Fishers of Fish and Fishers of Men: Fishing Imagery in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations) 9781575064581, 9781575064598, 1575064588

Citation preview

Fishers of Fish and Fishers of Men

A ncient

E xplo rations in N ear E astern C ivilizations Series Editors

Grant Frame

Brent A. Strawn

Niek Veldhuis

University of Pennsylvania

Emory University

University of California, Berkeley

1. Of Courtiers and Kings: The Biblical Daniel Narratives and Ancient Story-Collections, by Tawny L. Holm 2. The Sacrificial Economy: Assessors, Contractors, and Thieves in the Management of Sacrificial Sheep at the Eanna Temple of Uruk (ca. 625–520 b.c.), by Michael Kozuh 3. Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household, by Kristine Henriksen Garroway 4. Fishers of Fish and Fishers of Men: Fishing Imagery in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, by Tyler R. Yoder

Fishers of Fish and Fishers of Men Fishing Imagery in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East

Tyler R. Yoder

Winona Lake, Indiana E i s e n b r au n s 2016

© 2016 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.comm

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Yoder, Tyler R., author. Title: Fishers of fish and fishers of men : fishing imagery in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East / by Tyler R. Yoder. Description: Winona Lake, Indiana : Eisenbrauns, 2016.  |  Series: Explorations in ancient Near Eastern civilizations ; 4  |  Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016023358 (print)  |  LCCN 2016023802 (ebook)  |  ISBN 9781575064581 (hardback : alk. paper)  |  ISBN 9781575064598 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Metaphor in the Bible.  |  Symbolism in the Bible  |  Imagery (Psychology) in literature.  |  Fishing in the Bible.  |  Fishing—Religious aspects.  |  Bible. Old Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc.  |  Middle Eastern literature—History and criticism. Classification: LCC BS1199.M45 Y63 2016 (print)  |  LCC BS1199.M45 (ebook) | DDC 220.8/6392—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016023358

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.♾™

Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Chapter 1.  Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.  Why Fishing Imagery?  1 1.2.  What Fishing Imagery?  2 1.3.  Previous Studies and the Scope of This Study  3 1.4. Methodology  4 1.5.  The World of the Fisher  12 1.6.  Fishing Terminology in the Hebrew Bible  31 Chapter 2.  Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East . . . . . 44 2.1. Introduction  44 2.2.  Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East  44 2.3.  Divine Fishers in the Hebrew Bible (Jeremiah 16:16–18)  52 2.4. Synthesis  58 Chapter 3.  Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image . . . . . . . . . 60 3.1. Introduction  60 3.2.  Textual Analysis (Amos 4:1–3; Habakkuk 1:14–17; Ezekiel 12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:1–9)  61 3.3. Synthesis  99 Chapter 4.  Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.1. Introduction  102 4.2.  Hebrew Bible (Job 40:25–32; Ezekiel 29:1–6a; 32:1–10)  103 4.3.  Enūma Eliš  118 4.4. Synthesis  119 Chapter 5.  Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5.1. Introduction  121 5.2.  Mesopotamian Literature  122 5.3.  Hebrew Bible (Qohelet 9:11–12)  124 5.4. Synthesis  135 v

vi

Contents

Chapter 6.  “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”: Fishing Imagery, Polarity, and Prophetic Literature . . . . . . . . 6.1. Introduction  136 6.2.  It Was the Worst of Times (Isaiah 19:5–10; Ezekiel 26:1–14)  136 6.3.  It Was the Best of Times Where God Dwells (Ezekiel 47:1–12)  154 6.4.  Shattering Stereotypes and Transforming Tropes  164

136

Chapter 7.  Reeling It In: Concluding Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

168

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

172

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Index of Authors  203 Index of Scripture  210 Index of Subjects and Other Ancient Sources  217

Acknowledgments This study is the product of a team effort; it could not haven been accomplished without the support and sacrifice of a community of scholars, family, and friends. To begin, I would like to thank the Melton Center for Jewish Studies, whose generous financial support enabled me to finish this project. My colleague and fellow dissertating partner, Joe Price, has offered immense help by means of both our regular discourse on pedantic issues related to the Hebrew Bible and the relaying of relevant sources he encountered in his own research. My professors Daniel Frank and Carolina López-Ruiz have encouraged me every step of the way. A model of kindness, Dr. Frank has offered thoughtful and stimulating counsel throughout my time at Ohio State. In addition to offering invaluable input from the ancient Mediterranean world, Dr. López-Ruiz has provided a steady stream of challenging and constructive scholarly engagement. I am likewise grateful for the sincerity and inspiration of Brent Strawn, whose own work on leonine imagery originally catalyzed the idea for this project. My advisor, Samuel Meier, is the primary reason I applied to Ohio State more than six years ago. If for no other reason, my time spent learning from him has proven more productive than I could have imaged. He has embodied what it means to leave no stone unturned in research and apply consistent methods, how to think and communicate clearly, and how to engage respectfully and pursue truth with transparency. My greatest strengths as a scholar and teacher are a testament to his wise counsel and sacrificial investment in my life. My weaknesses likely stem from simply not listening closely enough. Writing my first book with a baby at home and a spouse working full-time meant that most of this writing took place early in the morning, during nap time, and late at night. But regular help from my mother, Becky Yoder, and mother-in-law, Cheryl Koehler, provided priceless assistance. Above all, I owe a special debt of gratitude to my wife, Cathy. This project would not have been possible without her wisdom, encouragement, and unwavering love. Our firstborn, Asher, was born just before the research for this project began, and his sister, Ellery, was welcomed into the world just as it came to a close. They, too, have sacrificed precious time with Dada that I am so grateful now to have back. These three are my most favorites, my world. I could not ask for much more.

vii

Abbreviations

General BM British Museum D Doppelstamm (= Piel) Dp Pual DN divine name Dtr Deuteronomistic History ED Early Dynastic fem. feminine G Grundstamm (= Qal) H Hiphil Hp Hophal K Kethib LB Late Bronze MA Middle Assyrian masc. masculine mod. modern N Niphal NA Neo-Assyrian NB Neo-Babylonian NK New Kingdom OA Old Assyrian Old Babylonian OB obv. obverse Old Kingdom OK pap. papyrus Q Qere rev.  reverse SB Standard Babylonian

Reference Works AAA ÄAT AB ABD

Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology Ägypten und Altes Testament Anchor Bible Freedman, D. N., editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 ABL Harper, R. F., editor. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. 14 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914 ABR Australian Biblical Review Accordance Accordance Bible Software ADIAS Abu Dhabi Islands Archaeological Survey AiS Advances in Semiotics

ix

x AOB AD AEL

Abbreviations

Altorientalische Bibliothek Cunchillos, J.-L. Cuando los ángeles eran dioses. Salamanca: Universidad, 1978. Lichtheim, M. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971–80 AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AfOB Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft AHw Soden, W. von. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–81 AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJSLL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens ALASP AMRACSZ Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques AnBib Analecta Biblica Analecta Orientalia AnOr AO Archiv Orientální AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament Altorientalische Bibliothek AOBib AOS American Oriental Series ArBib Aramaic Bible ARM Archives royales de Mari ARMT Archives royales de Mari, transcrite et traduite AS Assyriological Studies ASKT Haupt, P. Akkadische und sumerische Keilschrifttexte nach den Originalen im Britischen Museum copirt und mit einleitenden Zusammenstellungen sowie erklärenden Anmerkungen. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1881 ATD Alte Testament Deutsch AuOr Aula Orientalis Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka Endberichte AUWE Biblical Archaeologist BA BAAL Bulletin d’Archeologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Bauer, W. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. BAGD ET, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. 3rd ed. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000 Baghdader Mitteilungen BaghM BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BARIS British Archaeological Reports International Series BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner Biblische Beiträge BBB BBR Zimmer, H. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901 BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient Texte Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, C. A. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. BDB Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 BE Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts Bibliotecha Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum BETL BeO Bibbia e oriente Beschwörungs  Die assyrische Beschwörungssamlung Maqlû. G. Meier. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967 BH2 Kittel, R. Biblia Hebraica. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische, 1913 BH3 Kahle, P. Biblia Hebraica. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische, 1937 BHK Kittel, R. Biblia Hebraica. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905–6. BHS Elliger, K., and Rudolph, W., editors. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bib Biblica BibOr Biblica et Orientalia

Abbreviations BibSal BIFAO BIOSCS BJRL BKAT BLS BM BMes BMS BN BOSHNP BO BolSer BOT BOTD BRLAJ BSOAS BisSem BSS BTAVO BTB BWL BWZKM BZAW BZNW CAB CAD CAT CAT CBQ CBQMS CDA CDLB ClAnt CLAM CM CO ConBOT COS Crum CSD CT CTA CTAIHS

xi

Biblioteca Salmanticensis Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Bible and Literature Series Beit Mikra Bibliotecha Mesopotamica King, L. W. Babylonian Magic and Sorcery. London: British Museum Press, 1896 Biblische Notizen Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry Bibliotecha Orientalis Bollingen Series Boeken van het Oude Testament Faulkner, R. O. The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. Austin: University of TexasPress, 1993 Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Biblical Seminar Black Sea Studies Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Biblical Theology Bulletin Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford, 1960. Reprinted Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996 Beihefte zur Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cahiers d’archéologie biblique Gelb, Ignace J., et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. (A–Z). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 Commentaire de L’Ancien Testament M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995 Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Black, J., A. George, and N. Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. SANTAG 5. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin Classical Antiquity Cohen, M. E. The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. Potomac, MD: Capital Decisions, 1988. Cuneiform Monographs Collectio Oliviana Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series Hallo, W. W., and K. L. Younger Jr., editors. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003 A Coptic Dictionary. W. E. Crum. Oxford: Clarendon, 1939 Smith, J. P., ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: founded upon the Thesaurus syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D. D. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Edited by Andrée Herdner. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1963 Collection de Travaux de l’Académie Internationale d’Historie des Sciences

xii CUSAS DAAW DANE DD DDD DNWSI DOTPent DP dRJ DTTM DULAT EA EJL EPRO ER ET ETCSL ETL EQ FAS FOTL FRLANT FSB FtS GJ GKC GMVO HACL HALOT HAR HAS HAT HBS HBT HCOT HfM HKAT HdO HEO Holladay

Abbreviations Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Deities and Angels of the Ancient World Bienkowski, P., and Millard, A., eds. Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010 Dor le Dor Toorn, K. van der; Becking, B.; and van der Horst, P. W., eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995 Hoftijzer, J., and Jongeling, K. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995 Alexander, T. D., and Baker, D. W., eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament, Pentateuch. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003 Allotte de la Fuÿe, F. M. Documents présargoniques fascicule supplémentaire. Paris, Leroux, 1908. Thiel, W. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973 A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. M. Jastrow. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903 Olmo Lete, G. del, and Sanmartín, J. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Edited and translated by W. G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Etudes d’assyriologie Early Judaism and Its Literature Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Lindsay Jones. 2nd ed. 15 vols. Detroit: MacMillan Reference, 2005. Evangelische Theologie Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses Evangelical Quarterly Freiburger Altorientalishe Studien Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinent Freiburger theologische Studien Geographical Journal Kautzsch, E., editor. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910 Haussig, H. W., ed. Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient. Stuttgart: Klett, 1965 History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant Koehler, L.; Baumgartner, W.; and Stamm, J. J. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 Hebrew Annual Review Harvard African Studies Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders Biblische Studien Horizons in Biblical Theology Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik Hautes études orientales Holladay, W. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972

Abbreviations HSM HSMP HUCA HvTSt IB

xiii

Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Museum Publications Hebrew Union College Annual Hervormde teologiese studies Buttrick, G. A., et al., editors. Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951–57 IBHS Waltke, B. K., and O’Connor, M. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990 ICC Layard, A. H. Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character from Assyrian Monuments. London: Harrison, 1851. IEED Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series IEJ Israel Exploration Journal Indogermanische Forschungen IF IJNA International Journal of Nautical Archaeology IJZ Israel Journal of Zoology Ištar Beschwörungsrituale an Ištar und Dumuzi: Atti Ištar ša harmaša Dumuzi. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 30. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1977. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society JANES JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Archaeological Science JAS JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Field Archaeology JFA JM Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006 Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNES JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies JSS JTS Journal of Theological Studies JW Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte K Kouyunjik Keilschrifttexte aux Assur literarischen Inhalts KALI KAR Keilschrifttexte aux Assur religiösen Inhalts. Erich Ebeling. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1919–1923 Kommentar zum Alten Testament KAT KAW Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi KHAT Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament KTU Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O.; and Sanmartín, J., editors. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976 LÄ Helck, W.; Otto, E.; and Westendorf, W., editors. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972–92 LAS Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien LCL Loeb Classical Library Ludlul Annus, A., and Lenzi, A. Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer. SAACT 7. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2010 Manuals on Archaeology ManArch

xiv MAT MC MCRA MCSA MDAI MDOG MEE

Abbreviations

Mensaje del Antiguo Testamento Mesopotamian Civilizations Monographie du Centre de recherches archéologiques Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 1 Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Pettinato, G. Catalogo dei testi cuneiformi di Tell Mardikh-Ebla. 2 vols. Naples: Istituto Universitario orientale, 1979–80 MES Mythen und Epen in ugaritischer Sprache. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1997 MFLH Mary Flexner Lectures on the Humanities MG Miscellanea Graeca Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications MHEOP MIA Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology MMO Marina Mesopotamica Online MSJHLT Moreshet Studies in Jewish History, Literature, and Thought Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens MSU NABU Nouvelles Assyriologique Brèves et Utilitaires NBU Neubabylonische Briefe aus Uruk. Erich Ebeling. Berlin: Frohnau, 1930–1934. NCE Norton Critical Edition NDMF Notes et Documents des Musées de France NeK Riva, R. da. “The Nebuchadnezzar Inscription in Nahr el-Kalb.” Pages 255–302 in Le Site du Nahr el-Kalb. Beirut: Ministry of Culture, 2009 NIDOTTE VanGemeren, W. A., editor. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 New Studies in Biblical Theology NSBT OBC Orientalia Biblica et Christiana OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OEANE Meyers, E. M., editor. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. 5 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Bible and Archaeology. 2 vols. Daniel M. Master. Oxford: OEBA Oxford University, 2013. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts OECT Oriental Institute Communications OIC OIP Oriental Institute Publications OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Orientalistische Literaturzeitung OLZ OS Oudtestamentische studiën OTE Old Testament Essays OTL Old Testament Library PBS Publications of the Babylonian Section (University Museum, University of Pennsylvania) PHSC Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts PIA Publications of the Institute of Archaeology PL Philosophy and Literature PSAS Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies PSD Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary. Online: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html Princeton Studies on the Near East PSNE R Rawlinson, H. C. Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. 5 vols. London: Bowler, 1861–84 Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RA RB Revue Biblique Schwemer, D. Rituale und Beschwörungen gegen Schadenzauber. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, RBS 2007

Abbreviations RDAC RdE REJ ResArab RevQ RHB RIMA RIME RINAP RivB RlA RM RRCSA RS RSO StAe SAA SAACT SAK SAOC SBB SBEC SBG SBH SBLDS SBTS SBW SC SEÅ SEL SHR SJOT STDJ STP StPohl StSem STT StudStor SubBi TCL TCT TDOT TH TLB TO TOAG

xv

Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus Revue d’égyptologie Revue des études juives Researches in the Arabah Revue de Qumran Ehrlich, A. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. 7 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period Rivista biblica italiana Ebeling, E., et al., editors. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928– Die Religionen der Menschheit Reports of the Research committee of the Society of antiquaries of London Ras Shamra Ras Shamra-Ougarit Studia Aegyptiaca State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations Soncino Books of the Bible Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity Skrifuitleg vir bybelstudent en gemeente Reisner, G. A., editor. Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit. Berlin: Spemann, 1896 Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Sources for Biblical Theology and Study Keel, O. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997 Series Colloquia Svensk exegetisk årsbok Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico Studies in the History of Religions Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Barnett, R. D., and Falkner, M. The Sculptures of . . . Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 B.C.) . . . from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud. London: British Museum Press, 1962 Studia Pohl Studi semitici Gurney, O. R., and Finkelstein, J. J. The Sultantepe Tablets. London: British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, 1957–64) Studi storici: Rivista trimestrale dell’Istituto Gramsci Subsidia Biblica Textes cunéiformes du Louvre Textual Criticism and the Translator Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Theologische Hilfsbücher Tabulae Cuneiformes a F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl collectae Textes ougaritiques Theologische und orientalische Arbeiten aus Göttingen

xvi TSJTSA TUAT UBC 2 UBL UF UMSHS UP UrE UT VAB VESEA VS VT VTS WÄS WBC WIC WO WOO WUS WVDOG WZKM YBC YOS ZA ZAH ZÄS ZAW ZDMG ZPE

Abbreviations Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America Kaiser, Otto, editor. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. 3 vols. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1983–97 Smith, M., and Pitard, W. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol. 2: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4. Leiden: Brill, 2009 Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur Ugarit Forschungen University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series University of Pennsylvania Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section Ur Excavations, Texts Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965 Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin Expedition in Ägypten Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplement Erman, A., and Grapow, H. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache: Im Auftrage der deutschen Akademien. 7 vols. Berlin: Akademie, 1982. Word Biblical Commentary Warburg Institute Colloquia Die Welt des Orients Wiener Offene Orientalistik Aistleitner, J. Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. Edited by Otto Eissfeldt. 4th ed. Berlin: Akademie, 1974 Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Weiner Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Tablets in the Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library Yale Oriental Series, Texts Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift für Althebräistik Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Languages, Dialects, Texts, and Versions 1QHa Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot) Akk. Akkadian Ant. Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities Aquila Aq. Arb. Arabic Aram. Aramaic b. ʿAbod. Zar.  Tractate ʿAbodah Zarah in the Babylonian Talmud b. Šabb. Tractate Shabbat in the Babylonian Talmud Classical Hebrew CH Chr Chronicles Coffin Text CoT Coverdale Coverdale Bible Copt. Coptic DD Dumuzi’s Dream Dem. Demotic

Abbreviations

xvii

Deut Deuteronomy Dion. Nonnus’s Dionysiaca DSS Dead Sea Scrolls EE Enuma Eliš Erra and Išum EI EG Epic of Gilgamesh Eg. Egyptian En. Enoch Eng. English ESV English Standard Version Eth. Ethiopic EWO Enki and the World Order Exodus Exod Ezek Ezekiel Fr. French Gen Genesis Geog. Strabo’s Geographica Greek Gk. Hab Habakkuk HB Hebrew Bible Heb. Hebrew Hist. Herodotus’s Historiae; Tacitus’s Historiae Hosea Hos IAm Instructions of Amenenope IAn Instructions of Any IM Tablets in the collections of the Iraq Museum, Baghdad Isaiah Isa JB Jerusalem Bible Jer Jeremiah Jon Jonah Joshua Josh JPS The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation with the Aid of Previous Versions and with Constant Consultation of Jewish Authorities. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1955 Judges Judg J.W. Josephus’s Jewish War Kings Kgs KJV King James Version Knox Knox, R., trans. The Holy Bible: A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals. London: Sheed & Ward, 1956 Lam Lamentations Lat. Latin LE Late Egyptian Lev Leviticus Let. Aris. Letter of Aristeas LXX Septuagint m. Šeb Tractate Šebi’it in the Mishnah Malachi Mal ME Middle Egyptian MH Mishnaic Hebrew Mic Micah Mark Mark

xviii MT Matt NAB NABRE Nah NASB Nat. NCB NEB Neh NET NETS

Abbreviations

Masoretic Text Matthew New American Bible New American Bible, Revised Edition Nahum New American Standard Bible Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones; Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis historia New Century Bible New English Bible Nehemiah New English Translation Pietersma, A., and Wright, B. G., eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford, 2007 NIV New International Version NJPSV New Jewish Publication Society Version New Revised Standard Version NRSV Numbers Num Pet Peter Proverbs Prov Ps Psalm Pss Psalms Qoh Qohelet REB Revised English Bible Rev Revelation RSV Revised Standard Version Sam Samuel Schlachter Schlacter Bibel Segond Louis Segond Bible Sir Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Song Song of Songs SoV Stele of Vultures Sumerian Sum. Sym. Symmachus Syr. Syriac Tg. Targum Theodotion Th. Tukulti-Ninurta Epic TNE Testament of Moses T. Mos. Ug. Ugaritic Vulg. Vulgate Wycliffe Wycliffe’s Bible Zech Zechariah Zeph Zephaniah

C

h a p t e r

1

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters “The Scientist, like the artist, interprets the world around him by making images. Thinking calls for images and images contain thought” (Arnheim 1969, 274, 254). “Pictures bring certain ideas very memorable expression, accomplishing what terms could never convey” (Bultmann 2003, 160). “Metaphor is one of our most important tools for trying to comprehend partially what we cannot comprehend totally: our feelings, aesthetic experiences, moral practices, and spiritual awareness” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 193).

1.1.  Why Fishing Imagery? The metaphor is a hallmark of Classical Hebrew poetry. Some metaphors, such as “Yhwh is king” or “Yhwh is warrior,” play a foundational role. The same does not necessarily hold for metaphors from the fishing industry. With access to only two major freshwater sources (the Jordan River and Sea of Galilee), archaeological research demonstrates that this industry did not play a major socioeconomic role in ancient Israel. It is thus unsurprising that the vast majority of fishing images depict someone other than Israelites actually doing the fishing. The far greater frequency of metaphors from the pasture and vineyard further affirms this reality. Fishing has nevertheless made a substantial contribution to prophetic and wisdom literature. All metaphors manifest reality. But given the physical circumstances of a largely agrarian, nonmarine society, what does the sustained presentation of fishing metaphors in the HB actually communicate? According to Glaser, “When one is perfectly familiar with a religious symbol from one’s own tradition and personal experience, and when one finds this symbol in another tradition, more rather than less will be required to penetrate behind the face of the symbol to grasp what it means to the other” (Glaser 1998, 135; emphasis mine). This sort of caveat immediately confronts the reader familiar with Jesus’ radical call to discipleship (“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” [Matt 4:19; Mark 1:17]), which reinvested a 1st-century c.e. socioeconomic reality with heavy theological overtones—a wholly different tenor from the fishing images used in the HB. 1 The endeavor is just as weighty for a modern Western reader, for whom fishing may connote 1.  For example, even though fishing and hunting derive from a common idea, imagine the different perlocutionary effect of Jesus’ call to become “hunters of men.”

1

2

Chapter 1

notions as discrete as a relaxing weekend trip on the lake to a local sporting competition. Examining the particular use of fishing images in the HB thus presents a formidable task that demands the scholar approach the text with an open mind and a capacity to mine the gamut of contemporaneous evidence. There are numerous studies on fishing itself, based primarily on the material evidence from all over the ANE, but this is the first literary study devoted to the fishing images used in the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as in the Mesopotamian textual records. Due to ancient Israel’s familiarity with fishing particularly from an outsider’s vantage, this calls for a penetrating look into cultural contact with its neighbors to the east (Mesopotamia) and southwest (Egypt). The different means by which the HB exhibits fishing imagery— from a symbol of divine retribution and a vehicle for death to a central component of eschatological blessing—likewise demonstrate the need for such comparative analysis. Though nearly all fishing metaphors in the HB carry overt royal or divine connotations that mirror uses well-attested in Mesopotamian literature, this remains a largely untapped area of research. A study of the diverse literary qualities of fishing images offers a holistic understanding of how one integral component of ancient Near Eastern society affected the whole, just as the assemblage of disparate materials related to this particular field of study enables scholars to integrate these data into related research and move the conversation forward.

1.2.  What Fishing Imagery? As the survey of fishing from material remains below demonstrates, the evidence stems back to the earliest human civilizations in the Near East. While techniques vary somewhat according to the particular spatial context in view, humans throughout the world up through the present have maintained an overlapping set of techniques, which largely mirror those already established within Egypt by the end of the third millennium b.c.e. So what are the parameters of this project? The scope of this study comprises fishing imagery in ancient Near Eastern literature that spans the third millennium b.c.e. through the end of the Iron Age (Iron III). The following section aims to unpack each of these three elements. First, as the project title indicates, the focus of this project is on fishing imagery. Other studies have examined the material evidence for fishing as an activity, which this introductory chapter surveys below, but this study primarily revolves around fishing images projected in literature. It is also driven by a comparative and inter-disciplinary methodology (see §1.4 below) and thus incorporates archaeological remains, including especially those of an iconographic nature, into the discussion whenever necessary. Second, regarding this notion of literature, the starting point is the HB and its 10 explicit fishing images (Jer 16:16–18; Amos 4:1–3; Hab 1:14–17; Job 40:25–32; Ezek 29:1–6a; 32:1–10; Qoh 9:11–12; Isa 19:5–10; Ezek 26:1–14; 47:1–12), as well as several ambiguous examples based on their literary connection to other explicit ones (Ezek 12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:1–9). While several specialized studies have addressed individual fishing metaphors, 2 one point of departure aims to identify, analyze, and evaluate them both 2.  See pp. 3–4 below.

