ to ‘Egypt,’ a curious expression if it is to be understood in a neutral sense. It is found with no other crossing of frontiers. The expression yārad bemiṣraim recalls the formula yārad bā’āreṣ, ‘to go down into the earth’” (N. Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition [UBL 13; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), 87–88; see also, Wyatt, “There and Back Again: The Significance of Movement in the Priestly Work,” SJOT 4 (1990): 61–80. 55 See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 163, n. 17b; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 141. For a different view see Steven Tuell, Ezekiel (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 226–227, who follows the suggestion of the OG, which adds the clause “the first month.” See my translation above.

IV. Mythological Marginalization

221

The structure of the unified oracle that is found in Ezekiel 31 and its linguistic affinities to both oracles of 32:1–16 and 32:17–32 support the argument that we should read Egypt’s descent into Sheol in relation to the defeat and dismemberment of the monster. Ezekiel 31 compares Egypt to Assyria, which is portrayed as a cosmic tree, pronouncing both themes of the cutting of the tree (31:12–13) and its descent into Sheol (31:15–18) in one unified oracle. In the judgment against the tree and in the punishment against the monster the prophet uses similar words: #$+n (31:12; 32:4), the body parts will fill the mountains, the channels and the wadis, Myrhh Myqp) twy)g (31:12; 32:4–5). When both oracles of Ezek 32:1–6 and 32:17–32 are read together, then Egypt’s descent into Sheol functions as a way of putting the monster of chaos at the periphery of the cosmos along with the impure and the unclean. In this way the monster, Egypt, that occupies the periphery of the cosmos, namely, the netherworld, is analogous to the monster Mot in the Ugaritic mythology or the monster Apophis in the Egyptian mythology. Both of them inhabit the netherworld and cause death and disorder to the world. The death of Egypt is like the death of death. B. Destination: Periphery of the Netherworld Almost two weeks after Ezekiel is credited with having delivered the oracle concerning YHWH’s defeat of the monster in Ezek 32:1–16 comes the wailing over Egypt and its “multitude” in Ezek 32:17–32. The prophet is commanded to wail (hhn) over the hordes of Egypt.56 The “hordes” of Egypt, which have been a source of confidence for various nations (cf. 32:9–10), are falling under the divine judgment.57 Before hearing words in the lament, we encounter actions that the prophet is commanded to perform. YHWH commands the prophet to send Pharaoh down into the underworld along with

56

“Here all that is described is the journey to the underworld and the shameful state that exists down there. In this H. Jahnow discerns the inversion of the motif which occurs in the genuine lament, that of the ‘honorable burial.’ Instead of the consolation that the person buried will be reunited in death with friends and nobles, here in the propheticpolitical reapplication of the lament it is the unworthiness of the burial that is fully developed” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 171); see also Hedwig Jahnow, Das hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung (Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1923). Zimmerli compares the hnyq and the yhn: “Thus, the yhn of Ezek 32:17–32 lacks the brilliance and the inner range of the laments in Ezekiel which are specifically described as hnyq” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 171). 57 In Isa 5:13–14 this fate of the descent into Sheol along with the hordes is ascribed to Jerusalem: “Therefore my people go into exile without knowledge; their nobles are dying of hunger, and their multitude is parched with thirst. Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth beyond measure; the nobility of Jerusalem and her multitude go down, her throng and all who exult in her.”

222

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

those who go down into the Pit. The prophet is an active agent in enforcing YHWH’s judgment over Egypt. Behind the command to ‘bring down’ Pharaoh there can be seen an awareness of the power of the prophet’s word, which does not only proclaim what is to come but brings reality to pass. Like the sword of brutal mighty nations (28:7), the word of the prophet is to bring down to the underworld Egypt in all her pomp among the ‘mighty’ nations that preceded her.58

The prophetic word creates a new reality concerning Egypt. This is not just a normal death and burial procedure. YHWH and his prophet are ensuring Egypt’s descent into Sheol. YHWH defeated Egypt the monster, and now the prophet causes Pharaoh, his helpers (wyrz(),59 and the hordes of Egypt to descend into Sheol. YHWH and his prophet are putting an end to Egypt’s life and to the chaos that Egypt perpetuates in the land of the living. YHWH commands the prophet to send Egypt down to the lower lands along with those who “descend into the pit.” The repetition of the verb (dry) “to go down” highlights the fall of Egypt (Ezek 32:18, 19, 21). Egypt placed itself on a high place and now falls and descends into the lower lands (cf. 29:15). Poetically, the prophet makes a sound and a visual play with the letters r and d. The verb dry “to go down” and the word rd) “might, majesty” use both letters but in a different order. Through the sound and visual play of the reversed letters of d and r the prophet creates a reality reversal; Egypt is not majestic, but rather a fallen dead nation that is on its way down to Sheol, the fringe of the world. The prophet employs various terms in order to speak of the destination of Pharaoh’s journey to the underworld. The prophet uses: “Pit” (rwb), “Sheol” (lw)#$) and “land below” (twytxt Cr)). It seems that by using these terms the prophet connects two important aspects of death: one is the burial (pit); the other is the spatial extension of the pit, namely, the netherworld, which functions as a mythological entity marking the border of the cosmos as opposed to heaven (cf. Amos 9:2; Ps 139:8), a world that has its own order. “The image of the gloomy pit fuses with the mythical image of the realm of the underworld, which is then described by a word which has not yet been

58

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 172. This term here reminds us of the helpers of Tiamat in Enūma eliš; those helpers were hybrid monsters (lion men, scorpion men, fish men, bull mean, etc.; see Ee I.141–143) that were created in order to help her in the combat against Marduk. In Job 9:13 the text speaks of the “helpers” (yrz() of Rahab, which is a mythological title that was given to Egypt in Isaiah 31:3. The language of a helper to the king was used in Ezek 12:14 in order to speak of the divine punishment that will befall the Judean king (cf. 31:17, if (w(rz) “his seed” is emended to (wyrz() “his helpers.” 59

IV. Mythological Marginalization

223

linguistically clarified with any certainty: lw)#$ (‘the underworld’) (vv 21, 27; 31:15–17).”60 The etymology of the term lw)#$ “Sheol” is uncertain.61 The fact that the word is never accompanied by a definite article denotes that the term is a proper name. It has a locative indication to it: wasteland, void, underworld. It is used in parallel with twytxt Cr) “the land below” (Ezek 31:16; cf. Deut 32:22 tytxt lw)#$; Ps 86:13; cf. Isa 14:9 txtm lw)#$). Such a parallelism, along with the reference to its depth in Proverbs 9:18, highlights the vertical dimension of the underworld according to the biblical view. The expression twytxt Cr) “the land below” is a unique expression to Ezekiel (26:20; 31:14, 16, 18; 32:18, 24),62 which denotes a layer of geography that is far from the layer of the earth, which humans inhabit. The spatial aspect that this term denotes is also emphasized by the command to Pharaoh to “descend.” In the biblical traditions lw)#$ is described as the land of “no memory” (Ps 88:13), “no possession” (Ps 49:17), “no knowledge” (Job 14:21; 21:21; Ps 49:21; Qoh 9:10), “no joy” (Qoh 14:16), “no return” (2 Sam 12:23; Job 16:22; 10:22; 7:9), “no end” (Jer 51:39; Job 14:12).63 This gloomy image of the netherworld is also found in other ancient Near Eastern literature. For example, in the descent of Inanna/Ishtar,64 the journey to the underworld is described as a journey “to the dark house, dwelling of Erkalla’s god, to the house which those who enter cannot leave, on the road where traveling is one-way only, to the house where those who enter are deprived of light, where dust is their food, clay is their bread, they see no light, they dwell in darkness.”65 Similar to the biblical perspective, this text de60

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 39. For a review of the various proposed etymologies see HALOT, 1368–69. 62 We find some related expressions, however, in other biblical references: Cr)h twytxt (Ps 63:10), Cr) twytxt (Isa 44:23; Ps 139:15), twytxt rwb (Ps 88:7 and Lam 3:55), hytxt lw)#$ / tytxt (Ps 86:13 and Deut 32:22). See, Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 39. 63 On the biblical conception of the underworld see Nicholas J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (BO 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969). 64 This text starts with the statements: “My lady abandoned heaven, abandoned earth, to the Netherworld (Kur) she descended, Inanna abandoned heaven, abandoned earth, to the Netherworld (Kur) she descended.” This text is cited in: Toshikazu Kuwabara, The Netherworld in Sumero-Akkadian Literature (PhD Diss., Graduate Theological Union and University of California Berkeley, 1991), 189. The Sumerian worldview of the cosmos is a typical ancient Near Eastern one that divides the world between heaven, earth, and underworld. D. Katz notes that “some Sumerian cosmogenic accounts indeed make a distinction between ki and kur: ki signifies ‘earth’ as opposed to ‘heaven,’ and kur is ‘netherworld’ as against ‘earth’.” Katz, The Image of the Netherworld in Sumerian Sources (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2003), 13. 65 “The Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld,” translated by Stephanie Dalley (COS 1.108.381–384), 381. 61

224

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

scribes the netherworld as the land of no return. Going down into the netherworld cannot be undone. The location of the netherworld, which is mostly perceived vertically as far below the earth,66 designates its peripheral status. “The dominant vision of the cosmos was along a vertical axis: the netherworld was situated deep under the ground.”67 In Sumerian literature the netherworld is described as a place far from Sumer: The relationship between the netherworld and Sumer is defined by the adjectives s u d and b a d, signifying ‘distant’ or ‘far away.’ The geographical relation of the netherworld to heaven is depicted in accounts of movements between them, where heaven and the netherworld appear to be in a bipolar position, at the two opposite extremes of the cosmos. 68

Structurally speaking the netherworld is positioned at the periphery of the cosmos, and it is at a great distance from the world of the living. The underworld also had different layers. In the epic of Gilgamesh, this hero lost his hoop and stick, because they fell into the bottom of the netherland (d u r – k u r – r a).69 Because the text mentions the “bottom,” Dina Katz deduces from this that the netherworld had many layers: “Since ‘bottom’ literally points to the lowest level, the meaning of the ‘netherworld’ implies a perception of a multi-level place, and so the two objects fell down to its lowest level.”70 Gilgamesh could not reach these objects because they were beyond his reach. Now when we think about Ezekiel’s last oracle in which he causes Pharaoh to descend into Sheol, we realize that Ezekiel is sending Pharaoh into a 66 In general the netherworld is perceived as a peripheral location, whether it is perceived horizontally as the farthest point behind the mountains, or perceived vertically, which is the most common view, as far below the earth. Katz notes, “A dramatic change emerged in Old Babylonian sources: the Nungal hymn signifies the transfer of authorities and subsequently the functional dissociation of the east from the west. An Old Babylonian incantation against evil spirits goes further, in also demonstrating a change in the perspective from the horizontal to the vertical. The ghost is told that its place is neither in the east nor the west, but at the dark bottom of the netherworld (I.I.3/ a). Thus, the netherworld as the dwelling of the spirits shifted from behind the mountains on the horizon to the deepest level under the surface of the earth” (Katz, The Image of the Netherworld, 53–54). See also the Erra epic, in which a cosmic tree is described as having its roots in the netherworld (Arallu): whose roots reach down into the vast ocean through a hundred miles of water, to the base of the Arallu (Erra and Ishum I, 152; see “Erra and Ishum,” translated by Stephanie Dalley, [COS 1.113.404–416], 407). 67 Katz, The Image of the Netherworld, 29. Compare the text of the Gilgamesh Epic IX, iv–v, found in The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian (trans. with an introduction by Andrew George; London: Penguin Books, 2003). 68 Ibid., 1, 43. 69 Ibid., 77. 70 Ibid., 77.

IV. Mythological Marginalization

225

place from which he cannot come back. It is a place that is at the periphery of the world, and it is a place that has different layers. When we read the whole oracle we find that Egypt will dwell in the periphery of the netherworld. Upon his descent into the netherworld, the mighty warriors greet Pharaoh and his helpers from the midst of Sheol: “the uncircumcised and those slain by the sword have descended” (Ezek 32:21). These mighty warriors are put in contrast with the various nations that accompany Egypt in Sheol. The fact that they are the ones who greet Egypt points toward the conclusion that they inhabit a central or higher and certainly more honorable stratum in Sheol. This stratum, which is described as (lw)#$ Kwtm) “from the midst of Sheol,” that is, probably the center of Sheol, should be put in contrast with (rwbytkry) “the remotest recesses of the Pit”, that is, the periphery of Sheol (32:21b, 23a).71 This is to say that even in the netherworld, Egypt, along with these other nations, will suffer a disgraceful state, as they inhabit the periphery of this peripheral place, according to Ezekiel. The difference between these mighty warriors and the ashamed Egypt is enhanced by further details mentioned in 32:27. These mighty warriors, who died an honorable death, deserve an honorable state in Sheol. They take their swords and vessels of war with them down into Sheol. They lay their swords under their heads. While the repetition that Egypt’s fate will be along with those who were slain by the sword, the reference here in 32:27 that the mighty warriors keep their swords with them down in Sheol highlights their glory and by extension Egypt’s shameful state. The mighty warriors are honored by being buried with their swords under their heads; Egypt and its helpers are buried disgracefully after being slain by the sword. C. Egypt’s Companions in Sheol When Ezekiel sends Egypt into Sheol the prophet rhetorically excludes Egypt from the realm of the living and from the realm of the pure. The prophet excludes Egypt from these two realms by associating Egypt with the dead and the impure. Egypt, the monster that once perpetuated impurity in Israel’s religious life, is now excluded from the world. Ezekiel’s judgment over Egypt is enhanced as the prophet speaks about Egypt’s companions in Sheol. As a priest-prophet, Ezekiel is interested in the classification of Egypt in the underworld. In order to do that the prophet puts forth a question: “whom have

71

Block, Ezekiel, 219. The meaning of the word could refer to the bottom of the pit if one is thinking of the netherworld vertically, or the edges of the underworld if one perceives it horizontally. In both cases the word refers to a marginal and less honorable area in the netherworld. In Isa 14:15, lw)#$ is used in parallel with rwb-ytkry. The word “hDkér◊y” refers to the remotest part of something, whether that part be of the mountain (Judg 19:1, 18), of the earth (Jer 6:22), or of the north (Ezek 38:6, 15; 39:2).

226

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

you surpassed in pleasantness?”72 (Ezek 32:19). This is not the first time in which Ezekiel evaluates Egypt’s status by comparing it to other nations. In 31:2, Ezekiel had earlier asked Pharaoh: “to whom are you compared in your greatness?” (cf. 31:18), thus occasioning the comparison with Assyria, represented as the cosmic tree. However, even this cosmic tree is destined to end up in Sheol and the netherworld, argues Ezekiel. In this relational metaphor, Egypt by analogy faces the same destiny as that of Assyria. Ezekiel continues this relational enterprise by raising a similar question in his final oracle against Egypt. In 32:19, the prophet addresses Pharaoh/Egypt and its hordes again, this time questioning whom Egypt had surpassed in pleasantness. No direct answer is provided to this question. Instead, the prophet answers indirectly by commanding Pharaoh/Egypt to “go down and be laid to rest with the uncircumcised!” Egypt’s status of impurity and exclusion is underlined as the prophet speaks about its companions who will accompany it in the netherworld. This is followed by some repeated formulae that speak of other nations that will accompany Egypt in Sheol. The list of the nations includes Assyria, Elam, and Meshech-Tubal in addition to Sidon, Edom, and the northern kings.73 Ezekiel buries Egypt with foreign kings/nations and these foreigners are characterized with two attributes that signify impurity, defilement and exclusion; those attributes are being slain by the sword and being uncircumcised. Before I deal with these two categories in detail I would like to highlight a few points that underscore for the reader the power of Ezekiel’s rhetoric.74 It is a rhetoric that excludes Egypt from the land of the liv72 Most translations and commentators take this word to be from the root M(n. John Strong, however, argued recently that this word should be taken from the root Mm(, and that the verb word be denominative derived from the common word M( “people.” According to Strong the clause should be translated as: “With whom do you belong?” (Strong, “Verb Forms of Mm( in Ezekiel and Lamentations,” Bib 88 [2007]: 546–552). 73 Form-critical analyses suggest that the latter three populations were added at a later stage in the development of the oracle (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 177–178). This issue does not influence my reading of the oracle. It is ironic that Tyre which the prophet has announced its descent into Sheol in 26:20 is not referred to here, at least explicitly, in this final oracle against Egypt. 74 The strongest biblical parallel to Ezek 32:17–32 is found in Isa 14:2b–21. In this text the author embeds a message of judgment in a funeral dirge against a tyrant king. The poem subverts the genre of funeral dirge and mythological motifs of royal ascent to heaven after death in order to “mock the tyrant and expedite him to the lowest possible pit in Sheol, where he would enjoy neither position, nor authority, nor even royal regalia or comfort” (R. Mark Shipp, Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21 [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002], 166). One of the apparent differences between Isaiah 14:4b–21 and Ezekiel 32:17–32 is that the former allows the king to ascend to the heavens before the descent into Sheol. Ezekiel, however, does not grant this honor to Pharaoh. For Ezekiel, heavens are the abode of YHWH. And even when Pharaoh goes down to Sheol, he will dwell in the periphery of the netherworld. In Isa 14:9, the descent of

IV. Mythological Marginalization

227

ing by means of including it with the category of other foreign kings/nations along with the uncircumcised and those slain by the sword. In many instances death in the OT is expressed by the statement “X was gathered to his people.”75 There is a sense of honor and integrity embedded in being buried and in joining one’s own ancestors in the grave. In addition to being honored by being buried with one’s clan, honoring the dead takes place by burying them in their homeland. Joseph asked the Israelites to take his bones with them when they left Egypt (Gen 50:25; Josh 24:32). Similarily, Sinuhe wanted to go back to Egypt so that he would not die in a foreign land.76 Being buried with one’s clan and in one’s land is a form of honoring the deceased. Ezekiel, however, through the power of the prophetic imagination brings shame upon Pharaoh by gathering him with other foreign kings in the netherworld. According to the Egyptian perspective, “the death and burial of the Egyptian king was an event of cosmic significance. His death meant the temporary victory of chaos over order (maat), a situation which, potentially, might threaten the very foundations of the universe.”77 Restoring the order of the cosmos was conditioned on performing proper burial and proper rites for the

the king into Sheol is described as a natural consequence of his fall/death: “Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come.” In Ezekiel, however, the prophet plays a role in causing Pharaoh to descend into Sheol. Further, the king in Isaiah 14 is greeted by the Rephaim, a convoluted term that refers to posthumous beings in Sheol (see Shipp, Of Dead Kings, 114–127, for discussion of the meaning of such a reference). In opposition, in Ezekiel Pharaoh is accompanied by kings of known nations along with warriors who died a long time ago. It seems that Ezekiel is trying to avoid any misunderstanding that would accompany a use of a term like the Rephaim that might denote a divine status to the honored dead ones. Unlike Isaiah 14, Ezekiel does not offer any reference to a past glory from which Pharaoh has been demoted. 75 Gen 25:8; 35:29; 49:29; 1 Kgs 11:43; 14:31. See Robert Cooley, “Gathered to His People: A Study of a Dothan Family Tomb,” in The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz (ed. Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood; Winona Lakes, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 47–58. For discussions concerning the Judahite tombs, see E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead (JSOTSup 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). See also the discussions in Suriano, Politics of Dead Kings, 32–50. This discussion takes both literary and archaeological discussions into account. For Suriano this repeated formula in the book of Kings signify transmission of power from a father to a son and it also underlines the continuity of power of a certain dynasty. 76 This idea is expressed clearly in the story of Sinuhe: “Whichever god decreed this flight, have mercy, bring me home! Surely you will let me see the place in which my heart dwells! What is more important than that my corpse be buried in the land in which I was born!” (“Sinuhe,” translated by Miriam Lichteim [COS 1.38:77–82, 80]). 77 John Taylor, Death and Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 2001), 141.