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

3

collectively and in relation to one another. Another point of departure is the mining of fishing images in the literary inventory of Israel’s neighbors, Egypt, Ugarit, and especially Mesopotamia. Third, the temporal parameters span the earliest literary records of fishing images (ca. the early to mid-third millennium in both Egypt and Mesopotamia) in the ANE up through the NB period (Iron III). 3

1.3.  Previous Studies and the Scope of This Study Scholars have thoroughly investigated fishing in the ANE, especially the Egyptian and Mesopotamian evidence. Douglas Friedman and Renée Brewer’s survey and Dietrich Sahrhage’s recent update of Ingrid Gamer-Wallert’s foundational 1970 work on fish and fishing in the Egyptian cult together provide a detailed reconstruction of the trade in ancient Egypt (Brewer and Friedman 1989; Sahrhage 1998; Gamer-Wallert 1970; Daumas 1977, 234–42). Tohfa Handoussa’s brief 1988 essay zeroes in on this evidence specifically during the OK (1988, 105–9). Although Armas Salonen’s 1970 monograph is by far the most comprehensive general work on fishing in Mesopotamia, misconceptions and errors unfortunately mar its reliability (Potts 2012, 220–35). Biblical scholars who have uncritically relied on this work have often been misled. Daniel Potts’s quite-detailed survey of fishing in greater Mesopotamia (2012, 220–35) presents the best starting point for the topic, in general. In the counterpart to his own previously mentioned edition on Egypt, Sahrhage 1999 offers the standard work on fishing in the Mesopotamian cult. Noteworthy among specialized studies is Robert Englund’s masterful work (1990) on fishing and fisheries during the UrIII period (cf. Butz 1978–79, 30–44). The Levant has received far less attention. Mendel Nun—destined from birth for a career associated with fishing—wrote a 1964 monograph that has long provided the standard reference on fishing in ancient Israel, though much of the material evidence cited derives from later periods (Hellenistic and beyond). Oded Borowski’s brief treatment (1998) helps fill in this gap. A number of treatments on fish bones, 4 ichthyological motifs from Philistine pottery (Bunimovitz and Ledermen 2010, 58–71; Dothan 1982), and a lone essay on fish in a Ugaritic inscription (de Moor 1996, 155–57) round out the relevant work. 5 In all this, it is clear that the chief scholarly deficiency in this area relates to fishing images in the literary records and their integration with the material evidence, to which the discussion now turns. The history of scholarship on fishing imagery in the literature of the ANE is a rather meager history, confined to a handful of article-length treatments of specific issues. Shalom Paul’s 1978 analysis of the fishing metaphor(s) in Amos 4:2 remains the most thoroughgoing example. Brief essays by Wolfgang Zwickel (1987, 72–74) and Gregor Geiger (2010, 453–56) discuss the role of fishing in Habakkuk. Others have treated the fishing image in Jer 16:16 in various ways (Aalders 1958b, 133–39; Cho 2009, 97–105). And 3.  Due to the nature of the transmission of the HB, however, this study will regularly consult versional evidence from the Hellenistic period onward (e.g., DSS, LXX, Syr., Vulg., Tg.). 4.  See pp. 29–31 below for bibliography. 5.  There remains a need for a full-scale synthesis of ichthyological remains in Israel.

4

Chapter 1

though commentaries necessarily offer interaction, they rarely engage the dynamics of a fishing metaphor outside of the immediate context, a narrow approach that, as we will see, often misses its point altogether. Similar general treatments surface in studies of nonbiblical inscriptions that include fishing metaphors, such as Georges Dossin’s 1948 essay on an OB Mari prophecy. The few available comparative analyses, such as Heintz’s 1965 and 1969 studies on the net (ḥērem) and holy war (ḥerem) in the HB and ANE and Bodi’s 1991 work on nets in Ezekiel and EI, address very specific topics related to fishing. This study builds on all of the material above, particularly the latter comparative studies, but expands the purview by inspecting the inventory of fishing images in both the HB and ancient Near Eastern literature in order to classify the different uses and evaluate their relationship to one another. Though working with images inevitably requires establishment of typologies, any such attempts remain provisional until one surveys the landscape of relevant material comprehensively (Strawn 2005, 18). This project thus moves the discussion forward by grappling with the questions: in what ways did literature use fishing metaphors and how did these metaphors reflect both their various contexts (for example, literary, archaeological, historical, sociocultural, economic, and so on) and the phenomena of cultural interchange?

1.4. Methodology Any study of imagery and metaphor, and especially one with a crosscultural scope, demands articulation of how it identifies, delineates, and evaluates evidence. 6 Though many of the figures of speech that use fishing imagery in the literary corpora of the ANE use a preposition to compare two entities (for example, A is like B [simile] rather than A is B), this study follows the scholarly consensus by adhering to a broad definition of metaphor. 7 It also recognizes the fact that metaphors are innately comparative, a fact that diminishes any meaningful distinction between metaphor and simile despite continued scholarly contention. 8 According to Janet Soskice, metaphor is “a figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another.” 9 Though the two deliberately juxtaposed entities necessarily derive from different seman6.  This is especially pertinent for the study of religious language, for “every major religion [is] grounded in certain root metaphors . . . [and features] books which codify root metaphors through various linguistic and generic strategies” (Tracy 1979, 90). 7.  According to Stern, metaphors assert similarities (2000, 232). 8.  Scholars contend the difference between simile and metaphor. Black suggests similes “sacrifice the distinctive power and effectiveness of a good metaphor” (1993, 31), but others persuasively demonstrate that this delineation is often merely formal in nature (for a representative example, see Goodman 1968, 77–78). For example, the metaphor “the sun is a golden ball” demonstrates no more “distinctive power and effectiveness” than the corresponding simile “the sun is like a golden ball” (Soskice 1985, 58). There is need, however, to distinguish metaphor­ ical similes from true similes, which represent literal comparisons (e.g., “John is tall like Lebron James”). Accordingly, this present study does not distinguish between these two figures of speech given their equivalent cognitive sense (cf. Korpel 1990, 55). 9.  Soskice 1985, 15. And in the language of the Venerable Bede, a metaphor is a “genus of which all other tropes are species” (cited in Eco 1984, 87).

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

5

tic fields, a metaphor is only effective if at least some sign-users within its particular locutionary environment can identify it. 10 Context plays a fundamental role in this identification, conditioning its illocutionary force. The nature of this comparative study and the substantial growth exhibited by the field of metaphor over the past half-century 11 demonstrates the need to overview its current state, 12 as well as its niche within HB studies, before providing an outline of my own approach. 13 1.4.1.  The State of the Field in Metaphor Theory 1.4.1.1.  Richards’s Interaction Theory Up until the 20th century c.e., metaphor studies leaned heavily on Aristotle’s “Substitution Theory,” whereby the non-literal term stands in for another (for example, “man is a wolf ” = “man is cunning, threatening, etc.”). 14 This dependence has severely waned, however, since the groundbreaking work of I. A. Richards. His “Interaction Theory” departed from the tradition of substitution by classifying a metaphor’s binary elements according to two related features: the “tenor” denotes the “underlying idea or principal subject” and the “vehicle” denotes the means through which that same idea or subject is conveyed (for example, “the world [tenor] is a stage [vehicle]”; Richards 1965, 2:89–138, esp. pp. 99–101). Moreover, Richards underscored the multifaceted dynamic of metaphor. Much more than an elevated form of language, the “tenor” and “vehicle” work together to “give a meaning of more varied powers that can be ascribed to either” (Richards 1965, 2:89–138). 1.4.1.2.  Black’s Associated Commonplaces Building on Richards’s cutting-edge research, Max Black pushed the conversation forward by identifying the “vehicle” (secondary subject) as representative of a systemic, rather than an isolated entity. According to Black, the “vehicle” represents a “system of associated commonplaces,” which comprise the images evoked when one hears a word employed metaphorically (for example, the metaphor “man is a wolf ” evokes 10.  Soskice 1985, 15. If an active metaphor at some point lost its meaning among these sign-users (e.g., “cream of the crop,” “leaf of the book,” etc.), it is known as a dead metaphor and is “for linguistic purposes safely disregarded” (Kittay 1987, 89). Scholars disagree on precisely when a metaphor “dies” and on the potential to revive one, but linguistic register and locutionary context of the speaker cautions against generalizations (cf. Weiss 2006, 189–90). And given the general familiarity with fishing in Israel, dead metaphors play a minimal role in this study. 11.  Booth sarcastically predicted that students of metaphor would outnumber people by the year 2039 (1979, 47). 12.  Due to the vast amount of literature on metaphor, the purpose here with the following survey is not to be comprehensive but to provide a snapshot of some of the most influential approaches, including especially those on which this study draws. 13.  Weiss has chided biblical scholars who forego integrating metaphor theory into their interpretive work, and thereby prevent readers from knowing to what extent their method affects their conclusions (2006, 24). Her acute warning notwithstanding, Nielsen rightly questions whether one theory ultimately proves more efficacious than another (1989, 66). 14.  For an overview of metaphor study from Aristotle to the 20th century c.e., see Sage 1997, 156–62.

6

Chapter 1

connotations such as “dangerous, cunning, fierce, predatory”; Black 1962, 38–47, esp. p. 40). In fact, it is the very interplay between these “associated commonplaces” and the “tenor” that generates meaning in the metaphor. Each subject reflects numerous potential “associated commonplaces.” For instance, the metaphor “man is a wolf ” evokes commonplaces associated with canis lupus, but only those human characteristics “which can without undue strain be talked about in ‘wolf-language’ will be rendered prominent, and any that cannot will be pushed into the background” (Black 1962, 41). Context, not empirical validity, then, is the key to delineating such traits. 15 1.4.1.3.  Ricoeur’s Tension Theory Thirteen years after Black’s seminal monograph, Paul Ricoeur modified the discussion to include multiple and larger units of meaning, extending beyond the level of the word to that of sentence and discourse (Ricoeur 1977, 133). While Black emphasized “interaction” between the vehicle and tenor, Ricoeur perceived the relationship as more tensive (for example, comparison and contrast) in character. Indeed, the tension itself functions as the metaphor’s locus (Ricoeur 1977, 6). A metaphor unleashes new layers of reality, “obliterating the logical and established frontiers of language, in order to bring to light new resemblances the previous classification kept us from seeing” (Ricoeur 1977, 197). Drawing on Ricoeur’s idea of “virtual experience,” Newsom astutely notes that metaphor also requires active participation by the sign-user, who may misconceive such engagement for literal truth (1995, 193). 1.4.1.4.  Lakoff and Johnson’s Cognitive Theory While Black and Ricoeur drew primarily on the previous work of Richards, Lakoff and Johnson shifted the direction of the discussion by emphasizing metaphor’s fundamental role in cognition. Their “Cognitive Theory” presupposes a conceptual system in which both thought and action are “fundamentally metaphorical in nature” and where conceptual metaphors engender other metaphors (1980, 3). These broad and variegated conceptual metaphors create social realities that direct human life, and serve as a “guide for future action” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 156). Some are structural in nature (for example, “time is money” = time is something we can “waste,” “invest,” “spend,” and “save”), some are orientational (for example, “boosted/sank my spirits” = “happy is up/ sad is down”), while others are ontological (for example, “control/death with emotions” or “inflation makes me sick” = emotions and ideas cast as substances or entities; Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 25–32), but they each undergird human experiences even though sign-users do not always articulate them with precision (Weiss 2006, 17). Several studies have applied this theory to metaphor in the HB, such as Brettler’s 1989 analysis of the conceptual metaphor “God is king,” which investigates what calling 15.  Numerous scholars have criticized Black’s suggestion that just as the “vehicle” says something about the “tenor” (the wolf about the man) so the “tenor” says something about the “vehicle” (the man about the wolf; Soskice 1985, 47; Lakoff and Turner 1989, 131–33; MacCormac 1985, 33–8). Thus, Pharaoh’s alleged profession, “I am a great dragon” (Ezek 29:3), suggests that in addition to the Egyptian king resembling a dragon, the dragon also takes on human characteristics. But this is simply unintelligible, convoluting the point of the metaphor. To his credit, however, Black himself apparently abandoned this view in a later treatment (1993, 27–30).

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

7

God a king meant in ancient Israel. 16 While this theory perspicaciously recognizes that metaphors reside at the cognitive level, scholars have rightly criticized both the arbitrary nature of identifying such subconscious activity (Foreman 2011, 25–26) and the manifold possible arrangements of the linguistic evidence. 17 Consequently, the present language-based study emphasizes context over and against conceptual metaphors as the primary constraining force (or: source domain) of meaning in metaphor. 1.4.1.5.  Kittay’s Perspectival Theory Eva Kittay’s “Perspectival Theory” draws on the influence of both Richards and Black (1987). Her work endorses the idea of “perspective” over “interaction” and develops a tighter understanding of how the “tenor” (or as she calls it, the “topic”) and “vehicle” interact. 18 Though recognizing the importance of commonplace associations, she reasons that they only fill in gaps for contextless metaphors. Conversely, for “metaphors lodged in rich contexts the linguistic and situational environs will supplement or override background assumptions” (Kittay 1987, 32). In other words, Kittay views context itself as the key to unlocking meaning in metaphor. But, as Foreman cautions, not all metaphors appear in “rich contexts” and thus expose the need for some background knowledge (Foreman 2011, 10 n. 48). For example, despite the limited opportunities to fish in ancient Israel, fishing metaphors in the HB presuppose at least a general Israelite familiarity with the practice, without which the metaphors would be unintelligible (Foreman 2011, 10 n. 48). According to Kittay, “labels” (that is, “uninterpreted lexical items”) together comprise a “lexical field” (Kittay 1987, 224). A “content domain” classifies the components of a lexical field, which then represents an even larger unit, a set of related terms known as a “semantic field.” 19 In the event that semantic fields overlap and intersect, Kittay suggests that we should individuate [semantic fields] to the degree that is relevant to us. We may wish to individuate forests, trees within a forest, branches on a tree, leaves on a branch, or the cells which comprise the leaves of a tree. At what point we individuate these nested entities depends on our purposes. Similarly we can view semantic fields as nested and decide to individuate as we see fit for the purposes in hand, purposes which can generally be discerned from the context. (1987, 176)

16.  Brettler 1989, 17–28, 166. Aaron says that Lakoff ’s approach (exhibited in his two co-­ authored monographs, one with Johnson and one with Turner) “is undoubtedly the most frequently cited in the exegetical literature on the Tanakh” (2001, 10). 17.  Haser 2005, 173. She further argues that these conceptual metaphors reflect not reality but rather “the preconceived grid superimposed by linguists on actual linguistic expressions” (p. 192). 18.  Kittay 1987, 22. Wassell and Llewelyn (2014, 629) instead refer to target (e.g., sin) and source domains (e.g., dirt, a ravenous animal, weight). 19.  Kittay 1987, 229. These terms can relate in a number of ways: overlap, intersect, be embedded in one another (p. 291).

8

Chapter 1

Context is thus key to determining the “composition of the semantic field” (Foreman 2011, 11). In sum, a metaphor consists of the apposition of two dissimilar labels (from two different semantic fields). The purpose of juxtaposing a “vehicle” that is dissimilar to the “topic” allows for the “disordering of the topic and its reordering along the lines of the vehicle.” 20 Accordingly, the metaphor in Hab 1:14 uses fish as vehicle not because fish resemble the topic (humans) but precisely because their disparity leads to the topic’s reevaluation from an altogether new perspective. 21 1.4.1.6.  White’s Primary and Secondary Vocabulary Dissatisfied with “simplistic” previous work on metaphor, Roger White constructed a heuristic device that offers a “simple representation of the metaphorical process.” 22 At the heart of the analogical comparison in metaphor lies a juxtaposition of two situations: hypothetical and actual. The identification of one over another depends on perspective (White 1996, 115). The latent duality within a metaphor led White to distinguish the two subjects by what he calls “primary vocabulary” and “secondary vocabulary,” of which a metaphor is an amalgam of both (White 1996, 115). The former consists of “words that would belong in a straightforward, non-metaphorical, description of the situation being metaphorically presented,” while the latter “introduces the metaphorical comparison into the sentence” (White 1996, 17). According to Weiss, his method—which requires the three essential steps of determining the two situations, distinguishing vocabulary, and creating primary and second sentences—“helps the reader gain a deeper understanding of the connection between the two elements in the analogy” (Weiss 2009, 481, 486). 1.4.2.  Metaphor Research on the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature Over the last decade, Andrea Weiss has published at least two formal treatments of metaphor 23 in the HB. Her 2006 monograph analyzed metaphors in prosaic literature, particularly within the books of Samuel, by drawing on the methods of Kittay, White, and others, such as Asif Agha, in order to put theory to practice. An essay that applied White’s approach to poetic literature (esp. Psalms) appeared three years later (Weiss 2009, 475–86). The following expands briefly on this latter study in order provide an exemplar of one way biblical scholars have implemented current metaphor theory into their own work on the HB. In the common designation of God as shepherd and Israel as flock of sheep (cf. Ps 80:2), Weiss discerns the actual situation (primary vocabulary) as an instantiation of Israelite peril and subsequent crying out to God for rescue (cf. Ps 80:4, 8, 20). The hypothetical situation (secondary language), however, points to “a shepherd 20.  Foreman 2011, 12. A topic equivalent to meaning results in a tautology, merely replacing a literal term for a metaphorical one (pp. 9–10). 21. As Nielsen describes it, “imagery, when functioning according to its intention, offers a new way of seeing reality and thereby creates something new” (1989, 55). 22.  White 1996, 80. In adducing “man is a wolf ” as a parade example of such simplistic work, White cogently recognizes that most metaphors require more extensive “unpacking” of the “actual language of the metaphor” (1–4, 105). 23.  For a recent overview of the state of metaphor research on the HB, see Van Hecke 2005.

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

9

who tends his flock” that “is called on to listen” (Weiss 2009, 477). She then proceeds to break these two situations down by dividing the vocabulary specific to each in order to ultimately “create two straightforward, non-metaphorical sentences” (primary = “God of Israel, give ear, who drives the sheep”; secondary = “Shepherd of the flocks, give ear, who drives the sheep”). 24 Articulation of the hypothetical situation over and against the actual one and clarification of the ensuing level of overlap between them are principally important, but as she admits, the difficulty capturing its “nuances and complexity” in nonfigurative language presents a weakness of White’s method” (Weiss 2009, 486; cf. 2006: 85–120). Numerous other studies integrating metaphor theory in their textual interpretation of the HB have appeared recently, ranging from monographs devoted to implementing productive theoretical models to nuanced topical studies. In his rejection of a binary approach and advocacy of a “continuum of meaning,” David Aaron’s study is an example of the former, as his primary objective is to develop a model for what he refers to as “gradient judgments” (2001, 4, 21, 69–84). Macky likewise focuses on constructing a productive theoretical model for biblical studies, emphasizing especially the psychological and cognitive factors which influenced biblical metaphors (1990, 8–25). In her essay on Ezekiel’s use of metaphors in the war oracle against Tyre, Newsom persuasively demonstrates that metaphors provide much more than embellished language or a literary effect; they, in fact, have “real cognitive content” that uniquely constructs meaning in and of itself (1995, 192). Perdue similarly draws attention to a fundamental reciprocity in the use of metaphor: just as metaphors, as “semantic building blocks,” construct new realities, they themselves “are constructed by the very worlds they build” (Perdue 1986, 297). The dynamics of this interchange emphasize both the metaphor’s dependence on context to produce meaning and “innate power to transform vision and its sustaining values” (Perdue 1986, 297–9; cf. Ferré 1968, 331). Two recent dissertation revisions offer much closer analogues to the nature and scope of this study. 25 Benjamin Foreman (2011) addresses an often overlooked locus of metaphor in the HB: the people of Israel. To that end, he zeroes in on the use of faunal images connoting Israel in the book of Jeremiah. Due to its strong literary emphasis, Foreman’s specialized study draws especially from Kittay’s “Perspectival Theory.” Brent Strawn’s 2005 monograph on leonine imagery offers a more inter-disciplinary approach that examines the extensive textual and iconographic remnants of the lion throughout the ANE from 1500–332 b.c.e. 26 Its integration of such diverse evidence in order to reconstruct context and probe potential lines of convergence echoes one of the chief aims of the present study, as outlined below. 24.  For the full description, see Weiss 2009, 478. 25.  Though it interacts neither with the HB nor fish, Watanabe’s contextual approach to studying faunal symbolism in Mesopotamian literature largely adopts Black’s Interaction Theory (Watanabe 2002). 26.  Though the nature of the evidence (largely ceremonial) distinguishes it from this study, Way’s exhaustive investigation of donkey symbolism in the HB and ANE provides a masterful integration of text and artifact (Way 2011).

10

Chapter 1

1.4.3.  Analysis of Method 1.4.3.1.  Identification of Image The first and most basic step to interpreting a metaphor is to identify the image in view. The very nature of a study focusing on one content domain (fishing) distinguishes most examples. Within clear fishing domains, some metaphors are readily apparent, such as the description of Babylonian fishers catching Israelite fish in Hab 1:14–17. Others, such as the mixed bovine and ichthyological imagery of Amos 4:1–3, present complex layers. Still others are couched within larger tropes, such as allegory (Ezek 17) and dirge (Ezek 19). For these more difficult examples, Kittay’s use of componential semantics to identify incongruity and context (rather than word, sentence, or discourse) provides a helpful aid. 27 According to componential semantics, 28 all words have limitations (for example, semantic, syntactic, conceptual). The incongruous element between the limitations (“focus”) plus the shared remainder (“frame”) together comprise a metaphor (Kittay 1987, 64–5; Foreman 2011, 13). Therefore, the fact that a wolf is a canine and a man is a member of the species homo sapiens constrains the metaphor “man is a wolf,” just as it leaves traces of shared features that this sort of incongruity and context expose (for example, both entities are fearsome, cunning; see Kittay 1987, 55–64). Though humans and fish manifest unique self-evident focuses (for example, taxonomic, size, and habitat distinctions), the resulting material (frame, which includes context) shows that they also share features, such as animation and dependence (for example, fish on a fisher; humans on the divine pantheon). In the process of catching a fish, the victim is violently removed from its abode and transported to a new context, where it most likely will die. As a fish is helpless to defend itself against the net of a fisher, so humans cannot circumvent the ineluctable force of the supernal realm. But this frame may go unnoticed without attention to context. Therefore, each analysis begins by delimiting the metaphor under investigation and delineating which components apply to the “topic” (“man”/“God”) and which apply to the “vehicle” (“fish”/“fisher”). 1.4.3.2.  Establishment of Text The identification of the metaphor requires an establishment of the text, including an analysis of any textual issues. For biblical interpretation, this study takes the MT as the base text with regular attention to variants from the versions (DSS, LXX, Syr., Vulg., Tg.) in order to present the fuller interpretive dynamics of the issue under investigation. While textual-critical analysis is thus necessary, the largely synchronic nature of imagery diminishes the effect of redactional factors. 29 The project will interact with diachronic interpretations of the biblical text when necessary, but the primary concern is the final form of the text. In fact, one of the potential benefits of a study of imagery is the exposure 27.  For locating incongruity, see Kittay 1987, 64–76. 28.  For a technical introduction to this technique, see Mac Cormac 1985, 79–126. 29.  Foreman 2011, 30. Along these lines, Schökel argues that “synchronic comparison [of images] . . . is less dated than other aspects [of synchronic study]; it can be separated more easily from the original context. The kingdom of the imagination is less ‘historical,’ symbols are open and expansive” (1988, 140).

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

11

of rhetorical features which may vitiate previous redactional explanations. 30 A complete translation, textual analysis, and metaphor investigation will introduce each biblical text discussed in the following pages. 1.4.3.3.  Contextualization and Comparison The multifaceted contextual approach to this study of fishing imagery is another point of departure from other treatments. After identifying the image and establishing the text, this study situates each exemplar within its various contexts: the immediate literary, the broader literary (prophetic, wisdom, or even canonical corpora), and the pertinent peripheral contexts (economic, historical [including archaeological and iconographical], political, sociocultural). As expressed above, this study draws on Kittay’s “Perspectival Theory” and its regard for context as a principal determinant for meaning, affirming Nielsen’s reminder that “no text comes into being or can be read as an isolated unit. [A text] is always part of a network of texts” (2000, 18; cf. Kristeva 1969, 140). And with Strawn, this study asserts that “only by understanding the user’s sign-context, at least at some minimal level, can the receiver make sense of and appreciate the content or tenor of the metaphor in a way analogous to the user” (2005, 15). But the modern attempt to understand and appreciate an ancient figure of speech and context is no simple task, nor is there a monolithic technique. It requires recourse to diverse voices, including ancient texts, archaeological records, and current metaphor theory. Though all images are representations, not all representations are readily apparent. The rationale for the adoption of a particular metaphor is not always clear. Some deviate from their usage elsewhere (for example, Ezek 47:10). 31 Thus, each image requires contextualization in order to discern its relationship to other comparable examples. 1.4.3.4. Evaluation Ted Cohen compares the use of a metaphor to an invitation into an intimate community bonded by shared feelings about something (1997, 233). But temporal, spatial, and sociocultural barriers naturally impede this community building. The capacity to engage and articulate the meaning of such an “other” image requires its identification, examination, and contextualization. At a rudimentary level, the fruits of this research published here identify four distinct types of fishing imagery in the HB: divinely appointed retribution (Jer 16:16–18; Amos 4:1–3; Hab 1:14–17; Ezek 29:1–6a; 32:1–10; cf. Ezek 12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:1–9), “big-game” fishing (Job 40:25–32; cf. Ezek 29:1–6a; 32:1–10), tragedy (Qoh 9:11–12), and polarity (Isa 19:5–10; Ezek 26:1–14; 47:1–12). This project breaks down these types into thematic treatments based on their nuanced imagery. The concept of divine fishers in ch. 2 lays the foundation for nearly all future chapters. The corollary to the concept of the divine fisher, namely, divine retribution, appropriately follows in ch. 3. The supernatural dimension continues in ch. 4 with specific attention to the fishing of monstrous sea creatures. The concept of a fishing image comes to its logical end in ch. 5 with the discussion of the net as a death tool. And 30.  This idea is adapted from Berlin 1983, 112. 31.  For the significance of analyzing a metaphor in a variety of contexts, see Tigay 1996, 304.