228

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

deceased king; these rites enabled the king to enjoin the gods in eternal life.78 Egyptian sources speak of the death of the king in metaphorical language that describe the event through spatial terminology specifically focusing on the ascension of the king to heaven. Funerary texts describe the king’s death as follows: “he flies to heaven as a bird,” “he climbs a ladder,” “he journeys by boat.” The story of Sinuhe reports that the king Amenemhat I “flew to heaven and united with the sun-disc, the divine body merging with its maker.”79 Ezekiel’s portrayal of Pharaoh’s death reverses such an assertion by emphasizing Pharaoh’s descent into Sheol. According to Ezekiel Pharaoh will not ascend to heaven, will not join the gods, and will not be gathered with his royal family.80 Being gathered with one’s clan or being gathered with deceased royal ones, in the case of deceased kings is emphatically highlighted in various hymns that mourn the death of Urnamma the Sumerian king (2111–2094 B.C.E.). Urnamma A depicts the death of the king and the consequences that follow this event.81 Similar to the City Laments82 the hymn describes the devastation, which Ur is going to experience, following the death and the fall of the king.83 Listing the catastrophes that befall the city is an indirect way to

78

Ibid., 141. Cited in Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 141. 80 “Textual evidence indicates that the rulers of the succeeding 26th Dynasty returned to the practice of reconstructing their tombs in the enclosure of a cult temple (in this case, that of the goddess Neith at Sais), but no archaeological remains of them have been found.” Taylor, Death and Afterlife, 147. Zimmerli compares the set up of the nations along with Egypt in the Netherworld to the “mastaba tombs of the nobles” who “lie round the pyramid of the king” at Giza (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 25–48, 174). See the discussion in Christopher B. Hays, Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah (FAT 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 57–92. 81 Esther Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition (OBO 166; Fribourg, Switz.: University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 85. 82 For a detailed description of the connections between Urnamma A and the genre of City Laments, see Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 87–91. 83 Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 89–90. The Calamities include alteration of the landscape: “on the steppes no f[ine? grass] grew any more, mourning grass grew there” (Urnamma A 28; Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 106). Urnamma’s death is projected on the city and the land: “he crossed over the … of the land, the land’s vigour was altered” (Urnamma A, line 72; Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 114). Another important similarity between the Urnamma A hymn and the city laments lies in the following observation: “Urnamma in the netherworld obviously shares a fate similar to that of a deity whose city is doomed to destruction. In city laments the deities (have to) leave their temple and city and retreat to the steppe” (Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 89–90). Urnamma leaves his city and dwells in Arali (the netherworld), similarly to Ninisina who sojourns in Arali in an e r sh e m a song. This is important because we find similar motifs in Ezekiel – specifically, the fall of Jerusalem and the divine punishment that falls upon the city. It is thus perhaps not 79

IV. Mythological Marginalization

229

praise the deceased king because the hymn shows the impact of the loss of the king on his city. 84 The hymn ends with “Urnamma’s posthumuous fame.”85 At the command of the gods of the netherworld a seat on the great dais has been granted to Urnamma. Furthermore, he has been given power and authority in the netherworld over sinners and soldiers who have fallen at the battles.86 Another ancient Near Eastern text that concerns a dead king in the netherworld comes from Ugarit (KTU 1.161).87 The text functions as a liturgy for incidental that the report of the fall of Jerusalem is mentioned in Ezekiel 33, immediately following the descent of Pharaoh into Sheol. 84 Flückiger-Hawker claims that there is evidence from Ur III administrative documents that there were “actual rituals in the first month of the year (around April), at the beginning of the harvest time” that involved “lamenting goddesses” and celebrated a “cult of the dead of Ur III kings.” These rituals are significant because they honor the deceased king (Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 86–87). 85 Urnamma A lines 222–231 recount the achievements that Urnamma accomplished as a king. These lines start by proclaiming: “[Ur]namma …, you […], may your sublime name be called!” (Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 140–141; see also pp. 88, 91, 181). However the king knows that he cannot return to Ur; the king declares: “like rain that has fallen from the skies, alas, I cannot return quickly back to the brickwork of Ur!” (lines 164–65, Urnamma A; Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 129–130). Another indication that the king is honored upon his descent into the underworld is that he is welcomed by royals who preceded him there: “Among those who welcomed him into the netherworld were also ‘famous kings’ (1.77) whose names, states and roles in the netherworld are not indicated” (Katz, The Image of the Netherworld, 121). 86 Urnamma A, lines 136–144, as discussed in Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 125–26. Moreover, “Urnamma is the only clearly historical king who is described as an official of the netherworld. However, this description is limited to the lament over his untimely death, a contemporary composition of political and propagandist value. … it is conceivable that popular rulers retained in the mind of their subjects an elevated position in the netherworld” (Katz, The Image of the Netherworld, 121). Katz adds, “His role was twofold: (1) he was given authority over soldiers killed in battle and offenders, and (2) he was appointed as a judge, a position that he held together with Gilgamesh. … The authority over the dead soldiers parallels his task as the commander of the Urukean army, and by serving as a judge in the netherworld he continued to fulfil (sic) the role of the king, to provide justice in the land” (ibid., 121). Gilgamesh in DUr 95 is described as the “lugal of the netherworld”; for Katz this is to be associated with “military power” (cf. Gilgamesh and Akkad; this title for Gilgamesh is presented as a prototype to describe Urnamma, king of Ur and commander of its army; Katz, The Image of the Netherworld, 115). In an incantation against Lamashtu, Gilgamesh is described as the lugal of the spirits (not the ruler of the netherworld, rather of the human spirits; the title, indeed, signifies leadership, but only as first in rank among the deceased human beings” (ibid., 116). 87 Baruch A. Levine and Jean-Michael de Tarragon, “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty,” JAOS 104 (1984): 649–659; Brian Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromacy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 101–122; Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBLWAW; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 85–89. For Pardee this

230

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

the dead king Niqmaddu by placing him in the netherworld among other dead kings of Ugarit and the Rephaim. The sun goddess šapšu commands Niqmaddu to descend into the netherworld. When Niqmaddu arrives into the netherworld and meets the ancient Repahim and the newly dead kings, there are sacrifices that are offered on behalf of the king. The text summons two types of the inhabitants of the netherworld. It calls and commands Rephaim and Kings. qritm . rpi . arṣ qbitm . qbṣ . ddn qra . ʿmṯtmr . mlk qra . u .nqmd . mlk

you have been called, O Rapa’ūma of the netherworld, you have been invoked, O council of Didān ‘Ammiṯtamru the king has been called and Niqmaddu the king has been called

šapšu the sun goddess cries out the following lines: aṯr . [b]ʿlk . l . ksh aṯr bʿlk . arṣ . rd arṣ . rd w . špl . ʿpr tḥt . sdn . w . rdn tḥt . ṯr .ʿl{.}lmn tḥt . rpim . qdmym tḥt . ʿmṯtmr . mlk tḥm . u . nq[md] . mlk

after your [lo]rd, to his throne, After your lord, to the netherworld descend, to the netherworld go down and plunge yourself into the dust! below is SDN-wa-RDN below is ṮR ʿLLMN below are the ancient Rapa’ūma; below is Ammiṯtamru, the king, below is also Niqmaddu the king!

It is unfortunate that the identity of the Rephaim specified in the text is not known. This piece of information would have informed us about the gap between these Rephaim and the two newly dead kings (Ammiṯtamru 88 and Niqmaddu). “It is inescapable that the temporal gap between the last historic kings and the most ancient Rephaim is enough to permit divinization: kings and heroes do, ultimately, become Rephaim.”89 The important observation here is that although the ancient Rephaim are distinguished from the newly dead kings, they share the same location in the netherworld. From these two ancient Near Eastern examples of laments that focus on the descent of deceased kings into the netherworld one can highlight important points of contrast between these two accounts and the descent of text is not about “coronation” or “necromancy.” Rather, the purpose of the rites found in this text is to call the ancestors to “participate in an to effect the ‘rapa’ūm-ization’ of the newly deceased king” (ibid., 87). See also the discussion in Matthew J. Suriano, The Politics of Dead Kings: Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of Kings and Ancient Israel (FAT 48; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 141–144. Suriano maintains that the rite also has a political aspect to it: “it is through rituals such as KTU 1.161 that the names of dead kings are invoked and that the sense of lineage and dynastic continuity come into play” (ibid., 144). 88 For a discussion on the etymology and the phonemes of this name, see Jeremy Hutton, “An Areal Trend in Ugaritic and Phoenician and a New Translation of KTU 1.15 I 3,” UF 35 (2003): 243–258. 89 Levine and de Tarragon, “Dead Kings and Rephaim,” 656.

IV. Mythological Marginalization

231

Pharaoh into Sheol in Ezekiel 32. First, unlike Urnamma A and KTU 1.161, both of which mourn a king that has just died, the descent of Pharaoh into Sheol is an imaginative account that seeks to create a future reality for Pharaoh. Whereas Urnamma A and KTU 1.161 were meant to honor the newly deceased kings, Ezekiel 32:17–32 seeks to subvert the traditional motif of mourning by dishonoring Pharaoh. In the case of Urnamma, the king is given power and fame after his death by receiving authority over soldiers in the netherworld. Niqmaddu – who is commanded by the sun goddess Shapash to “go down,” a similar command to the one we have in Ezekiel 32:19 – is honored by joining the Rephaim and the newly dead kings. In Ezekiel, the netherworld is divided topographically to signify honor and shame, and Pharaoh joins foreign kings and nations who are separated from the honored warriors who died in ancient days. Turning now to the companions of Pharaoh in the netherworld, scholars have raised the question of why Ezekiel includes these nations (Assyria, Elam, Meshech-Tubal etc.) in particular. Odell suggests a parallel to the pattern from Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. She argues that sending foreign nations into the world of the dead was practiced rhetorically against the rebels (i.e., the Elamite kings) during the reign of the king Ashurbanipal. Odell writes, Assyrian historiographical conventions also shed light on the inclusion of these particular nations in 32:17–32. In their summary inscriptions, Assyrian kings would describe the extent of their kingdoms by enumerating the distant lands that they have conquered. Elam typically defined the eastern boundary, while the western boundary was often defined as extending from Egypt into the region of the Sidonians (often identified as the island of Cyprus), Israel and Edom (ARAB, 1:739) and as far as Meshech and Tubal (ARAB, II.16, 71). These nations do not precisely conform to the four points of the compass, but they do represent the axes of Assyrian power.90

The nations that are included with Egypt in the netherworld come from east, west, north and south. Further, Odell contends that when Egypt’s descent into Sheol is interpreted in the light of Assyrian inscriptions, the meaning of this oracle should be understood as “a final comment on Egypt’s attempt to replace Assyria as the center of world power.”91 Odell’s reading is a possible 90

Odell, Ezekiel, 406–407. Odell, Ezekiel, 407. Odell understands Assyria to be located in an honorable place in the netherworld. For her the fact that Assyria is mentioned with its lhq and that Elam, Meshech, and Tubal are each associated with a Nwmh point to an honorable place for Assyria and a less honorable place for these nations. I differ from this reading, however, because the word M#$, which appears at the beginning of each verse that introduces Assyria (32:22), Elam (32:24), and Meshech-Tubal (32:26), locate all of these nations together in one location. Not only that, but the expression rwb ytkry appears with Ezekiel’s description of Assyria’s location in the netherworld (32:23). I believe that there are only two loci in Ezekiel’s topography of Sheol: a center (this is where the warriors of old dwell 32:21, 27) and 91

232

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

one, especially when we consider the connections between this oracle of 32:17–32 and Ezekiel 31, which compares Egypt to Assyria. However, Ezekiel’s complaint against Egypt is rooted in more than Egypt’s attempt to replace Assyria as a world power. Ezekiel is probably aware of the battle of Carchemish in which the Babylonians defeated the coalition of Egypt and Assyria, yet, Ezekiel’s real issue with Egypt is that it challenges Israel’s faithfulness to YHWH. Odell offers an important insight when she points out that these nations represent the four corners of the world. Yet I believe that the strong emphasis on those slain by the sword and the uncircumcised as Egypt’s companions in the netherworld suggest that this oracle has another interest besides issues of power and hubris. This oracle is concerned with Egypt’s destiny with the polluted and the impure. It is concerned with exclusion and inclusion. Not only does Egypt occupy the periphery of the netherworld and not only is it separated from the land of the living, but it is also associated with foreigners, who are uncircumcised and slain by the sword.92 These categories here include those excluded from the Israelite community, which I will now discuss. What does falling or being pierced93 by the sword imply in Ezekiel’s oracle against Egypt? Why is it repeated various times in a single oracle? The meaning of this root refers to being wounded or pierced by the sword.94 Yet, the root (llx) denotes a sense of impurity; it also means to be defiled. Being pierced by a sword defiles: “Whoever in the open field touches one who has

the periphery of Sheol itself (this is where Egypt, Assyira, Elam, and other nations dwell). For a third opinion on the topography of Ezekiel’s Sheol see Brian R. Doak, “Ezekiel’s Topography of the (Un-)Heroic Dead in Ezekiel 32:17–32,” JBL 132 (2013): 607–624, esp. 620. 92 Zimmerli seems to follow Eissfeldt’s argument that the phrase “slain by the sword” does not refer to those who died in war, but rather to those “murdered and put to death,” who were not buried by honorable burial. The text does not specify if those slain by the sword were killed in wars or for being criminals; however, given the military context of the whole oracle, and given the other warriors in v. 27 who put their swords under their heads, one is tempted to argue that ‘slain by the sword’ refers to those who were killed in battle. For the original arguments, see O. Eissfeldt, “Schwerterschlagene bei Hesekiel,” Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H. H. Rowley; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1950), 73–81. 93 The sword is a central tool that YHWH uses in order to accomplish his judgment against his enemies. Here in Ezekiel 32 two different roots precede the word (brx) “sword” in order to designate death by the sword: (lpn) “to fall” and (llx) “to pierce.” The former is used 4 times in Ezekiel (out of 13 times total in the OT) and the latter is used 12 times in Ezekiel (out of 17 times total in the OT; 9 times in Ezekiel 32; two times in Ezekiel 31; one time only outside the oracles against Egypt in 35:8). The word sword with the first verb appears 13 times in Ezekiel (out of 17 times in the OT; cf. 5:12; 6:12; 30:5, 6, 17; cf. 32:12, which uses a Hiphil plural form of the verb). 94 For the full semantic range of the verb in the Hebrew Bible, see HALOT, 319–320.

IV. Mythological Marginalization

233

been killed by a sword (b®rRj_lAlSjA;b), or who has died naturally, or a human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days” (Num 19:16). Although a dead corpse that was pierced by the sword defiles in a similar manner to a natural death, given the context of the military actions during the exile, death by the sword captures Ezekiel’s interest as a source of impurity.95 Ezekiel expresses this sense of defilement by being slain by the sword in Ezek 9:7: “Then he said to them: ‘Defile (…waV;mAf) the house, and fill the courts with the slain (MyIlDlSj). Go!’ So they went out and killed in the city.” When the prophet declares that Egypt shall be buried in Sheol with those who are slain by the sword, the prophet underlines associating Egypt with the impure and the unclean. Egypt, along with those other nations, ought to be excluded from the land of the living. This sense of inclusion and exclusion is enhanced when the prophet repeatedly characterizes most of the nations that will accompany Egypt as “uncircumcised.”96 Sixteen times out of the 37 times that the word (MyIlérSoDh) “uncircumcised” is attested in the OT are found in the book of Ezekiel (of these 16, the word appears in the oracles against Egypt a total of 11 times).97 Circumcision is a bodily sign that sets the boundaries between the clean and the unclean, and between those who are included and excluded from the Israelite community. Ezekiel the priest is drawing the lines between the pure and the polluted. Sasson notes the connection between circumcision and purity in Ezekiel: “It will not come as a surprise that Ezekiel, who as a priest (1:3) is particularly concerned with the separation of clean and unclean and with related cultic practices (22:26; 44:23), the category of the ‘uncircumcised’ is particularly prominent.”98 Egypt is associated with the impure in the netherworld. This is supported by Ezekiel’s adamant prohibition of not allowing the uncircumcised into the sanctuary in his oracles of restoration. Ezekiel 44:9 declares, “Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh (rDcD;b l®rRo◊w bEl l®rRo rDk´n_NR;b_lD;k), of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.” Although Egyptians practiced circumcision, they are categorized among the uncircumcised.99 Lods argued 95

The sword transgresses the boundaries of the body; it brings the inside outside. In that way the body becomes an abject. This is very true in particular if the wounded body does not heal (cf. Ezek 30:12). 96 J. M. Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” JBL 85 (1966): 473–476. 97 The word is used once in 28:10 and 4 times in chapter 44:7, 9; the latter references are concerned with not allowing the uncircumcised into the sanctuary. Circumcision was a sign for inclusion within the covenant community (Genesis 17). John Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” JSOT 88 (2000): 3–18. 98 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 173. 99 Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 43. Jeremiah makes a distinction between those who are circumcised in the heart and those who are circumcised in the flesh: “The days are

234

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

that in the Israelite worldview those who were not circumcised were excluded from the grave of the family.100 Egypt goes down into Sheol with those whom an Israelite community deemed as outsiders, unclean and impure. According to Ezekiel, the Egyptians “are threatened not simply with death, but with a dishonorable death, expulsion to the spheres of uncleanness and unrest even in the underworld below.”101 Not only is Egypt distinguished in the land of the dead from those warriors of old by occupying the periphery of the netherworld and by being accompanied by the impure, but also it is put in contrast with the land of the living. “Here there is maintained the sharp contrast between the ‘land of the living’ and the ‘land below,’ which one enters when one dies.”102 The term MyI¥yAj X®rRa “the land of the living” is used 11 times in the Hebrew Bible, 7 times in the book of Ezekiel; 6 times of which is used here in Ezek 32:17–32 (vv. 24, 25, 25, 27, 32). This supports Zimmerli’s claim that there is a sharp contrast between the “land of the living” and the “land below,” which one can designate as the land of death. In addition to distinguishing between the land of the living over against the land of the dead, in which Egypt will be grouped with those slain by the sword and the uncircumcised, the oracle adds another feature to Egypt’s companions in Sheol. Ezekiel uses a word that is unique to him (tytx) in order to speak of the terror that these nations have caused in the land of the living. The term is used 9 times in Ezekiel; 8 of these occurrences are found in this oracle (Ezek 32:24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32) and only one time aside from this oracle (i.e., in 26:17, in an oracle concerning Tyre). The term is used to describe Assyria, Elam, Mesheck-Tubal, the Sidonians and the prince of the North. Interestingly, the same term is used of the warriors of old who are mentioned in 32:27 and who are set at the center of Sheol, as opposed to Egypt and its companions, who occupy the periphery. The rest of the nations, surely coming, says the Lord, when I will attend to all those who are circumcised only in the foreskin: Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab, and all those with shaven temples who live in the desert. For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jer 9:25–26). See the discussion of this passage in Richard C. Steiner, “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24–25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere,” JBL 118 (1999): 497–505; see also Philip J. King, “Circumcision: who did it, who didn’t and why” Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2006): 48–55. 100 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 173. Cf. A. Lods, “La ‘mort des incirconcis’,” CRAI (1943): 271–283. 101 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 174. In the epic of Gilgamesh, “Enkidu’s account reflects a moral judgment of the way of life itself, because he links the condition of the spirit with its positive or negative conduct in his previous life” (Katz, The Image of the Netherworld, 182). Similarly, Ezekiel judges Egypt and other nations who occupy the lowest level of the netherworld because these nations spread terror on the land of the living. Hence, conduct of life governs the order of the netherworld. 102 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 172.