12

Chapter 1

ch. 6 studies the literary role fishing plays in depictions of the best and worst of times. What does a given fishing image communicate in its immediate context? What does it imply about Israelite culture, politics, and theology? How does it relate to other biblical evidence, fishing and otherwise? How does it compare to examples outside the HB and what does that then imply about cultural interchange? The three steps of identification, examination, and contextualization allow for and culminate in these synthesizing types of questions.

1.5.  The World of the Fisher Though the primary aim of this project concerns fishing imagery, the fundamental grounding of all metaphors in realia demands analysis of the socioeconomic role fishing played in the ANE. The discussion in this section addresses this need by surveying the archaeological evidence for fish and fishing in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant. Assessing each culture independently affords the opportunity to evaluate more effectively both shared and unique features. To that end, the reader must note that the importance of fishing in each culture does not necessarily correlate with the relative number of fish bones or fishing paraphernalia exhumed. There are several reasons for this disconnect. First, outside of parts of Egypt, the compositional properties of the fishing net simply prevent its preservation in the soil. Though few vestiges of nets remain from the ANE, ancillary archaeological clues (for example, seine sinkers), as well as iconographic and textual material, corroborate its presence and use. Second, due to a concern with the bone analysis of large fauna during the previous two centuries, many archaeological excavations lacked the requisite time and effort expenditures to employ apposite techniques for examining fish bones (for example, wet-sieving with fine mesh; Potts 2012, 221; Firmage 1992, 1146–47). According to Potts, “neither freshwater nor saltwater fish in Near Eastern antiquity have received the attention they deserve” (2012, 220). Aside from these issues, the archaeological data present a fascinating glimpse into the piscatorial realm of the ancient world. Finally, there remains a need to define what comprises fishing within an ancient Near Eastern context. Though moderns formally delineate between the pursuit of large aquatic animals and fish (for example, “whaling” whales and “hunting” crocodiles vs. “fishing” fish), the ancient audience preserves a degree of ambiguity between these distinctions. For example, the book of Job describes the pursuit of the aquatic creature, Leviathan, with fishing terms and imagery, despite the fact that this animal is something quite different from a fish. This study thus maintains a broad definition where a “fisher” is one who uses fishing implements to catch both fish and any other marine fauna within a body of water. 1.5.1. Egypt Despite Egypt’s 32 arid climate, the most significant resource for reconstructing the role of fishing in ancient Egypt is wall reliefs, not artifacts. Even so, the main focus of 32. In addition to the bibliography on p.3 above, see earlier works by Radcliffe 1921; Bates 1917, 199–271.

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

13

Figure 1.  Earliest depiction of rod fishing (Khnumhotep’s 12th Dynasty tomb; Beni Hasan; Newberry and Fraser 1893, 1:pl. 29). Public domain.

these wall reliefs is typically funerary in nature; rarely do they function merely “to record the use of fish in daily life” (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 2). Material remains of fish paraphernalia begin to diminish in the OK, at which time chapel scenes burgeon (Radcliffe 1921, 307). Visual depictions of fishing scenes frequently appear within private tomb chapels (Handoussa 1988, 105). Though early illustrations (especially those from the OK) display fishers as penurious elderly men, the full range of evidence suggests the activity appealed to a broad demographic range (from nobility to peasantry) and served a number of different purposes (pragmatic [consumption]; religious; sport; pleasure [sḫmḫ-ib “delight of the heart”]; Brewer and Friedman 1989, 30). The sum of available evidence suggests that by the 5th Dynasty (ca. 2400 b.c.e.), Egyptians had already developed a number of different fishing media: the spear, hook (and line), trap, and net (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 21). And by the 12th Dynasty (ca. 1950 b.c.e.), the rod appears for the first time in the ANE (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 21). Although a well-defined relative chronology for the development of each instrument remains elusive, the early and common attestations of these different instruments in Egypt enable scholars to extrapolate comparable developments in other locales throughout the ANE. For this reason, the following analysis surveys the evidence for each particular fishing tool used in ancient Egypt. One of the most commonly portrayed fishing instruments in Egyptian art from the 5th through 18th Dynasties (ca. 2494–1295 b.c.e.) is the spear (Radcliffe 1921, 309). By the mid-third millennium b.c.e., several different variations of the fishing spear had already emerged in Egypt. In fact, Egyptians used three different types of this instrument, each of which shows up all over the country: one with a single head (or with a point hafted to the end of the shaft), another with a socketed head (harpoon), and a dual-headed third variety (bident; Brewer and Friedman 1989, 21). The single-headed fishing spear was compositionally monolithic, while the head of the harpoon could detach from its shaft. When harpooning large water game (for example, hippopotamus, crocodile), one had time to pursue an animal that had been struck because the shaft remained attached to the harpoon’s barbed end after it had protruded the flesh of the target via a retrieving line (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 22–23). A common iconographic motif includes each end of a bident spearing two species of fish known from vastly different locales in Egypt (the tilapia, which preferred the marshy Delta water, and the Nile perch, which preferred the deep, oxygen-rich water of Upper Egypt) as a form of dramatic and propagandistic, yet unrealistic depiction of political unity (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 24).

14

Chapter 1

Figure 2.  Relief from an Egyptian tomb (Zau) depicting the deceased’s use of a barbed fishing spear to catch two fish (Davies 1902, 2:pl. 5). Public domain.

Similar to the fishing spear, fishhooks emerged all over Egypt beginning in the predynastic period (fourth millennium b.c.e.). 33 The copper version showed up around that same time but did not proliferate until the ED period (3100–2686 b.c.e.; Brewer and Friedman 1989, 26). Though its design was initially simple (up through the OK) and relatively small (ranging from 2 to 6 cm), 34 fish hooks developed barbs and more acute curvature over time. The popularity of these barbed, curved versions increased during the 12th Dynasty (1963–1787 b.c.e.; Brewer and Friedman 1989, 28). And by the 18th Dynasty (1550–1295 b.c.e.) bronze barbed hooks predominated, changing little from then on through the Roman period (Radcliffe 1921, 313–14). Sometimes depicted with a rod (see fig. 3), 35 reliefs of fishing with hooks show it taking place in a variety of different contexts, whether on the Nile, its canals, or vivaria (artificial ponds stocked with fish). While spears and hooks were designed primarily for capturing singular, large fauna, the development of fishing traps and nets made possible a catch of many smaller fish at once. With regard to traps, Egyptians employed two basic varieties, particularly during the OK (Radcliffe 1921, 318): a barricade, which forced fish into an area more conducive to spear or net them, and a rope-bound weir, which enveloped and detained the fish before transferring them to a container or boat. 36 No visual examples have survived of the 33.  Brewer and Friedman 1989, 26. Bone, Flint, and shell fish hooks go all the way back to the Neolithic period (Hoffman 1991, 75–77, 83, 100–2, 176–77, 186–88). 34.  Radcliffe 1921, 313. He continues: “the head, which in all cases lay in the plane of the hook, was formed by doubling over the end of the shank against the outside of the latter, so as to form a stop or an eye, which might, or might not, have been an open one” (p. 313). 35.  Nobility eventually appropriated the use of the rod during the NK (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 30). 36.  Brewer and Friedman 1989, 31. Although only three examples have appeared, spanning the OK up through the 11th Dynasty (2023–1963 b.c.e.), Egyptians also apparently used basket

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

15

Figure 3.  Two fish transfixed by means of a bident (Griffith 1900, 4:pl. 13 n. 4). Public domain.

Figure 4.  A wall relief from the tomb of Ti (Dynasty 5) featuring seine fishing (Steindorff 1913, pls. 111–12). Public domain.

former, and very few appear of the latter, although one of the few dates back to the 5th dynasty (2494–2345 b.c.e.; Brewer and Friedman 1989, 33). As a much more common alternative to the fish trap, the net was used by Egyptians from all social strata. Its frequent use in humid Lower Egypt, however, explains its negligible material remains. 37 Despite this phenomenon, an entire net has survived traps to fish. According to CoT 158, Isis’s request of Sobek to retrieve Horus’s severed hands by using a ḥꜢd “basket trap” functions as an etiology for this technique (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 37–8). 37.  Radcliffe 1921, 317. Material remains first appear in the Neolithic period (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 38).

16

Chapter 1

Figure 5.  Three fishers haul in a catch; wall relief from the tomb of Ra-hotep (Schäfer and Andrae 1925, 249, I). Located at the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Public domain.

from Pre-dynastic el-Omari and second millennium b.c.e. traces of net have emerged from excavation at Gebelein (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 38; Nun 1997, 316). It is the iconographic evidence, first appearing in a 4th Dynasty (2613–2494 b.c.e.) tomb scene at Meidum, that comprises the bulk of our knowledge about ancient Egyptian net fishing (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 38). In fact, the visual representations depict Egyptians using an assortment of different versions of the net. Typically composed of flax or some other fibrous material, nets varied in size depending on the size of their intended target. For example, one frequently used a personal hand net when pursuing a few small- to medium-sized fish near the surface of the water (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 38). Equally common was the seine (or: dragnet), which, although requiring collaboration from an entire crew to bring in a large catch— typically between 15–20 fishers, according to Jawad 38—offered an even more efficient technique. The seine was an extensive strip of netting (up to 250–300 m) with parallel support lines at the top and bottom that had rounded ends attached to a harness that hauled in the catch (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 42). Floats lined the upper side of the net and sinker weights 39 lined the bottom in order to ensure maximal spread. Once it was fully open and parallel to the shore, fishers in two boats, one at each end, dragged to land 38.  Jawad 2006, 6 table 2. Old Kingdom evidence depicts a crew of up to 28 men (Hoffmeier 2003, 335). Seine yields were often so great that fishers wore shoulder harnesses to bring in the fish, as seen on the mastabas of Princess Idut of the 5th Dynasty and Mereruka of the 6th Dynasty (2345–2181 b.c.e.; Wilson and Allen 1938, pls. 43, 55). 39.  There is evidence of weights made of both stone and lead (for the former, see Bates 1917, 259; for the latter, see Petrie 1890, 34).

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

17

Figure 6.  Catching a fish in a seine, transporting it, splitting it, and mending a net (Tylor and Griffith 1894, pl. 4). Public domain.

the fish caught in its mesh. 40 The medium sized cast net (6–8 m in diameter), which was thrown either from a boat or the shore, also used stone or lead weights (Nun 1997, 316). Although complete cast nets from the second millennium b.c.e. have emerged from Deir el-Baḥari, the lack of any clear iconographic representations have led archeologists to suggest they simply were not common in ancient Egypt (for implications, see p. 171 below). 41 Wall reliefs, in fact, depict scenes of net construction and mending. 42 Ichthyological studies have discovered 12 different families of Nile fish, yielding far more than 50 species (Ikram 1995, 36). Given the centrality of the Nile within Egypt and the rich source of protein fish afford, these numbers ensured that fishing played a salient economic and dietetic role, even if the professionals held a relatively low social position. 43 For example, while fishing scenes figure prominently within tombs, no such burials belong to fishers (Ikram 1995, 112). Moreover, the vagaries of fishing in a hippopotamus and crocodile infested Nile presented numerous, nerve-racking dangers, on top of exorbitant taxes on each catch. 44 Due to the abundance of Nile fish—a reality etched in Israelite memory as preserved in Num 11:5— it represented a staple component of the Egyptian diet, particularly, but not exclusively, among the lower class (Wildberge­r 40.  Nun 1997, 316. A model in Meketre’s 11th Dynasty tomb includes two boats drawing in a seine between them (Winlock 1942, pl. 29). 41.  For the material evidence, see Nun 1997, 316, without citation. For the evaluation of the cast net cited above, see Brewer and Friedman 1989, 41. Bates’s suggestion for this complete lack of evidence as a result of the artistic difficulty to portray the “the torsion of the body of the fisherman casting his net and indeed the whole character of the action, which could only be expressed satisfactorily by a delineation of foreshortened limbs, of straining muscles, and of flying ropes,” as well as it being “foreign to the ideals” and “beyond the powers . . . of the Egyptian artist” is speculative and overlooks both the abundance of and Egyptian aptitude for composing fishing scenes (1917, 257). 42.  Net needles were typically flat pieces of bone, pointed on one end and pierced in the middle (for examples, see Yadin et al. 1961, pl. 343 nn. 24–25). Nets were typically made of flax and other fibers (Radcliffe 1921, 318), with mesh typically between 1/2 to 3/4 inch, but as fine as 1/8 inch (Petrie 1890, 28). 43.  Bates 1917, 266. Fishers did command a level of respect, however, because their profession depended on divine provision. “When a father (i.e. fisher) casts his net upon the water, his fate is in the hands of God. In truth there is no calling which is not better than it” (Maspero 1872, 65–66). 44.  Note the warning of Dua-Khety: “I’ll speak of the fisherman also, His is the worst of all jobs; He labors on the river, mingling with crocodiles” (AEL 1:189).

18

Chapter 1

1991, 247). Although enormous numbers of fish appear in sacrificial documents dedicated by kings to various members of the pantheon, 45 royal and cultic personnel categorically withheld from eating fish (Radcliffe 1921, 321). Despite this abstention, the former profited from a number of state-run fisheries. 46 Fresh fish intended for immediate consumption were flayed and dressed on the boat and shipped to the market, while the rest were taken back to shore, where various options, including salting and pickling, allowed for their preservation, before they were exported or simply eaten later (Radcliffe 1921, 335). Ancient Israel benefited substantially from this particular Egyptian export (see pp. 30–31 below). 47 Within the funerary cult, fish symbolized the transformation from death to new  48 life. For example, stock scenes from the NK of fishers catching tilapia limn an explicit theological message of rebirth (Brewer and Friedman 1989, 30). Apotropaic pendants affirm their purifying and protective power (Handoussa 1988, 108; cf. CoT 4, 35m–n; Petrie 1972, pl. 43 n. 255c). The tilapia and Nile catfish are two of the defenders of the solar deity on his daily trip through the cosmos and together serve as a guarantor of resurrection for the dead, protecting them from noxious obstacles in the netherworld. 49 Only by procuring right standing before Osiris, the god of the underworld, would the dead, who took on the form of a fish post-mortem, be able to ward off fishers and their dangerous nets. 50 A veritable relationship between fish and cult in ancient Egypt extends this animal’s positive connotations even further. During the Late Period (664–332 b.c.e.), the Nile perch (Lates) exhibited its own cult in the aptly named Latopolis (Esna), of which its patron deity, the hunting goddess Neith, transformed into this creature in order to penetrate the primeval waters (Nun). 51 Thousands of mummified Lates show up as cultic offerings during this time, particularly at Latopolis where the Nile perch was sacred (Gamer-Wallert 1970, 88–90, 86–119; Sahrhage 1998, 144). One such inscription on a mummified Lates found within a bronze tomb reads: “May Neith give life” (Sahrhage 45.  According to the Great Harris Papyrus, Rameses III offered 15,500 dressed and 15,500 cut up fish, 2,200 white fish, and 441,000 other fish over the course of his 32-year reign—not to the priests, but for the populace as part of a 27-day coronation festival (Breasted 1906, §§237, 243). 46.  Bates 1917, 208–9. It does not appear that sacred lakes, which as adjuncts to the temple functioned as a venue to reenact creation scenes dramatically (e.g., the creator deity’s emergence from the Nun), had any role in the fishing industry. 47.  For the transportation of fish from Nile to Palestine, see Reese, Mienis, and Woodward 1988, 79–84. 48.  Drawings on the interior of NK faience bowls depicting tilapia with a lotus bud protruding from its mouth demonstrate this symbolism (Gamer-Wallert 1970, 53–54, 124–26). 49.  Handoussa 1988, 109; Botterweck 1977, 133. The former species was eventually viewed as a form of Horus, slaying the solar deity’s foes (Gamer-Wallert 1970, 111; Handoussa 1988, 109). 50.  For example, the embalmer deity, Anubis, is seen approaching the deceased, who has transformed into a (mummified) fish: “Anubis, the imy-wt, says: I come and am your guardian of Eternity, oh Ꜣbḏw-Fish of true lapis-lazuli” (Gamer-Wallert 1970, 131–32). 51.  Gamer-Wallert 1970, 88–90. The Nile Pike (Oxyrhynchus) later, in the Greco-Roman period, inherited its own temple (Botterweck 1977, l33).

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

19

1998, 144). Yet very rarely do fish appear among the offerings to the deceased, 52 due to theological scruples rooted in the tenet that Osiris found such offerings unacceptable, for it was fish that consumed his penis in death. 53 Consequently, the high frequency of fishing scenes in Egyptian burials does not reflect an ethereal, afterlife expectation, but rather a reminiscence of life. The phenomenon of fish as funerary offerings thus remains a point of scholarly contention. 54 1.5.2. Mesopotamia 55 Though Egyptian evidence contributes a great deal to contemporary understanding of fishing techniques in the ancient Near East, each culture demonstrates its own idiosyncrasies and distinctive modifications based on a number of factors (for example, social, religious, economic, topographical, agronomical). 56 With its two major rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, that drain into the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia exhibited a variety of available fishing venues. Though not all excavations have used proper techniques for preserving fish bones (for example, wet-sieving with fine mesh), those that have boast of a wealth of remains (Potts 2012, 221–22). Numbers are not necessarily a reliable litmus test for fish consumption, as seen by the meager tallies at sites that did not use wet-sieving, such as Nippur, Lagaš (Tell alHiba), and the extensive, multi-period site at Uruk. 57 Though spatially farther afield, the small excavation (six squares, 2 × 2 m) at the prehistoric site of Al Markh on Bahrain, where wet-sieving was conducted, offers a glimpse into the contribution of fishing in ancient Mesopotamia, yielding over 100,000 fish bones. 58 While the lengthy duration between receipts makes it difficult to assess just how much fish passed through the market, pre-Sargonic literary records from the reign of Lugalanda (24th century b.c.e.) report 52.  For the phenomenon of fish mummies in the Late Period, see Brier and Bennett 1979, 128–33. 53.  Radcliffe 1921, 325. Ironically, Osiris also bore the symbol of a fish (Hery and Enel 1993, fig. 212). 54.  Scholars largely agree that Egyptians did not offer fish as an offering to the dead (contra Handoussa [1988, 105, 109], who adduces OK evidence in favor of such activity, even while admitting the scarcity of evidence). 55.  In addition to the bibliography cited in nn. 10–14 above (p. 3), see Ebeling 1971a– c, 66–70. For a brief survey of ichthyological images in Sumerian literature, see Heimpel 1968, 457–63. 56. One such idiosyncrasy concerns the so-called “fish-man” (Akk. kulullû), offspring of Enki, and a fish-robed apkallu “sage, expert,” which first appear during the Kassite period before burgeoning in the NA period (for the kulullû, see Green 1994, 246–64; 1986, 25–30; Wiggerman 1994, 222–46; for Greek evidence of Mischwesen, see Aston 2011; for the apkallu, see Ataç 2010). 57.  Nippur: In the 12th season at Nippur, only six bone fragments emerged (Boessneck 1978, 162). Lagaš: A mere 57 fragments emerged from Tell al-Hiba (Lagaš), each of which “could have been obtained in the region” (Mudar 1982, 29). Uruk: After more than 30 seasons of excavation, only 85 fish bones emerged from the extensive multi-period site of Uruk in southern Iraq (Boessneck, von den Driesch, and Steger 1984, 184). 58.  Roaf 1976, 149–50; cf. von den Driesch and Manhart 2000, 50–67. This section employs a broad definition of Mesopotamia in order to present both the breadth and diversity of available data.

20

Chapter 1

huge export numbers: 8,720 dried and 4,830 fresh fish in his second year (as well as 600 turtles!) and 9,600 carp in his fifth year (Lambert 1971, 69). Nevertheless, very few fish bones emerged from the excavation at pre-pottery (PPNA) Göbekli Tepe in southeast Turkey, despite the use of wet-sieving, implying fish constituted a minimal role in the diet there. 59 What results is a distorted picture of the “real distribution of species and the intensity of their exploitation” (Potts 2012, 222). What we know is that Mesopotamians ate lots of fish; about this there is no disagreement. What we do not know is how diverse was the taxonomy and just how much they ate (Potts 2012, 222). An exception to the former comes from the authoritative study of Englund on the Ur III period, which attests approximately 48 different species of fish (1990, 214–15, 220–21). In terms of fishing methods, Mesopotamian evidence largely mirrors that from Egypt. An ED (3100–2686 b.c.e.) cylinder seal in Berlin shows the use of a fishing spear in which one man pilots (rows) the boat while another hunts. 60 In fact, a number of cylinder seals from the ED period up through the NA period depict a three-pronged spear as a divine symbol. 61 From his own royal inscriptions, Tiglath-Pileser I claims to have slain a nāḫira “snorter” (and elsewhere, anšek u r- r a š a a - a b - b a “horse of the sea”) with a pariangu “harpoon”—a rare, and likely foreign, term that appears only in MA—at the command of Ninurta and Nergal (RIMA 1/2 A.0.87.4:44). It is not surprising that lines have yet to appear, given their composition of perishable material. The same does not hold for the hook. Contrary to Salonen’s negative assessment, 62 evidence for fishing with hooks appears throughout Mesopotamian history and all across its landscape. 63 These hooks, most of which are barbed, range in size (Tallon 1987, 2:196, nos. 361–70). Archaeological evidence suggests a wholesale upgrade to copper composition took place during the 5th–4th millennia in accord with developing metallurgy (Potts 2012, 226). It also evinces a relatively balanced distribution of such copper or bronze hooks throughout the region from the Bronze Age onward, from the marshy lagoons of coastal sites along the Persian Gulf 64 to well-known riverine settlements such as Susa, from north (for example, Tell Asmar 65) to south (for example, Uruk, Tello, Ur, Kish, Jamdat Nasr, and Nippur). 66 Such dissemination suggests an advanced 59.  Peters and Schmidt 2004, 208; Hoffner 1974, 124. The only reference to a fisher in Hittite literature (lúŠU.PEŠ) comes from the mythological text, The Sun God and the Cow, which is actually Hurrian in origin (for translation, see Hoffner 2003, 155–56). 60.  For a photo, see Sahrhage 1999, Abb. 48. 61. See Black and Green 1992, 85. Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq preferred the harpoon in the middle of the 20th century c.e. (Philby 1959, 67). 62.  I discuss this more in ch. 3, below. 63.  For examples of fishhooks, see Sahrhage and Lundbeck 1992, fig. 21. It remains uncertain whether Mesopotamians used a rod, but wall reliefs from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh provide evidence of a line. 64.  For Tell Abraq, see Potts 2000, 63. For Umm an-Nar in the UAE, see Beech 2004, figs. 46–52. For Saar on Bahrain, see Moon 2005, fig. 5.3g–m. 65.  3.4% of animal bones (wild and domestic) came from fish at Tell Asmar between the ED III and Gutian periods (Hilzheimer 1941, 47–48). 66.  Potts 2012, 226; Tallon 1987, 1:154–56 (see the bibliography, as well, for a a broader distribution of hooks found throughout Mesopotamia); for ED and other examples from Uruk, see van Ess and Pedde 1992, 5 and Taf. 1.1–6.

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

21

Figure 7.  Two men line-fishing from goat-skinned rafts (British Museum, Nineveh Gallery 55; photo from Paterson 1915, 25). Public domain (http://digital.library.stonybrook.edu/cdm/ref/ collection/amar/id/116733).

fishing economy that maximized its various indigenous marine resources; depending on where one lived, there was recourse to marsh or open sea fishing (Tello, Ur) and northern riverine fishing on the Diyala (for example, Tell Asmar), as well as an abundance of other major opportunities on the Tigris, Euphrates, and their various tributaries (Jamdat Nasr, Kish, Nippur, Uruk; Potts 2012, 226). While it is unsurprising that only trace remnants of net have survived due to the combination of an organic composition within a humid climate, ancillary evidence demonstrates its abundant presence in Mesopotamia. 67 For example, the plethora of diminutive fish bones (from sardines, herring, anchovies) exhumed along the coast of Oman in the sixth millennium b.c.e. establish the very early implementation of fine-meshed nets. 68 Net weights have been found in Arabia with transverse grooves that entail the attendant use of a net (Charpentier, and Méry 2008, 123–25 and fig. 8.1–8; Charpentier, Olivier, and Tosi 1998, fig. 8). Closer to home geographically, excavation from the mid-third millennium site of Khafajah, near the Diyala River in modern Iraq, has yielded actual fragments of a net, together with dozens of fired clay, doughnut-shaped weights (ca. 7 cm in diameter) and a wooden float together near a temple structure (Delougaz 1940, 54–56, fig. 54). Though the former artifacts remain unpublished, the twisting of the net remains evident from photographs; in fact, one particular weight features residue of the net which tied around it (Delougaz 1940, figs. 53, 55). A few similar ceramic disks appeared at the tiny Chalcolithic settlement of Haçinebi, overlooking the upper Euphrates, in southern Turkey (Keith 1998, 507). Lead sinkers appear in the LB shipwreck off the coast of Uluburun, Turkey (see Pulak 1988, 1–37), while comparable examples made of lead, stone, and fired clay surface near the Black Sea between the 6th century b.c.e. and 4th century c.e. (Højte 2005, 135). Further evidence for the net in Mesopotamia comes from 67.  More than 30 terms for net appear in Mesopotamian records (Salonen 1970, 61–69) 68.  Due to the small fish (anchovies, herrings, sardines) recovered in great numbers (the thousands) at Ra’s al-Hamra 5 near Muscat (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003), it is likely that casting nets were in use by the 6th millennium b.c.e. on the coast of Oman (Charpentier 1996, 182).

22

Chapter 1

Figure 8.  Line-­ fishing near Nineveh (Layard 1853, 231; drawing from Paterson 1915, 49). Public domain.

the Ur III period, where Sumerians used ox tendons as mesh (Englund 2003, §18). And the combination of myriad, diminutive fish bones (ca. 16,000) from diverse extraction contexts and a dearth of hooks (only one!) found at Çatal Höyük, near the Çarsamba River, also presuppose a regular use of net (or basket) fishing there (van Neer, Zohar, and Lernau 2005). As in Egypt, the quick onset of decay—which took place within only hours (Bekker­Nielsen 2005, 88)—led to early innovation of preservation techniques in Mesopotamia: sun-drying (split and dried: ku 6 al- d ar 2- r a ; hung on a rope: k u 6-sa g -k e šd a ; attached to branches: k u 6- s a g - k ú r ), salted (k u 6- m u n - n a ), crushed into meal (Sum. al-gazza-ku6; Akk. nūn-ḫuppê), pickled, and even smoked (Sum. k u 6-su -su ; Akk. nūn-urruru), though fresh fish (k u 6- a - d é ) were in high demand. 69 The development of preservation ultimately led to commercialization, enabling landlocked Turkish sites like Kilise Tepe (40 km from the sea) and Sirkeli Höyük (20 km from the sea) to benefit from the open sea fishing on the Mediterranean (Van Neer, Zohar, and Lernau 2005, 149). An Ur III text from Garšana that mentions three individuals tasked with purchasing seafood in Guabba—a journey of two to three weeks—reinforces the presence of advanced preservation. 70 Though detailed evidence of cooking methods is lacking, Kleinerman and Owen’s recent identification of an Akk. verb “to cook fish” (only the logogram, š e g´ 6) provides a glimpse into a sector of the ancient world with which we still have much to learn (2009, 104). With access to an array of fecund maritime resources and a close affiliation between fishing and cult, the fisher in Mesopotamia maintained an essential socioeconomic position. 71 This close relationship between fishing and temple, however, was not always 69.  For these different techniques, see Sahrhage 1999, 149–51. 70.  Heimpel 2009, 316–17. Similar references exist for shipments from Girsu to other temples throughout Mesopotamia (Bauer 1998, 550). 71.  For evidence see Deimel 1931, 98–100; Schneider 1920, 55–6.

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

23

Figure 9.  Line-fishing from a goat-skinned raft (Layard 1853, 232; drawing from Paterson 1915, 232). Public domain.

the case, for it evolved from an irregular, individual pursuit into a fully developed and highly structured system. 72 An anomalous example of a temple (Nanna-Ningal) from OB Ur leasing away fishing rights to independent fishers, who were then able to retain any surplus fish, stands out from the rest of the evidence that overwhelmingly indicates a high level of state organization (Butz 1978–79, 35). Records from Uruk in the Ur III period already attest the development of a hierarchy within the industry, as seen by various references to foreman roles (for example, g a l - š u k u d “chief fisher”; s a n g a š u k u d “fisher foreman”). 73 And by the NB period, fishing was restricted almost exclusively to state-sanctioned syndicates, each of which reported to a supervisor (Sum. u g u l a; Akk. aklul; or Sum. n u b a n d a; Akk. laputtû). 74 72.  Potts 2012, 229. This is not to suggest the relationship between fish and cult was a late development, however, for evidence of fish offerings in extraordinary amounts shows up already at a temple in Eridu from the Ubaid period (6000–4000 b.c.e., for which see Lloyd and Safar 1947, 94; 1948, 119), as well as at Uruk and Lagaš during the Jemdet Nasr period (for which see Ebeling 1971a, 67). 73.  Englund 1998, 141–42. He suggests gal-suḫur designates a foreman of some sort, while s a n g a s u ḫ u r identifies an “administrator or bookkeeper of the fisheries.” For the equivalence of the two basic Sumerian readings for “fisher,” ŠU.ḪA and its derivative šukux/šukud, see Englund 1990, 230–36. I here transcribe the latter term šukud in accordance with the PSD (cf. Akk. šukuddāku). 74.  For a sampling of the different fishing positions, see Sahrhage 1999, 57–71; Deimel 1931, 67–8; Oppenheim 1948, 29, 121 (Ur III). For evidence of the authority of the crown over the

24

Chapter 1

Due to the diverse water sources, Mesopotamian fishers worked within distinct regions under the auspices of a temple or ruler. 75 For example, the temple of the goddess Bau at Girsu (mod. Tello), in the region of Lagaš, governed a number of fisheries in the ED period. 76 There were fishers of the open sea (š u - k u 6- a - a b - b a) who worked on the Persian Gulf as well as freshwater fishers (š u - k u 6- a - d ù g - g a), who worked inland on rivers and canals (Lambert 1971, 68). More nuanced designations refer to those who governed the marshy lagoons of southern Sumer (š u - k u 6- a - š e š “fisher of the bitter waters”) as well as the enigmatic “water holes” (š u - k u 6-a -d u n-a; Lambert 1971, 68–69). A set of seven fishers, known as the “fishers of the palm grove” (š u - k u 6- z ú - l u m - m a), governed a large territory that included a temple dedicated to Enki. For some, net fishing even became a family business, as seen in the collaborative work of a trio of brothers: Kitušlu, Ur-Nindar and Nesag (DP, nos. 278–79, 534). The evidence thus suggests fishing syndicates eventually represented an exclusive, guild-like community (Ebeling 1971c, 70), where contracts protected their rights and job security against all other claimants. 77 Part of the responsibility of a bureaucrat whose duties included fishing consisted of regular provision of temple offerings, as well as more intermittent festival donations, such as for the Feast of the Malt(-eating) for Ningirsu and the Feast of the Barley(-Eating) for Nanše. 78 The first millennium b.c.e. Chronicle of the Esagila refers to fishers (šukuddāku) under a certain Puzur-Niraḫ of Akšak “[catching] fish (ibārū) for the meal of the great lord Marduk” (Glassner 2005, 266–67). The Adapa myth adduces the protagonist’s assiduous work on behalf of the Eridu cult, providing a daily haul of fish for the temple, as a measure of his own righteousness. 79 Each temple required a fixed allotment of fish, and it was incumbent on the foremen to ensure this number was met (Englund 1990, 91–96). 80 One of the assigned obligations of the ālik ilki (“the one who performs ilku-service” [state-mandated service]) could be to fish for the crown in order to receive some form of reward in return, such as subsistence allowance (ipru) or cultivatable land. 81 While designed for the patron deity, fish offerings provided sustenance for cultic personnel during fishing industry during the NB period, see YOS 6, nos. 122 and 148. For the institution of fishing police during the Roman period, see Hanson 1997, 104. 75.  Potts 2012, 229. For division into fishing districts in the OB period, see VAB 6 no. 60, as well as VS 16, no. 14 rev., NBU, no. 254, and YOS 7, no. 12 in the NB period. 76.  Bauer 1998, 542–51. For fishing in the cult during the NB period, see Kleber 2004, 133–65. 77.  For the OB period, see UP 7, no. 112; for the NB period, see NBU, no. 230). Cf. VAB 6, no. 60 (OB); NBU, no. 254 (NB). Even individuals acquired fishing rights in the NB period—the fishing grounds belonged to them (Ebeling 1971c, 70; see UP 2/1, nos. 111–12). According to BE 10 no. 54), fish ponds (TUL.MEŠ) could be leased to private individuals. For such a contract with a private individual, see UP 2/1, no. 208. 78.  Potts 2012, 229. For fish in the Mesopotamian cult, see Van Buren 1948, 101–21. 79.  Obv. 1:15′:“He pilots the [b]oat, he does [ippuš] the fishing [ŠU.KU6.UD.DA-ku-tam] for Eridu”; rev. 50′-51′: “For my lord’s house, I was catching fish [abār nūnī] in the midst of the sea”). See Izre’el 2001, 9–10, 18–19. 80. Online: http://www.etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/17087.pdf. According to Layard, “This fragment of a bas-relief, although built into the walls of the South-West Edifice, evidently belongs to the North-West Palace” (1849b, 9). 81.  For examples, see Driver and Miles 1956, 115 n. 8.

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

25

Figure 10.  Riverine line-fishing near a Ninevite Castle. (SW Palace, wall f: slab 2b; Layard 1849b, pl. 39B). Public domain.

the ensuing sacrificial meal (Potts 2012, 230). Entire bundles of wholly preserved fish found at Girsu, in what 19th-century French archaeologists called a “Maison des fruits,” may have been stored for just such a purpose. 82 1.5.3. Levant The evidence for fishing in the Levant echoes the situation in Mesopotamia. For example, Neolithic levels in the SH area at Ras Shamra yielded a meager 15 fish vertebrae without the aid of wet-sieving, which could hardly present an accurate representation of the diet at this Mediterranean harbor city (Blot and de Contenson 1992, 207). The fishing methods likewise mirror those used in the east. But with no direct religious affiliation, fishing was not a privileged occupation in the Levant. In the 5th century b.c.e., Herodotus places fishers, along with sailors, in the lowest social bracket (2.164; cf. Hanson 1997, 108–9). Exorbitant taxes (25%) on the total value of all catches at that time led to a diminishing profitability for the fisher (Nun 1997, 315). Whereas the integral connection between fishing and cult in Mesopotamia enhanced the social status of fishers there, in the Levant, where fish offerings made an exiguous contribution, the picture varied significantly. 83 82.  Englund 1998, 130; Cros 1910, 81–3. For further evidence, see Potts 2012, 233. 83. Anomalous evidence for fish offerings in Syria appears at Ras Shamra (see RS 24.250+259), although the divine benefactor of such provisions remains unknown (see Langdon 1989, 193–97, esp. 196). Two fish bones also emerged from a temple structure at Timna, near the Red Sea (Lernau 1988, 241). Deuteronomy 4:16–18 explicitly prohibits the depiction of Yhwh in

26

Chapter 1

These social and religious elements reveal a fundamental distinction relevant to the scope of this study: Israel’s fishing activity during the Iron Age differed from that of other contemporary Levantine states along the coast. Philistia and Phoenicia commandeered most of the Levantine coast during Israel’s monarchic era, cutting off a major track of shoreline and most available harbors (Firmage 1992, 1147). A few early Hebrew poems in the Torah allude to the prospect of Israelites fishing, such as Zebulun’s coastal residence in Gen 49:13 84 and, together with Issachar, the potential for coastal success in Deut 33:19 (“they shall draw [lit., “suck”] from the abundance of the sea”; cf. Judg 5:17). The Tosefta likewise mentions that Naphtali (t. Baba Qamma 8) received from Joshua exclusive authority to “set seines and spread cast nets” around the Sea of Galilee. But these references remain isolated support for any well-developed fishing venture in early Israelite history. As this study demonstrates, only one of the nearly dozen fishing references in the HB envisages Israelites actually fishing. Though Israel was clearly familiar with the activity, it lacked a number of dependable and accessible fishing sources. 85 But things changed starting in the Hellenistic period. Place names reflecting a burgeoning indigenous fishing industry surface in the Galilee area, from the capital of Gaulanitus, Bethsaida (Heb., “house of fishing”; cf. Mark 6:45), to the Greek name for Magdala, Tarichææ “fish(-processing) factory.” 86 The Talmud (b. Pesaḥim 30d) also mentions a certain group of Tiberian fishers known as the ḥārāmê ṭəberyāh “seine men of Tiberias.” As a result, most of what we know about fishing in Israel during the Iron Age unfortunately comes from outside Israel. Along these same lines, the literary description of fish in the HB presents a general, rather than an intimate, familiarity with marine life. The basic term for fish in CH, dāg/ dāgāh, appears 34 times (dāg: 19; dāgāh: 15) times. 87 Nearly a third (10×) of these references appear within the phrase “fish of the sea,” which functions as part of a merism with “birds of the heavens” (for example, Gen 1:26, 28; 9:2; Ps 8:9; Hos 4:3). 88 Another four designate the proper geographical name, šaʿar haddagīm “Fish Gate.” The HB does not delineate between fresh and saltwater fish, using either dāg or dāgāh in all cases outside the form of a fish: “a carved image . . . in the likeness of any fish (dāgāh) that is in the water under the earth.” 84.  The pseudepigraphal work, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, depicts Zebulun catching fish from the Mediterranean for his father, Jacob (5:5) and reeling in an abundant catch blessed by Yhwh (6:6). 85.  The scene shifted in post-exilic Judea, where locals began to take advantage of the only such source: the Sea of Galilee. Recent droughts in Israel have led to significant discoveries, from a complete skiff preserved just north of ancient Migdal (Magdala) to a plethora of stone net-weights and boat anchors varying in shape and size, that shed light onto piscatorial activity around the turn of the millennium (Nun 1997, 317). For more on fishing in the New Testament, see Nun 1989; Hanson 1997, 99–111. 86.  There was a fish market at Magdala/Tarichææ, noted for its industrial centers that processed (e.g., salted; Geogr. 16.2.45) and exported fish and its derivatives, such as garum (“fish sauce”; De Luca 2013, 172). 87.  The latter term, dāgāh, is used collectively outside of Jonah 2:2. 88.  The HB used generic terms to denote a bird, ʿôp and ṣippôr, yet also added dozens of others to identify specific avian species.

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

27

of references to large marine fauna, if not exclusively figurative designations, such as the tannīn, liwyātān, rahab, and perhaps also the taḥaš “dolphin” (I discuss the former two in ch. 4 below). 89 The only distinction made between fish pertains to their correlation with Israelite purity laws in Lev 11:9–12 and Deut 14:9–10. The animal was acceptable to eat if it had fins and scales; all those without fins and scales were prohibited. 90 Though considered clean, there is no mention of fish as an acceptable offering in the HB. 91 Unlike Mesopotamia and Egypt, the Bronze and Iron Age Levantine world has left behind no iconographic representations of fishing. The handful of fish motifs that have emerged from Philistia date primarily to Iron I and reflect customary LB features. These drawings correlate with analogues from Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery, which themselves derive from late Minoan III (or Late Helladic) prototypes (Dothan 1982, 204). Among all the designs on ware from Philistia, those of marine fauna, which reflect the heavy Aegean influence there, remain quite rare (Dothan 1982, 203–4). Examples of Mycenaean IIIC:1 fish designs include a leaping dolphin-like creature on a krater from Stratum XII at Ashdod (Dothan 1982, 203 and fig. 3:9–10; Dothan and Zukerman 2004, fig. 19:4; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005, fig. 3.11:10), as well as a krater from Stratum VII (Dothan, Gitin, and Zukerman 2006, 86 and fig. 3.23:13) and a body sherd from Stratum VII or VI at Tel Miqne (Ekron). 92 Fish designs are preserved on Philistine Bichrome ware, including a strainer-spout jug found in the “Philistine tomb” (Tomb C1) at Tel ʿEton (Dothan 1982, 203 fig. 29; Edelstein, and Aurant 1992, 26 fig. 5), kraters from Stratum VIB at Tel Miqne 93 and Tel el-Farʾah South (Dothan 1982, 203 figs. 12:2, 64:3), a stamp-seal amulet at Tel es-Safi (Keel and Münger 2012, 456–57), 94 as well as several other examples from Azor and Ashkelon (Dothan 1982, 203 figs. 12:1, 89.  Radcliffe (1921, 416–17) tallied 43 species of freshwater fish in Israel at the start of the 20th century c.e., of which 36 were found in the Jordan and its tributaries. Sixteen of those 36 are unique to the Jordan basin, while the others show up elsewhere in the Nile (2), Tigris/Euphrates (7), and Syrian Rivers (10). 90.  Firmage suggests this delineation reflects an intentional avoidance of snake-like fish (e.g., catfish; Akk. kuppu “goby,” which was preceded by both a snake [MUŠ] and fish [KU6] determinative), a practice attested in Mesopotamia (1992, 1147; Salonen 1970, 185–7). But it could also simply have conformed to an Israelite norm, by which the fish, as an aquatic creature, had fins and scales in order to swim (for which, see Douglas 1966, 41–57). For a thorough overview of biblical purity laws with regard to diet, see Houston 2003, 326–36. For an analysis of marine animal elements used by humans in Rabbinic literature, see Neufeld 1973, 309–24. 91.  Different kinds of animals were brought to the temple (cf. Lev 1:2, 14), including those from the “herd” (bāqār), “flock” (ṣōʾn), as well as birds (tōr “turtledove”; yônāh “pigeon”), which together reflect the socioeconomic reality of an agrarian, pastoral society. That fish do not appear in any such list does not imply a deliberate exclusion; it simply affirms the fact that fishing did not play a major role within the Israelite economy. 92.  Dothan, Gitin, and Zukerman 2006, 86 and fig. 35:7 (x-rayed like the one at BethShemesh). 93.  There is also an unstratified example from Ekron (Dothan, Gitin, and Zukerman 2006, 90–91 figs. 3.28:5; 3.36:3). 94.  Keel and Münger date this pendant, which depicts a scorpion on one side and a Tilapia on the other, to the LB II period (ca. 1400–1150 b.c.e.). For a listing of the items with a Tilapia fish between MB IIC and LB II, see Keel and Münger 2012, 456.

28

Chapter 1

64:3), and a recent find from Beth-Shemesh that reflects strong Cypriote features. 95 While fish motifs proliferate during the end of the LB period, reaching a zenith in the early 12th century b.c.e. (Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, 105), these fish designs may serve as “the last echo of the rich imagery of the Late Bronze Age Mycenaean world that finally disappeared at the end of the Iron Age” (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2010, 68). What replaces this robust decor is “plain, imageless—and generally non-decorated— pottery” that dominates the Israelite landscape following the Philistine settlement in Canaan as well as the production of Myceanaean IIIC:1 and Bichrome. 96 Though devoid of early fishing motifs, sparse traces of fishing implements have surfaced from the Levant. Hooks and spears found in the Kebara Cave go all the way back to the late Epipaleolithic or early Neolithic periods (ca. 12,000–7,500 b.c.e.; Nun 1964, 15). Galili and Rosen discovered a five-pronged, iron-striking head of a fish spear among the wreckage of a 7th-century b.c.e. shipwreck off the coast of Dor (Galili and Rosen 2008, 70 and fig. 6). Hooks show up throughout the greater region, in Syria (Habuba Kabira, Hama), 97 southern Turkey (Alalakh; see Woolley 1955, 277, pl. 73, H.1–4), and Israel (Hazor, Gaza, Lachish, Megiddo). 98 Excavation at the coastal site of Eilat (Ezion-­ Geber) has produced an array of fishing gear, such as copper and iron fishhooks and fishing spears, as well as yarn used to make nets. 99 Further evidence for fishing nets in the Levant has emerged from lead weights found in a fishing boat at that same shipwreck off the coast of Dor. 100 And support for the net comes from needles, made of bone, bronze, iron or wood (and today, plastic), used to weave and mend them, the evidence for which derives from coastal settlements (for example, Gaza, Jaffa) and, in the 1st century c.e., sites along the Sea of Galilee (for example, Beth-Yeraḥ, Magdala; Nun 1997, 316). By no means does a dearth of fishing evidence in Iron Age Israel imply a dearth of fish. The HB itself attests an intimate familiarity with seafood, even within an inland 95.  Several unique features of this find distinguish it among the cache of fish designs from Philistia. First, it breaks with tradition by appearing not on the vessel’s exterior, but interior, and shows no sign of complementary motifs (e.g., the common Philistine “spiral”). Second, the fish in view swims to the left, whereas it swims to the right on most other examples. Although rare among Philistine finds, the “x-rayed” depiction of this fish has progenitors from Mycenaean pictorial pottery from the LB period (Bunimovitz and Ledermen 2010, 64–65). 96.  Bunimovitz and Lederman 2010, 68; for ideological explanation (e.g., “canonized” during Iron I in order to vary from other decorated pottery and to reflect Israel’s “egalitarian ethos”), see Faust 2006, 41–48. Several northern Mycenaean influenced kraters have surfaced: one at Akko (Buchholz 1993, 41) and another at LH IIIC Byblos (Salles 1980, n. D4B pl. 12, 1, 3 [photos], 13, 2 [drawings]). 97.  For Habuba Kabira, see Strommenger 1980, 51, Abb. 40; for a bronze hook at Hama, see Ingholt 1940, pl. 7, n. 6. 98.  For Hazor, see Yadin et al. 1961, pl. 343 n. 24*; for Gaza, see Petrie 1934, pl. 34, nos. 518–21, 525; 1952, 15 pl. 16, 194; for Lachish, see Tufnell, Inge, and Harding 1940, pl. 27, nos. 41–3 43; for the single hook found at Megiddo, see Loud 1948, pl. 188 n. 13. 99.  Glueck and Albright 1938, 5, 13. For a photo of the fishhooks, see Nun 1964, 71. 100.  Galili and Rosen 2008, 69 and fig. 5. The same excavation may have uncovered accompanying wood floats (68). Lead sinkers have also surfaced in a Roman shipwreck off the Carmel coast at Caesarea (Galili, Rosen, and Sharvit 2002, 182–201). A fragment of a linen net, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e., also emerged at the Cave of Letters (Nun 1993, 55).

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

29

conurbation at the top of a mountain. The four references to a certain “Fish Gate” (šaʿar haddāgīm) on Jerusalem’s north side (cf. Zeph 1:10; Neh 3:3; 12:39; 2 Chr 33:14) affirm a business that bustled from local fishers from Tyre even on a sacred day (Neh 13:16). In truth, there is evidence for fish preservation in the Levant as far back as the Natufian settlement at Hatoula in the central highlands. 101 By the time of the Roman Empire, preservation methods had advanced enough to transport seafood all the way from Lower Egypt to southwest Turkey (Sagalassos). 102 It is therefore unsurprising to see LB period fish commerce in nearby locales such as Megiddo, Jerusalem, Lachish, Tel Harassim, Tel Jenin, Tell al-Wawayat (including a Nile perch in an Iron I context), and Shiloh, each of which yield fish bones despite their distance from the sea (between 5–50 km). 103 Small numbers of fish bones have also been identified at the landlocked sites of Beersheba (one bone; Hellwing 1984, 110), Izbet Sartah (one bone), and Shiloh (Hellwing 1984, 112, table 18; Hellwing and Adjeman 1986, tables 8.2 and 8.3). The presence of fish bones at Iron II Tel Halif in southwestern Judah is especially noteworthy given its particular material context in destruction layers dated to Sennacherib’s 701 b.c.e. invasion (Arter 1995). 104 Since this international crisis resulted in the formation of an anti-Assyrian league spearheaded by Hezekiah, the fish at Tel Halif imply that commerce continued despite the political chaos (Borowski 1998, 175). But not all fish consumed in Israel originated in the Mediterranean; in fact, many were exports of the Nile, an ironic datum in light of Israel’s frustration in the wilderness about the fish they used to freely (ḥinnām) consume (Num 11:5; see van Neer, Zohar, and Lernau 2005, 148). To this end, text and artifact converge, for the Report of Wenamun records this same phenomenon: Pharaoh Smendes sends 30 baskets of fish to Wenamun in Syria, along with another 5 baskets from queen Tentamun (AEL 2:227–28). Coastal sites like Iron I and II Akko and Ashkelon have revealed both salt and freshwater fish, including extensive Nile perch remains. 105 The yield from the latter site also includes a bone from the family Bagridae, which derives from the Nile, and a spate of the family Sparidae, stemming from Lake Baradawil in northern Sinai (Borowski 1998, 175).