IV. Mythological Marginalization

235

however, are judged because they spread their terrors in the land of the living. This is an accusation that is not leveled against the mighty warriors of old; they are horrific but they are not characterized as spreading their terror. When the text speaks of the terror of the other nations, including Egypt, it is usually accompanied by the verb Ntn “to set.” Egypt will join those who spread terror in the land of the living, and thus Egypt must be separated and distanced from the land of the living, which YHWH imagines to be secure (x+b).103 In order for Israel to enjoy a safe life,104 the nations of terror must go where they belong, the land of death, leaving the land of the living secure.105 Ezekiel does not simply confine Egypt to the periphery of the land of the dead, but he also locks Egypt in, in the land of no return, along with the impure and the unclean. In this way Ezekiel classifies Egypt as unclean and as an outsider. Egypt can no longer belong to the land of the living, much less to the category of holy. Egypt belongs to the dead, the defiled, and the impure. Ezekiel is concerned with the boundaries between Egypt and Israel.106 Egypt, 103

In the account of Gog of Magog the land is threatened under the permission of YHWH. However, with the defeat of these mythical forces of the north, the land will finally be secure. 104 Ellen Davis reads the final verse of the oracle in the sense that Pharaoh will change his mind with regard to masses (Ezek 32:31). The Niphal of Mxn plus the preposition l( can mean either to be consoled (cf. 2 Sam 13:39) or change of mind (cf. Ex 32:12; Isa 57:6). Adopting the latter sense Davis states with regard to the rhetorical function of Pharaoh’s change of mind and its impact on Israel, “this marks the end of Israel’s vulnerability not only to the armies but also to the religious delusions of its neighbors. … The conversion of Egypt is a witness even more powerful to compel believe – even Israel’s own belief – than would Egypt’s extinction.” Davis, “And Pharaoh Will Change His Mind,” 235. 105 The lament concerning Niqmaddu ends with “Peace, Ugarit! Peace, her gates!” The lament over Pharaoh and Egypt’s hordes, which causes Pharaoh to descend into Sheol, is followed in the book of Ezekiel with the fall of the city of Jerusalem and the destruction of its walls and gates (Ezekiel 33). Marvin Sweeney contrasts the impurity of Egypt and the other nations that went down into Sheol with the divine plan to purify creation prior to the establishment of the New Temple. For Sweeney the section 33:1–20 should be read in relation to the descent of Egypt into Sheol. He writes, “Ezek 32:17–33:20 thereby assert’s Ezekiel’s role as a watchman, whose task is to ensure the purity of the nation following the downfall of the last of the nations that threaten Jerusalem and Israel.” Sweeney, “The Assertion of Divine Power in Ezekiel 33:21–39:29),” in his Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 156–172, 159; See Sweeney, Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah: Engaging Holocaust Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 138–19. See also Tyler D. Mayfield, Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel (FAT 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 171–187, 207– 208. “The oracles against the nations represent a necessary first step to Israel’s forthcoming restoration.” Donna Lee Petter, The Book of Ezekiel and Mesopotamian City Laments (OBO 246; Fribourg, Switz., and Göttingen: University Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 130. 106 Thomas Renz discusses the rhetorical function of the oracles against the nations and he pays a close attention to both Egypt and Tyre. For Renz, “the oracles against the nations

236

Chapter 6: Putting the Monster under Check

the monster that perpetuates religious chaos and threatens Israel’s relation with YHWH, must be kept at bay. Whereas Israel dies in the exile and is resurrected in Ezekiel 37, Egypt remains in the land of the dead.107

V. Summary V. Summary

In this chapter I have argued that there is a tension in the book of Ezekiel with regard to the proper place of Egypt. On the one hand, the prophet optimistically highlights the divine plan of eradicating the memory of Egypt and the chaos that this monster perpetuates in the life of Israel. The prophet, on the other hand, acknowledges that Egypt continues to exist, like most of the ancient Near Eastern monsters; however, if Egypt must exist, the boundaries between Egypt and Israel must be strongly maintained. Although YHWH defeated the monster and dismembered its body, the defeat of the monster is not the end of the drama. Both Mesopotamian and Ugaritic worldviews associate monsters with the periphery, be it expressed in terms of empirical geography (e.g. mdbr) or mythological geography (i.e., the underworld). I have suggested that in Ezekiel’s appropriation of the Chaoskampf motif one can find an application of the structural scheme that positions the monsters at the edges of the known world. Monsters belong to the periphery where they should remain and be kept at bay, away from the ordered center. The monster of chaos is defeated but not completely obliterated; rather, the monster is kept under check. It must be sent back to where it belongs, to the periphery. For the created order to be reestablished, chaotic forces must be forced to return to the margins, and the boundaries between the two worlds not only provide the basis for the salvation of Israel, but also the judgment against Tyre and Egypt is very much a judgment against attitudes found in Old Israel itself. The salvation announcement in the middle of these oracles (28:24–26; cf. 29:21), therefore, gives a picture of New Israel which contrasts with the picture of Old Israel hidden in the oracles against Tyre and Egypt. Old Israel is no longer ‘Israel,’ it is ‘Tyre’ and ‘Egypt.’” Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 76; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1999; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2002), 176–177. 107 John Strong suggests that “Literarily, Ezekiel made Egypt die a vicarious death in Israel’s stead” (Strong, “Egypt’s Shameful Death,” 503–504). I agree with Strong’s suggestion that Egypt’s death should be read in relation to Israel’s resurrection in Ezekiel 37. However, Strong’s suggestion that Egypt’s death is a vicarious death is problematic. The major problem with this suggestion is that Israel itself suffers a kind of communal death in the exile (see Ezekiel 33). The fact that Egypt’s death precedes the report of the exile in Ezekiel 33 shows that for Ezekiel both Egypt and Israel must die because of the idolatry and adultery that they have shared (Ezekiel 20 and 23). Yet, Egypt will remain in the land of death, while Israel will be resurrected. In this way the prophet draws the line and strengthens the boundaries between Egypt the monster and Israel, the people of YHWH.

V. Summary

237

of order and chaos must be reestablished. YHWH distances Egypt from Israel on both empirical and mythological levels of geography, when he minimizes Egypt’s power and pushes her southward so that her position would be far from Israel. By minimizing Egypt as a lowly kingdom and pushing its borders southward to its origins, YHWH creates a geographical space that distances Egypt from Israel (Ezek 29:14–16). Moreover, YHWH commands the prophet to send Pharaoh/Egypt to Sheol to lie there with other foreign nations among the uncircumcised and the ones slain by the sword (Ezek 32:17–32). By going down to Sheol, Egypt will be associated with impurity and death. Unlike the risen Israel of Ezekiel 37, Egypt will remain in death and impurity, all the way down in Sheol. Thus YHWH maintains the boundaries between life and death, purity and impurity. Having Egypt at the periphery and restoring Israel to be at the center of the earth enables the Israelite community to formulate its identity over against the excluded monster that is Egypt. However, the fact that the monster is not completely annihilated but rather put under check testifies to the vulnerability of the cosmos and the ordered world. It is always under threat of the power of chaos. Similarly, this tension points to the vulnerability of the newly created and resurrected Israelite community. Egypt will continue to pose the threat of chaos over the restored Israel.

Conclusion The book of Ezekiel contains seven oracles against Egypt (chs. 29–32). Among the many themes and motifs that appear in this collection of oracles is the prophet’s representation of Pharaoh/Egypt as a monster (29:1–16; 32:1– 16). That the prophet employs this image of a monster twice in order to address Pharaoh underlines the significance of this representation for the prophet’s discourse about who Egypt is. Though gigantic and a perpetuator of chaos, the monster is under divine judgment. YHWH is against the monster and hunts it, making it a prey for the wild beasts and the wild birds. What prompts the prophet Ezekiel to portray Egypt as a monster is the key question I have addressed in this book. I argue that Egypt is a monster in Ezekiel because Egypt stands in for the threat of assimilation, the threat of losing the boundaries between Israel and the nations. In order to support my argument I have appealed to insights from contemporary monster theory, the ancient Near Eastern motif of the Chaoskampf, and exegetical work on the appropriate texts in the book of Ezekiel. Intertwining these disciplines, I have dealt with three main themes concerning the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel: (1) monstrosity and sameness, (2) monstrosity and Otherness, and (3) tension between complete annihilation and the continuing existence of the monster. Appealing to monster theory, I have shown that the category of the monster is a paradoxical one. Though on the surface the monster seems to represent Otherness and difference, underneath lies the fact that what is monstrous about the monster is sameness. In many cases, monsters are horrific not because of their difference but because of the erosion of difference. This observation is true not just of the classical monsters of contemporary cinema but also of the monsters of the ancient Near East. Tiamat is the mother of the gods and shares some features with the patron god, Marduk. Similarly Yamm and Mot in the Baal Cycle are called the “beloved of El” and share with Baal the desire for kingship. Despite the fact that Apophis is not included in the pantheon of the Egyptian deities, and thus is marked by exclusion, the assembly of the gods on the boat of Re includes Seth, the god of confusion, who uses his spear to defeat Apophis. I believe that the connection between monstrosity and sameness is relevant for the monstrification of Egypt in Ezekiel.

Conclusion

239

Although Ezekiel shares with other biblical authors (e.g., the writer of Isa 51:9–10) this view of Egypt as a monster, Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt is unique. Whereas the monstrification of Egypt in Isa 51:9–10 is closely tied with parting the sea at the time of the exodus, we do not have a trace of the parting of the sea in Ezekiel’s memory of exodus. Ezekiel’s monstrification of Egypt is tied to the exodus but in a different manner. Ezekiel is not concerned about slavery, oppression, liberation, and crossing the Sea. Ezekiel is concerned about the loss of boundary between Egypt and Israel at the time of the exodus. In the prophet’s memory of Israel’s origins as laid out in chapters 20 and 23, the Israelites defiled themselves by worshiping Egyptian idols, an act which the prophet speaks of metaphorically as an adulterous relationship with the Egyptians. At the time of the exodus, distinguishing the Israelites from the Egyptians was not an easy task. The boundary between the two was fuzzy. The event of the exodus for Ezekiel, then, provides the means for reestablishing the boundary between Egypt and Israel, as the Israelites leave the chaos of Egypt behind and march toward the “promised land.” The reason Ezekiel started to dig deeper into the history of the relationship between Israel and Egypt all the way down to the point of the exodus has to do with the relationship between these two nations in his own time. In the context of Babylonian hegemony over the ancient Near East, helpless Judah sought salvation from this imperial threat by forming an alliance with an unreliable Egypt. For Ezekiel, as well as for other prophets including Hosea and Jeremiah, these political alliances were external signs of internal problems in Israel’s faithfulness to its God, YHWH. Allying with Egypt was equivalent to abandoning the worship of YHWH and instead worshiping Egyptian idols. This infidelity to YHWH is analogous to committing adultery. Being involved in this idolatrous and adulterous relationship brings defilement, chaos, and loss of boundaries between Israel and Egypt. By worshiping Egyptian idols, Israel loses the unique aspect of its identity, namely the worship of YHWH. Israel has almost entirely assimilated with Egypt. Although sameness and resemblance stand behind the notion of monstrification, the monster is most often represented as an Other. This Otherness is usually mediated through ascribing to the monster a body that is anomalous. When the monster is confronted, a combat takes place and the body of the monster becomes the site on which violence and punishment is inscribed. Thus, the Otherness of the monster is constructed by ascribing to the monster an abnormal body; moreover, this Otherness is inscribed on the body through the sovereign’s punishment acted out through the law. In the Chaoskampf traditions of the ancient Near East, monsters are embodied and also punished; their dismembered bodies bear witness to the sovereignty and legitimation of the god of order. In a similar vein Ezekiel, who is troubled by the loss of boundaries between Egypt and Israel, ascribes to Egypt the body of a monster in Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2. Yet, as I have shown, this monstrous embodiment

240

Conclusion

goes beyond these two references. The monstrous body that is ascribed to Egypt, underlining its Otherness, is also fleshed out in three other places in the book of Ezekiel: (1) the grotesque body of the Egyptian male who possesses the phallus of a donkey (Ezek 23:20), (2) the unhealing broken arm of Pharaoh (Ezek 30:21), and (3) the cosmic tree that connects Tehom to heaven (Ezekiel 31). The Otherness of Egypt is further inscribed on the defeated and dismembered body of the monster (Ezek 29:4–5; 32:4–6). The portrayal of Egypt as an Other through its monstrous body and through its defeat and the dismembering of this body functions as a way of restoring the boundaries between Egypt and Israel. The near-annihilation of Egypt reflects the way YHWH subjugates this monster that embodies the danger of assimilation and threatens the relation between YHWH and his people Israel. Further, while the defeat of the monster Egypt spreads a message of horror to any other nation that dares to threaten YWHH’s relation with Israel, the defeat of Egypt also guarantees Israel’s security in the land, a security that lies in trusting in YHWH and not forming political alliances with other nations. Unlike the horror movies that have a happy ending with the monster utterly defeated, Egypt the monster in Ezekiel continues to exist, though at the periphery. This tension between utter annihilation and the need for the monster/Other to continue to exist for the sake of reconstructing the self is found in the notion of abjection as discussed by Julia Kristeva. The (m)Other that is drastically abjected, so that the I/self may be constructed, continues to exist and hovers at the periphery, threatening one’s sense of identity and boundaries. Although the monsters of the ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf are defeated and dismembered, they continue to lurk at the periphery of the cosmos, threatening the order of creation and society. Thus the Mesopotamians read Enūma eliš during the Akitu festival, Mot reappears to threaten Baal, despite his defeat and dismemberment, and the Egyptians used to conduct daily rituals to ensure the defeat of Apophis and the rejuvination of Re, the Sun god, at the Eastern horizon signifying the stability of the created order and human society. Ezekiel’s rhetoric about Egypt reflects a similar tension. Although the prophet declares YHWH’s plan to put an end to the memory of Egypt in the communal memory of Israel (Ezek 23:27), the book of Ezekiel contains the longest collection of oracles against Egypt in the Old Testament. Furthermore, although the prophet speaks of YHWH’s defeat of the monster of chaos (Ezek 29:1–5; 32:1–6), we still read of the continuing existence of Egypt, albeit at the periphery. For Ezekiel, the restored Israel continues to need Egypt in order to formulate its identity. Yet if Egypt must continue to exist as an Other, it has to occupy the periphery. The restoration of boundaries between Egypt and Israel in Ezekiel, therefore, is done at two different levels: through pushing the boundaries of Egypt southward all the way to Pathros (Ezek 29:14–16), and through the descent of Pharaoh/Egypt – along with the uncircumcised and those slain by the sword – into the netherworld, a

Conclusion

241

space at the periphery of the cosmos (Ezek 32:17–32). In this way Israel will no longer lift up its eyes toward Egypt seeking help, but rather it will have its allegiance only to YHWH. Furthermore, while Egypt will remain deceased with the defiled ones, Israel will be resurrected and restored, and YHWH will dwell in its midst (Ezekiel 37). Contribution This book makes contributions in two scholarly circles. The arguments I offer here with regard to the monstrification of Egypt build on the work of many Ezekiel scholars. In this book I push further the scholarly insights with regard to Ezekiel’s discourse on Egypt in the oracles against Egypt in Ezekiel 25–32 in relation to the prophet’s perception of Egypt’s role in the political and religious life of Israel, which is mostly found in Ezekiel 20 and 23. In this way the prophet’s castigation of Egypt is read not only in the light of the historical circumstances of the last decade in the history of Judah but also in the light of the prophetic perception and interpretation of these events. Thus the oracles against the nations are not read in isolation from the rest of the oracles of the prophet. The second scholarly circle to which this book contributes is the scholarship on the Chaoskampf motif, whether in the Old Testament or in the larger ancient Near Eastern milieu. Acknowledging the work of many scholars on the ancient Near Eastern myths and their counterparts in the Old Testament, this book pushes the “why” question a bit further. Thus, it was my concern in this book to highlight the sources from which Ezekiel appropriates the Chaoskampf motif. But it was also my concern to ask why and how Ezekiel appropriates this motif for his own theological and literary agenda. Furthermore, this book pushes further an interdisciplinary approach in order to analyze the category of the monster. I believe there is a need for additional systematic and theoretical reflection about the category of the monster within the ancient Near Eastern context and the biblical context. To be sure, work has been done in this area, yet further work seems to be needed and remains promising. As I noted in the introduction to this book, what attracted me to study Ezekiel’s portrayal of Egypt as a monster is my desire to engage with how the representation of Egypt in the Bible has influenced the self-understanding of the Christian Egyptian minority. As Christian Egyptians struggle with formulating their identity in light of the negative representation of Egypt in the Old Testament, two approaches emerge: One approach discards the text and refuses to engage with it because it is offensive. This approach dismisses the religious aspect for the sake of redeeming the political aspect of these readers’ identity. The second approach finds hope in allegorical interpretation, arguing that Egypt in the Bible is just a symbol for something else. And as the-

242

Conclusion

se readers appropriate the text of the Old Testament, they argue that Christian Egyptians should identify themselves with the Israelites and not with the Egyptians. This allegorical approach dismisses the political facet of the identity of Christian Egyptians in order to redeem the religious facet. This approach seeks to hold onto the text as scripture. Neither discarding the text nor allegorizing the text treats the text in its historical and cultural milieu, nor do these interpretive decisions deal with the history of consequences of the text in the lives of faith communities in the past and in the present. The task of biblical interpretation in an Egyptian Christian context has to tackle two issues. The first is to challenge those who take the text at face value without considering how the negative portrayal of Egypt in scripture has impacted the way Egyptian Christians think about who they are. The second task is to challenge those who reject the biblical text simply because they find it offensive to their political identity. Reading the Old Testament as a “Christian” “Egyptian” means living with an identity that holds a tension, a paradox; one is simultaneously an “Egyptian” and an “Israelite.” In the light of the tension that Christian Egyptians experience when they encounter the Hebrew Bible, I believe that the way postcolonial criticism problematizes the binary opposition between self and other provides some insights for the process of constructing a hybrid identity. It also provides a third space in which paradoxical components of identity can coexist – in this case, the political and the religious facets of the Christian Egyptian identity. When one sees identity as something fluid and hybrid and recognizes that formulating an identity is an ongoing process, one is better able to live with paradox. Homi Bhabha1 develops some concepts in order to question “the simple polarization of the world into self and other.”2 The relation between self and other is neither straightforward nor is it constructed through a simple binary opposite. The binary opposite way of thinking defines the world through system of pairs that are set off against each other: men vs. women, white vs. black, east vs. west, us vs. them, self vs. other, etc. It is a simplified and a popular way of thinking but not necessarily a true reflection of reality. Bhabha’s work emphasizes the hybridity of identity. This concept refers to mixedness and impurity of identity. Bhabha also urges critics to look into what happens at the borderlines of these hybrid identities. The liminal, the interstitial (the border, the threshold, the in-between) brings forth new forms of identities that complicate any rigid construction of self and other. Using psychoanalysis Bhabha argues that “identities are incomplete, whether they are individual or collective identities. This incompleteness is not a problem to be solved, and we could never in principle have a full or complete identity. In-

1 2

Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994; repr., 2006). David Huddart, Bhabha (London: Routledge, 2006), 6.