101.  Potts 2012, 231. Abundant remains of Triggerfish from Atlit-Yam likewise suggest an advanced array of fish processing techniques (smoking, salting, sun-drying, and so on) and possibly seafood trade from that submerged Pre-Pottery Neolithic site (Zohar et al. 1994, 231–36). 102.  Arndt et al. 2003, 1095–1105. For literary allusion to fish transported from Egypt to Syria, see the NK tale, the Report of Wenamun, which assumes a setting during the third decade of the reign of Rameses XI (1090–1080 b.c.e.), see AEL 2:227–28; papyrus Moscow 120, p. 2, ll. 41–42. 103.  Potts 2012, 231; Borowski 1998, 174. Among the Iron II yield of fish bones was a truncal vertebra of a large member of the Grouper family (Lernau 1975, 90). Even Assyrians received processed fish from Philistia (duglamaqarte nūni lattu nūni; Elat 1977, table 14 [p. 253]). 104.  Fish remains from the 604 b.c.e. destruction phase at Ashkelon show a striking disappearance of Nile Perch, which suggests the halting of trade with Egypt during the Babylonian besiegement (Lernau 2011, 655). 105.  Borowski 1998, 175. Tel Gerisa and Tel Qasile, both located on the Yarkon River, also have remains of Nile perch. According to Lernau (2011, 655), “Bones of Nile perch have been recovered in almost all significant excavations in Israel. They are often found to be among the most abundant fish in the site.”

30

Chapter 1

A mélange of marine fauna originating from both the Great Sea and the Nile (for example, sea breams, drums, sea basses, shark, rays, gray mullets, and Nile perch) appear to have been imported and consumed by residents of LB IIIB Lachish (Level VI; Ussishkin 2013, 67). A similar diversity of fish remains appears at Beth-Shemesh (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2010, 67 n. 6), west of Galilee at Iron I and II Rosh Zait (Borowski 1998, 174), as well as Jerusalem. Excavations at both the Ophel and City of David have uncovered abundant fish remains. Three families of marine fish and four freshwater fish, of which all but the Nile perch thrive in Israel today, have appeared at the former. 106 Out of 183 fish bones identified among Iron II loci at the City of David site, nearly twothirds originated from marine contexts (namely, the Mediterranean; no fish bones have appeared from the Red Sea), while approximately 5/6 of such Iron I items derive from freshwater sources, most likely the Yarkon or Jordan (or their various tributaries; Lernau and Lernau 1992, table 5; Borowski 1998, 174). The variety of fish found throughout Iron Age Israel and Judah presupposes well-developed regional commercial activity, in general, and amenable trade relations with Egypt, in particular (Borowski 1998, 175). Archaeology thus provides corroboration of the HB’s implicit reference to an inland fish market (a “Fish Gate” in Jerusalem) during the late Iron Age and into the Persian period. According to Mahler, Iron II “represents the greatest period of activity in the Levantine receipt of Nilotic fish specimens.” 107 The fish transported from both the Nile and Mediterranean likely shared a common port of entry into Israel, an extrapolation from the fact that sites in Israel with fish from the Nile and Mediterranean outnumber those indigenous to the Levant. 108 Among the five ichthyological species Egypt imported to the Levant, each possesses a distinctive, exotic feature (the massive size of Nile 106.  Lernau and Lernau 1989, 158. The frequent identification of bones from the Nile catfish, considered non-kosher according to biblical food laws, suggests both that catfish was a popular menu item for residents of Iron II Jerusalem and that kosher diets were not necessarily the norm (Borowski 1998, 174–76). Similar evidence appears in the leftovers from a Favissa at Ramat Raḥel, where the main seafood dish served on a special ceremonial occasion would have been Nile catfish. Based on the abundance of this species in that context, it is possible that “small catfish were brought all the way up to the Judaean mountains and were raised in these pools [at Ramat Raḥel], presumably for the sake of special occasions” (Fulton et al. 2015, 42). A complementary representation from mollusk remains from Jerusalem’s monarchic period, originating either in the Mediterranean or the Red Sea, only reinforces this assertion (p. 177). 107.  Mahler 2013, 25. See this source for a faunal list of the different fish imports. For a somewhat conflicting evaluation, see Altmann (2013, 291), who, in focusing on Lachish, suggests that since fish commerce ran through coastal harbors, trade increased when Israel was under Egyptian hegemony, such as the end of the LB period. According to Lev-Tov, fish bones, most of which were likely Nile perch, found at Tell es-Safi were “more common than any other non-domestic species” (2012, 591). 108.  Mahler 2013, 25. Among the 95 fish bones and teeth excavated at Timna were several species (Sciaenids, Silurids, and possibly Sparids) deriving surprisingly not from the nearby Red Sea but rather from the far off Nile (Lernau 1988, 245). Two-thirds of the minimum number of individual fish at Ashkelon in the late 7th b.c.e. came from the Mediterranean, while nearly 18% originated in the Nile Valley (Lernau 2011, 645). Lernau suggests this may reflect the palate of the Egyptian workers, who, given their tendency to be paid in fish, preferred seafood from home (for this compensation evidence, see Helck 1964, 816).

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

31

perch 109; the uniquely lighter dorsal and darker ventral sides of the Synodontis; the lack of scales on a catfish [Bagrus]; the unique shape of the Moon fish [Citharinidae]; the trunklike snout of the Mormyridae family), which may indicate their status as a “delicacy” and designate the Levantine seafood trade as a particularly upper-class pursuit (Mahler 2013, 26). Altmann concurs, suggesting that fish consumption was reserved for the social elite (Altmann 2013, 291). The preceding evidence leads to several synthetic observations. First, an overall dearth of fishing paraphernalia within Iron Age Israel—that is, relative to (even older) finds in climatically comparable Mesopotamia—suggests fishing was not a popular activity at that time, though this changes significantly around the Sea of Galilee starting in the Hellenistic period. 110 Unlike the fishing societies of Egypt and Assyria, fisheries have yet to appear in Israel from Bronze or Iron Age contexts. The fishing influence on Israel thus originated elsewhere. Second, the ubiquity of fish bones all over the land, from coastal sites to those far inland, and from a diverse panoply of native and foreign species, presents strong evidence not only for a general familiarity with fish and fishing (at least that conducted by others), but a flourishing commercial seafood industry. 111 Despite an apparent cognizance of various ichthyological species, the fact that biblical writers never divulged anything more than a single generic name for fish preserves a latent distance between their largely pastoral world and the marine world, just as it presents an idiosyncratic ideal that did not necessarily comport with reality.

1.6.  Fishing Terminology in the Hebrew Bible The final groundwork required within this introductory chapter concerns the language itself. What follows is a lexical overview of the different terms related to fishing in the HB. Due to the high degree of overlap between the occupations of the hunter, fowler, and fisher, the source of imagery is not always clear. Fowling, hunting, and fishing share a substantial semantic overlap. For example, Eng. “hunt” can apply to all three domains (for example, deer, duck, whale), but it is not appropriate to all sub-species: one does not tend to use “hunt” for opossums or prairie-dogs, for one “traps” or “shoots” them, nor does one “hunt” fish. Whether hunting fauna on the ground, in the air, or below the surface of the water, literary descriptions of such activities often deploy similar terms, with regard to both nominal and verbal forms. The Mishnah conflates these different occupations into one term: ṣyydym (see m. Šeb 7:4; m. Beṣah 3:1–2; cf. b. ʿAbod. Zar. 19a; b. Šabb. 106b). In fact, the Egyptian verb wḥt likewise means either “to catch fish” or “to net fowl” (Bates 1917, 267). It is no surprise, then, that poetry often collocates fish and birds, fishing and 109.  Lernau suggests the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) was at one point indigenous to Israel based on its geographical distribution (Tel Qasila and Tel Gerisa in Philistia; Jerusalem; Akko; Ashkelon), relative abundance, and the skeletal elements recovered, as well the fact that four of these places had easy access to fresh and seawater fish (Lernau 1986/1987, 225–36). 110.  Josephus claims that in his day 230 boats set sail on the Sea of Galilee (J.W. 2.635). 111.  Due to the widespread distribution of Nile perch bones across Bronze and Iron Ages sites throughout the Mediterranean world, Lev-Tov posits “ancient precursors to the trade in preserved fish” (2012, 597).

32

Chapter 1

fowling. For example, the HB juxtaposes fish and birds in order to connote totality by forming a merism that represents creation’s highest high and lowest low (cf. Gen 1:26, 28; 9:2; 1 Kgs 4:33; Ps 8:8; Ezek 38:20; Hos 4:3; Zeph 1:2–3). The same holds for fishing and fowling, as seen in Qoh 9:12’s description of the universal fate of all (see §5.3.3.1.3 below). Due to the shared associations, the source of the image is not always clear. And for this reason, this study typically engages only the overt fishing images, and ambiguous ones on those few occasions (Ezek 12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:1–9) that feature intertextual support for this potential source. This survey thus establishes the limits to current knowledge, explaining what is known and what is unknown. This sets the stage for the following five chapters, which explore the contextualized meaning of the fishing imagery used throughout the HB. 1.6.1. “Fisher” Dayyāg While a handful of HB passages presuppose the activity of a fisher (for example, Amos 4:2; Hab 1:14–17; Ezek 29:1–6; 32:1–9; Job 40:25), the Hebrew term for this occupation shows up only three times (Jer 16:16; Isa 19:8; Ezek 47:10), each in plural form. 112 Though marked as a Kethib-Qere in the MT of Jer 16:16 (K dawwāgīm; Q dayyāgīm), the other two instances of this term (dawwāgīm in Isa 19:8; dayyāgīm in Ezek 47:10) render the orthographic deviation ultimately irrelevant, for both are valid spelling options. 113 While in Isa 19:8 the Egyptian dawwāgīm mourn at the sight of a desiccated Nile, in Ezek 47:10 dayyāgim celebrate the post-apocalyptic fecundity of a Dead Sea teeming with multifarious species of fish. And in Jer 16:16, Yhwh commissions dayyāgīm to capture people (see §2.3 below). 114 1.6.2. Hook 1.6.2.1.  Ḥakkāh In each of its three biblical attestations, ḥakkāh exclusively identifies a fisher’s hook (Isa 19:8; Job 40:25). 115 Whereas Amos employed the verb wəniśśāʾ (“one will lift up”) with an impersonal agent (presumably Assyria), Habakkuk uses the analogous hēʿălāh (“he brought/brings up”) to identify the action of the Babylonian monarch, Nebuchadrezzar. In so doing, this reference likens the Babylonians to tyrants who capture foreigners just as fishers prey on fish, removing them from their natural abode (see chapter 3 for further discussion). Isaiah 19:8 poetically parallels dayyāgīm “fishers” with those who “cast a hook into the Nile” (kol-mašlīkê bayʾôr ḥakkāh; see §6.2 for discussion). Finally, Yhwh rhetorically inquires of Job’s capacity to draw (māšak) the sea monster, Leviathan, out of the water (40:25; see §4.2.1 for discussion of this passage). What is more, the versions 112.  One further example occurs in LXX Job 40:31 (πλοίος ἁλιέων “boats of a fisher”) in an addition from Th. that illustrates the enormous size of Leviathan. 113.  This substantive (dayyāgīm) also shows up in the Thanksgiving Hymns from Qumran (1QHa 13:8). 114.  Note the rhetorical transformation of LXX Jer 16:16 (ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τοὺς ἁλεεῖς “I myself will send fishers [to capture men]”) in Jesus᾽ calling of the apostles (Gk., ἀπόστολος), Peter and Andrew, in Matt 4:19 (ποιήσω ὑμας ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων “I will make you fishers of men”). 115.  Cf. the denominative MH verb ḥikkāh “to fish, angle.”

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

33

Table 1. The Use of Ḥaḥ/Ḥôaḥ in the Hebrew Bible Reference and Context

Parallelism and Imagery

1.  2 Kgs 19:28/Isa 37:29 (wəśamtī ḥaḥī bəʾappekā ūmitgī biśpātêkā “I will place my hook in your nose (and) my bridle in your lips.”

1.  ḥaḥ :: meteg (ambiguous)

2.  Ezek 19:4 (bəšaḥtām nitpāś wayəbiʾūhū baḥaḥīm ʾel-ʾereṣ miṣrāyim “In a net he was seized and they brought him in hooks to the land of Egypt”) 3.  Ezek 19:9 (wayyittənūhū bassūgar baḥaḥīm wayəbīʾūhū ʾel-melek bābel “And they placed him in a neck stock with hooks and brought him to the king of Babylon”

2.  n/a (ambiguous) 3.  n/a (ambiguous)

4.  Ezek 29:4 (wənātattī ḥaḥīm [corrected from MT ḥaḥiyyīm] 4.  n/a (fishing) bilḥāyêkā wəhidbaqtī dəgat-yəʾōrêkā bəqaśqəśōtêkā wəhaʿălītīkā mittôk yəōrêkā “I will place hooks in your jaws and cause the fish of your waterways to cling to your scales; and I will raise you up out of the midst of your waterways”) 5.  Ezek 38:4 (wənātattī ḥaḥīm bilḥāyêkā “I will place hooks in your jaws”)

5.  n/a (ambiguous)

6.  Job 40:26 (hătāśīm ʾagmōn bəʾappô ūbəḥôaḥ tiqqôb leḥəyô “Can you 6.  ʾagmōn :: ḥôaḥ (fishing) place a rope in his nose or can you pierce its jaw with a hook? ”) 7.  2 Chr 33:11 (wayyilkədū ʾet-mənaššeh baḥōḥīm “They captured Manasseh with hooks”)

7.  n/a (ambiguous)

follow suit, uniformly replicating this Hebrew term: the LXX employs the standard word for “fish hook” in Classical Greek, ἄγκιστρον, on each occasion, as does the Vulg. with Lat. hāmus. 1.6.2.2.  ḥôaḥ; ḥaḥ The two substantives ḥôaḥ and ḥaḥ (by-form of ḥôaḥ) together occur 18× in the HB a (ḥô ḥ 11×; ḥaḥ 7×). The base meaning of both terms comes from the botanical realm, signifying a thorn. This is how the majority of references use the term (for example, 2 Kgs 14:9 bis/2 Chr 25:18 bis; Isa 34:13; Hos 9:6; Job 31:40; Prov 26:9; Song 2:2). On all the other occasions, it represents a piercing device. For example, ḥaḥ refers to a brooch dedicated to Yhwh in Exod 35:22. The eight remaining attestations signify a disciplinary instrument used to deport captured enemies. Table 1 above compares the forms, literary contexts, and imagery of these references. Different agents employ a ḥaḥ/ḥôaḥ as a disciplinary instrument. When specified, it only pierces through the face. 116 The nations use a ḥaḥ to lead Jehoahaz (Ezek 19:4) 117 116.  I discuss iconographic evidence for this practice in ch. 3, below. 117.  Held follows the Tg. (šyšln “chains”) here, translating “manacles” but overlooks the piercing element intrinsic to the term elsewhere (1973, 183).

34

Chapter 1

and Zedekiah (Ezek 19:9), 118 there metaphorically represented as young lions, away into exile toward Egypt and Babylon, respectively. The Assyrian king also captures the Judahite king, Manasseh, with a ḥôaḥ (2 Chr 33:11). Elsewhere, Yhwh uses it to hook sea monsters (Pharaoh symbolized as Tannin in Ezek 29:4; Leviathan in Job 40:26) and human leaders alike (Sennacherib in 2 Kgs 19:28/Isa 37:29; Gog in Ezek 38:4). 119 Reference to deportation in Ezek 19:4, 9 and 2 Chr 33:11 presuppose a martial context, while Ezek 29:4 and Job 40:26 describe the punishment against Pharaoh and Leviathan with fishing images. The context does not illuminate the precise imagery in the other three passages (2 Kgs 19:28/Isa 37:29; Ezek 38:4), but it is noteworthy that Ezek 38:4 replicates Ezek 29:4 exactly (wənātattī ḥaḥīm bilḥāyêkā). The flexibility of Hebrew poetry afforded this literary transformation of a simple thistle into a punitive tool to restrain and exile kings and monstrous mythological creatures. 120 1.6.2.3.  Ṣēn (See §3.2.1.2.2.1) 1.6.2.4.  Sīrāh (See §3.2.1.2.2.2) 1.6.3. Net 1.6.3.1.  Rešet “Cast Net” 121 The substantive rešet, a derivation of the verb yāraš (*wrṯ, Akk. erēšu II) “to take possession,” is the most common biblical term for a “net” (22×). 122 It appears most frequently in Psalms for the nations getting caught in the net they hide (Ps 9:16), the wicked catching the poor in a net (Ps 10:9), Yhwh rescuing the psalmist from the net (Ps 25:15), and the psalmist asking Yhwh both to rescue him from the net his enemy hid without cause to catch him (Pss 31:5; 35:7; 57:7; 140:6) and that his enemy would get caught in that same net (Ps 35:8). Two prophets use rešet a total of six times (Ezekiel, 4×; Hosea, 2×) to describe the priests who have been a net spread on Tabor (Hos 5:1), the nations catching the king of Judah in a net (Ezek 19:8), Yhwh’s use of a net to fish Pharaoh (symbolized as a sea monster) out of the Nile (Ezek 32:3) 123 or deport the king 118.  Fohrer (1955, 105) and Zimmerli (1979, 390) suggest ḥāḥ is an interpolation intended to gloss the anomalous loanword sūgar, which precedes the second reference in 19:9 (cf. Akk. šugaru “wooden collar”). The šugaru was a “ladderlike framework that functioned as a restraining device” for captured animals and humans in Mesopotamian martial practice (Gordon 1956, 82). For an iconographic representation of six captives held in these neck-stocks, see Basmachi 1954, 116–17, pls. 1–2, fig. 1. 119.  The LXX provides little help in identifying the term further, as it uses five different terms in the eight references. The term used in Ezek 19:4, 9 (κημός “muzzle”) implies a type of restraining device. 120.  For a literary analogue to this phenomenon, see §3.2.1 below. 121.  Cf. Ug. rṯt (KTU 1.4 2:32) and §2.2.2 below (p. 76). On the contrary, Lohfink (1990, 379) concludes that “it is dubious whether rešet . . . derive[s] from *wrṯ at all,” suggesting instead *rṯy (cf. Akk. rašû). Mommer, however, argues that it is, however, a “primary noun” (2004, 17). 122.  The four appearances outside poetry and prophecy all refer to the bronze grate halfway up the altar of burnt offering (Exod 27:4 bis, 5; 38:5). The term also shows up at Qumran in the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QHa 10:29 with reference to the feet, suggesting hunting or fowling imagery). 123.  Mommer spuriously notes that “fish are never caught with this kind of net” (2004, 17).

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

35

of Judah to Babylon (Ezek 12:13; 17:20), and compare Ephraim to birds who fly to Egypt or Assyria (Hos 7:12). The two references in Proverbs speak of the fatuity of pulling a net shut over a bird while it watches (Prov 1:17) and how the flatterer is actually spreading a net to catch his listener (Prov 29:5). In the remaining isolated occurrences Bildad refers­ to the wicked being caught in a camouflaged net on the ground (Job 18:8) and Zion laments that God captured her in a net (Lam 1:13). The Vulg. translates rešet as rete, 124 an instrument used by both fisher and fowler, on all but one occasion (captus “snare” in Ps 9:16). 125 The LXX reads δίκτυον, which is a generic term for “net” in Classical Greek, everywhere other than the Psalter (cf. BAGD 250). The passages in Psalms use instead either παγίς “trap, snare” (9:16; 24:15; 31:5; 35:7; 57:7; 140:6), θήρα “net, trap” (Ps 35:8), or the verbal equivalent ἐν τῷ ἕλκύσαι αὐτόν “by dragging him off ” (9:30). In all 12 NT references it refers specifically to the net of a fisher (Matt 4:20–21; Mark 1:18–19; Luke 5:2, 4–6; John 21:6, 8, 11 bis). A precise identification of this term eludes the modern interpreter both because it designated different jobs and a number of different Hebrew verbs activate it (see table 2 below). Whether the rešet spread out over an enemy (pāraś; zārah) or lay just out of plain sight (ṭāman) in order to catch a victim by surprise (lākad; yāṣaʾ; šālaḥ; kūn; māšak), the poetic and prophetic corpora use it exclusively as a metaphor (cf. Dalman 1964, 328–43). The vacillation of rešet as a tool to trap animals in the air, on the ground, and in the water reflects a cultural phenomenon commonly invoked in ancient Near Eastern literature. Each profession employed different methods to deploy it to catch different species of prey, but pāraś aptly applied to each description. As the data above illustrate, the imagery they evoke often derives from the hunting or fowling realms, but is sometimes left formally ambiguous. A fundamental weakness arises from adducing the mere quantity of biblical references favoring one source or another in order to generalize a particular economic reality. There is thus not necessarily any real correlation between the occupational use of the rešet and the number of biblical attestations demonstrating a particular use. A more productive tool to discern imagery is the literary context itself. Even when no reference to fauna appears, some of the ambiguity dissipates from literary clues such as reference to a net dug in a pit (šīḥāh in Ps 57:7) or to feet (regel in Lam 1:13; Ps 9:16; 25:15; Prov 29:5; paʿam in Ps 57:7), both of which rule out fishing imagery. The use of ṭāman further implies a ground or tree trap set to ensnare a land animal or bird. These clues notwithstanding, two examples still remain unclear (Ezek 12:13; 17:20). The striking intertextual affinities (for example, grammatical, syntactical, and referential) between these two references in Ezekiel, combined with a recycled replicate in 19:8, and the only unequivocal biblical use of rešet as a fishing metaphor later in that same book (Ezek 32:3), link these four passages together (see table 27, p. 117 below). The strong correspondence (for example, grammar, syntax, referents) within the first three passages (esp. the first two) combined with the ambiguous imagery of rešet in the first two suggest literary recycling. Furthermore, the first three pair rešet with either 124.  Rosén presents compelling evidence in favor of Lat. rete as an old “Kulturwörter” that derives from a Semitic source, such as CH rešet and Ug. rθt (1995, 210–12; cf. de Vaan 2008, 521). 125.  Exod 27:4b and 5, however, omit the term altogether (following the LXX).

36

Chapter 1 Table 2.  The Use of Rešet in the Hebrew Bible

Using a rešet pāraś “spread out”

Reference and Context  1. Ezek 12:13; 17:20  2. Ezek 19:8  3. Ezek 32:3  4. Hos 5:1 (hĕyītem. . .wərešet pərūśāh ʿal-tābôr “And you have been. . .a net spread out upon Tabor”)  5. Hos 7:12 (ʾ eprôś ʿălêhem rištī // kəʿôp haššāmayim ʾôrīdēm “I will spread out my net upon them; I will bring them down like a bird of the sky”)  6. Ps 140:6 (waḥăbālīm pārəśū rešet “And with cords they have spread out a net”)   7.  Prov 29:5 (rešet pôrēś ʿal-pěʾāmāyw “He spreads out a net over his feet”)   8.  Lam 1:13 (pāraś rešet ləraglay “He spread out a net for my feet”)

Parallelism & Imagery  1. məṣūdāh (ambig.)  2. šaḥat (hunting)  3. ḥērem (fishing)  4. paḥ (fowling)  5. n/a (fowling)

 6. paḥ :: mōqəšīm (fowling)   7.  n/a (hunting or fowling)   8.  n/a (hunting or fowling)

ṭāman “hide”

 9. Ps 9:16 (bərešet-zū ṭāmānū nilkədāh raglām  9. šaḥat (hunting or “Their foot has been captured in a net that fowling) they hid”) 10.  Ps 31:5 (tôṣīʾēnī mērešet zū ṭāmənū lī “You 10.  n/a (ambiguous) shall bring me out from a net that they have hidden for me”) 11.  Ps 35:7 (kī-ḥinnām ṭāmənū-lī šaḥat rištām “For 11.  šaḥat (ambiguous) no reason they hid their net for me” [transposing šaḥat and rešet])    **Ps 35:8 (see no. 14 below)

māšak “draw in”

12.  Ps 10:9 (yaḥṭōp ʿānī bəmaśəkô bərištô “He 12.  n/a (hunting) catches the poor when he draws him into his net”)

yāṣāʾ 13.  Ps 25:15 (kī hūʾ-yôṣīʾ mērešet raglāy “For he “bring out” (H) brings out my feet from a net”)    **Ps 31:5 (see no. 10 above)

13.  n/a (hunting or fowling)

lākad “capture” (H)

14.  Ps 35:8 (wərištô ʾăšer-ṭāman tilkədô “Let the net which he hid capture him”)

14.  šôʾāh (hunting or fowling)

kūn “prepare”

15.  Ps 57:7 (rešet hēkīnū lipʿāmay “They established a net for my steps”)

15.  n/a (hunting or fowling)

šālaḥ “send”

16.  Job 18:8 (kī-šullaḥ bərešet bəraglāyw “For he has been cast into a net by his feet.”

16.  śəbākāh (hunting or fowling)

zārah “spread”

17.  Prov 1:17 (kī-ḥinnām məzōrāh hārāšet bəʿênê kol-baʿal kānāp “For no reason is the net spread out in the sight of any bird”)

17.  n/a (fowling)

37

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters Table 3.  The Use of Ḥērem in the Hebrew Bible How to use a ḥērem

Reference and Context

Parallelism and Imagery

šāṭaḥ  1. Ezek 26:5 (mišṭaḥ ḥărāmīm tihyeh  1. baz “spread” bətôk hayyām “She shall be in (fishing) (mištôaḥ the midst of the sea [a place for] “spreading”) the spreading of nets”)  2. Ezek 26:14 (mišṭaḥ ḥărāmīm  2. n/a tihyeh “You shall be [a place for] (fishing) the spreading of nets”)  3. Ezek 47:10 (mēʿên gedī wəʿad-ʿên  3. n/a ʿeglayim mišṭôaḥ laḥărāmīm yīhəyū (fishing) “From Ein-Gedi to Ein-Eglayim they will spread out nets”)

LXX Translation  1. ψυγμὸς σαγηνῶν “drying place for dragnets”  2. ψυγμὸς σαγηνῶν “drying place for dragnets”  3. ψυγμὸς σαγηνῶν “drying place for dragnets”  4. ἀνάξω σε ἐν τῷ ἀγκίστρῳ μου “I will haul you up by my hook.”