Conclusion

243

stead, the incompleteness of identity needs to be acknowledged.”3 Identity is neither stable nor coherent. “The situation affects the subject, just as much as the subject acts upon the situation. … Choices made by other people construct our identities, and our own choices in turn construct and transform our identities: our day-to-day activities continue this process of construction. … As subjects we both create and are created. … Subjectivity is always in process.”4 In postcolonial discourse the relation between the self and the other represents the relation between the colonizer and the colonized. In the process of formulating their identity as Christian Egyptians, the relation between the self and the other represents the relation between the political and the religious facets of identity. Constructing an identity by means of binary opposition one has to choose one or the other, or construct one over against the other; however, formulating a hybrid identity allows one to embrace both aspects of one’s identity, the religious and the political. By embracing both being an Egyptian and being an Israelite, one negotiates difference and sameness not with an Other that is outside of one’s self but rather with an Other that is within. Negotiating sameness and difference between self and Other while maintaining tension between sameness and difference allows us to avoid assimilation (hegemony) and protects us from treating the Other as a transcendent being, and it keeps us from speaking of the other as the terrible monster. In either case, defying or demonizing the Other renders a relationship between the self and the other impossible. Kristeva writes: “The foreigner comes in when consciousness of my difference arises, and he disappears when we all acknowledge ourselves as foreigners, unamenable to bonds and communities.”5 Kristeva’s perspective is helpful in exposing our tendencies to point out difference only. It is the case, however, that the notion of foreignness will continue to exist even when one realizes one’s own otherness. Richard Kearny suggests that “One of the best ways to de-alienate the other is to recognize (a) oneself as another and (b) the other as (in part) another self. For if ethics rightly requires me to respect the singularity of the other person, it equally requires me to recognize the other as another self bearing universal rights and responsibilities, that is, as someone capable of recognizing me in turn as a self capable of recognition and esteem.”6 Vocationally, when one learns how to live with one’s own inner-otherness and one sees oneself as an other, one 3

Ibid., 6–7. Ibid., 21. 5 Kristeva, Strangers to Ourselves, (trans. Leon Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press, 1991). “To put it another way, knowing how strange I am to myself helps me (at least) tolerate the strangeness of other, a strangeness that can be so easily viewed as threatening to my self identity.” Huddart, Bhabha, 88. 6 Richard Kearny, Strangers, Gods, and Monsters (London: Routledge, 2003), 80. 4

244

Conclusion

is at a better place for dialogue with those others who are outside of oneself. This de-alienation holds promise not just for increasing self-understanding but also for enhancing inter-religious dialogue urgently needed in the Middle East between Jews, Muslims, and Christians. This current project is one step in a long journey of redeeming the OT for Christian Egyptians in particular and Middle Eastern Christians in general. I hope that this project and future ones will contribute to conversations among Jews, Christians and Muslims. I hope that it will function as an invitation for us to see how our identities should not necessarily be constructed in opposition to the Other but in dialogue and out of our need for the Other, so that we may put an end to the cycle of violence. This project is one step of many on that road. There are at least two other paths that I plan to explore in the future. The first will be an examination of the history of the interpretation of the portrayal of Egypt as a monster in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions. The second path will be a study of how Asiatics are portrayed in ancient Egyptian literature. These two projects will help shed more light on the negative portrayal of Egypt in the biblical traditions as well as on the history of consequences of these biblical traditions which influenced not only how Christian Egyptians perceive themselves but also how Egypt is remembered in the Western world. I hope that these projects will contribute to the dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the West and in the Middle East.

Bibliography Abitz, Friedrich. Pharao als Gott in den Unterweltsbüchern des Neuen Reiches. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 146. Freiburg, Switz.: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Abt, Theodor and Erik Hornung. Knowledge For the Afterlife: The Egyptian Amduat – A Quest for Immortality. Zurich: Living Human Heritage Publications, 2003. Ackerman, Susan. “The Personal Is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible.” Vetus Testamentum 52 (2002): 437–58. —. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah Harvard Semitic Monographs 46. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. Aḥituv, Shmuel. “Ezekiel and Egypt.” Pages 21–25 in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from The Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʻal. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Danʼel Kahn. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2008. Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Translated by David Green. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestation in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1967. Repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Albright, William Foxwell. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel: The Ayer Lectures of the Colgate-Rochester Divinity School 1941. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1942. Alfrink, B. “L’expression wy`D;mAo _lRa PDsTa‰n.” Old Testament Studies 5 (1948): 118–131. Allen, James P. Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts. Yale Egyptological Studies 2. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Egyptological Seminar, 1988. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1990. —. “The Structuring of Ezekiel’s Revisionist History Lesson (Ezekiel 20:3–31).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 448–462. Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible. New York: Association Press: 1967. —. “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah.” Pages 177–95 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg. Edited by B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Assmann, Jan. Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Bahrani, Zainab. Rituals of War: the Body and Violence in Mesopotamia. New York: Zone Books, 2008.

246

Bibliography

Baker, David. “Pathros.” Page 178 in vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Translated by Hélène Iswolsky. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Barker, William D. “‘And thus you brightened the heavens …’ A New Translation of KTU 1.5 I 1–8 and its Significance for Ugaritic and Biblical Studies.” Ugarit-Forschungen 38 (2006): 41–52. —. “Slaying the Hero to Build the Temple. A New Assessment of the tell Asmar Cylinder Seal and the Temple-Building Motif in the Light of the Ningirsu/Ninurta Myths.” Ugarit-Forschungen 38 (2006): 27–40. Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Rev. ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987. —. “Semantics and Biblical Theology – A Contribution to the Discussion.” Pages 11–19 in Congress Volume, Upsalla 1971. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 22. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Barstad, Hans. History and the Hebrew Bible: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical tradition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminister/John Knox Press, 1992. —. “The Combat Myth in Israelite Tradition Revisited.” Pages 217–236 in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Herman Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis. Edited by Joann Scurlock and Richard H. Beal. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Baudisin, W. W. Graf. “Die alttestamentliche Bezeichnung der Götzen mit gillūlīm,” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 58 (1904): 395–425. Bauman, Zygmunt .”What Prospects of Morality in Times of Uncertainty?” Theory, Culture and Society 15 (1998): 11–22. Baumann, Gerlinde. Love and Violence: Marriage as Metaphor for the Relationship between YHWH and Israel in Prophetic Books. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004. Beal, Timothy. Religion and its Monsters. New York: Routledge, 2002. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Shame as Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991): 47– 76. Bedlack, A. “Imagery in Ezekiel’s Oracles against Foreign Nations and Rulers (Ezekiel 25–32).” Ph.D. diss. Boston University, 2000. Begg, C. T. “Berit in Ezekiel.” Pages 77–83 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986. Benz, Brendon C. “Yamm as the Personification of Chaos? A Linguistic and Literary Argument for a Case of Mistaken Identity.” Pages 127–145 in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Herman Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis. Edited by Joann Scurlock and Richard H. Beal. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Berquist, Jon L. Controlling Corporeality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994. Repr. London: Routledge, 2006. Biddle, M. “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification, and Personification of Cities in the ANE.” Pages 173–94 in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspec-

Bibliography

247

tive. Vol. 4 of Scripture in Context. Edited by K. Lawson Younger, Jr., William W. Hallo, and Bernard F. Batto. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991. Bidmead, Julye. The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2004. Bird, Phyllis A. Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1997. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1990. —. Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. —. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 19a. New York: Doubleday, 2002. Block, Daniel I. “Beyond the Grave: Ezekiel’s Vision of Death and Afterlife.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 2 (1992): 113–141 —. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1997. —. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1998. Bloch-Smith, E. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Boadt, Lawrence. Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32. Biblia et orientalia 37. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. —. “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” Pages 182–200 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Edited by J. Lust. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986. Bodi, Daniel. “Les gillûlîm chez Ézéchiel et dans l’Ancient Testament, et les différentes partiques cultuelles associées à ce terme.” Revue biblique 100 (1993): 481–510. —. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 104. Freiburg, Switz.: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Bordreuil P. and D. Pardee. “Le combat de Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’après les texts ougaritiques.” Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 7 (1993): 63–70. Borger, R. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996. Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgern, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by J. T. Willis. Rev. ed. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977–. Breasted, James Henry. A History of Egypt: From the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909. —. Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents, From the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. Collected, edited, and translated with commentary by James Henry Breasted. Chicago: Chicago University, 1906–1907. Repr. 5 vols. London: Histories and Mysteries of Man LTD., 1988. Budd, Philip J. “Holiness and Cult.” Pages 275–298 in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives. Edited by Ronald E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

248

Bibliography

Caldecott, Moyra Myths of the Sacred Tree: Including Myths from Africa, Native America, China, Sumeria, Russia, Greece, India, Scandinavia, Europe, Egypt, South America, Arabia. Vermont: Destiny Books, 1993. Canguilhem, G. “Monstrosity and the Monstrous.” Diogense 40 (1964): 27–42. Caquot, A., M. Sznycer and A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques I: Mythes et légendes. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 7. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1974. —. “Le Léviathan de Job 40,25 – 41,26.” Revue biblique 99 (1992): 40–69. Carley, Keith W. “Ezekiel’s Formula of Desolation: Harsh Justice for the Land/Earth.” Pages 143–57 in The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets. Vol. 4 of Earth Bible. Edited by N. C. Habel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press; Cleveland: The Pilgrim, 2001. Carroll, Noël. The Philosophy of Horror: Or, Paradoxes of the Heart. New York: Routledge, 1990. Cassuto, U. The Goddess Anath. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971. Clayton, Peter. Chronicles of the Pharaohs: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1994. Clifford, Richard. “Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible.” Orientalia 53 (1984): 183–201. —. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and the Bible. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994. Cohen, Jeffery Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” Pages 3–25 in Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Edited by Jeffery Jerome Cohen. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Cohn, Norman. Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001. Conrad, Joseph. The Secret Sharer. Edited by Daniel R. Schwarz. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. Cogan, Morton. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B. C. E. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 19; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1974. Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary 23–24. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960. Cooley, Robert. “Gathered to His People: A Study of a Dothan Family Tomb.” Pages 47– 58 in The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz Edited by Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood; Winona Lakes, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Creed, Barbara The Monstrous Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge, 1993. Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. Crouch, C. L. “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against the Nations in Light of a Royal Ideology of Warfare.” Journal of Biblical Literature130 (2011): 473–492. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Darnell, John Coleman. The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 198. Freiburg, Switz.: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Darr, Kathryn Pfisterer. “The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Vol. 6 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2001.

Bibliography

249

Davis, Ellen F. “‘And Pharaoh Will Change His Mind …’ (Ezekiel 32:31): Dismantling Mythical Discourse.” Pages 224–239 in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Bervard S. Childs. Edited by Christopher Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. —. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 78. Sheffield: Almond, 1989. Day, John. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Deleuze, Gilles. Nietzsche and Philosophy. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983. de Moor, J. C. The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of the Ba‘lu According to the Version of Ilimilku. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 16. Kevelear: Butzon & Bercker, 1971. De Vries, Simon. “Remembrance in Ezekiel: A Study of an Old Testament Theme.” Interpretation 16 (1962): 58–64. Dick, Michael B. “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Lion Hunt and Yahweh’s Answer to Job,” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 243–270. Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, Joaquín Sanmartín. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts: from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU). Abhandlungen zur Literatur AltSyrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens 8. 2nd enl. ed. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995. Dietrich, M. and O. Loretz. “Baal vernichtet Jammu (KTU 1.2 IV 23–30).” UgaritForschungen 17 (1986): 117–121. —. “šb, šbm und UDN im Kontext von KTU 1.3 III 35B – IV 4 und KTU 1.83:8,” UgaritForschungen 14 (1982): 78–79. —. “Baal, Leviathan und der siebenköpfige Drache Šlyṭ in der Rede des Todesgottes Môt [KTU 1.5 I 1–8 ⎜⎜ 27a–31].” Aula orientalis 17–18 (1999–2000): 55–80. Dijk-Hemmes, F. Van. “The Metaphorization of Women in Prophetic Speech: An Analysis of Ezekiel xxiii.” Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 162–170. Doak, Brian R. “Ezekiel’s Topography of the (Un-)Heroic Dead in Ezekiel 32:17–32.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 132 (2013): 607–624. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. et al. eds. Hebrew Inscriptions. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2005. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966; Repr., London: Routledge, 2002. —. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1970. Repr., New York: Routledge, 1996. —. In the Wilderness: the Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 158. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Doxey, Denise M. “Sobek.” in Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion. Edited by Donald Redford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Driver, G. R. Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956. Duncan, Julie A. Qumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Discoveries in the Judean Desert XIV. Edited by. E. Urlich and F. M. Cross. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Durand, J. M. “Le mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopotamie.” Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 7 (1993): 41–61. Eakin, F. “The Reed Sea and Baalism.” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 378–384.

250

Bibliography

Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Translated by Cosslett Quin. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970. Eissfeldt, O. “Schwerterschlagene bei Hesekiel.” Pages 73–81 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by H. H. Rowley. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1950. Emerton, John. “Leviathan and ltn: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon.” Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 327–331. Exum, J. C. “Prophetic Pornography.” Pages 101–128 in Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 215. Vol. 3 of Gender, Culture, Theory. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Faulkner, Raymond O. The Papyrus Bremner-Rhind (British Museum No. 10188). Pages 42–88 in Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca III. Bruxelles Édition De La Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1933. —. “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus: III: D. The Book of Overthrowing ’Apep.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 23.2 (1937): 166–185. —. “The Bremner Rhind Papyrus (IV).” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 24 (1938): 41– 53. —. The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. Edited by Carol Andrews. New York: The Limited Editions Club, 1972. Rev. Repr., Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990. Repr., New York: Barnes and Noble, 2005. Fechter, Friedrich. Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 208. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. Fentress, Ken D. “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Egypt: A New Study of Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt.” Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2004. Ferris, Paul Wayne. The Genre of Communal Lament in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 127. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. Fishelov, David. “The Prophet as Satirist.” Prooftexts 9 (1989): 195–211. Fitzpatrick, Paul E. The Disarmament of God: Ezekiel 38–39 in Its Mythic Context. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 37. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004. Fleming, Chris. René Girard: Violence and Mimesis. Cambridge, Malden, Mass.: Polity, 2004. Flückiger-Hawker, Esther. Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 166. Freiburg Switz.: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Fohrer, Georg. Ezechiel. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1955. Foucault, Michel. Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France 1974–1975. London: Verso, 2003. —. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1977. —. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” In The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984. Edited by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose. New York: The New Press, 2003. —. The History of Sexuality. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

Bibliography

251

Frame, Grant. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of the Assyrian Dominations (1157–612–BC). Vol. 2 of The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Babylonian Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Frankfort, H. “Gods and Myths on Sargonid Seals.” Iraq 1 (1934): 1–29. —. Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Freedy, Karl and Donald B. Redford. “The Dates of Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian, and Egyptian Sources.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 462–485. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” Pages 399–414 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David N. Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Conner. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Galambush, Julie. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 130. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. —. “The Northern Voyage of Psammetichus II and its Implications for Ezekiel 44:7–9.” Pages 65–78 in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 408. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. —. “God’s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 91–108 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchal World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Gaster, T. H. Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East. New York: Doubleday, 1961. George, Andrew. The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. Translated by with an introduction by Andrew George. London: Penguin Books, 2003. George, Mark K. “Body Works: Power, the Construction of Identity, and Gender in the Discourse on Kingship.” Ph.D. diss. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1995. Geyer, John B. Mythology and Lament: Studies in the Oracles about the Nations. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2004. Giblett, Rod. The Body of Nature and Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Gibson, J. C. L. Canaanite Myth and Legends. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978. —. “The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle.” Orientalia 53 (1984): 202–219. Gilmore, David. Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. Girard, René. “Generative Scapegoating.” Pages 73–145 in Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, René Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation. Edited by Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987. —. Violence and the Sacred. Translated by Patrick Gregory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Goldingay, John. “The Significance of Circumcision,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 88 (2000): 3–18. Goodenough, E. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. New York: Pantheon Books, 1953–68. Graham, Elaine L. Representations of the Post-Human: Monsters, Aliens, and Others in Popular Culture. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002.

252

Bibliography

Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983. —. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. —. “Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psamatichus II.” Journal of Biblical Literature 76 (1957): 308–309. Greenfield, J. C. “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature.” Pages 454–560 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by R. Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 1987. Greenstein, E. L. “The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic.” Maarav 3 (1982): 195–216. Griffith, F. L. Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester. Vol. 3. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1909. Grosz, E. A. and Peter Eisenman. Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001. Grottanelli, Cristiano. “The Enemy King is a Monster: A Biblical Equation.” Pages 47–72 in Kings and Prophets: Monarchic power, Inspired Leadership, and Sacred Texts in Biblical Narrative. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Guillaume, Philippe. “Metamorphosis of a Ferocious Pharaoh.” Bib 85 (2004): 232–236. Gunkel, Hermann and Heinrich Zimmern, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: a Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Translated by K. William Whitney Jr.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans: 2006. Originally published in German as Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen.1 und Ap. Jon 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895, 1921. Habel, Norman. “The Silence of the Lands: The Ecojustice Implications of Ezekiel’s Judgment Oracles.” Pages 127–144 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchal World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Halberstam, Judith. Skin Shows: Gothic Horror and the Technology of Monsters. Durham: Duke University Press, 1995. Hallo, William W., ed. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Vol. 1 of The Context of Scripture. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997. Hals, Ronald. Ezekiel. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1989. Hamilton, Mark W. The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel. Biblical Interpretation Series 78. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hays, Christopher B. Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of the Creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942. Held, Moshe. “mḫṣ/*mḫš in Ugaritic and other Semitic Languages (A Study in Comparative Lexicography).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 79 (1959): 169–176. Hiebert, Theodore. God of my Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3. Harvard Semitic Monograph 38. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986. Hillers, D. R. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Biblia et orientalia 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Hoffmeier, James. “Egypt as an Arm of Flesh: A Prophetic Response.” Pages 79–97 in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland Harrison. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988.

Bibliography

253

Höffken, P. “Zu den Heilszusätzen in der Völkerorakelsammlung des Jeremiabuches.” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 398–412. Horowitz, Wayne. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography Mesopotamian Civilization 8. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Hornung, Erik. The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1999. —. Texts zum Amduat. Aegyptiaca Helvetica 13–15. Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Letters, 1987–1994. Huddart, David. Bhabha. London: Routledge, 2006. Huehnergard, John. “Asseverative *la and the Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 583–584. Humbert, P. “Le substantif tô‘ēbâ et le verbe t‘b dans l’Ancien Testament.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 72 (1960): 217–237. Hutton, Jeremy. “An Areal Trend in Ugaritic and Phoenician and a New Translation of KTU 1.15 I 3.” Ugarit-Forschungen 35 (2003): 243–258. —. “Isaiah 51:9–11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 271–303 —. “Ugaritic */Š/ and the Roots šbm and šm[d] in KTU 1.3.III.40.” Maarav 13.1 (2006): 75–83. Idestrom, Rebecca G. S. “Echoes of the Book of Exodus in Ezekiel.” Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament 33 (2009): 489–510. Isidore of Seville, “Etymologiarum Sive Originum Liber XI,” in Isidore of Seville: The Medical Writings. Translation and an introduction by William D. Sharpe. Part 2. Philadelphia, Pa.: The American Philosophical Society, 1964. Jacobsen, T. “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 65–97 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Edited by H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. —. “The Battle Between Marduk and Tiamat.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968): 104–108. —. The Harps That Once: Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. —. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976. Jahnow, Hedwig. Das hebräische Leichenlied: Im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 36. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1923. Jenson, P. P. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 106. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Jeon, Jaeyoung. The call of Moses and the Exodus story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Johnston, Gordon H. “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif.” Bibliotheca Sacra 158:631 (2001): 287–307. Jones, Scott C. “Lions, Serpents, and Lion-Serpents in Job 28:8 and Beyond.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 663–686. Joyce, Paul. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 482. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2009. Kaiser, O. Die mythische Bedeutung des Meers in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 78. Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1962.

254

Bibliography

Kalluveetil, P. Declaration and Covenant. Analecta biblica 88. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1982. Kalmanofsky, Amy. Terror All Around: Horror, Monsters, and Theology in the Book of Jeremiah. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 390. New York: T & T Clark, 2008. Kamionkowski, S. Tamar. Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel. Journal for the Sudy of the Old Testament Supplement Series 368. Shiffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Kämmerer, Thomas R. and Kai Alexander Metzler. Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma eliš. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 375. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 2012. Katz, D. The Image of the Netherworld in Sumerian Sources. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2003. Kearny, Richard. Strangers, Gods, and Monsters. London: Routledge, 2003. Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Godesses, and Images of God: In Ancient Israel. Translated by Thomas Trapp. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1998. Kelle, Brad. Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective. Academia Biblica 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. —. Ezekiel: A Commentary in the Weslyan Tradition. Kansas City, Ks.: Beacon Hill Press, 2013. Keppler, C. F. The Literature of the Second Self. Tucson, Ariz.: The University of Arizona Press, 1972. King, L. W. The Seven Tablets of Creation, or the Babylonian and Assyrian Legends Concerning the Creation of the World and of Mankind. 2 vols. London: Luzac, 1902. King, Philip J. “Circumcision: who did it, who didn’t and why.” Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2006): 48–55. King, Philip J. and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Kirwan SJ, Michael. Discovering Girard. London: Barton, Longman, and Todd Ltd., 2004. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: University Press, 2000. Kloos, C. J. L. Yhwh’s Combat in the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Kohn, Risa Levitt. “‘With a Mighty Hand and an Outstretched Arm’: The Prophet and the Torah in Ezekiel 20.” Pages 159–168 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchal World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton; Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004). Kraus, H. J. Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. 2 vols. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1988–9. Kreuzer, S. “Die Verwendung der Mächtigkeitsformel ausserhalb des Deuteronomiums: Literarische und theologische Linien zu Jer, Ez, dtrG und P.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 109 (1997): 369–384. Kristeva, Julia. “Interview with Julia Kristeva,” in Women Analyze Women. Pages 129–145 Edited by Eliane Baruch and Lucienne Serrano. New York: New York University Press, 1988. —. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Translated by Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982. Translation of Pouvoirs de l’horreur. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1980. —. Strangers to Ourselves. Translated by Leon Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. Translation of Etrangers à nous-mêmes. Paris: Fayard, 1988.

Bibliography

255

Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 7. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Kuwabara, Toshikazu The Netherworld in Sumero-Akkadian Literature. Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union and University of California Berkeley, 1991. Labat, R. Le poème babylonien de la creation. Paris: Liberairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, Adrien-Maissonneuve, 1935. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Translated by Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock, 1977. Laing, R. D. The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. London: Tavistock Publications, 1960. Lambdin, Thomas. “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 73 (1953): 145–155. Lambert, W. G. “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis.” Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965): 287–300. —. Babylonian Creation Myths. Mesopotamian Civilizations 16. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013. —. “Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic of Creation.” Pages 55–60 in Keilschriftliche Literaturen: ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII Rencontre assyriologique international, Münster, 8–12 Juli 1985. Edited by K. Hecker and W. Somerfield. Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient 6. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1986. —. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.” Pages 3–13 in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek. Edited by W. S. McCullough. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964. —. “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma eliš.” Pages 77–79 in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: XXXIXe Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Heidelberg, 6–10. Juli 1992. Edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997. —. “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The Conflict in the Akitu House, A Summary.” Iraq 25 (1963): 189–90 —. “The Converse Tablet.” Pages 335–353 in Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971. Landes, Joan. “Revolutionary Anatomies.” Pages 148–178 in Monstrous Bodies / Political Monstrosities: In Early Modern Europe. Edited by Laura Knoppers and Joan Landes. Ithaca: Cornell University, 2004. Lang, Bernhard. Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 301. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. —. “Ezekiel.” Pages 456–481 in The New Interpreter’s Bible: One Volume Commentary. Edited by Beverley Roberts Gaventa and David Petersen. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2010. —. “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (2003): 350–369. —. “Doors Thrown Open and Waters Gushing Forth: Mark, Ezekiel, and the Architecture of Hope.” Pages 139–154 in The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God: Essays in Memory of Donald Harrisville Juel. Edited by Beverly Gaventa and Patrick Miller. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

256

Bibliography

—. “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s Vision of the Moral Self.” Pages 143–174 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Layton, S. C. “‘Head on Lap’ in Sumero-Akkadian Literature.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 15 (1983): 59–62. —. “Biblical Hebrew ‘To Set the Face,’ in Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic.” UgaritForschungen 16 (1986): 169–181. Lechte, John. Julia Kristeva. London: Routledge, 1990. Lemos, T. M. “Shame and Mutilation of Enemies in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 225–241. Lesko, Leonard H. “Funerary Literature.” in The Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion. Edited by Donald B. Redford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Levenson, Jon. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row Publishers, 1987. Repr., Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. Levine, Baruch A. and Jean-Michael de Tarragon. “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984): 649– 659. Lewis, Theodore. “CT 13.33–34 and Ezekiel 32: Lion-Dragon Myths.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 116 (1996): 28–47. Lichtheim, M. Ancient Egyptian Literature I. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Lipka, Hilary B. Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Bible Monographs 7. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2006. Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under the Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Lipton, Diana. Longing for Egypt and Other Unexpected Biblical Tales. Hebrew Bible Monographs 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008. Livingstone, Alasdair. Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Lods, A. “La ‘mort des incirconcis’.” Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (1943): 271–283. Loewenstamm, E. “The Muzzling of the Tannin in Ugaritic Myth.” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959): 260–261. Lust, Johan. “‘Gather and Return’ in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Pages 119–142 in Le Livre de Jérémie: le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by Pierre Bogaert. Louvain, Belgique: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 1981. Machinist, P. “The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some Reflections.” Pages 353–364 in Jahrbuch des Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, 1984/85. Magistrale, Tony. Abject Terrors: Surveying the Modern and the Postmodern Horror Film. New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang, 2005. Malamat, Abraham. “The Kingdom of Judah between Egypt and Babylon: A Small State within a Great Power Confrontation.” Studia Theologica 44 (1990): 65–77. Manassa, Colleen. The Late Egyptian Underworld: Sarcophagi and Related Texts from the Nectanebid Period. Ägypten und Altes Testament 72,1. Sarcophagi and Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007. Manniche, Lise. Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt. London: KPI, 1987.

Bibliography

257

Margalit, B. A Matter of ‘Life’ and ‘Death’: A Study in the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4–5–6). Alter Orient und Altes Testament 206. Neukirchen-Vluen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980. —. “The Ugaritic Creation Myth: Fact of Fiction?” Ugarit-Forschungen 13 (1981): 137– 145. Matthews, Victor and Don C. Benjamin. eds. Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible. Semeia 68. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996. May, H. G. “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbim ‘Many Waters’.” Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1955) 9–21. Mayfield, Tyler D. Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. McAfee, Noëlle Julia Kristeva. Routledge Critical Thinkers. New York: Routledge, 2004. McCarthy, D. J. Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Oxford/Richmond, Va.: Basil Blackwell/John Knox, 1972. McLaughlin, John L. The Marzēaḥ in the Prophetic Literature: References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 86. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 1991. —. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 2000. —. Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. —. “Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of Impurity.” Semeia 45 (1989): 103–109. Miller, James Maxwell and John Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. Mills, Mary E. Alterity, Pain and Suffering in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 479. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2007. Mills, Sara. Foucault. London: Routledge, 2003. Minj, Sudhir Kumar. Egypt the Lower Kingdom: an Exegetical Study of the Oracle of Judgment Against Egypt in Ezekiel 29, 1–16. European University Studies 23. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006. Montgomery, J. A. “Ras Shamra Notes IV: The Conflict of Baal and the Waters.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 55 (1935): 268–277. Moran, W. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 77–87. Morenz, Ludwig D. “Apophis: On the Origin, Name and Nature of an Ancient Egyptian Anti-god.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 63 (2004): 201–205. Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Mullen, E. T. The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Harvard Semitic Monographs 24. Chico, Ca.: Scholars, 1980. Muller, Maya. “Afterlife.” in The Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion. Edited by Donald B. Redford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Mysliwiec, Karol. The Twilight of Ancient Egypt: First Millennium B.C.E. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000.

258

Bibliography

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Will to Power: A new translation. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. Edited with commentary by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1967. Nelson, Richard. Raising up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminister/John Knox Press, 1993. Nicholson, E. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Nobile, M. “Beziehung zwischen Ez 32,17–32 und der Gog-Penkope (Ez 38–39) im Lichte der Endredaktion.” Pages 255–259 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Edited by J. Lust. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986. Norin, Stig I. L. Er spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 9. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1977. North, Christopher. “The Essence of Idolatry.” Pages 151–160 in Von Ugarit nach Qumran. Edited by J. Hempel and L. Rost. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1958. Nussbaum, Daniel. “The Priestly Explanation of Exile and its Bearing upon the Portrayal of the Canaanites in the Bible.” MA Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1974. Obermann, J. “How Baal Destroyed a Rival: A Magical Incantation Scene.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 67 (1947): 195–208. Odell, Margaret S. “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 56 (1992): 101–112. —. “The City of Hamonah in Ezekiel 39:11–16: The Tumultuous City of Jerusalem.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 479–489. —. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Hellwys Publishing Incorporated, 2005. —. “Creeping Things and Singing Stones: Iconography of Ezek 8:7–13 in Light of SyroPalestinian Seals and The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Pages 195–210 in Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Edited by Martti Nissinen and Charles E. Carter. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 223. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Oliver, Kelly. Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the Double-Bind. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993. Olson, Dennis. “Exodus.” in Theological Bible Commentary. Edited by Gail O’Day and David Petersen. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Olyan, Saul M. Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. —. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 201–218. O’Neill, John. Five Bodies: The Human Shape of Modern Society. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985. Ortlund, Raymond C. Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology. New Studies in Biblical Theology 2. Leicester, England: Apollos, 1996. Pardee, Dennis. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 10. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. —. “Will the Dragon Never Be Muzzled.” Ugarit-Forschungen 16 (1984): 251–55. —. The Ugaritic Texts and the Origins of West-Semitic Literary Composition: Schweich lectures of the British Academy, 2007. Oxford: Oxford University Press (for the British Academy) 2012.

Bibliography

259

Parker, R. and Waldo Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75. Brown University Studies 19. Providence: Brown University, 1956. Patton, Corrine. “‘I Myself Gave Them Laws That Were Not Good’: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus Traditions.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 69 (1996): 73–90. —. “‘Should Our Sister be Treated Like a Whore?’ A Response to Feminist Critiques of Ezekiel 23.” Pages 221–238 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Edited by M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2000. Petersen, Claus. Mythos im Alten Testament: Bestimmung des Mythosbegriffs und Untersuchung der mythischen Elemente in den Psalmen. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 157. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982. Petter, Donna Lee. The Book of Ezekiel and Mesopotamian City Laments. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 246. Freiburg Switz.: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Piankoff, Alexandre. The Tomb of Ramesses VI: Texts. Edited by N. Rambova. Bollingen Series 40. New York: Pantheon Books, 1954. Pitchard, James B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Piepkorn, Arthur Carl. Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Assyriological Studies 5. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2001. Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. Ina šulmi īrub: die Kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Baghdader Forschungen 16. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994. Pope, Marvin. Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 3rd ed. Anchor Bible 15. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1973. Premstaller, Volkmar. Fremdvölkersprüche de Ezechielbuches. Forschung zur Bibel 104. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005. Punter, David and Glennis Byron. The Gothic. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Rahmouni, Aicha. Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. Translated by J. N. Ford. Handbuch der Oientalistik 93. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Redford, Donald. Egypt, Canaan, Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. —. “Pathros.” Page 178 of vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. —. “Pharaoh.” Pages 288–289 of vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Rendsburg, G. A. “UT 68 and the Tell Asmar Seal.” Orientalia 53 (1984): 448–52. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 76. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1999. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2002. Richardson, Seth. “Death and Dismemberment in Mesopotamia: Discorporation Between the Body and Body Politic.” Pages 189–208 in Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Edited by Nicola Laneri. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Seminars 3. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2007. Ritner, Robert. The Mechanism of Ancient Egyptian Magic. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 54. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993.

260

Bibliography

Roberts, J. J. M. “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition.” Pages 313–330 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002. —. “Myth Versus History: Relaying the Comparative Foundations.” Pages 59–71 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002. —. “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire.” Pages 331–347 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Rochberg, Fransesca. The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Rogers, Robert. A Psychoanalytic Study of the Double in Literature. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970. Römer, Thomas. “The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document.” Pages 157– 174 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel Baden. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. Romm, James S. The Edges of The Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992. Rooker, Mark. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Rowlands, Michael “Center and Periphery: A Review of a Concept.” Pages 1–12 in Center and Periphery in the Ancient World. Edited by Michael Rowlands et al; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Russell, Stephen. Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 403. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978. Repr., New York: Vintage Books, 1994. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Translated by Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Methuem & Co. Ltd, 1957. Repr., with introduction by Mary Warnock, new preface by Richard Eyre. London: Routledge, 2003. Sasson, J. M. “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 473–476. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy and Margaret Lock. “The Mindful Body: a Prolegomenon to Work in Medical Anthropology.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1 (1987): 6–41. Schildrick, Margrit. Embodying the Monster: Encounters with the Vulnerable Self. London: Sage Publications, 2002. Schipper, Bernd Urlich. Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die Kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 170. Freiburg Switz.: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1999. Schipper, Jeremy. Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 441. London: T. & T. Clark, 2006. Schmid, Konrad. “Gibt es ‘Reste hebräischen Heidentums’ im Alten Testament? Methodische Überlegungen anhand von Dtn 32:8f und Ps 82.” Pages 105–120 in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des alten Testaments. Edited by Andreas Wagner. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 364. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Schmidt, Brian. Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromacy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996.

Bibliography

261

Schwarz, Daniel. “Creating a Second Self: Transference as Narrative Form in ‘The Secret Sharer.’” Pages 79–90 in Approaches to Teaching Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ and ‘The Secret Sharer.’ Edited by Hunt Hawkins and Brian Shaffer. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002. Schweitzer, Andreas. The Sungod’s Journey Through the Netherworld: Reading the Ancient Egyptian Amduat. Edited by David Lorton. Forward by Erik Hornung. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009. Schloen, J. D. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Scott, R. B. Y. “Meteorological Phenomena and Terminology in the Old Testament.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 (1952): 11–25. Seow, C. L. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 18C. New York: Doubleday, 1997. —. Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013. Seri, Andrea. “The Fifty Names of Marduk in Enūma eliš.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.4 (2006): 507–519. Sharpe, Andrew. Foucault’s Monsters and the Challenge of Law. New York: Routledge, 2010. Shields, M. E. “An Abusive God? Identity and Power, Gender and Violence in Ezekiel 23.” Pages 129–151 in Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader. Edited by A. K. M. Adam. St. Louis: Chalice, 2001. Shilling, Chris. The Body and Social Theory. London: Sage Publications, 1993. —. The Body in Culture, Technology & Society. London: Sage Publications, 2005. Shils, Edward. Center and Periphery: Essays in Macrosociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. Shipp, R. Mark. Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21. Society of Biblical Literature / Academia Biblica 11. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Simpson, J.A. and E.S.C. Weiner. Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford Oxford University Press, 1989. Smith, George. The Chaldean Account of Genesis. London: Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1875. Smith, M. “Papyrus Rylands IX.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume I: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 55. Leiden: Brill, 1994. —. “Baal Cycle.” Pages 83–180 in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 9. Edited by Simon Parker. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, Scholars Press, 1997. —. “Interpreting the Baal Cycle.” Ugarit-Forschungen 18 (1986): 313–339. —. “Structure of Divinity at Ugarit and Israel: The Case of the Anthropomorphic Deities versus Monstrous Divinities.” Pages 8–63 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by Gary Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis. Brown Judaic Studies. Providence, R.I.: Scholars Press, 2006. —. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

262

Bibliography

—. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans. 2nd ed. Dearborn, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 2002. —. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Smith, Mark S. and Wayne T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU / CAT 1.3–1.4. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 114. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Smith, William Robertson. The Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions London: Black, 1894. Sofaer, Joanna R. The Body as Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Sparks, Kenton. “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism.” Journal of Biblical Literature. 126 (2007): 625–648. Stavrakopoulou, F. “Gog’s Grave and the Use and Abuse of Corpses in Ezekiel 39:11–20.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 67–84. Steiner, Richard C. “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24–25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 497–505. Stienstra, Nelly. YHWH is the Husband of His People: Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1993. Strawn, Brent. What is Stronger than a Lion: Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 212. Freiburg Switz.: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Strine C. A. and C. L. Crouch. “YHWH’s Battle against Chaos in Ezekiel: The Transformation of Judahite Mythology for a New Situation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013): 883–903. Strong, John Thomas. “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against the Nations within the Context of His Message.” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Va., 1993. —. “Egypt’s Shameful Death and the House of Israel’s Exodus from Sheol (Ezekiel 32:17– 32 and 37:1–14).” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34 (2010): 475–504. —. “Verb Forms of Mm( in Ezekiel and Lamentations.” Biblica 88 (2007): 546–552 Suriano, Matthew J. The Politics of Dead Kings: Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of Kings and Ancient Israel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Sweeney, Marvin. “The Assertion of Divine Power in Ezekiel 33:21–39:29).” Pages 156– 172 in his Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. —. Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah: Engaging Holocaust Theology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2008. Synnott, Anthony. The Body Social: Symbolism, Self and Society. London: Routledge, 1993. Talon, Philippe. The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth: Enūma Eliš, Introduction, Cuneiform Text, Transliteration, and Sign List with a Translation and Glossary in French. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts 4. University of Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005. Taylor, John. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Bibliography

263

Te Velde, H. Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of His Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion. Translated by G. E. van Baaren-Pape. Probleme der Ägyptologie 6. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Thomson, J. “Israel’s ‘Lover’.” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 475–81. Töyräänvuori, Joanna. “The Northwest Semitic Conflict Myth and Egyptian Sources form the Middle and the New Kingdoms,” Pages 112–126 in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Herman Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis. Edited by Joann Scurlock and Richard H. Beal. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Tromp, Nicholas J. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament. Biblia et orientalia 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Tsevat, M. “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 199–204. Tsumura, D. T. “Vowel Sandhi in Ugaritic.” Pages 427–435 in Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan. Edited by Masao Mori. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1991. Tuell, Steven. Ezekiel. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. Tugendhaft, Aaron. “Images and the Political: on Jan Assmann’s Concept of Idolatry.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 24 (2012): 301–306 —. “Unsettling Sovereignty: Politics and Poetics in the Baal Cycle.” Journal of American Oriental Society 132 (2012): 367–384. Turner, Bryan S. The Body & Society: Explorations in Social Theory. London: SAGE, 2008. Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Vanderhooft, David Stephen. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Monographs 59. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999. Van Rooy, H F. “Ezekiel’s Prophecies against Egypt and the Babylonian exiles.” Pages 115–122 in Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990. Vinson, Steve. “Narmer.” Pages 494–495 in vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Vittmann, G. Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9. Ägypten und Altes Testament 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998. Wakeman, Mary K. God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Warburton, David. The Egyptian Amduat: The Book of the Hidden Chamber. Translated by David Warburton. Revised and edited by Erik Hornung and Theodor Abt. Zurich: Living Human Heritage Publications, 2007. Walls, Neal H. The Goddess Anat in Ugraitic Myth. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 135. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. Watson, Paul L. “The Death of ‘Death’ in the Ugaritic Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 92.1 (1972): 60–64. Watson, Rebecca. Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of ‘Chaos’ in the Hebrew Bible. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 341. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Watson, W. G. E. “Reversed Rootplay in Psalm 145.” Biblica 62 (1981): 101–102. Weissert, Elnathan. “Creating a Political Climate: Literary Allusions to Enuma Elish in Sennacherib’s Account of the Battle of Halule.” Pages 191–202 in Assyrien im Wandel

264

Bibliography

der Zeiten: XXXIXe Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Heidelberg, 6–10. Juli 1992. Edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. “Hybrid Creatures in the Ancient Near East: Their Character and Role.” in Dragons, Monsters, and Fabulous Beasts. Edited by Joan Goodnick Westenholz. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004. Wiggermann, F. A. M. Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. Cuneiform Monographs 1. Groningen: STYX & PP Publications, 1992. —. “Scenes From the Shadow Side.” Pages 207–220 in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian. Cuneiform Monographs 6. Edited by M.E. Vogelzang, H.L.J. Vanstiphout; Groningen: Styx Publications, 1996. —. “Tišpak, His Seal, and the Dragon Mušḥuššu.” Pages 117–133 in To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon. Edited by O. M. C. Haex, H. H. Curvers and P. M. M. G. Akkermans. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1989. Williams, David. Deformed Discourse: The Function of the Monster in Medieval Thought and Literature. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996 Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956. Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson, 2003. Worley, Lloyd. “Impaling, Dracula, and the Bible.” Pages 168–180 in The Monstrous and the Unspeakable: The Bible as Fantastic Literature. Playing the Text 1. Edited by George Aichele & Tina Pippin. Shefield: Academic Press, 1997. Wright, D. P. “Unclean and Clean (OT).” Pages 729–741 in vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. —. “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity.” Pages 150–181 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 125. Edited by Gary Anderson and Saul Olvan. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. —. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. —. “Purification from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19–24.” Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985): 213–223. Wong Leung, Ka. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 87. Leiden, Brill, 2001. Wyatt, Nick. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 13. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. —. “The Baal Cycle of Myths.” Pages 34–146 in Religious Texts From Ugarit. The Biblical Seminar 53. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. —. “The Mythic Mind.” Pages 151–188 in The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. London: Equinox, 2005. —. “Who Killed the Dragon?” Pages 18–37 in The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. London: Equinox, 2005. —. “The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-god,” Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1993): 403–424. —. “There and Back Again: The Significance of Movement in the Priestly Work.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 4 (1990): 61–80. Yoyotte, J. “Sur Le Voyage Asiatique de Psammetique II.” Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951): 140–144.