ʿālah “raise” (H)

 4. Ezek 32:3 (ūpāraśtī ʿālêkā ʾet-rištī . . . wəheʾĕlūkā bəḥermī “I will spread my net over you . . . and they will raise you in my net.”

 4. rešet (fishing)

ṣūd “hunt”

 5. Mic 7:2 (ʾ īš ʾet-ʿāḥīhū yāṣūdū ḥērem “They hunt one another with a net”)

 5. n/a  5. ἐκθλιβῇ “affliction” (hunting)

gārah “drag”

 6. Hab 1:15 (yəgōrēhū bəḥermô wəyaʾasəpēhū bəmikmartô “He drags it in his net and gathers it in his net”)

 6. mikmeret (fishing)

zābaḥ “sacrifice”

 7. Hab 1:16 (yəzabbēaḥ ləḥermô  7. mikmeret wīqaṭṭēr ləmikmartô “He sacrifices (fishing) to his net and makes an offering to his net”)

 7. θύσει τῇ σαγήνῃ αὐτου “He sacrifices to his dragnet”

rīq “empty”

 8. Hab 1:17 (yārīq ḥermô “He empties his net”)

 8. n/a (fishing)

 8. ἀμφιβαλεῖ τὸ ἀμφίβληστρον αὐτοῦ “He casts his net”

mālaṭ “escape” lākad “capture”

 9. Qoh 7:26 (See table 5, no. 4)

 9. məṣôdīm (ambig.)

 9. θηρεύματα “net”

 6. εἵλκυσεν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀμφιβλήστρῳ “He dragged it with a cast net”

məṣūdāh I “net” (12:13; 17:20) or its by-form məṣōdāh “net” (19:9; see §1.6.3.4 below for these terms), while Ezek 32:3 juxtaposes it with ḥērem “net.” Different agents possess it in Ezekiel. Yhwh spreads it out (pāraś) to capture both the pretentious Pharaoh (32:3) and the sacrilegious king of Judah (12:13; 17:20), 126 the same referent caught by the nations in 19:8 (see §3.2.3 for further discussion of Ezek 12:13; 17:20; and 19:8; §4.2.2 for 32:3). 126.  For a recent, thorough analysis of the sacrilegious king (akin to Ger. Unheilsherrscher) motif in the HB and ANE, see Price 2015.

38

Chapter 1

1.6.3.2.  Ḥērem “Seine” Though ḥērem occurs much less frequently (9×) than rešet overall, it overtly identifies a fishing net more often than any other term in the HB. 127 Each of its attestations are metaphorical and occur in the prophets. 128 In seven out of its nine appearances, the ḥērem functions as a fishing net. The ḥērem in Mic 7:2 is the only exception, 129 although the image in Qoh 7:26 is ambiguous within its figurative context that describes the seductive woman. In four out of the seven clear fishing references (for example, Ezek 32:3; Hab 1:15–17), as well as in the lone hunting example (Mic 7:2), this net transmogrifies from a utilitarian instrument into a martial weapon for capturing human beings (Zwickel 1987, 72). Its verbal complements in the HB together identify it as a seine or dragnet. For example, the spreading (šāṭaḥ), 130 dragging (gārah), raising (ʿālah), and emptying (rīq) suggest a potential sequence for its use from beginning to end. 131 Greek σαγήνη (the etymological source for Eng. “seine”) translates ḥērem in four out of the seven fishing references. Deployed from a boat and equipped with floats on top for buoyancy and weights on the bottom to ensure maximum exposure, this reading indicates the Hellenistic understanding of the ḥērem as a seine. 132 The LXX of Ezek 32:3 ἀγκίστρῳ “by a hook” deviates, as do the two readings at Hab 1:15 and 17, which confuse the terms for ḥērem and mikmeret. The Vulg. understands ḥērem to be a seine (Lat. sagena) outside of Hab 1:15–16 (rete “cast net”), demonstrating the same confusion attested in the LXX (cf. Ezek 26:5, 14; 32:3; 47:10; Hab 1:17; Qoh 7:26). 1.6.3.3.  Mikmar; Mikmeret “Seine” The substantives mikmar and mikmeret together occur five times in the HB. Both designate a net, but only the latter, attested also in Egyptian, 133 appears in fishing contexts. 134 127.  For the verb ḥāram “to net,” cf. 11Q19 55:5. The ḥrm denoted the maker of fish nets in Punic (DNWSI 1, 405–06). Though Heintz compares this term (typically classified as ḥērem II) to ḥērem I, the sacrificial dedication (1969, 129–37), the use of the term in parallelism (mikmeret “seine” in Hab 1:15–16; rešet in Ezek 32:3; cf. māṣōd in Qoh 7:26) in exclusively marine (Ezek 26:5, 14; 47:10), and idyllic eschatological, contexts (Ezek 47:10) argues for their distinction. 128.  For a description of ḥērem seines used in Israel during the 20th century c.e., see Nun 1964, 57–59. 129.  The LXX of Mic 7:2 changes the meaning altogether, rendering ḥērem as ἐκθλιβῇ “affliction” (cf. Vulg. ad mortem “to death”). 130.  The two references in Ezek 26 use the phrase to symbolize Tyre’s demise: soon to be captured in nets, never to be rebuilt again. The reference in Ezek 47, however, reverses this idea, employing the phrase to symbolize eschatological prosperity in Jerusalem. For a detailed analysis of these two passages, see §6.2.2 and §6.3.1, respectively. 131.  Dalman likens it, however, to a trawl, which was pulled behind a boat (1964, 361). 132. Cf. Riede 2002, 239. Although used frequently in Classical Greek, σαγήνη is a hapax legomenon in the NT (Matt 13:47), where it is figuratively compared to the kingdom of heaven, highlighting the diverse “catch” from which righteous will be separated from wicked at the eschatological judgment. 133.  mkmrwty in Amenenope 7:6 (Lange 1925, 47). 134.  2Q23 6:1 preserves part of the term [mik]mār.

39

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters Table 4.  The Use of Mikmar/Mikmeret in the Hebrew Bible Using a mikmeret

Reference and Context

Parallelism and Imagery

pāraś 1.  Isa 19:8 (ūpōrəśê mikmōret 1.  hadd“spread out” ʿal-pənê-mayim ʾumlālū ayyāgīm “And those who spread out :: mašlīkê a net upon the waters will bayʾôr mourn”) ḥakkāh (fishing)

LXX Translation 1.  οἱ βάλλοντες σαγήνας καὶ οἱ ἀμφιβολεῖς πενθήσουσιν “And those who cast seines and those who are fishers will mourn”

šākab “lie”

2.  Isa 51:20 (šākəbū bərōʾš kol- 2. n/a ḥūṣôt kətôʾ mikmār “They lie (hunting) at the head of every street like an antelope in a net”)

2.  ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον “as a half-boiled beet.”

ʾāsap “gather”

3.  Hab 1:15

3.  ḥērem (fishing)

3.  σθνήγαγεν αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς σαγήναις αὐτοῦ “He gathered it in his dragnet”

qāṭar 4.  Hab 1:16 “make a sacrifice” (D)

4.  ḥērem (fishing)

4.  θυμιάσει τῷ ἀμφιβλήστρῳ αὐτοῦ “He will burn incense to his cast net”

5.  n/a (ambiguous)

5.  πεσοῦνται ἐν ἀμφιβλήστρῳ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοί “Sinners will fall into his net”

nāpal “fall”

5.  Ps 141:10 (yippəlū bəmakmōrāyw rəšāʾ īm “The wicked will fall into their own [lit., his] nets”)

While the Hebrew (nāpal) and Greek verbs (πίπτω) for mikmar in Ps 141:10 both imply a fowling metaphor, the use of Gk. ἀμφίβληστρον, which elsewhere only refers to the net of a fisher (Hab 1:15–17; Qoh 9:12; cf. Matt 4:18), and Lat. rete muddles the imagery. In the three clear fishing references mikmeret either parallels the dragnet (ḥērem in Hab 1:15–16) or, along with pāraś, metonymically represents the fisher itself (Isa 19:8). Though LXX Hab 1:15–17 also confuses the meanings of mikmeret and ḥērem, translating both as σαγήνη “seine” (mikmeret in 1:15; ḥērem in 1:16) and ἀμφίβληστρον “cast net” (mikmeret in 1:16; ḥērem in 1:15, 17), the Akk. verb kamāru “to pile up” suggests the idea of accumulating prey via either a net or snare, thereby complementing the use of mikmeret in Hab 1:15–16. The apparent overlapping characteristics and a relative dearth of textual examples preclude a precise delineation between the two terms, but the use of σαγήνη “dragnet” for mikmeret in Isa 19:8, the emphasis on a large-scale yield in Hab 1:14–17, the cognate evidence from Akkadian, and the Vulg.’s exclusive translation of rete together support its function as a seine. 135 135.  Dalman (1964, 361) argues the mikmeret resembled the more common rešet. In any event, fishers still use both cast nets and dragnets in fishing the Sea of Galilee (Hoffmeier 1997, 936–37).

40

Chapter 1 Table 5.  The Use of Māṣôd/Məṣūdāh in the Hebrew Bible

How to Use a Māṣôd

References

Parallelism and Imagery

tāpaś “seize (N)”

1.  Ezek 12:13 (wənitpaś bimṣūdātī “and he will be seized in my net”) 2.  Ezek 17:20 (wənitpaś bimṣūdātī “and he will be seized in my net”)

1.  rešet (ambiguous)

nāqap II “surround”

3.  Job 19:6 (ūməṣūdô ʿālay hiqqīp “And he encircled me with his net”)

3.  n/a (ambiguous)

mālaṭ “escape” lākad “capture”

4.  Qoh 7:26 (ūmôṣeʾ ʾănī mar mimmāwet ʾet-hāʾ īššāh ʾăšer- 4.  ḥērem hīʾ məṣôdīm waḥārāmīm libbāh ʾăsūrīm yādêhā ṭôb lipnê (ambiguous) hāʾĕlōhīm yimmālēṭ mimmenāh wəḥôṭēʾ yillāked bāh “I have discovered: more bitter than death is the woman whose heart is meshes and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is captured by her”)

ʾāḥaz “catch (N)”

5.  Qoh 9:12 (kaddāgīm šenneʾĕḥāzīm bimṣôdāh rāʿāh 5.  paḥ (fishing) wəkaṣṣippŏrīm hāʾăḥūzôt bappāḥ kāhēm yūqāšīm bənê hāʾādām ləʿēt rāʿāh kəšettippôl ʿălêhem pitʾōm “like fish that are caught in an evil net, and like birds seized in a snare, so humanity [lit., sons of man] is ensnared at an evil time, when it falls upon them suddenly”)

2.  rešet (ambiguous)

1.6.3.4.  Məṣūdāh, Məṣôdāh, and Māṣôd “Cast Net” Three substantives derive from ṣwd “to hunt” and denote either a “net” or “snare,” depending on the context. 136 Out of their eight attestations in all, two likely require emendation (Isa 29:7 and Ezek 19:9). 137 The meaning of one further use of məṣūdāh deviates altogether (Ezek 13:21), referring to the prey caught in a net, rather than the net itself. Table 5 analyzes the use of the resulting five examples in context. 138 While the rešet “spreads over” (pāraś) the enemy, as if on the ground or over the water, the məṣūdāh “surrounds” (nāqap)” and “catches” the culprit, who is then “seized” (tāpaś) in its mesh. 139 Out of the five unequivocal MT references, only one plainly iden136. Cf. Schunk 1997, 501–5. He curiously refers to each of the usages in Ezek 12:13; 17:20; Qoh 9:12 as a “hunting net” (p. 502). 137.  The reasons for this are twofold: orthographic (resh-dalet interchange) and overwhelming versional evidence. 1QIsa reads wmṣrtyh (ūməṣurōtāh), a translation preserved in the Vulg. (obsederunt “they blockaded, besieged”) for məṣōdāh in Isa 29:7. The LXX, Syr., and Vulg. unanimously prefer bammaṣṣōret “in a prison” (so BHS, but perhaps rather bamməṣūdōt from məṣūdāh II, which could function as a pun on məṣūdāh in 12:13 and 17:20) over bamməṣōdōt. 138.  Nun compares the məṣūdāh to Arb. ambatan which designates a trammel net that was spread out at night (1964, 61). The trammel is a three-layered net in which the outer two have larger mesh than the middle one, thereby trapping the fish between them. 139.  The phrases tāpaś bəšaḥat (Ezek 19:4, 8) and tāpaś bimṣūdāh (Ezek 12:13; 17:20) find analogues in Sum. a bí-lù ku6 bí-dab “You [Enlil] disturbed the water, you caught the fish” and,

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

41

tifies the source of the imagery: Qoh 9:12 and the “fisher’s net.” 140 The ambiguous images of the remaining four demonstrate the hermeneutical challenges in identifying their semantic values with precision. 141 The remaining six usages produce five different Greek glosses in the LXX: συστροφή “disorderly gathering; band; plot” in Ezek 13:21 (Vulg. future passive participle from praedō “prey; robbed”); ὀχύρωμα “fortress” 142 in Job 19:6 (Vulg. flagellum “whip”); θήρευμα “net, snare” in Qoh 7:26 (Vulg. laqueus venatorum “snare of a hunter”); ἀμφίβληστρον “throw net” in Qoh 9:12 (Vulg. hāmus “hook”); and περιοχή “enclosure, passage” in both Ezek 12:13 and 17:20 (Vulg. sagena “seine”). 143 According to Riede, the məṣūdāh was, like Gk. ἀμφίβληστρον, cast from a standing position (2002, 239). The lack of σαγήνη as a Greek translation of this term further reinforces its distinction from a seine, such as ḥērem. What obtains from the MT and versional analyses is the fact that, like rešet, the nominal derivatives of ṣwd demonstrate a literary plasticity that reflects a tacit cultural reality, in that professionals could use them for hunting, bird trapping, and fishing. Greenberg cogently notices this ambiguity, suggesting the larger biblical context indicates the imagery may derive from the realm of either the hunter or fowler (1983, 214). In dismissing the possibility of fishing imagery, however, he unnecessarily constrains the text. And Allen’s translation of məṣūdāh in Ezek 12:13 as “hunting equipment” is sound, yet one that decisively clarifies an ambiguous text, restricting meaning in order to resolve interpretive tension. 144 Each of the ambiguous uses (Ezek 12:13; 17:20; Job 19:6; Qoh 7:26) could have reified their imagery like Qoh 9:12, but instead preserved it. As with rešet in Ezek 32:3, the very fact that məṣôdāh in Qoh 9:12 does, indeed, occur in an explicitly fishing context precludes the interpreter from simply disregarding this same although less well preserved, the OB Akk. [mê idluḫ]-ma nūnī ibār (var. tabār). . .[šēta] iddīma (var. taddīma) [iṣṣūrā]ti īšuš (var. tāšuš) “He [Enlil] roiled the water and caught fish. . .he spread the net and caught birds” (SB text of Erš. n. 160:30–34, p. 128 for Sumerian; see KAR 375 2:14–16 for the Akkadian [a bilingual inscription] and n. 31 in ch. 2 below [p. 48 n. 23]), as well as Akk. ina šēti baʾāru “to catch in a net” (Gadd 1954, 186 6:46). 140.  The Vulg. reifies the imagery of Qoh 7:26, however, with laqueus venatorum “snare of a hunter.” 141.  Qoh 7:26 uses māṣôd and ḥērem to figuratively describe the allure of a seductive female (the married woman in Sir 26:22), which Sir. warns against in 9:3. 142.  This alteration implies the LXX translator here read məṣūdāh II “mountain fortress.” 143.  The accompanying pronouns, however, do shift from first person to third person (“my enclosure” to “its enclosure”). 144.  Allen further elaborates that the net wielded is not a “giant butterfly net” but rather “part of an ambush toward which the frightened victim would be driven to be entangled by netting spread on the ground or to fall into a pit dug under it” (1994, 182–83). Greenberg (1983a, 214) and Block (1997, 376) follow suit, despite the fact that the passage does not provide any specific clues to distinguish the source of imagery. Block himself admits the rešet was used to capture all kinds of animals but then curiously moves to suggest, “the net would often be spread (prś) over a pit, into which the creatures would be lured,” citing three biblical passages (Isa 42:22; Jer 18:22; 48:43–44) in which neither rešet nor prś (nor any other terms for net, for that matter) occur (1997, 376). He does, however, rightly point out that in several places the rešet was spread out (prś) on the ground, such as in Lam 1:13 and Prov 29:5.

42

Chapter 1

potential in abstruse passages (see §3.2.3.2.2 below for further discussion of Ezek 12:13 and 17:20; §5.3 for Qoh 9:12). 1.6.3.5.  Šaḥat “Net” A relationship between šaḥat, a common term for “pit” in the HB, and fishing terminology obtains only if, as argued persuasively by Held, the references in Ezek 19:4, 8 actually derive from šaḥat II. According to Held, šaḥat is a homonym of šaḥat that means “net,” following Akk. šētu “net.” 145 The Tg. favors this poetic reading, as does the parallelism it shares with rešet in 19:8, which in turn mirrors the parallelism attested for rešet :: məṣūdāh (cf. Ezek 12:13; 17:20), rešet :: ḥērem (cf. Ezek 32:3), and even rešet :: śəbākāh (cf. Job 18:8). 146 Further support for šaḥat II “net” comes from the intertextuality between Ezek 19, 12:13–14, and 17:16–21, as well as the use of ḥaḥ as a disciplinary instrument. Since a literal reading defies the meaning of Ezek 19’s heavy metaphorical language (for example, lions are desolating cities and raping women in 19:7–8), it is wise to hold loosely to any particular view in light of the passage’s multivalent metaphors. As the above analyses clearly indicate, the paraphernalia of the hunter, fowler, and fisher were often interchangeable, employed to communicate a more metaphorical meaning (for example, tragedy, inescapability, divine retribution, or even eschatological hope). 1.6.4. Spear 1.6.4.1.  Ṣilṣal (See §4.2.1) 1.6.4.2.  Śukkāh (See §4.2.1) 1.6.5. Fishing 1.6.5.1.  Dāyag The HB attests only one verb for fishing. It is a hapax legomenon from dāyag that occurs in Jer 16:16, dīgūm “they fished them” (LXX ἁλιεύσουσιν). 147 Lundbom speculates that it refers to net fishing, but the text remains silent on the manner of the action (1999, 769). Though the form dīgūm is ambiguous—an unsurprising reality in light of the orthographic vacillation among II-y and II-w verbs—the meaning is intelligible. Accor145. Contra Lang (1981, 97–98). Though most lexica do not mention this distinction, medieval interpreters, like Ibn Ezra, Ibn Janāḥ, and Qimḥi, noticed it centuries ago (cf. Held 1973, 181). 146. See Held 1973, 173–190 for further analysis (cf. Ps 107:20 and Lam 4:20 for two potential examples). While he makes a strong case for šaḥat II “net,” his jump to follow the Tg.’s reading of ḥaḥīm (šyšln “chains”), despite the relative support for and clarity of this term here and elsewhere in the HB, appears contrived, warranting suspicion. The differences between the Tg. (bəšilšəlān “in chains”) and the LXX and Syr. (ἐν κημῷ “in a halter”; bablāmā “in a halter”) do not provide strong evidence for emending the MT here. 147.  Geiger has proposed emending dgym in 1QIsaa 15:11 (corrected from dgyn) to dayyāgīm, thereby conforming to that which is found in Isa 19:8 (2010, 453). Kutscher suggested that dgym replaced dygym, but neither “fish” nor “fisher” make sense in the context (1974, 38). According to Geiger, dgym is an active participle from dyg (or dwg), thus dāgīm (2010, 454). In light of the orthographic resemblance between yod and waw at this time (ca. 125 b.c.e.), he further opines a scribal error where dygym was read as dwgym, and the medial waw then interpreted as a mater lectionis for an /a/ vowel.

Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

43

Table 6.  Overview of Fishing Terminology in the Hebrew Bible 1. Cast Net

a. rešet (Ezek 12:13; 17:20; 19:8; 32:3) b. məṣū/ôdāh (Ezek 12:13; 17:20; Qoh 9:12) [or trammel net]

2. Seine

a. ḥērem (Ezek 26:5, 14; 32:3; 47:10; Hab 1:15–17) b. mikmeret (Is 19:8; Hab 1:15–16)

3. Net (ambig.)

a. šaḥat II (Ezek 19:4, 9)

4. Hook

a. ḥakkāh (Is 19:8; Hab 1:15; Job 40:25) b. ḥôaḥ (Ezek 19:4, 9; 29:4; 38:4; Job 40:26) c. ṣēn (Amos 4:2) d. sīrāh (Amos 4:2)

5. Harpoon

a. ṣilṣal (Job 40:31) b. śukkāh (Job 40:31)

6. Drying Place for Net a. mišṭôaḥ (Ezek 26:5, 14; 47:10)

dance, Holladay, and HALOT (1:219) all list it as an unconventional G stem, but one might rather expect dāgūm if that were the case. BDB (345) rather prefers an H stem, though this would demand the consonantal addition of a causative prefix. As noted by GKC (§73b), a preferable solution is to simply revocalize this anomalous form as a denominative D stem, which only requires gemination of the medial /y/ (thus diyyəgū; so Rudolph 1968, 110; Zorell 1984, 168; McKane 1986, 379). 1.6.5.2.  Dūgāh “Fishing” (See §3.2.1) 1.6.5.3.  Mišṭôaḥ “Drying Place for Net” (See §§6.2.2; 6.3)

C

h a p t e r

2

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

2.1. Introduction The significance of many metaphors for the divine are readily apparent. For example, pastoral imagery of the shepherd who guides his people, or martial imagery of the warrior who fights for his people, communicates without difficulty. The significance of a divine fisher, however, is not immediately transparent. If human descriptions of the divine world necessarily derive from the time and space of realia in order to communicate a sense of shared meaning, what then does the divine pantheon have to do with fishing? Out of all the potential conceptual relationships, why that of a fisher? This chapter will demonstrate that the central focus of this fishing image for the divine is retribution, portrayed as a fisher catching a fish. What follows employs a two-fold approach to answer these questions. The first half surveys the various strands of ANE evidence that connect the divine realm with the fishing industry. The second half then builds on this by zeroing in on a specific passage from the HB (Jer 16:16) that portrays Yhwh as an overseer of fishers.