Bibliography

265

Zimmerli, Walther. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Translated by Ronald Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. —. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Translated by Ronald Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Zimmern, H. “Marduks (Ellils, Ashshurs) Geburt im babylonischen Weltschöpfungsepos.” Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch–ägyptischen Gesellschaft 21 (1916): 213–220.

Index of References Genesis 1 1,21 2,24 6 6,1–4 10,14 12 17 20 22,24 25,8 25,8–17 26 29,2 32,26 35,22 35,29 37 37–50 49,29 50,25

16, 17, 71, 146 158, 159 139 48 218 213 10, 128 233 128 171 227 185 128 163 151 171 227 128 10 227 227

Exodus 7,3 7,5 10,21–22 14 14–15 14,16 14,18 15 15,1–18 15,1b–12 15,4 15,8 15,11 15,13–17 15,18

123 147 199 5 21 24, 26 147 2, 24, 26, 43 23, 25 24 23 21, 25 23 24 24

20,2 20,14 23, 11 24,7–8 32 32,12 33,6 33,16

10 129 194 137 147 235 150 128

Leviticus 7,18 10,4–5 10,10 11,10 11,11 11,12 11,44 15,2–7 17,15 18,3 18,6–18 18,20 18,21 18,22 18,23 18,24 18,25 18,27 18,28 18,29 18,30 19,7 20,2–6 26 26,13 26,32 26,33

205 186 126 135 135 135 205 142, 171 205 128 125–26 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 205 126 137, 194 123 189 123, 197

268

Index of References

Numbers 5,2–4 19,11–16 19,16 35,33–34

186 187 187, 233 186

Deuteronomy 4,18 4,34 5,12 5,15 7,25 8,14 15,15 21,23 22,5 23,3 23,7 23,12–14 25,16 26,8 28 29,1 29,13 32 32,8–9 32,22 32,33

135 123, 124 129 123, 124, 152 132 10 152 186 132 38 38 205 132 123 137 137 132 127 127 223 159

Joshua 15,4 15,27 23 24,14 24,19–28 24,32

210 210 149 147 137 227

Judges 2,10 15,14 19,1 19,18 20,33 20,37 1 Samuel 8,6–9 8,7 10,17–27

185 173 225 225 170 218

150 150 150

12,19–25 18,11 20,33 28,12 31

150 184 184 169 187

2 Samuel 1 5,17–25 12,23 13,39 21,10–12 23,4

168 40 223 235 187 175

1 Kings 8,65 11 11,43 14,25 14,31

210 10 227 38 227

2 Kings 9,36 17,3–4 18,21 19 19,28 23,34–35 24,1 24,7 24,17

187 139 182 182 182 38 30 210 31

1 Chronicles 1,12

213

Nehemiah 3,15 9,11

175 24, 26

Job 3,8 7,9 7,12 9,13 10,22 14,12 14,21 16,20

27 223 2, 5, 18, 22, 26, 27, 101 222 223 223 223 99

269

Index of References 16,22 21,21 26 26,12 35,9 38,8 40–41 40,23 40,26 41,12(Heb.) 41,20 Psalms 29,5 37,35 44,4 46 47,3 48 49,17 49,21 63,10 65,8 68,2 68,30–31 71,18 74 74,12–14 74,13 74,13–15 74,14 74,15–17 76 77,16–20 77,18 86,13 87,4 88,7 88,13 89 89,9 89,10–11 89,11 89,12 89,13 91,13 95,3 104

223 223 2 27 173 170 2 170 182 166 166

176 176 173 40 163 40 223 223 223 121 20 134 173 2, 5, 17, 18, 23, 26, 102, 168 27 23, 26, 161, 163 101 22, 23 23, 195 40 24 175 223 5, 21, 25, 26 223 223 2, 5, 17, 23, 168 23 23 27 23 23 103, 159 163 38

104,17 104,26 106,7 106,36–40 119,28 136,12 139,8 139,15

178 27 147 126 99 123 222 223

Proverbs 9,18 22,17–24,22 31,17

223 38 173

Ecclesiastes/ Qoheleth 9,14 163 10,18 99 Song of Songs 1,17 Isaiah 2,13 5,13–14 7 8,9–10 10 10,5–11 10,5–15 10,27b–34 11 11,1 11,11 11,15 14 14,2b–21 14,4b–21 14,9 14,15 17,12 17,12–14 19 19,25 27,1

29, 1–5 30 30,1–2

176

176 221 39 40 178 40 178 40 2 212 213 21, 25, 163 227 226 226 223 225 120, 121 18 1, 195 10, 12 2, 5, 18, 20, 22, 26, 101, 102, 103, 158, 161, 163, 196 15 39 38

270 30,1–7 30,6 30,7 30,27–33 30,32 31,1–4 31,3 32,1–6 35–36 37 37,29 44,23 51,8–10 51,9 51,9–10

Index of References

57,6

1 103 5, 18, 21, 25, 27, 39 40 126 1 222 15 39, 41 182 182 223 29 26, 27, 101, 158 2, 5, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 43, 115, 161, 239 235

Jeremiah 2,2 2,7–9 2,14–15 2,16–17 (Heb.) 2,16–25 2,18 2,23 2,25 2,36 6,8 6,22 7,30 9,24–25 9,25–26 16,13 19,5–9 22,23 22,26 25,14 27 27–28 27,7 28 37,1 37,5–11 40–42 42–44 44,1 44,15

137 126 137 137 137 1, 41, 195 126 138 1, 41, 138 151 225 126 234 234 184 135 178 184 163 31 41 163 31 31 33 10 10 197, 213 213

46 46,10 46,24–26 47 50–51 51,34 51,39

1, 41 38 41 30 1 18, 20, 27, 41, 158 223

Lamentations 3,55

223

Ezekiel 1 1,3 2,3–5 3,7 3,15 4,6 4,7 4,12 4,13 4,14 4,17 5 5,2 5,5 5,6 5,7 5,10–12 5,11 5,12 5,13 5,14 6 6,5 6,7 6,8 6,10 6,12 6,13 6,14 7 7,9 7,11 7,11–14 7,12 7,13 7,14 7,19–21

168 233 148 123 189 122 173 205 205 205 189 131 197 210 119 119, 121, 154 104 126, 132 232 119 119 131 104 119 123 119 232 119 119 131 119 121 120 121 121 121 126

Index of References 7,20 7,27 8 8,7–13 8,10 8,17 9,4 9,7 11,10 11,13 11,17 11,18 11,19 11,21 12,3 12,13 12,14 12,15 12,16 12,20 13,4 13,23 13,30 14 14,4 14,5 14,8 14,9 14,17 15,7 16 16,3 16,15 16,15–17 16,16 16,17 16,20 16,22 16,22–34 16,24–25 16,25 16,26 16,28 16,29 16,30 16,31 16,33

132 119 131, 134 135 132, 133, 134, 135 188 132 233 119 119 185 132 131 132 122 124, 183 34, 124, 222 119 119 119 119 119 173 131, 197 161 131 119 226 119 119 120, 136, 138, 157, 171, 213 120, 213 215 138 138 138, 172 138 138 138 138 138, 203 34, 38, 138, 142, 171, 188, 203 138 138 138 138 138

16,34 16,42 16,45 16,45–63 16,53 16,62 17 17,11–21 17,14 17,15 17,16 17,17 17,20 17,21 17,23 17,24 18,6 18,15 18,20 18,24 18,31 19 19,1 19,2 19,3–5 19,4 19,8 19,9 19,10 19,11 19,13 20

20,3 20,5 20,5–9 20,5–10 20,6–9 20,7 20,7–8 20,7–9 20,8

271 138 188 120 120 122 119 1, 3, 6, 15, 33, 42, 130, 211 39, 119 214 33, 38 33 33, 163 183 119 178 196 132, 133, 134 132, 134 132 132 132 35, 42, 167 165, 168 163 124 38, 182 124, 183 124, 168, 182 168 175 150 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 15, 27, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, 115, 117, 118, 125, 129, 130, 131, 144, 146, 150, 153, 200, 215, 236, 239, 241 161 131 28, 29, 43, 115, 150 38 118 126, 131, 132, 133, 147, 151, 152 133, 135, 154 200 34, 132, 133, 151

272 20,8–9 20,13–14 20,16 20,18 20,19 20,24 20,26 20,27 20,28 20,30 20,30–32 20,31 20,32 20,32–33 20,32–38 20,33 20,33–34 20,34 20,36 20,38 20,39 20,42 20,44 21,14–22 21,23 21,28 (Heb.) 21,35 22,2 22,3–4 22,14 22,15 22,16 22,22 22,26 23

23,1–3 23,1–4 23,1–5 23,3 23,4 23,5–6 23,5–7

Index of References 6, 131, 133, 147 147 133, 149 126, 133, 134 151 133, 134, 149 126 161 149, 188 132 149 126, 133 130, 150 150 215, 216 124, 150 124 122 38 119, 150 133 119 119 197 216 216 213 132 126 196 122, 198 119 119 126, 233 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 27, 34, 35, 36, 42, 44, 117, 118, 125, 129, 130, 136, 138, 141, 144, 148, 150, 154, 157, 171, 200, 215, 236, 239, 241 140 29, 43 28 38, 140, 141, 148, 151 140 143 141

23,7 23,8 23,9 23,9–10 23,11–17 23,13–14 23,15 23,17 23,18 23,18a 23,19 23,19–21 23,20 23,21 23,22 23,22–23 23,22–30 23,22–35 23,24 23,26 23,27 23,28 23,29 23,29–30 23,29b–30 23,30 23,35 23,36–45 23,37 23,37–39 23,42 23,43 23,45 24,15–27 24,27 25–28 25–29 25–32 25,1–7 25,5 25,7 25,8 25,8–11 25,10 25,11 25,12–14 25,13 25,15–17

126, 133, 138 34, 38, 43, 141, 151 144, 151 143 141 126 143 126, 151 151 141 43, 140, 151, 152, 203 37, 38 142, 171, 172, 240 141 219 144 143 138 219 219 38, 203, 240 151 203 219 130 126, 130, 133 148, 151, 152 139 138 126 121 140 39 168 119 202 122 6, 203, 241 123, 203 119 119, 203 154 123, 203 203 119 203 119, 123, 203 123, 203

Index of References 25,16 25,17 26 26,1–28,19 26,6 26,13 26,17 26,20 26,21 26,25 27 27,2 27,6 27,32 27,36 28 28,2 28,7 28,10 28,12 28,19 28,20–23 28,22 28,23 28,24–26 28,25 28,26 29

29–32 29,1–3 29,1–4 29,1–5 29,1–16 29,1–32,32 29,2 29,2–3 29,3

29,3b 29,3–4 29,3–5 29,4

203 119 197 123, 203 119 121 234 119, 223, 226 203 215 167 168 174 168 168, 203 167 164, 177 222 233 165, 168 168, 203 203 119 119, 123 214, 236 122, 215 119, 215 1, 4, 5, 10, 18, 21, 36, 41, 123, 158, 170, 171, 179, 182, 188, 193, 213 1, 15, 28, 33, 35, 38, 165, 238 158, 182, 211 183 1,4, 15, 167, 240 1, 15, 37, 155, 157, 212, 238 203 1, 162 2 1, 21, 22, 25, 26, 124, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 170, 196, 239 182 196 202, 217 164, 182, 183, 188

29,4b 29,4–5 29,5 29,5b 29,5c 29,5–6 29,6–7 29,6–8 29,8 29,8–11 29,8–12 29,9 29,9–10 29,9–12 29,10 29,12 29,12–16 29,13 29,13–14 29,13–16 29,14 29,14–15 29,14–16 29,15 29,15–16 29,16 29,17–20 29,17–21 29,19 29,21 30 30,4 30,5 30,6 30,7 30,8 30,10 30,12 30,13 30,14 30,15 30,17 30,18 30,19 30,20 30,20–26

273 180 2, 180, 181, 185, 194, 203, 211, 240 184, 185, 194 185 184 39 156, 182 6, 40 119, 123, 169, 197 183 2 119, 162, 164 211, 218 2, 212 119, 196 2, 34, 104, 122, 123, 198, 212 202, 211 122, 185, 202, 215 202 2, 4, 42, 212 214 214 204, 237, 240 222 37 1, 156, 215, 216 211 2, 39, 42, 165, 181, 217 121 119, 236 41, 123, 171 121, 197 197, 232 197, 232 2, 21 119, 124 121 119, 233 133 213 121 232 123 119 174 39

274 30,21 30,23 30,24 30,24–25 30,24–26 30,25 30,26 31 31,1–2a 31,2 31,2b–9 31,2c 31,3 31,3b–9 31,3c-e 31,3f–5b 31,4 31,4f 31,5 31,5b 31,5c–6 31,5e 31,6 31,7 31,7b–c 31,9 31,10 31,11 31,12 31,12–13 31,13 31,14 31,15–17 31,15–18 31,16 31,17 31,18 32

32,1 32,1–2 32,1–3 32,1–5

Index of References 171, 173, 240 2, 122, 197, 198 211 197 2 119 2, 119, 122, 197, 198 163, 171, 174, 221, 232, 240 175 2, 121, 176, 226 176 175 176 176 177 177 177 178 177, 178 178 177 177 177, 178 177, 178 177 177 175 168 221 221 186 177, 223 223 221 223 222 121, 168, 204, 223, 226 4, 5, 10, 18, 21, 36, 41, 42, 123, 134, 158, 168, 169, 170, 171, 179, 195, 231, 232 165, 220 2, 158 161, 165, 183, 211 1, 202

32,1–6 32,1–8 32,1–16

32,2

32,2b 32,2–6 32,2–16 32,3 32,3–6 32,4 32,4b 32,4–5 32,4–6 32,6 32,6–8 32,7 32,7–8 32,8 32,9 32,9–10 32,10 32,11 32,12 32,13 32,15 32,16 32,17 32,17–32

32,17–33:20 32,18 32,19 32,20 32,21 32,22 32,23 32,23a 32,24 32,25

4, 15, 221, 240 167, 199 1, 15, 42, 155, 157, 167, 217, 218, 220, 221, 238 21, 22, 25, 26, 124, 156, 158, 159, 161, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 183, 198, 239 166 35, 168 166 124, 166, 182, 183 180, 181 184, 186, 194, 221 184, 185 188, 217, 221 2, 185, 194, 203, 240 186 2 199 183, 199 199 189, 198 183, 188, 219, 221 189, 197 2, 181, 211 121, 147, 232 170, 198 2, 119 121, 165, 166, 168 168, 220 2, 4, 42, 168, 186– 87, 202, 204, 215, 217, 219, 220, 221, 226, 231, 232, 234, 237, 241 235 121, 222, 223 175, 222, 226, 231 121 124, 220, 222, 223, 225, 231 177, 231 220, 231 225 121, 223, 231, 234 121, 234

275

Index of References 32,26 32,27 32,30 32,31 32,32 33 33,1–20 33,2 33,10–16 33,21–22 33,24 33,27 33,29 34–48 34,4 34,16 34,18 34,25 34,27 34,27–28 35 35,3–15 35,4 35,8 36,4 36,10 36,17–18 36,20–22 36,25 36,29 36,33 37

37,1–4 37,1–14 37,23 38 38–39 38,4 38,6 38,12 38,15 38,22 39,2 39,5 39,11 39,11–16

121, 231, 234 218, 219, 223, 225, 231, 232, 234 234 121, 164, 235 121, 234 229, 235, 236 235 161 220 220 119 119 119 34 174 173, 174 170 215 123 215 197 123 119 232 119 119 126 129, 150 126, 131 126 119, 126 9, 157, 180, 188, 200, 220, 236, 237, 240 220 188 126, 131, 132 182 36, 40, 215 182 188, 225 210 225 188 225 186 121 186

39,11–20 39,12 39,15 39,16 39,23 39,28 43,7 43,8 43,9 44,7 44,9 44,10 44,12 44,23 44,31 46,14 47,19

186 187 121 121 122 122 131 131 131 233 233 131 131 127, 233 205 104 210

Daniel 4,9 7

178 20, 27, 96

Hosea 1 2 7,11 8,1 11,5 13,4 14,4

137 137 1 137 1 150 176

Joel 2,10 4,15

199 199

Amos 4,2–3 6,4–7 9,2

182 135 222

Micah 2,12

185

Nahum 3,9

176

Habakkuk 1,10 3,6

178 20

276 3,8 3,12 3,15 Zechariah 11,1

Index of References 20 20 20

176

12–14

40

Malachi 1,14

163

Author Index Abitz, Friedrich 108 Abt, Theodor 105, 107 Ackerman, Susan 131, 134–135, 138 Aḥituv, Shmuel 136 Albertz, Rainer 31 Albrektson, Bertil 20 Albright, William Foxwell 135 Alfrink, B. 185 Allen, James P. 92, 145–146 Allen, Leslie C. 36, 131, 161 Anderson, Bernhard W. 20, 25 Bahrani, Zainab 191 Baker, David 213 Bakhtin, Mikhail 55, 172 Barker, William D. 102–103 Barr, James 101, 127 Barstad, Hans 31 Batto, Bernard F. 18, 24, 36–37 Baudisin, W. W. Graf 133 Bauman, Zygmunt 204 Baumann, Gerlinde 137 Beal, Timothy 46, 66, 84–87, 89–91, 106, 116 Bechtel, Lyn M. 219 Bedlack, Beth A. 35 Begg, C. T. 137 Benjamin, Don C. 219 Benz, Brendon C. 102 Berquist, Jon L. 156 Bhabha, Homi 242 Biddle, M. 136 Bidmead, Julye 111 Bird, Phyllis A. 137 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 21, 25–27, 35, 39, 115, 135, 164, 220 Block, Daniel I. 36, 143, 147, 203, 220, 225 Bloch-Smith, E. 227

Boadt, Lawrence 3, 35–36, 119, 158–159, 163, 173, 176 Bodi, Daniel 121, 133, 183 Bordreuil, P. 75, 76, 100 Borger, R. 191 Breasted, James Henry 161, 169 Budd, Philip J. 127 Byron, Glennis 49, 59 Caldecott, Moyra 176 Canguilhem, G 49 Caquot, A. 88, 100, 103 Carley, Keith W. 197 Carroll, Noël 54–55, 163 Cassuto, U. 75 Clayton, Peter 32 Clifford, Richard 18, 75 Cohen, Jeffery Jerome 47–48, 68 Cohn, Norman 75, 105, 110, 112, 192, 195 Conrad, Joseph 130 Cooke, G. A. 37, 159, 165 Cooley, Robert 227 Creed, Barbara 65 Cross, Frank M. 2, 17, 19, 23–24, 75, 88, 100, 127 Crouch, C. L. 40, 190 Dalley, Stephanie 71 Darnell, John Coleman 77 Darr, Kathryn Pfisterer 36, 159 Davis, Ellen F. 150, 164, 204, 235 Day, John 17, 19–21, 26–27, 36, 40, 42, 75–76, 115, 158 Deleuze, Gilles 51–52, 162 de Moor, J. C. 75, 99–100 de Tarragon, Jean-Michael 229–230 De Vries, Simon 216 Dick, Michael B. 169

278

Author Index

Dietrich, Manfried 74, 100–101, 103 Dijk-Hemmes, F. Van 141 Doak, Brian R. 232 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 33 Douglas, Mary 49, 53–54, 126, 188 Doxey, Denise M. 160, 165 Driver, G. R. 100, 111 Dubberstein, Waldo 162, 165 Duncan, Julie A. 127 Durand, J. M. 76

Eakin, F. 24 Eichrodt, Walther 34–35, 124, 135, 164, 170, 185 Eisenman, Peter 50 Eissfeldt, O. 232 Emerton, John 103 Exum, J. C. 141 Faulkner, Raymond O. 78, 92, 106, 112– 113 Fechter, Friedrich 26, 42, 161, 212 Fentress, Ken D. 36 Ferris, Paul Wayne 166 Fishelov, David 164, 182 Fitzpatrick, Paul E. 186 Fleming, Chris 61 Flückiger-Hawker, Esther 228–229 Fohrer, Georg 35 Foucault, Michel 9, 49, 51–52, 56–59, 98, 114, 179, 190 Frame, Grant 190 Frankfort, H. 102, 165, 196 Freedy, Karl 32, 42, 165, 174 Frymer-Kensky, Tikva 126 Galambush, Julie 129, 137, 140, 194 Gaster, T. H. 75, 99, 111 George, Andrew 224 George, Mark K. 156 Geyer, John B. 168 Giblett, Rod 50–51 Gibson, J. C. L. 90–91, 100 Gilmore, David 46, 62 Girard, René 60–63, 65, 67–68, 84, 87– 88, 116, 145 Goldingay, John 233 Goodenough, E. 169

Graham, Elaine L. 173 Greenberg, Moshe 4, 33, 37, 119–120, 124, 133, 141, 143, 148, 150, 159, 161–163, 165, 167, 169–170, 175– 176, 180, 182, 190, 202–203 Greenfield, J. C. 75 Greenstein, E. L. 100, 111 Griffith, F. L. 32 Grosz, E. A. 50 Grottanelli, Cristiano 134 Guillaume, Philippe 158 Gunkel, Hermann 16–18, 23 Habel, Norman 197, 210 Halberstam, Judith 48, 56 Hallo, William W. 136 Hals, Ronald 37 Hamilton, Mark W. 156, 188 Hays, Christopher B. 228 Hays, John 32 Heidel, Alexander 71, 73 Held, Moshe 101 Herdner, A. 88, 100, 103 Hiebert, Theodore 20 Hillers, D. R. 137, 184 Hoffmeier, James 173 Höffken, P. 203 Horowitz, Wayne 209 Hornung, Erik 19, 77–78, 105–108, 184 Huddart, David 242–243 Huehnergard, John 98, 101 Humbert, P. 132 Hutton, Jeremy 25, 81, 101, 230 Idestrom, Rebecca G. S. 28 Isidore of Seville, 52–53 Jacobsen, T. 19, 72–73, 79 Jahnow, Hedwig 166, 221 Jenson, P. P. 127 Jeon, Jaeyoung 24 Johnston, Gordon H. 169 Jones, Scott C. 103 Joyce, Paul 4–5, 133, 150, 216 Kaiser, O. 17 Kalluveetil, P. 137 Kalmanofsky, Amy 174 Kamionkowski, S. Tamar 141 Kämmerer, Thomas R. 71

Author Index Katz, D. 223–224, 229, 234 Kearny, Richard 243 Keel, Othmar 136 Kelle, Brad 26, 137–138 Keppler, C. F. 130 King, L. W. 16 King, Philip J. 233–234 Kirwan SJ, Michael 60–61 Klawans, Jonathan 54, 126 Kloos, C. J. L. 19, 100 Kohn, Risa Levitt 123, 132, 147 Kraus, H. J. 23 Kreuzer, S. 123 Kristeva, Julia 8, 55, 63–66, 68, 84, 86, 114, 116, 145, 153, 155, 174, 187– 188, 200, 206, 240, 243 Kutsko, John F. 131, 133 Kuwabara, Toshikazu 223 Labat, R. 16 Lacan, Jacques 63–64 Laing, R. D. 130 Lambdin, Thomas 164 Lambert, W. G. 17, 19, 71, 73, 86, 96–97, 110, 160, 163 Landes, Joan 78 Lang, Bernhard 31 Lapsley, Jacqueline E. 117, 138, 142, 151, 156–157, 172, 216, 219 Layton, S. C. 84, 162 Lechte, John 65 Lemos, T. M. 187 Lesko, Leonard H. 77 Levenson, Jon 110, 112–113, 146, 206 Levine, Baruch A. 229–230 Lewis, Theodore 103, 169 Lichtheim, M. 161 Lipka, Hilary B. 128–129 Lipschits, Oded 31–32 Lipton, Diana 28, 133 Livingstone, Alasdair 110 Lock, Margaret 49 Lods, A. 233–234 Loewenstamm, E. 101 Loretz, Oswald 74, 100–101, 103 Lust, Johan 212 Machinist, P. 17, 73, 160 Magistrale, Tony 65

279

Malamat, Abraham 31 Manassa, Colleen 195 Manniche, Lise 173 Margalit, B. 75, 102–103, 112 Matthews, Victor 219 May, H.G. 20 Mayfield, Tyler D. 1, 235 McAfee, Noëlle 63–65 McCarthy, D. J. 137 McLaughlin, John L. 135 Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. 90 Metzler, Kai Alexander 71 Milgrom, Jacob 53–54, 127–128, 205 Miller, James Maxwell 32 Mills, Mary E. 50, 58, 157 Mills, Sara 51–52, 57 Minj, Sudhir Kumar 159, 212, 215 Montgomery, J. A. 100 Moran, W. 138 Morenz, Ludwig D. 91 Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon 137 Mullen, E. T. 100 Muller, Maya 108 Mysliwiec, Karol 136 Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm 50–51 Nelson, Richard 127 Nicholson, E. 137 Nobile, M. 187 Norin, Stig I. L. 17, 23 North, Christopher 132 Nussbaum, Daniel 128 Obermann, J. 100 Odell, Margaret S. 37, 42–43, 115, 120, 134–135, 151, 161, 205, 219, 231– 232 Oliver, Kelly 65 Olson, Dennis 128 Olyan, Saul M. 168, 219 O’Neill, John 49 Ortlund, Raymond C. 137 Pardee, Dennis 33, 74–76, 81–82, 89–90, 98, 100–105, 185, 192, 197, 229 Parker, R. 162, 165 Patton, Corrine 28, 140–141 Petersen, Claus 22 Petter, Donna Lee 235

280

Author Index

Piankoff, Alexandre 92, 107 Pitard, Wayne T. 17, 74, 83–84, 96, 102– 103, 192 Pitchard, James B. 176 Piepkorn, Arthur Carl 191 Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich 4, 27, 35–36, 163 Pongratz-Leisten, Beate 110 Pope, Marvin 22 Premstaller, Volkmar 36 Punter, David 49, 59 Rahmouni, Aicha 102 Redford, Donald B. 32, 42, 162, 165, 174, 213 Rendsburg, G. A. 102 Renz, Thomas 235–236 Richardson, Seth 189–190 Ritner, Robert 78, 91, 112 Roberts, J. J. M. 17, 19–20, 40 Rochberg, Fransesca 191 Rogers, Robert 130 Römer, Thomas 24 Romm, James S. 209 Rooker, Mark 180 Rowlands, Michael 208 Russell, Stephen 2, 24 Said, Edward 208 Sartre, Jean-Paul 51 Sanmartin, Joaquin 74 Sasson, J. M. 233 Scheper-Hughes, Nancy 49 Schildrick, Margrit 60 Schipper, Bernd Urlich 32 Schipper, Jeremy 156, 172 Schloen, J. D. 207 Schmid, Konrad 127 Schmidt, Brian 229 Schwarz, Daniel 130 Schweitzer, Andreas 78 Scott, R. B. Y. 89 Seow, C. L. 22, 99 Seri, Andrea 73, 193 Sharpe, Andrew 49, 56, 173, 204 Shields, M. E. 141 Shilling, Chris 50 Shils, Edward 207 Shipp, R. Mark 226–227

Simpson, J. A. 46 Smith, George 16 Smith, M. 32 Smith, Mark S. 17, 19, 72, 74–76, 80–84, 88, 90, 96, 98–100, 102–103, 105, 111–113, 127–128, 192, 197, 207, 209–210 Smith, William Robertson 127 Sofaer, Joanna R. 156 Sparks, Kenton 111 Stager, Lawrence 233 Stavrakopoulou, F. 186 Steiner, Richard C. 234 Stienstra, Nelly 138 Strawn, Brent 169 Strine, C. A. 40 Strong, John Thomas 33–34, 141, 219– 220, 226, 236 Suriano, Matthew 227, 230 Sweeney, Marvin 235 Synnott, Anthony 49, 51 Sznyeer, M. 88, 100, 103 Talon, Philippe 71 Taylor, John 77–78, 227–228 Te Velde, H. 91 Thomson, J. 138 Töyräänvuori, Joanna 91 Tromp, Nicholas J. 223 Tsevat, M. 33, 139, 214 Tsumura, D. T. 88 Tuell, Steven 38, 43, 115, 220 Tugendhaft, Aaron 76 Turner, Bryan S. 49, 51 Turner, Victor 61 Van Rooy, H. F. 36 Vanderhooft, David Stephen 33 Vinson, Steve 103 Vittmann, G. 32 Uehlinger, Christoph 136 Wakeman, Mary K. 17, 21, 26, 115, 158 Warburton, David 105–107 Walls, Neal H. 74 Watson, Paul L. 105 Watson, Rebecca 18 Watson, W. G. E. 76

Author Index Weiner, E. S. C. 46 Weissert, Elnathan 159–160 Westenholz, Joan Goodnick 87, 95, 209 Wiggermann, F. A. M. 72–73, 78–80, 82, 94–96, 113, 194, 209–210 Williams, David 53, 55 Wiseman, D. J. 30–32 Wilkinson, Richard H. 160 Worley, Lloyd 189 Wright, D. P. 126, 186 Wong Leung, Ka 127, 187

281

Wyatt, Nick 17, 20, 75, 88, 101, 220 Yoyotte, J. 32 Zimmerli, Walther 4, 35, 37, 41, 122, 130, 135, 142, 158–159, 161, 163– 167, 172, 175–177, 182, 189, 196, 198, 202, 212–213, 216, 218–223, 226, 228, 232–234 Zimmern, H. 16, 73, 160

Subject Index abject 55, 63–69, 86, 114, 116, 145–146, 155, 174, 187–188, 206, 233 – Egypt as 69, 153, 154–156, 179–180, 200, 206 abjection 8, 48, 55, 63–66, 68–69, 86, 114, 116, 145–146, 153, 155–156, 187, 200, 206, 240 adultery 7–8, 27–29, 38, 42–43, 117– 118, 125–126, 128–130, 137–140, 143–146, 148, 151–153, 154, 171, 189, 200, 236, 239 – metaphor 42, 117–118, 125, 129, 136–140, 142, 148, 150, 154 allegory 11–12, 37–38, 241–242 Ammon 119, 123, 203 Anat 74, 76, 81, 83, 87, 89–90, 98, 101, 104–106, 111–112, 134, 184–185, 192–193, 196, 198, 206 ancient Near East 3–5, 8–10, 16–20, 44, 45, 56, 68–69, 70, 93–94, 109, 113, 116, 136–137, 146, 155, 159–160, 169, 176, 179–180, 184, 189, 191–192, 205–209, 223, 229–230, 236, 238–241 – mythologies 78, 85, 94, 109, 145, 208, 241 annihilation 3–4, 8–9, 70–71, 109, 180, 202–204, 238, 240 anthropomorphism 80–81, 94 Anu 73, 87, 98 Anzu 72, 96–97, 194, 209 Apep 77, 106, 109 Apophis 5, 8–9, 17–19, 70–71, 76–78, 91–94, 105–108, 112–114, 116, 145, 160, 167–168, 179–180, 184–185, 192, 195, 199, 206, 221, 238, 240 apostasy 28, 39, 42–43, 142 Apsû 72, 86, 98, 145 Asag 17

assimilation 3, 7, 28–29, 117, 133–134, 136, 152, 156, 238–240, 243 Assur 73, 110–111, 160 Assyria 2, 18, 27, 39, 111, 138–139, 142–144, 148, 150, 168, 174, 176–178, 182, 209, 218, 221, 226, 231–232, 234 Athirat 89 Atum 108, 145, 169 Baal 19, 23–24, 70–71, 74–76, 81–84, 87–90, 94, 98–105, 111–112, 114, 180, 184, 192, 197–199, 206, 238, 240 – Cycle 8–9, 17–18, 24, 70, 74–76, 82– 83, 88, 90, 94, 98, 101–103, 106, 111, 179, 184–185, 196, 198–199, 238 Babel 25 Babylon 1–2, 6, 18–20, 27, 29–36, 39– 41, 43, 72–74, 86, 110–111, 119, 138– 140, 142–145, 148–149, 156, 161, 168, 176, 178, 197, 209, 213–214 binary opposition 46, 60, 70–71, 78–79, 83–85, 93, 113, 209, 242–243 body 48–59, 68–69, 94, 98–99, 102, 104, 114, 142, 156–157, 162, 171, 173–174, 187, 191–192, 233 – dismemberment of 2, 4, 9, 44, 70–71, 90, 94, 101, 105–106, 108–112, 154– 156, 179–181, 185, 187–190, 192, 194, 196, 200, 203, 236, 240 – monstrous 47, 49, 53, 87, 90, 94–95, 109, 156–157, 160, 172, 179–180, 200, 240 – of monster 2, 4, 8–9, 44, 45, 47–49, 55–56, 58, 67–69, 70–71, 94–97, 105– 109, 114, 155–157, 164, 170, 179–180, 185–190, 192–194, 196, 198–200, 202–203, 205, 215, 220, 236, 239–240 – of Pharaoh 108, 157, 160, 162–166, 168, 174, 179, 200, 215, 220

Subject Index – political 51, 117 – political technology of 56–57 body politic 49, 57, 188, 193, 196, 198 border 48–49, 55, 59, 63–65, 68, 79–80, 82, 85, 116, 126, 136, 145,152, 155, 174, 179, 187, 200, 206, 242 – between Egypt and Israel 117, 146, 153, 210 – of Egypt 4, 27–28, 41, 212–213, 217, 237 – of the cosmos 222 boundaries 29, 49, 53, 59–60, 63, 65, 85, 94, 126, 157, 188, 240 – between center and periphery 80–82, 113, 210 – between Egypt and Israel 4, 8–9, 28, 38, 54, 117–118, 126, 130, 133–134, 136, 139, 145–146, 149, 153, 155–156, 200–201, 204–205, 210, 212, 216–217, 235–236, 239–240 – between Israel and nations 117, 128– 129, 150, 238 – between order and chaos 110, 145, 192, 206–207, 210, 236–237 – blurred 8, 155 – loss of 8, 16, 116–118, 134, 145–146, 153, 200, 238–239 – maintenance 201, 204, 212, 217, 236– 237 – of body 48–49, 53, 174, 233 – political 42, 116, 126 – religious 3, 42, 116–117, 126, 128– 130, 153 – restoration of 153, 240 – social 42, 116, 129 – transgression of 3, 41–43, 54–55, 59, 67, 69, 95, 116–118, 125, 127, 129, 131, 139, 141, 155, 171–172, 178 burial 135, 181, 185–187, 189–190, 220–222, 227, 232 Carchemish 41, 139, 176, 232 center 59, 74, 79–83, 113, 205, 207–210, 212, 220, 225, 231, 234, 236 – Israel/Jerusalem as 210, 237 chaos 18, 42, 46, 66, 81, 83, 90, 94, 98– 99, 110, 154, 169–170, 178, 190, 193, 195–196, 198, 207, 210, 217, 237–239

283

– as monster 8, 20, 67, 85, 87, 89, 93– 94, 109, 112, 116, 192 – confinement of 94, 109, 205 – cosmological 199 – creation out of 8, 85 – definition of 16, 85, 146 – defeat of 34, 76, 92, 94, 109, 111, 181, 206 – disintegration of 101 – Egypt as representative of 4, 7, 25, 44, 117, 134, 148, 156, 171, 200 – embodiment of 8–10, 20, 42, 70, 85– 87, 94–96, 105–106, 109–110, 116, 118, 192 – end of 4, 9, 22, 114, 222 – of idolatry 146–149, 153 – monster of 2, 5, 10, 18, 27, 34, 37, 40, 43–44, 71, 85, 91–93, 112, 118, 121, 146, 155–156, 162–163, 166, 179, 181–185, 192, 200–201, 202, 204, 206, 211, 221, 236, 240 – moral 41, 117–118 – of Egypt 8, 26, 43–44, 146 – Pharaoh as representative of 164–167, 179 – power of 3, 16, 20, 22, 25–26, 76–78, 95, 97, 102, 109–112, 149, 164, 179– 180, 206, 237 – primordial 8, 25, 34, 105–106, 116, 118, 145–146, 148, 151 – religious 3, 8, 15, 38, 40, 42, 115, 117–118, 123, 128, 146, 149, 155, 157, 200, 236 – resurgent 8–9, 109, 113, 118, 145, 148, 150 – return of 110–111, 151 – victory over 108, 227 – waters as 40, 97, 113, 145, 148 Chaoskampf 3–5, 8–9, 16–19, 21–23, 25–26, 28–29, 37, 43–44, 45, 69, 70– 71, 85, 93–94, 102, 109, 113–114, 118, 155, 160–161, 177, 179–180, 184, 191–192, 196, 200, 205, 211, 236, 238–241 Christian Egyptians 10–13, 241–244 Christians 11, 13, 48, 244 circumcision 174, 233 colonialism 52

284

Subject Index

combat 2–4, 9, 16–17, 19, 23–24, 36, 71–73, 78–79, 84–85, 94, 97, 108–109, 145, 155, 164, 179–180, 182–183, 185, 192, 200, 222, 239 – divine 20, 183, 202 combat myth 2, 9, 17–18, 24, 29, 45, 56, 71, 76, 79, 85, 91, 94, 106, 108, 112, 114, 145, 155, 167–168, 171, 179, 184, 191, 194, 206 cosmic battle 16, 134 cosmic tree 2, 168, 171, 174, 176–179, 221, 224, 226, 240 cosmogony 16, 18, 75, 80, 145 cosmological mythological motif 190 cosmology 2, 6–7, 16, 20, 24, 43, 84, 95, 117, 145, 159, 161, 168, 183, 191–196, 198–200, 208, 211, 217 cosmos 2, 9, 19, 66, 74–75, 77–79, 84– 86, 89, 93, 106, 109–110, 145–146, 180, 186, 191–194, 196, 199–200, 204, 206, 210, 220–224, 227, 237, 240–241 covenant 22, 33, 137, 140, 214–215, 233 covenantal relationship between YHWH and Israel 38, 41–42, 137 creation 16, 18–19, 21, 23, 26, 47, 71, 73, 75, 89, 94, 110, 113, 145–147, 151, 164, 170, 185, 205, 208, 235, 240 – primordial 18, 23 – renewal of 19 creation out of chaos 8, 85 death 54, 58, 75, 77, 81–82, 85, 91, 94, 96, 98, 103–104, 112, 165, 168, 177, 180, 183–187, 191–193, 196, 198–199, 203, 205, 211, 217, 219–222, 225–228, 231–237 – of death 198, 221 – of Egypt 221, 236 defilement 7, 28, 43, 53–54, 128–134, 140–141, 144, 149, 154, 187, 200, 211, 213, 215, 226, 232–233, 239 desertification 194–195, 199 desire (See also mimetic desire) 49, 60– 61, 63–64, 67–68, 87–90, 111, 238 Deuteronomistic History 132, 149 differentiation 47, 61, 63 dirge 165–168, 226 disaster – cosmic 194