2.2.  Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East 2.2.1. Mesopotamia The broad spectrum of terms for “fisher” in Sumerian and Akkadian is dotted with designations that stress, each in their own way, political, occupational, gender, geographical, and other realities. Thus, the šukuddāku was employed by the state to provide fish for the temple. Others were generic terms (ŠU.PEŠ = bāʾiru; ŠU.ḪA) that could be modified to indicate a particular sphere of authority (bāʾir tâmti “sea fisher”; ŠU.ḪA apparim “marsh fisher”) or to distinguish gender (bāʾirtu “fisherwoman”). As is characteristic of all theological language, the divine realm is described with words and images appropriated from social, political, and cultic milieus. Both terms, such as titles, and phrases illustrate these representations. For example, though Enlil nowhere receives a fisher title, the language employed to describe his behavior casts him in just this manner, suspending lines and catching fish. 1 1.  “Father Enlil will cast (b í-í b-sè-sè-ga; taddīma) a net (sa; šētu): that net (sa; šētu) is a net (s a; šētu) for the enemy. The Lord of the Land will suspend (in-dé-dé-e) a line (gù): that

44

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

45

Nowhere is the connection between the fishing industry and divine realm stronger than with the goddess Nanše who was fundamentally integrated within the cult. As daughter of Enki, the lord of the Apsu, the sweet-water depths, Nanše held authority over the fishing industry, especially the government fisheries which supplied the pantheon with regular offerings. 2 Born on the shore of the sea (peš [= KI.A]- a - a b - b a - k a tu-da-a), she held a prominent position over even its most powerful manifestations, the flood and tempest (see Sumerian Temple Hymn #22 in Sjöberg and Bergmann 1969, 33). In EWO (lines 299–308), Nanše’s father, the god of creativity, appointed her as head over the sea, its inundations, and sexual fertility. 3 Her direct association with fish and fishers appears in the obscure Sumerian monologue, The Home of the Fish. In this text, a certain fisher beckons his “beloved sons” (fish) to take up residence in his “house” (net; Civil 1961, 154–75; Thomsen 1975, 197–200). It concludes with the fisher’s final summons to the fish to enter the extravagantly supplied house, for on doing so Nanše, “the queen of the fishers (l ú š u - p e š - d a), will rejoice with you.” Though Nanše alone had direct ties to the fishing industry, two other deities bear the epithet “fisher.” The Sumerian King List (lines 14–15) refers to a certain “divine Dumuzi, the fisher (šu-k u 6), whose city was Kuʾara” in Eanna (Glassner 2005, 120–21; Jacobsen 1939, 88 3:14; Langdon 1923, 12). This Dumuzi, whom tradition identified as the father of Gilgamesh and the ill-fated shepherd lover of Inanna/Ištar, is elsewhere said to be one who wields a net, underscoring the the appropriateness of the epithet for him: “Dumuzi is safe, the beloved of Ištar . . . loosen, loosen your sandals [O Dumuzi] . . . [and] loosen your nets (puṭur pasumātīka).” 4 A similar reference appears in a hymn to a certain Papulegarra: “O Papulegarra, the fisher (bāʾiru), rejoice and exult!” 5 The god-list An: Anum further lists a group of five ŠU.ḪA (“fisher”) deities. 6

line (g ù) is a line (gù) for the enemy. The Great Mountain Enlil will stir up (tadlaḫ) the water: he will catch (i n - dab 5-da b 5-bé; tabâr) fish. The Lord of the Land will lay down a net (sa; šēti): and he will catch birds” (SBH p. 130:16–23 = CLAM p. 154:11 [AME AMAŠANA: “The Bull in His Fold”] V.A.Th. 246 20, p. 8; Black 1996, 27). The Akkadian translation of the Sumerian exhibits numerous errors, including second-person, preterite verbs, and a misconstrued second line. 2.  For Nanše and her diverse associations, see Maxwell-Hyslop 1992, 79–92; Heimpel 2001, 152–60; 1981, 65–139; Holzinger 2001, 160–62. For her iconography, see Feldt 2005, 116–26. 3.  A certain Lama, unrelated to Lamma/Lamassu, oversees and inspects the fisheries of Guedenna, yet the only information about this deity stems from one passage in Gudea Cylinder B (RIME 3/1 95 12:1–6, p. 95; cf. Foxvog, Heimpel, and Kilmer 1983, 450), precluding any further analysis on this deity’s cultic role. 4.  Black 1983, 31:22. For Gilgamesh’s lineage, see Glassner 2005, 120–21. 5.  For text see JRAS Cent. Supp. pl. 9 r. 6 31; for bibliography see Streck and Wasserman 2008, 335–356; Rahmouni 2007, 151; Foster 2005, 93–4. Bāʾeru is translated as “fisherman” by Rahmouni, but as “hunter” by others (Foster, Streck-Wasserman). 6.  Litke 1998, 2:402–12, p. 113. Although 10 entries are given (pp. 402–11), the final one (412) clarifies in a summarizing manner that only five deities are in view (viz., pp. 402, 404, 406, 408, and 410) and that each belong to a šu-ḫa-ke4 (“fisher”). The names of the five deities are as follows: [d]Nin.gi.LAL; [d](a.da.ak.be.er)ŠU + ÁŠ; dLarsa (UD.UNU.KI).pà.da; dUr5(ur.sa).sa6; dḪI. en.ḪI.sa6 (for a slightly variant order, see YBC 2401 4:26–35).

46

Chapter 2

Another among the few explicit references linking Mesopotamian deities and fishing concerns the moon god, Sin. 7 In two different texts, a myth (CT 15, 5–6) and an incantation from Sippar (IM 95317), Sin appears as a marsh fisher (bāʾeru) who enjoys catching fish. 8 As Wasserman cogently notes, both revolve around Sin’s relationship to Ningal. 9 The background of the former pertains to his raping of Ningal (cf. 2 Sam 11:1–5), whose steward, Nanše, goddess of fishing, aids Sin’s fishing expedition in the latter (lines 24–26). Fish elsewhere function as a metaphor for Sin’s fertility powers, but as a lunar deity, his depiction as a fisher is uncommon (cf. Hall 1985, 409, 31). On rare occasions the Apsu even designates his abode. 10 The conceptual relationship between Sin’s symbol, the crescent moon, and a supernal boat, provides one further thematic link between this deity and the fishing trade (Hall 1985, 414; Wasserman 1995, 61). Though bāʾerūtum can mean both “hunting” and “fishing,” Römer’s suggestion that CT 15, 5–6 has the former in mind due to Sin’s customary bovine representation overlooks the geographical context (marsh) of the text (1966, 143–44). The overt fishing imagery in the more recently discovered IM 95317 further suggests otherwise. The preceding discussion attests to a veritable connection between divinity and fishing in Mesopotamian thought, but why? In what way and for what reason is the divine world imbued with fishing connotations? The fishing role of Nanše is explicable on the basis of a supernal realm that reflects the same social stratification manifested on earth. Rationale for the fisher epithets and exploits of Sin (despite the loose conceptual links), however, requires “casting a wider net.” Expanding the purview of metaphors consequently yields a striking result: fishing imagery pervades the Mesopotamian pantheon, but in a slightly different, less direct, way than the manner described above. An array of deities, regardless of their particular domain or role, wields their own cosmic fishing net. For instance, the warrior deity, Ninurta, employed several different varieties of net (s a - š u š - k a l/šuškallu in Lu g a l -e; a l -k a d 4/ḫ ú b =alluḫappu in Angim) 7.  In a musical litany, Nabu is said to trample on a kušû (Lambert 1971, 335–53). Though this uncertain term has been variously translated, most scholars agree it refers to a marine creature, as evidenced by the initial KU6 sign, the determinative for fish. Lambert understands it to be a “shark,” while CAD (K 171, s.v. kušû) reads it as a “crab,” and Loktionov argues persuasively in favor of “crocodile” (2014, 164–67). 8.  The latter reads: “O strong reed (qanûm) of Sin, cane of Magan, let him go down to the heart of the Apsu so the fisher (bāʾirum) may catch (ibâr) a fish (nūnam)” (lines 16, 18–19). For this text, see Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 1994, 82–85. The former reads: “Sin loves reeds (api) and canals (udāti); in the river his foot is true. Falcons, axes, and bait he creates before him (to catch game) for the fishing trip (bāʾerūtim; or “hunting trip”). He then sets his mind (lit. “ear”) on Ningal. Sin called to her, drew near to seek her (in marriage), [kiss]ed her, but did not ask her father (to confirm).” For this text, see Römer 1966, 138–47; Grégoire-Groneberg 1974, 65–58. 9.  Wasserman 1995, 61–62. He identifies Ur as the provenance of the text. 10.  E.g., Šulgi H (Hymn to Ninlil): “Abzu, pure dwelling place of the youth, Sin” (Hall 1985, 430); Ur III epithet 190: “[Its (water) courses {a-du-a-bi}] are (filled with) fish; its upper areas (?) with birds” (Hall 1985, 409). Note also that oaths were made at a certain building at Ur known as the é - d u b - l á-maḫ, a locale referred to as the “cast net” (Sum. sa-par; Akk. saparru). A late ritual text reinforces the net as a symbol of penal justice when it refers to the practice of “arranging a net to serve as the dwelling place for the divine judges” (BBR 97 rev. 2; see CAD S 162, .s. v. saparru A usage b1′). Cf. Veenhof 2003, 324; Charpin 2013, 80–81).

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

47

to defeat his enemies. 11 The scribal deity, Nid/saba, possessed an inescapable net (Sum. sa-pàr n u-è-e; Akk. saparru lā āṣê). 12 The arm of Enlil resembled a net (s a - p a r 4-g a l) spread over foreign lands.” 13 His wife, Ninlil, the mother goddess, wielded her own net (gišparru). 14 The sun god, Šamaš, known for his divinatory skill and justice, uses a variety of different types of nets, 15 of which the gišparru is the most common (cf. CDA 388; AHw 293a; CAD G 106b–107a, s.v. gišparru usage a–b). As a net ensnares a transgressor, so Šamaš’s “brilliance spreads over (saḫpu) the earth like a net” (šuš[k]allu; Hymn to Šamaš: BWL 126:5 [restored from BM 36296; cf.; cf. CAD Š/2 142b, s.v. šarūru meaning 1b). This reality undergirds the purpose certain oaths were offered “with a net” (ina saparri). 16 In addition to wielding his own net (sapāru), Marduk’s word figuratively constituted a net (sapāru). 17 The goddess of sex and war, Inanna, herself mirrored a net (sapāru). 18 This additional evidence then raises the further inquiry: why do so many deities—many of whom have no overt relationship to fishing or fish—use fishing paraphernalia? 19 The sum of evidence demonstrates that divine retribution conceptually binds all of these images and descriptions together. 20 For example, in an early OB prophecy, a certain 11. “[Ninurta], warrior whose net (sa-šu-uš-kal-bi; šuškallāšu) spreads over (šú-a; isaḫḫapu) the enemy” (Lugal-e 1:13); “the battle net (sa-šu-uš-gal; šuškallu) which spreads (š ú - š ú ; sāḫip) over the enemy land” (4R 27 4:58–9); “I bear (mu-da-an-gál-àm) the net (saalk a d4) of rebellious lands” (Cooper 1978, line 136, pp. 78–79). 12.  CT 17 34:13 (R. Thompson). A call to use said net appears later in this same Beschwörung: “may the net ([sa]-pàr; saparru) of Nisaba envelop (liksušu; ḫ é-n i-í b-kéš-de5-e-dè) him” (lines 29–39). 13.  Išme-Dagan *12:31: “(Enlil), whose arm is a great net (sa-par4), poured (dub-ba) over the foreign lands” (see Klein 1981, 161). 14.  “They cannot escape (lā ipparaššidū) from [Ninlil’s] net (gišparrīša)” (AAA 20 90:9; assigned to the reign of Aššurbanipal in HKL 528). 15. For šuškallu, see 4R 17 rev. 13: “your net (šuškallāka) [O Šamaš] overwhelms (sāḫip) all lands” (cf. BWL 134:140–41); BM 36926: “your rays (O Šamaš) cover (saḫpū) the earth like a net (šuškallum)” (cf. BWL 126:5). For gišparru, see TNE 6: rev. 39′ “the net (gišpar) of Šamaš.” 16.  Charpin 2013, 66. For a recent discovery of this sort of ina saparri oath, see OECT 15 131:14 (cf. Charpin 2007, 151). Veenhof (2003, 325–26) extrapolates from these data that some oaths to Šamaš were sworn in a room where this deity’s net hung from the ceiling as a visual representation of the severe consequences of perjury. 17.  For Marduk’s net, see SAA 03 002, rev. 3; EE 5:95; cf. EE 4:112; there is a full discussion below in §4.3. For his word as a net, see 4R 26 4:43–44: “[Marduk], your word is a lofty net (sap à r- ma ḫ; saparra), spread (ša-mu-un-lá; tarṣat) over heaven and earth.” This same phrase is applied nearly verbatim to the apotheosized king, Šulgi: “[Šulgi], you are a net (sa-par4), poured (d u b[!]-b a - m e -èn) over heaven and earth” (Šulgi 10 122; Klein 1981, 142). The sapāru and šuškallu were both cast nets. 18.  Ga š a n -m è n sa -pà r-m a ḫ ḫe-pi(e di n-)lí l-lá dúr(!)-ru-n a-mén = bēlēku saparra ṣīri ina ṣēri zāqīqi šurbuṣat anāku “I (Inanna) am the lady, a lofty net, lying in the plain haunted by phantoms” (ASKT, p. 128 rev. 7–8; restoration by Steinkeller 1985, 39–46). 19.  For a comparative study of the five-pronged “trident” (fāle) used in southern Iraq up through the last century and the similar fork of Adad, see Contini and Graziani 2012, 131–47. 20.  An obscure Sum. inscription recording Inanna’s rebellion against An attests an extended dialogue with a divine fisher, Adagbir. This conversation functions as an essential component in her insubordination. For this text, see van Dijk 1998, 9–38.

48

Chapter 2

Itūr-asdu passes along to his king, Zimri-lim, a prophecy he overheard, in which Dagan pledged to cause the neighboring Yaminite leaders to writhe in a fisher’s chest. 21 An even earlier inscription and accompanying relief, the Stele of Vultures (ca. 2450 b.c.e.), graphically portrays Ningirsu’s protection of Eannatum, whom he appointed as king of Lagaš, and retribution against the rebellious citizens of nearby Umma in the visual manner of an all-encompassing net. 22 Elsewhere Enlil, the chief god of the early Mesopotamian pantheon, caught both fish and birds. 23 A general statement in another inscription elucidates the purpose of this net as that which handles wrongdoing: “those who are of the wrong mind, it is god who collects (tābikšunu) them (in) his net (saškalluššu).” 24 It is no surprise, then, that the literature defines the chthonic demonic faction in fishing terms. For example, in DD demon recruiters who search for Dumuzi in order to bring him down to the underworld resemble fishers: “They twist (m u - u n - n a - s u r- r u - n e) a cord (gu) for him and bind (m u - u n - n a - k é š - d[a - n e]) a net (sa) for him.” 25 The fact that these references appear in literature of all types of genre and throughout different historical periods points to an ideology deeply embedded in Mesopotamian thought. 26 The concept of catching fish out of the water therefore developed special theological significance in Mesopotamian thought. The various representations of divine fisher emphasize their peerless authority over human life. For example, in the Sumerian epic, Lugalbanda and the Anzud Bird, Inanna pledges martial invincibility to the semi-divine figure, Enmerkar, if he just catches (u n - d a b 5), cooks, garnishes, and sacrifices a certain šuḫurmaš GIŠ.ŠEŠ fish, a god of the mythological “goat-fish” (s u h u r-m a š2ku6-a-k e4), to her “battle-strength weapon” (á - a n - k á r á m è). 27 To a certain degree, the fisher is to the fish as the deity is to the human. There is an inherently authoritative, if not puni21.  ARM 26 233:34–9. For a more detailed analysis of this prophetic passage, see n. 32 in ch. 3 below (p. 67 n. 27). 22. See Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin 1909 for the editio princeps. For a fuller discussion of this inscription and relief, see ch. 3 below. 23.  There are several references to Enlil’s angling, the best preserved of which is an SB text of Erš, no. 160; 3e-34, p. 128 (commentary p. 190): You [O Enlil] stirred up (bí-lu) the water, you caught (bí-dab) the fish. You laid down a net (sa), and you caught (bí-dab) the birds” (Black 1996, 28). A broken passage from a similar text, an Eme-sal hymn (balağ) to Enlil (KAR 375 2:9–15; Black 1996, 28 and n. 15) also depicts Enlil catching fish (nūni ibār). Cf. also ch. 1 above (p. 41 n. 140) above. Note how these three excerpts use identical terms (both Sumerian and Akkadian, nominal and verbal) for Enlil’s fishing and fowling exploits. 24.  JRAS Cent. Supp. pl. 8 5:28 (as cited in CAD Š/3 382, s.v. šuškallu usage a). 25. See Alster 1972, 70–71; cf. the analogous example of Osiris’ fishers in CoT 229. One particular demon was known by the name alluḫappu “hunting net.” The malevolent female demon, Lamaštu, known for terrorizing mothers and their infants, had a hand that was compared to an alluḫappu: “[Lamaštu’s] hand is an alluḫappu-net” (4R 58 3 30 Pinches); PBS 1/2 113 3 16 [dupl.] (Lutz); see Myhrman 1902, 180:30 for an edition of this Lamaštu Beschwörung. 26.  One Babylonian cylinder seal from the era of Ur-Nanše depicts a muscular, bearded man carrying a fresh catch of fish (see fig. 11). Although the identification of this figure remains uncertain, Heuzey has suggested Gilgamesh as a potential fit (1904, 57). Another iconographic representation of a putative divine fisher appears on a button seal of unknown provenance (Milani 1902, 19 fig. 133; Eisler 1936, 725 n. 5). 27.  Wilcke 1969, lines 399–408, pp. 127–28; for translation, see Black 1998, 64.

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

49

Figure 11.  A Mesopotamian relief depicting a fisher, perhaps representing Gilgamesh, transporting a pair of recently caught fish (Heuzey 1904, 57). Public domain. Illustration courtesy of Tommy Beyl (September 2014).

tive, element to this manifestation of the divine-human relationship. Just as the human angler, charged with providing fish offerings for the local temple’s patron deity, or simply the responsibility of providing for his or her family, held a position of authority, so does a deity wielding a cosmic net. 28 The vivid imagery, however, is more than a mere cultic or social analogue. It symbolizes a foundational theological reality: humanity was created to labor for, obey, and worship the gods who created it; to do otherwise led to punishment. The very reference to divine fishers therefore presupposes the tacit reality of both a defenseless, dependent created order and a well defined concept of divine retribution. 29 To that end, each member of the Mesopotamian pantheon was equipped to treat human insubordination. 30 Perhaps no better metaphor symbolized, on one hand, the inherent 28.  The Akkadian Weidner Chronicle presents a mytho-historical etiology for both the relationship between fishing and kingship as well as the idea of divine retribution. By stealing a fish that Utu-Hegal, the fisher (šukuddāku), had caught and cooked, yet had not dedicated to a god, the Guti sealed the fate of their dynasty. Marduk rewarded Utu-hegal’s faithfulness by bestowing kingship upon him over Uruk and allowing Sumerians to wrest control from the Gutians and re-establish hegemony over southern Mesopotamia. Utu-hegal eventually spurned Marduk’s favor, leading to his own downfall, drowning in a river. For this text, see Grayson 2000, 150:58–62. An omen in KAR 422 (rev. 15) corroborates the details of Utu-hegal’s death: amūt Utu-ḫegal ša ina sēker nā[ri . . .]. “The omen of Utu-hegal who [died] when damming the ri[ver].” 29.  For a comparative study of fishing as a symbol of divine retribution, see ch. 3 below. 30.  For example, see the oath sworn by the king of Umma and the ensuing consequence for its breach in two historiographical inscriptions from the reign of Enmetena (2418–2391 b.c.e.):

50

Chapter 2

dichotomy between the human and the divine and, on the other hand, the immanent interconnectedness between them. 2.2.2. Ugarit The evidence for divine fishers from the Ugaritic literary corpus centers around one particular figure: Qadiš-wa-Amrar. On three different occasions within the Baal Cycle this emissary and warrior deity bears a “fisher” titular. KTU 1.3 6:9–11 šmšr 31 ldgy ʾaṯrt mg´ lqdš ʾamrr 34

Drive, O fisher 32 of Aṯiratu! 33 Go, O Qadiš-(wa)-Amrar!

“[If anyone from Umma violates the agreement] may the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil, by ´ iša (Umma)!” (RIME 1, 1.9.3.1 17:6–20); “He cast (bí-šuš) which he has sworn, descend upon G the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) upon it at Enlil’s command” (RIME 1, 1.9.5 1:28–29). 31.  Š impv. from mšr “set a vehicle in motion, drive” (apparently with a chariot as an object, per DULAT 593), for which see Akk. mašāru “to drag (across the ground); drive (a vehicle)” (AHw 624; CAD M 359–60, s.v. mašāru meanings 2a–c, 4); contra Olmo Lete 1981, 585: “apresurarse, dispararse”; Sanmartín reads šmm šmšr (“schleifen”), taking šmm as a verbal object (1978, 352–53). 32.  The majority of scholars agree that Ug. dgy means “fisher” (see UBC 2, 76). The translations of DULAT (1:268) “name of a fish-shaped being; triton” and Yamashita “soldier” (1975, 47–8) are thus exceptions. As with Yamashita, Gordon glosses Ug. dgy in light of Akk. bāʾiru “fisherman; soldier,” but prefers the latter meaning here (UT §19.642). DULAT (1:268) reads this as a dual construct “tritons of DN.” A few others read dgy as a dual or plural form: Gibson 1978, 91: “two fishermen of Athirat”; Olmo Lete 1981, 192: “pescador(es) de Aṯiratu.” For the relationship of Ug. dgy to CH dyg, see Eissfeldt 1952, 59. 33.  For this deity, see WUS, 250–52; Lipiński 1972, 101–19. She is elsewhere connected to two major Levantine port cities: Tyre and Sidon (KTU 1.14 4:35–9). In complementary manner, the literature depicts her messenger as a tidal wave (KTU 1.6 5:1–3). Atargatis (Aštarte-Anat), the so-called Syrian goddess (Dea Syria) and later historical manifestation of Aṯiratu, was depicted as a mermaid, whose cult ascribed a prominent role to fish. For more on Atargatis, see Drijvers 1999, 114–16. Watson prefers to read Ug. ym as “day” instead of “sea” (1993, 431–34). See Wiggins 2007, 48–50 and DULAT (1:73, 697) for the relationship between Qadiš-wa-Amrar and Aṯiratu. 34.  Reference to Qdš [-w-]ʾamrr occurs in both mythological (KTU 1.4 4:2–3, 8, 13) and ritual (KTU 1.123:26) texts. Only KTU 4:16–17 bifurcates this composite divine name into two entities. While the etymology of the first name (qdš “holiness”), which also characterizes Aṯiratu herself (cf. KTU 1.14 4:34–5), is clear, the second has so far defied explanation. Aistleitner understands it as a variant form of ʾamurru (WUS n. 289). Gordon conversely derives it from mrr “to bless” (UT §33; cf. §1556 and Arb. marīr, “strong, firm”), which has two advantages: (1) it thematically complements the meaning behind the first name; and (2) it comports with the parallel use of brk “to bless” in KTU 1.15 2:19–20; 1.17 1:35–37. Scholars are divided on whether it refers to one or two persons. The double-barreled name split across poetic lines as parallel terms and the similar reference to Baal’s messenger(s), kṯr-w-ḫss, supports the latter. The reference to g´lmh “her lad” (KTU 1.4 2:29), as well as their typical concatenation within a poetic line, reinforces the former. Cho suggests that a dual usage for this deity in KTU 1.3 6:9–11 would require a medial conjunction in order to make sense of the following singular line (ʾidk ʾal ttn // pnm “Then you [i.e., Qadiš-wa-Amrar] shall set [your] face”). For scholarly defense of the sg. position, see Cho 2007, 222–26 (“binomial name” to “indicate the elevated characteristics of the same entity” [223]);

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

51

KTU 1.4 2:28–33 Great lady Aṯiratu of the sea rejoiced; šmḫ rbt aṯ[rt] ym 35 aloud to her lad [she shouted]: gm lg´lmh k[tṣḥ] ʿn mkṯr 36 ʾapq [thmtm 37] “See the skilled work of the spring [of the Deeps]! 38 dgy rbt ʾaṯr[t ym] O Fisher of great lady Aṯira[tu of the sea!] qḥ rṯt 39 bdk t/q 40[  ] Take a net in your hands Qa[diš] rbt 41 ʿl ydm [  ] (Take) a seine in both hands [Amurr]” 42 KTU 1.4 4:2–4 w tʿn.rbt] ʾaṯr[t. ym. šmʾ. lqdš] w ʾamr[r. l dgy.rbt] ʾaṯrt.ym

[And the great lady] ’Aṯira[tu of the sea answered: “Listen, O Qadiš]-wa-Amra[r, O fisher of the great lady] Aṯiratu of the sea.”