– cosmological 183, 191, 194–195, 199 discipline 57, 98 discourse 46, 51–52, 69, 157, 164, 166, 179 disorder 16, 53–54, 85, 92, 94–95, 102, 121, 165, 191–193, 221 – cosmological 198, 192 divine pantheon (See also pantheon) 8, 70, 78–79, 84–86, 88–93, 113, 116 Doppelgänger 130 double 61–63, 82, 130 – Egypt as Israel’s 8, 38, 117–118, 125, 130, 133–134, 136, 144, 152–153 – monster as 3, 7, 45, 47, 60, 62, 66–67, 70, 78, 84–85, 116, 145 – monstrous 8, 60–63, 67–68, 87–88, 116, 130, 144–145, 153 Dragon (See also monster) 5, 17, 19–20, 22–27, 72, 75, 81, 87, 89–90, 96, 101– 103, 105, 111–112, 158–159, 165–167, 170, 184–185, 195–196 – Pharaoh as 158, 162–163, 167–169, 199 Ea 72–73, 193 Eden 175, 177–178 Edom 119, 123, 197, 203, 219, 226, 231, 234 Egypt 1–13, 15–18, 20–44, 45, 54, 76, 103, 108, 113–114, 115–126, 128–136, 138–153, 154–157, 160–165, 167–168, 170–186, 188–190, 191–192, 194–201, 202–206, 208, 210–222, 225–228, 231–237, 238–244 – as double 8, 38, 117–118, 125, 130, 133–134, 136, 144, 152–153 – as monster 1–6, 9–10, 15–16, 21–23, 26–30, 34–41, 43–44, 45, 56, 69, 70, 113–114, 115, 117–118, 121, 144–146, 151, 155–157, 160, 170–171, 178–179, 182, 184–185, 188, 196, 200, 202, 205–206, 211, 217, 220–222, 235–236, 238–240, 244 – as Other 4, 9, 37, 69, 114, 152, 155– 156, 165, 179, 240 – character of 26, 30, 34–35, 44, 130, 211 – defeat of 2, 6, 15, 20–22, 25, 28, 33, 41–42, 44, 114, 115, 139, 152, 159,

Subject Index 179, 181, 188–189, 198–199, 202, 211–212, 220, 222, 232, 240 – minimization of 198, 202, 204–205, 212–215, 217, 237 – restoration of 212, 215–216 El 76, 81–84, 88–89, 93, 101–102, 104– 105, 107, 111–112, 127, 192, 199, 238 Elam 32, 73, 121, 191, 218, 226, 231– 232, 234 Enlil 73, 97 Enūma Eliš 5, 8–9, 16–19, 24, 70–73, 79, 85–86, 94–97, 110, 114, 145, 179, 185, 193, 206, 209, 222, 240 exclusion 226, 232–233, 238 exile 2, 6–8, 16, 18, 25, 31, 33, 39–43, 115, 117–118, 122–123, 125, 129, 139–140, 148–150, 152–153, 154, 188–189, 193, 197–200, 202–203, 211–212, 215–216, 220–221, 233, 236 – Babylonian 1, 30, 33–34, 36, 40, 131, 154 exodus 5–8, 10, 15, 20–23, 25–29, 36, 41–43, 115, 117–118, 123–125, 131, 133, 144, 146–150, 153, 215–216, 239 funeral dirge 166–167, 226 funerary literature/text 17, 76–77, 106, 167, 192, 206, 228 gender 7, 47, 132 geography 207, 214, 223 – cosmological 82, 217 – empirical 9, 211–212, 214, 236–237 – mythological 9, 211, 217, 236–237 geopolitical minimization 202, 205, 211, 213–214 Gog of Magog 182, 186, 215, 235 Gothic 48–49, 59 hamon 118–121 heaven 73, 79, 103–104, 110, 145, 161, 176, 178, 191–193, 195, 199, 222–224, 226, 228, 240 heimlich[e] 7, 47, 66–67, 84–85, 96 holiness 205, 211, 215 Holiness Code 123, 128 holy 126–127, 129, 134, 187, 215–216, 235

285

honor 115, 144, 147, 166, 187, 219, 221, 225–227, 229, 231 horror 7, 45–46, 48, 54, 56–57, 59, 62, 65–66, 68, 72–73, 86–87, 95, 98, 109, 116, 155, 163, 179–180, 188–190, 200, 240 Hubur 72, 95 hybrid 8, 13, 18, 45–46, 52, 55, 68–69, 95–96, 142, 155, 172–173, 222, 242– 243 hybridity 47,95, 213, 242 identity 7, 28, 47–48, 53–54, 59–60, 63– 67, 69, 71, 88, 93, 95, 113–114, 116, 146, 206–208, 213, 237, 240, 242–243 – body as 50–52, 68, 96, 102 – Christian Egyptian 10–12, 241–243 – collective 242 – corporate 117, 154 – Egyptian 11, 42 – hybrid 13, 242 – Israelite 3, 10, 29, 37, 117, 128, 130, 134, 148, 151–153, 154, 156, 171, 188, 239–240 – Israel’s religious 6–7, 27, 127, 155, 179, 202, 204 – of Pharaoh 157, 162, 164–168, 179, 182–183 – religious 10–12, 243 – shared between Egypt and Israel 4, 8, 38, 118–119, 123–125, 133–134, 136, 138, 144–145, 152–153, 154, 156–157, 200 idols 117, 126, 130–135, 144, 149–150, 216 – of Egypt 6–8, 28, 38, 41, 43, 115, 117–118, 125, 130–136, 147–149, 151, 153, 154, 200, 215, 239 idolatry 7, 27–29, 37–38, 42–43, 115, 117–118, 125–127, 129–135, 144–150, 152–153, 154, 187, 200, 220, 236 impurity 48, 54, 95, 123, 126, 142, 172, 187–188, 200, 205, 211, 217, 220, 225–226, 232–233, 235, 237, 242 – of adultery 117, 125, 129, 139 – of idolatry 117, 125, 127, 129–130, 132, 148 Indra 17

286

Subject Index

infidelity 43, 117, 125, 128, 136–137, 139–140, 214, 216, 239 interstitial 47, 54, 116, 242 Isis 92, 106–107 Jerusalem 6–8, 15, 23, 27, 29–36, 39–42, 45, 115, 119–122, 129, 131, 136–144, 148, 151, 153, 154, 162, 165, 168, 171–172, 174, 188, 197, 205, 210, 213, 215–216, 221, 228–229, 235 Jews 10, 11, 13, 48, 136, 244 Judah 1, 3, 6–8, 15–16, 18, 26–36, 38– 43, 45, 54, 114, 115, 117, 119, 121– 126, 130–131, 135, 139, 143, 149, 151, 154, 156, 168, 178, 183, 190, 197, 200, 202–203, 211–215, 234, 239, 241 judgment 33–36, 38–39, 118–121, 123– 125, 129, 150–151, 154, 157, 166, 182, 186, 189, 215, 221, 226, 232, 234, 236 – cosmological 199 – divine 1, 8, 41, 122, 170, 183, 185, 200, 203, 211, 221, 238 – against Egypt 1, 6, 29–30, 34–37, 41, 43, 119, 121–123, 125, 140, 154, 156, 183, 198, 204, 211, 217, 222, 225 – of monster 166, 198 – oracles of 1, 122, 131, 166–167, 194, 196–197 kingship 17, 19, 24, 73, 76, 87–90, 93, 110, 112, 124, 150, 177, 238 – divine 77 Kronos 17 Kush 25 lament 1, 22, 120, 166–168, 218, 221, 229–230, 235 – city 228 Levant 6, 27, 30–34, 36, 72, 117, 119, 139–140, 213 Leviathan 2, 17, 22–23, 27, 102–103, 113, 166, 182, 196 liberation 6, 28–29, 43, 115, 147, 152, 239 liminal 209, 214, 242 lion 38, 72, 95–96, 103, 124, 135, 163, 165–169, 179, 183, 209, 222 – imagery of 2, 103, 166, 169, 182

Marduk 19, 24, 70–74, 78–79, 85–87, 93, 96–98, 110–111, 114, 145, 160, 180, 184, 186, 193, 206, 209, 222, 238 marriage metaphor 8, 129 memory 5–6, 15, 21–22, 27–29, 38, 115, 143–144, 151–152, 203–204, 213, 216, 223, 236, 239–240 Mesheck 234 Mesopotamia 19, 32, 72, 80, 87, 91, 103, 108, 110, 113, 147–148, 191–192, 199, 209 Middle Eastern Christians 11, 244 mimesis 61 mimetic desire 60–62, 68, 88–89, 93–94 minimization (See also geopolitical minimization and Egypt, minimization of) – geographical 213–214 – political 213–214 Moab 123, 154, 158, 203, 234 monster 3, 17, 44, 54, 59, 63, 65, 72–73, 77–84, 101, 104–106, 134, 159, 161, 170, 209, 237 – abnormality of 47, 49, 52, 67, 94, 96, 163, 239 – as chaos 8, 20 – as double (See double, monster as) – as Other 3, 7, 37, 46–48, 52, 55, 60, 66–69, 70, 84, 94, 96, 109, 113–114, 116, 145, 155, 179, 207, 210, 238, 240, 243 – Babylon as 41 – body of (See body of monster) – character of 45–47, 49, 60, 66, 68–69, 70, 96, 194 – death of 113, 185–187 – defeat of 2, 4, 9, 23, 34, 69, 97, 114, 155, 181, 183, 188–189, 191–195, 198–200, 202, 205, 211, 220–221, 236, 240 – definition of 7, 45–48, 66, 109 – dismemberment of 2, 4, 9, 44, 69, 70– 71, 94, 108–109, 114, 156, 180, 185, 187–194, 196, 200, 203, 220–221, 236, 240 – Egypt as (See Egypt as monster) – gods 85, 87, 89–90, 93 – imagery of 3–4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 27, 30, 39, 43, 102, 115, 164, 169

Subject Index

287

– of chaos 2, 5, 10, 18, 27, 34, 37, 40, 44, 46, 71, 85, 89, 91–93, 95, 109, 112, 118, 121, 146, 155–156, 162–163, 166, 179, 181–185, 192, 205 – Pharaoh as 1–2, 15, 124, 157–158, 160, 162–166, 171, 179, 182, 188, 194, 220, 238 – punishment of 9, 55–56, 69, 155, 180, 196, 200, 221, 239 – removal of 198 Monster Theory 4, 44, 45, 68, 70–71, 116, 155, 238 monstrosity 3, 7–8, 15, 38, 45–48, 56, 59, 61–63, 67–69, 70, 93, 105, 109, 115–116, 144–146, 153, 155, 171, 178, 206, 209, 238 Mot 8, 19, 74–76, 81–84, 87, 89–91, 93, 98, 102–105, 111–112, 116, 134, 180, 184–185, 192, 196, 198, 206, 221, 238, 240 Muslim Egyptians 11 Muslims 13, 48, 244 myth (See also combat myth) 16, 19–21, 25, 36, 62, 71–72, 77, 79, 85, 97, 109, 145, 159, 168, 182, 241

89–91, 93, 96, 105–106, 108–112, 114, 117, 127, 129, 134, 145–146, 155–156, 179, 186, 190–191, 193, 195–196, 198, 207, 210, 214, 222, 227, 234, 236–237, 240 – god of 3, 16, 85, 93–94, 109, 180, 192, 239 – loss of 42 – restoration of 8, 22, 94, 114, 116, 190, 192, 227 Osiris 77, 91, 93 Other 52, 59, 61, 64–68, 71, 95, 117, 157, 187, 204, 206–208, 242–244 – Egypt as 4, 9, 37, 69, 114, 152, 155– 156, 165, 179, 240 – enemy as 190 – monster as 3, 7, 37, 45–48, 66–67, 70, 84–85, 89, 94, 96, 113–114, 116, 145, 155, 179, 210, 239–240 – monstrous 4, 9, 63, 114, 152, 157, 165, 179 Otherness 9, 10, 47–48, 52, 55, 59–60, 65–69, 70, 83–87, 94, 96, 105, 113, 116, 155, 208, 210, 238–239, 243 – embodiment of 52, 67, 109 – of Egypt 4, 9, 165, 179, 240

Nahar 24, 83–84, 87, 89, 98–102, 111, 180, 185, 206 Nebuchadnezzar 2, 32–33, 73, 161, 168, 181, 199 Netherworld 19, 77, 82–83, 91, 102, 106–107, 145, 193, 204, 206, 210–211, 219–234, 240 Nile 2, 157–158, 160–165, 179–180, 182–184, 188, 194–196, 198–199, 211–213, 215 Nineveh 176 Ninurta 17, 72–73, 96–97, 102, 190 nudity 136, 141, 144

Pantheon (See also divine pantheon) 17, 19, 71–73, 83–84, 93, 238 Papyrus Sea 21, 25 Pathros 4, 210–212, 213, 215, 217, 240 penal system 57 periphery 9, 64, 66, 69, 79–83, 86, 94, 112–114, 146, 149, 156, 204–211, 214–215, 220–221, 224–226, 232, 234–237, 240–241 Pharaoh – as a monster 1–2, 15, 124, 157–158, 160, 162–166, 171, 179, 182–183, 188, 194, 220, 238 – as representative of Egypt 1, 4, 157 Philistia 25, 119, 123 political alliance 41, 117, 138–139, 142, 240 – between Egypt and Judah 1, 7, 15–16, 29, 33, 36, 38–39, 42–43, 45, 115, 117, 125, 130, 149, 152–153, 211, 239 political power of Egypt 2, 213–215, 217

Oholah (See also two sisters) 42, 140– 143, 150–151, 154 Oholibah (See also two sisters) 37, 42, 140–144, 151–152, 154 oppression 5–6, 10, 12, 22, 26–29, 38, 43, 115, 125, 147, 239 order 9, 19, 40, 42, 46–48, 53–55, 57–58, 60, 63, 65–68, 71, 76–80, 83, 85–87,

288

Subject Index

political relationship between Egypt and Judah 7, 138 pollution 53–54, 126, 128–129, 131, 150, 187, 205 postcolonial criticism 208, 242–243 power – of center 59, 113 – of chaos 3, 16, 20, 22, 25–26, 76–78, 95, 97, 102, 109–112, 149, 164, 179– 180, 206, 237 – relations 52, 56–57, 69, 94, 208 – unequal 51–52, 57, 69, 94, 162 priestly law 205 prison 9, 56–57, 179 profane 127 Promised Land 33–34, 132, 149, 210, 215, 239 Psammetichus II 6, 31–32, 136, 140 psychoanalysis 65, 68, 151, 242 punishment 28, 34–35, 38, 122, 147, 194 – bodily 9, 57, 59, 114, 185 – cosmological 2, 180, 200 – divine 2, 8, 41, 106–107, 129, 157, 170, 179–180, 183, 185, 188–189, 200, 214, 222, 228 – of Egypt 2, 37, 157, 190, 199–200 – of enemies 190 – of Jerusalem 139, 228 – of the land 196 – of monsters 8–9, 49, 55–56, 68–69, 105, 109, 155, 170, 179–180, 183, 188–189, 221, 239 – public 58, 68, 183, 188, 190 – torture as 58, 98 purification 123, 131 purity 188, 205, 211, 233, 235, 237 purity laws 53–54 Qingu 72 Rahab 23, 39 – Egypt as 5, 20–21, 25–27, 39, 222 Ras Shamra 19, 207 Re 5, 8–9, 17–19, 70–71, 76–77, 91–94, 106–108, 112, 114, 160, 167, 179–180, 184, 195, 199, 206, 238 rebellion 43, 98, 180 – against Babylon 6, 30–33, 35, 39, 119, 139–140

– against YHWH 6, 33, 41, 125, 137 – of Israelites 6, 41, 125, 134, 137, 147, 149–150 – political 6, 39, 140 Rephaim 227, 230–231 – Valley of 40 restoration of Egypt 212, 215–216 resurrection of Israel 180, 200, 236–237, 241 revisionist histories 37, 125, 130–131, 146, 200 ritual 16, 53, 75, 78, 110, 112–113, 132, 192, 205–207, 229–230, 240 – of abjection 65–66 salvation 35, 37, 123, 131, 157, 212, 236, 239 – oracles 131, 173–174, 214–215 Samaria 7–8, 120, 122, 136–144, 148, 151, 153 sameness 3, 7–9, 47–49, 60–63, 66–69, 70, 84–87, 89, 93, 116, 142, 145–146, 148, 153, 155, 200, 206, 238–239, 243 Sea of Reeds 24, 26, 125 Seleucids 18, 20, 27 Seth 91–93, 160, 189, 238 sexuality 7, 128 shame 68, 138, 187, 218–219, 227, 231 Shapash 192, 231 Sheol 2, 4, 9, 168, 177, 202, 204–205, 215, 217–229, 231–235, 237 Sidon 119, 123, 203, 214, 226 slavery 10, 28, 123, 147, 152, 239 sovereignty 9, 71, 76, 79, 87–88, 93, 109, 114, 145, 161, 170, 177, 180, 185, 239 subjectivity 50–51, 56, 63–65, 69, 114, 145–146, 243 – construction of 116, 155, 200 sword 2, 4, 76, 104, 121, 123, 173, 187, 189, 193, 196–197, 204, 218–220, 222, 225–227, 232–234, 237, 240 Tannin 17, 21, 25–27, 101–102, 179 Tehom 175, 240 temple 4, 23–24, 32, 74, 92, 112–113, 129, 131, 134, 140, 206, 207, 228, 234, 235 Teshub 17 theogony 19, 71, 145

Subject Index theophany 24, 89 Tiamat 8, 24, 70, 72–74, 78–79, 83, 85– 87, 91, 93–98, 110, 116, 145, 180, 184–186, 193, 206, 222, 238 torture 55–56, 58, 68, 98, 187 – as spectacle 190 – physical 57, 59 transgression 54, 125–126, 128–129, 132, 147 Tubal 121, 218, 226, 231, 234 two sisters (See also Oholah and Oholibah) 8, 42, 139–144, 153, 154 Tyre 25, 34–35, 38, 119, 121, 123, 164– 165, 168, 177, 190, 202–203, 226, 234–236 Ugarit 17, 74–76, 80, 83–84, 91, 108, 192, 207, 209, 229–230, 235 Ullikummi 17 underworld 76–77, 79–80, 82–83, 93, 104–106, 209, 221–225, 229, 234, 236 unfaithfulness 28, 43, 125, 129, 137, 140, 200, 215 unheimlich 7, 47, 52, 63, 66–67, 84–85, 151

289

unitary sameness 86, 116, 145–146, 148, 153, 155, 200, 206 unity 62, 65, 77, 188 violence 11, 61–62, 74, 90, 120, 239, 244 Vritra 17 warrior – divine 9, 20, 23–24, 34, 109, 114, 182–184, 200, 205 wrath – divine 20, 120, 124, 133, 147 Yamm 8, 21, 24–25, 27, 70, 74–76, 81– 84, 87–91, 93, 98–102, 111–112, 116, 180, 185, 197–198, 206, 238 YHWH – as warrior 9, 20, 24, 34, 114, 182–183, 200 – kingship 24, 76, 150 – sovereignty 9, 161, 177, 180, 185 – worship of 25, 128, 137, 154, 216, 239