Though the precise connection between Aṯiratu and the sea remains elusive, her maritime role and aquatic domain constitute two of her most fundamental features. Her GMVO 304. For the binary position, see Mullen 1980, 214 n. 172. In light of the complexity of the issue, Meier keenly cautions that, “As in the case of Kothar-wa-Hasis, one must be prepared to find that the duality or singularity of such a god may even vary from work to work” (1988, 127). 35.  For this epithet elsewhere, see KTU 1.3 4:[49]; 5:40–41. While the overwhelming majority of scholars understand rbt ʾaṯrt ym as a divine title, Watson and Wyatt rather suggest the name reflects a verb that functions as a word-play: “she who organizes the day” (1993, 432–33); “the great lady-who-tramples-Yam” (2002, 95). There is no evidence, however, in favor of lengthening the first vowel, which would be required if it were an active participle (cf. Pardee 2003, 253 n. 98). The term rbt serves as a divine title identifying a queen or queen mother and the term ʾAṯiratu simply indicates her name. 36.  Although many have interpreted mkṯr, which refers generally to “skill,” as an epithet of the Qadiš-wa-Amrar (see MES, 1154: “Erfolgreicher”; DULAT 545: “expert”), both the limited, emissary role of this deity and the precious minerals Aṯiratu desired in the immediately antecedent section suggest this term modifies said items as an object of the preceding imperative rather than the messenger deity himself (see UBC 2, 435, 452; Pardee 2003, 257). For a different view altogether, see Margalit 1980, 26: “(he of) the spring which nurtures dry land.” 37.  This restoration derives from UBC 2, 435. Because ʾapq appears elsewhere in Ug. literature only as a designation for El’s abode, the point of this term here may be to underscore that the “gifts are of a quality that befits the lodging of El” (p. 452). 38. Following KTU2 and de Moor and Spronk (1987, 19), which read ʾapq[ ym], contra CTA and KTU1, which instead read ʾap t[  ]. For Ug. ʾapq “source, spring,” see CH ʾāpīq. Most scholars (Pope 1955, 72–80; Schoors 1972, 10–1; Clifford 1972, 49–50; Renfroe 1992, 49–50; DULAT 2004:91) follow this or adapt it slightly (e.g., de Moor 1987, 48: “bottom [of the sea]”). Wyatt’s “cunning work” is an exception (2002, 95). 39.  Cf. CH rešet “net”; DULAT 750. See §1.6.3.1 for further discussion of this term. 40.  CTA and KTU1 read this as t, while de Moor (1971, 143) and de Moor-Spronk (1987, 19) prefer q, presupposing the DN (Qa[desh] . . . [Amurr]) in the next line. KTU2 has both. 41.  Notice the wordplay of rbt “seine, trawl” (DULAT 2:732) with rbt “Great Lady” earlier in line 28. Watson, however, reads it in light of Akk. rubbû “to submerge” (2001, 10; cf. CAD R 394, s.v. rubbû meaning 1a; AHw 940b). 42. De Moor suggests this passage reflects the reopening of the marine fishing season, which appeared during the beginning of March (1971, 144–45; 1987, 48).

52

Chapter 2

marine association derives not only from her very epithet, “the great lady Aṯiratu of the sea,” and aquatic residence, but also from her particular authority over the divine fisher, Qadiš-wa-Amrar. These characteristics thus liken her to another female deity, the Mesopotamian deity of fishing, Nanše, and provide Canaanite evidence for deities wielding a cosmic net, a reality Dhorme suggested applied to all members of the Mesopotamian pantheon (1907, 64). And both governed over watery realms 43 and served in a supervisory role over fishers. 44 While the relationship between Aṯiratu and her fisher, Qadiš-wa-­Amrar, takes place within the divine realm alone, that of Nanše and her fishers transcended cosmic boundaries by bridging the human and the divine. Moreover, Qadiš-wa-Amrar’s divine epithet, dgy “fisher,” correlates with the concomitant Mesopotamian epithets of Dumuzi (Sum. š u k u d) and Papulegarra (Akk. bāʾiru). More generally, the existence of Qadiš-wa-Amrar preserves a Levantine brand of the widespread Mesopotamian concept in which deities possessed a net. The limited literary contexts of the Ugaritic references unfortunately provide minimal clarification about the actual fishing role of this messenger deity, but one can surmise from the broader literary context (cf. KTU 1.3 4:38–42; 1.4 3:25–26, 40–44; 4:31–38) that the point of using the ršt/rbt in 1.4 4:32–33 is to bring in food for an upcoming banquet, a common feature when one god arrives at the home of another (UBC 2, 453). Moreover, his divinely sanctioned marine mission to Kaphtor (Crete) and Memphis in KTU 1.3 9–16, use of fishing instruments (rṯt and rbt), and subordinate relationship to a goddess of the sea all point to his distinctive function as a fisher deity. 45

2.3.  Divine Fishers in the Hebrew Bible (Jeremiah 16:16–18) 2.3.1. Translation 16:16

]‫הנני שׁלח גיםלדו [לדיגים‬ ‫רבים נאם־יהוה ודיגום ואחרי־‬ ‫כן אשׁלח לרבים צידים וצדום‬

Look, I am about to send for many fishers, declared Yhwh, and they will catch them. And after that I will send for many

43. Like Nanše and Aṯiratu, Aphrodite governed a maritime domain (Pirenne-Delforge 2005, 408). 44.  Though Qadiš-and-Amrar may have served other higher gods, the evidence from Ugarit cited above illustrates his special relationship with Aṯiratu (cf. Cho 2007, 223; de Moor 1971, 129). 45.  In Eusebius of Caesarea’s recounting of Phoenician religious history from Philo of Byblos, who in turn claims to have translated it from Sanchuniathon in the original Phoenician language, he mentions a certain Agreus and Halieus, who together invented hunting and fishing. Their son Chousor (Hephaistos, and later apotheosized as Zeus Meilichius) then discovered the fishing hook, bait, line, and raft (Attridge and Oden 1981, 44–5). This all goes back to Ug. mythology because Chousor and Koṯar-wa-ḫasis represent the same individual (see Baumgarten 1981, 143, 165–6). The suggestion of Oldenburg, following Ginsberg, that Koṯar-wa-ḫasis and Qadiš-wa-Amrar were one and the same individual, disregards the distinctive associations and contexts of each title and remains pure speculation (cf. Oldenburg 1969, 99; Ginsberg 1940, 39–44).

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East ‫ודיגום וצדום מעל כל־הר‬ ‫ומעל כל־גבעה ומנקיקי‬ ‫הסלעים‬

53

hunters46 and they will hunt them from upon every mountain, every hill, and from the clefts of the rocks.47

 46  47

16:17

‫כי עיני על־כל־דרכיהם לא‬ ‫נסתרו מלפני ולא־נצפן עונם‬ ‫מנגד עיני‬

16:18

‫ושׁלמתי ראשׁונה משׁנה עונם‬ ‫וחטאתם על חללם את־ארצי‬ ‫בנבלת שׁקוציהם ותועבותיהם‬ ‫מלאו את־נחלתי‬

For my eyes are upon all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their iniquity concealed from my eyes. But first48 I will repay their iniquity two-fold49 and their sin because they have defiled my land. With their lifeless idols (lit., carcass of idols)50 and abominations they have filled my inheritance.51

 48  49 50  51

46.  Though some have found the syntax of rabbīm ṣayyādīm troubling (e.g., Duhm 1901, 141; Giesebrecht 1907, 96), this particular adjective uniquely functions like a numeral in its capacity to precede the substantive it modifies (GKC §132; JM §141b). Holladay views this syntax as “evidently deliberate” and “symmetrical” with the preceding phrase dayyāgim rabbīm (1986, 478). 47.  Minuscule 490 omits 16:16b (“And after that . . . from the clefts of the rocks”), which Ziegler suggests results from haplography where the scribe confused the first αὐτούς (following ἁλιεύσουσιν) with the second (following θηρεύσουσιν; so McKane 1986, 379). McKane builds on this theory by suggesting an originally shorter Hebrew text which included only one metaphor: the fisher. In his opinion, the hunting image was added later. 48.  According to McKane, riʾšônāh “is an attempt to mitigate the severity of vv. 16–18,” as well as faulty interpretation of v. 16 (1986, lxxiii). Based on its absence in LXX and 16:14–15, 19–21, dRJ (200–01) views it as a secondary gloss and connects it to 16:14–15’s promise of ultimate restoration. Lundbom suggests two different ways to deal with it: (1) as an adverb (cf. Gen 38:28; Num 2:9) and proviso establishing prerequisite events before the new oath of v. 16 can be actualized or before the nations come to worship Yhwh (v. 19); or (2) read together with mišnēh (see n. 49 below) as an idiom meaning 1 × 2 = 2 or “double” (1999, 771). He then turns to 1 Sam 1:5, as well as the Aramaic of Dan 3:19 and the conflation of the terms in the LXX (διπλᾶς) to bolster this position (1999, 771), rendering later interpolation unnecessary. The language here thus should not be taken in a rigidly literal sense but rather as a hyperbolic description of the (more than) sufficient punishment. 49.  Scholars disagree on the meaning of mišnēh. There are two main positions: (1) A literal view that regards mišnēh as a “double” punishment corresponding with two deportations (597, 586 b.c.e.), though scholars who adhere to this position curiously ignore the third localized iteration in 582 b.c.e. (cf. Jer 52:30; for a representative example of this position, see dRJ 200–01); and (2) a nonliteral view that regards mišnēh as an “equivalent, commensurate” punishment in light of both Isa 40:2 (see Von Rad 1967, 80–82; cf. Isa 61:7; Zech 9:12; Job 42:10) and cognate evidence from Alalakh (Akk. mištannu; see RHB 4:218–19, 285; Tsevat 1958, 125–26; cf. Deut 15:18). Following McKane (1986, 377; cf. NEB), this latter option accords well with the prominent theme of total, inexorable judgment in the passage, and, when combined with the elevated language employed to communicate this point, renders the idea of a literal punishment insufficient. 50.  McKane suggests wəniblat derives from nəbēlāh “corpse,” rather than nəbālāh “folly,” due to the latter’s common affiliation with sexual sins (1986, 379). The sense of the phrase wəniblat šiqqūṣêhem then is more of a castigation of hollow (and defiling) idols than “senseless idolatry.” Cf. Lev 16:19; 26:30. 51. Many think 16:18 is secondary (for a representative example, see dRJ, 199–200). Though remaining ambivalent, Lundbom asserts that claims against its coherence remain largely

54

Chapter 2

2.3.2.  Literary Context There is widespread consensus that the larger literary section (16:16–18), as well as those surrounding it, function as independent units. 52 The first (16:14–15) is a premonitory “Behold, days are coming” (hinnēh yāmīm bāʾ īm) oracle, the second (16:16–18) a more customary judgment oracle, and the third (16:19–21) a liturgical psalm that celebrates Yhwh’s protection. Scholars have frequently classified 16:14–15 as a post­exilic interpolation on the basis of both its hopeful character, which ostensibly defies the surrounding divine judgment context, and its nearly identical citation (and supposedly more natural rhetorical environment) at 23:7–8. 53 According to this line of thought, 16:16–18 thus originally followed the warning of impending disaster recorded in 16:10– 13 (so Nicholson 1973, 144; Peake 1911, 218; Hyatt 1956, 947; dRJ, 199–200; Janzen 1973, 92). There are three apparent flaws with this assumption. First, any argument for 16:14– 15 as a hope oracle quickly deflates on the basis that it presupposes a deportation that is yet forthcoming. Though the people would one day praise Yhwh for a salvation so great that it renders the miraculous Exodus rescue a faint memory, 54 such approbation ensues the most cataclysmic event in Israelite history: the Babylonian exile(s). 55 Second, claiming that 16:14–15 is secondary based on its reuse in 23:7–8 overlooks the fact that prophetic recycling is a common (for example, Jer 7:32; 19:6) rhetorical technique to recontextualize divine messages. Disregarding the passage because it “fits” better elsewhere (for example, ch. 23) is simply a smokescreen, for its actual placement in Jer 16 requires explanation. Finally, the incongruous pronominal suffixes in 16:10–13 (second masc. pl.) and 16:16–18 (third masc. plural) vitiates the assumption that v. 16 originally came after v. 13 (cf. Aalders 1958b, 135–38; Foreman 2011, 233). Despite literary and rhetorical diunfounded (1999, 767–78). Holladay says it looks Jeremianic, and may have been a later addition by him (1986, 477). 52.  The first two units are prosaic, while the latter is written in poetry. 53. The majority of scholars who interpret 16:14–15 as postexilic interpolations move 16:14–15 to ch. 23 (e.g., Peake 1911, 218; Hyatt 1956, 777–1142; Carroll 1986, 346; Jones 1992, 234; Bright 1965, 112–13; Nicholson 1973, 144). The majority of scholars regard at least 16:16–17 as authentically Jeremianic (e.g., dRJ, 200), although some, such as Cornill (1905, 206–8), classify the entire section as ex eventu. 54.  This view sees Second Isaiah’s “New Exodus” motif in Jer 16:14–15. Though they do share thematic affinity, their distinctive historical perspectives (i.e., pre-judgment in Jer 16, post-judgment in Isa 40) caution against any form of interpretive conflation. Holladay nevertheless suggests that the author of Isa 40:2 had access to Jer 16:14–15 (1986, 478). 55.  The opening poetic refrain (hinnēh yāmīm bāʾ īm) is especially common in Jeremiah and Amos (21 out of 24 attestations appear between these two prophets; 15× in Jeremiah, 3× in Amos). The first two usages in Amos underscore the coming Assyrian exile (4:2; 8:11), while the last one presents a hopeful postdestruction vision (9:13). In Jeremiah, it envisions either an auspicious future day (e.g., Jer 23:5; 31:27, 31, 38; 33:14), an ominous future day (e.g., Jer 7:32; 9:24; 19:6; 48:12; 49:2; 51:47, 52), or one marked by both characteristics (e.g., Jer 16:14; 23:7; 30:3). The three examples outside these two prophets (1 Sam 2:31; 2 Kgs 20:17/Isa 39:6) together anticipate a gloomy future (the latter two refer to Babylonian exile). For a similar biblical example of the inextricable relationship between hope and judgment in Israelite thought, see the juxtaposition of Deut 29:26–28 and 30:1–10.

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

55

versity, Jer 16 as a whole and Jer 16:16–18 in particular represent a cohesive framework, communicating a terrifying warning of thorough judgment via exile. 2.3.3. Interpretation 2.3.3.1.  Egyptian Fishers Holladay has suggested that the fishers of 16:16a are from Egypt, basing his understanding of Jer 16:16–18 on a “secondary connection” it shares with 16:1–9. He argues against a Babylonian referent because it places too much onus on the relationship between 16:13 and 16 (1986, 477). In fact, Holladay attempts to solve this problem completely, relegating both 16:10–13 and 14–15 to secondary status and thus bridging 16:1–9 with 16:16–18. He further opines that the appearance of Heb. ʾābal in 16:7 presents a conspicuous relationship with that which describes the Egyptian dayyāgīm in Isa 19:8. 56 In order to fill in the historical context, Holladay goes on to identify Babylon as the “hunter” in 16:16b. 57 Jerome reports that, at his time, the primary interpretive position on these referents designated the fishers as Chaldeans and the hunters as Romans. Holladay applies this general idea of historical succession, but changes the referents (1986, 479). In his view, then, the entire section functions to warn Judahites about incoming invasions by Egypt and Babylon. If all these discrete data hold together, the identity of the fisher in Jer 16:16a depends on the identity of the fisher in Isa 19:8 due to the fact that the qualifying verb (ʾābal “to mourn”) in the latter passage appears nine verses before that of the former. In addition to defying Occam’s Razor, this theory flattens the interpretive process by dramatically constraining Jeremiah on thin evidence. His argument against any hint of deportation in this passage conveniently finds support only after his displacement of 16:10–15. This idiosyncratic redaction notwithstanding, Holladay does not address the inventory of fishing imagery elsewhere in prophetic corpus, where Mesopotamians (Assyrians implicitly in Amos 4:2; Babylonians explicitly in Hab 1:14–17) function as predatory fishers, capturing and exiling Israel and Judah per the decree of Yhwh. 2.3.3.2.  Judahite Fishers Breaking with the widespread interpretive tradition that fishers and hunters symbolize forthcoming judgment against Judah, the Tg. modifies the passage, transforming it into an overtly positive oracle. By replacing the fishing metaphor of the first line altogether (“Look, I am sending killers to the nations [lʿmmyn] and they shall kill them”; cf. 56.  He uses a similar strategy to suggest 18:13–17 as an analogue (1986, 477). 57.  His three arguments in defense of dating the text to the period between 609–605 b.c.e., which draw from these literary arguments, likewise build on sketchy evidence (1986, 478). First, the existence of two juxtaposed nations in other passages offers little to support two nations in this passage. Second, his dating of Jeremiah’s loin cloth incident, which includes another reference to nəqīq hasselaʿ, to the battle of Carchemish (ca. 609 b.c.e.), in order to serve as a terminus a quo for that in 16:16, results in circular reasoning. Third, the parallelism between darkēhem and ʿăwōnām in 16:17 and 3:13, where he suggests dərākayik means “wealth” offered to Egypt and then Babylon, is just as speculative. Though a late 6th century b.c.e. date cannot be ruled out, the data Holladay presented in its defense appear overly contrived.

56

Chapter 2

Hayward 1987, 97), judgment is redirected against Judah’s enemies. The Tg. interprets the fishing image not as evoking deportation, as elsewhere in the prophetic corpus, but rather martial carnage that anticipates divine vindication. Terence Fretheim has recently found favor with this alternative reading. After considering the various interpretive options, he argues the description of Babylon’s demise is apropos following the reference to a return from exile in 16:14–15 (2002, 251–52). Fretheim thus notices a sharp contrast between 16:16–17 and 16:18. The first two represent God’s protection of his children in exile and judgment against iniquitous Babylon, while the latter verse soberingly recognizes that even for Judah, salvation follows judgment (Fretheim 2002, 252). This view, however, ends up reading an auspicious message into the passage that the text itself does not present. Though 16:14–15 does mention the locale of Israel’s coming exile, the emphasis there is not on the agents who deport them, but Judah’s deportation and Yhwh’s rescue. Furthermore, the referents to a third masc. plural entity in 16:15 (hiddiḥām “he has driven them”; hăšibōtīm “he has returned them”) and in 16:16a (wədīgūm “they will catch them”) suggest a degree of continuity between these verses. Classifying 16:16–17 as a salvation oracle, however, disregards this connection, reading against the text (cf. Foreman 2011, 233–34). The Tg.’s interpretive reversal, adapting a judgment oracle to one pronouncing salvation, thus offers little insight into the nature of how the biblical authors employed fishing images. 2.3.3.3.  Divine Fishers A very recent—and quite creative—interpretation from Sang Youl Cho maintains Judah is the object of divinely decreed judgment, but identifies the fisher agents as divine beings, or “lesser deities” (2009, 97–105). According to Cho, the thoroughness and totality evoked by the fishing and hunting metaphors in this passage betray “divine omniscience” and thus divine agency (2009, 98). Furthermore, the “context offers no reason to apply the two images to Gentile armies” (2009, 98). Cho endeavors to reinforce this idiosyncratic reading by establishing the existence of other divine fishers and “warrior deities” throughout the ANE, such as Aṯiratu’s emissary, Qadiš-wa-Amrar (see §2.2.2 above). It is this perusal of cognate literature, especially that of Ugaritic, that leads Cho to merge the mythological reality of Qadiš-wa-Amrar with Jer 16:16. While both passages involve divine conscription, commanding animate beings to take up fishing equipment and catch their enemies, basic differences with regard to context and genre severely weaken this argument. First, reading an obscure epithet of a particular messenger deity within the Canaanite pantheon into Jer 16:16 infuses foreign, mythological evidence that overlooks Jeremiah 16’s own literary and historical contexts. The preceding two verses (16:14–15) firmly establish the expectation of a physical return from exile in the ʾereṣ ṣāpōn “land of the north,” a common designation in Jeremiah for Babylon, and more precisely, Babylonian captivity. 58 58.  In 24 attestations of this phrase in the HB, 20 appear in Jeremiah (3:18; 6:22; 10:22; 16:15; 23:8; 31:8; 46:10; 50:9). The others show up in Zechariah, who may there depend on his prophetic predecessor (cf. 2:10; 6:6, 8 [2×]).

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

57

Second, the creative claim that the theme of totality or thorough judgment presumes divine agency remains dubious in light of other prophetic evidence. The very motif in question—fishers as executors of divine discipline—shows up elsewhere in the prophetic literature (Hab 1:14–17; cf. Amos 4:2; Ezek 12:13–14; 17:16–21; 29:1–6a; 32:1–10) designating humans as the agents of deportation. While Yhwh plays an integral role in such references, foreign nations fulfill his command by enforcing the prescribed punishment. Cho’s reading thus lifts Jer 16:16 from its broader contexts and levels out differences in genre between the two corpora. The Ugaritic references revolve around activity pertaining to the pantheon confined to the divine realm, while Jer 16 revolves around Judah’s sin and consequent punishment. Identifying the fishers and hunters of Jer 16:16 as “lesser warrior deities” overlooks the manner in which prophetic literature uses fishing imagery elsewhere (namely, divinely appointed retribution) and unnecessarily divorces prophecy from history. 2.3.3.4.  Babylonian Fishers Jeremiah 16:16 leaves the disciplinary agents of the passage formally ambiguous. If deliberate, Amos 4:2 offers a prophetic precedent. The locative reference in 16:15 (ʾereṣ ṣāpôn “north country”) likewise maintains a degree of indeterminateness. At the very least, this ambiguity should caution against any rigid identification of the two referents. The scholarly contention over their identification notwithstanding, all agree that Jer 16:16 draws on an image from the fishing industry. If this fishing image is not an isolate, but part of a network connecting it to others in the HB, one final position (namely, Babylonians fishing for Judahites) deserves mention due to its reconciling of text, context, and imagery. 59 According to this view, the fishers and hunters, commissioned by Yhwh to catch humans, together designate the same referent Jeremiah mentions more than 165 times (nearly two out of every three attestations [169/262]): Babylon. 60 In so doing, he joins his prophetic contemporary, Habakkuk, in employing fishing imagery (cf. Hab 1:14–17 and ch. 3 below) to signal the coming Babylonian incursion. Though it is not without difficulties, such as the fact that the term bābel does not emerge until 20:4–6, the imprints of this nation, and more specifically, the exile, at whose hands Yhwh threatens to execute judgment against Judah, permeate the entire book. The use of a fishing metaphor to connote divinely appointed exile fits naturally within the literary context of Jer 16, which revolves around the theme of impending exile. It also accords with the historical context of late 6th/early 5th century b.c.e. Judah, when social injustice and political turmoil at home converged with the rise of a powerful world power abroad—in fact, one that had just recently been incited to quash rebellion (cf. 2 Kgs 24:1–4). What is more, this imagery complements the conceptual relationship Yhwh shares with fishing instruments elsewhere in the prophetic corpus (for example, 59.  Jones’s conjecture that the imagery is more apocalyptic (ultimate future) than historical (the Babylonian exile) in nature goes too far, overlooking the very nature of judgment oracles, content of Jer 16, and rhetorical effect of divine retribution (1992, 234). 60.  The list of scholars adhering to this position includes, Aalders, Nicholson, McKane, Lundbom, Jones, Carroll, Foreman, Janzen, and Zwickel.

58

Chapter 2

Amos 4:2; Hab 1:14–17; Ezek 12:13; 17:20; 19:1–9; cf. 29:1–6; 32:1–9), where he appoints a foreign nation, typically Babylon, to fulfill a decree of discipline. The effect of 16:16–18 as a whole communicates the theme of inescapable and total punishment. 61 The figurative language of 16:16 likens the horde of conscripted fishers and hunters to death-eaters capable of capturing the guilty not only in large numbers (for example, in nets), but also in the remotest of locales. 62 The two images together signify a merism, illustrating the totality of judgment that extends from the depths of the sea to the far-flung mountain precipices. There is thus a palpable irony in the description of what is supposedly inaccessible (for example, minnəqīqê hassəlāʿīm “the clefts of the rocks”) as, in fact, quite within reach. In so doing, the prophet draws on a well-­established ancient Near Eastern literary motif, to be discussed in chs. 3–4 below, where a deity delegates to his or her subordinate (the king) the task of accomplishing divine retribution, exiling a people group with fishing tackle (see §4.2.2 for Yhwh himself as a fisher). This metaphor leads to a parenthetical statement in 16:17 emphasizing the “all seeing eye” of Yhwh (cf. Prov 15:3; cf. McKane 1986, 378). Because he is fully cognizant of his people’s guilt—and 16:17–18 goes to pains to highlight Judah’s rap sheet, offering a concise answer to their questions about committed sin in 16:10 (meh ḥaṭṭāʾtēnū ʾăšer ḥāṭāʾnū laYhwh ʾĕlōhênū “What is our sin which we have sinned against Yhwh, our God? ”)—they can expect the looming judgment to be commensurate to the offense. The mišnēh (“double” > “equivalent”) of Jer 16:18 likewise finds a corresponding record of the sufferings of Judahite dispersion in the kiplayim of Isa 40:2, both of which refer to the onslaught of Babylon in 597, 586, and finally in 582 b.c.e. Requiring no recourse to redaction, this view furthermore presents 16:16 as a logical explanation of 16:14–15. In so doing, it moves backward in time toward the present, connecting the agents in 16:16 (“fishers” and “hunters”) with the locale in 16:15 (ʾereṣ ṣāpôn “north country”), which Jeremiah elsewhere connects with the Euphrates (46:10). Though Jeremiah may have deliberately left the agents in 16:16 anonymous, connecting them with Babylon, Yhwh’s mappēṣ “war club” (51:20), presents the strongest alternative by maintaining a cohesive text, comporting with the immediate and broader literary contexts (for example, Hab 1:14–17), as well as the historical context of the late 6th/ early 5th century b.c.e., and reflecting the customary way the HB employs fishing imagery. With the Neo-Assyrian Empire’s cataclysmic fall at the hands of the new world power, Babylon, in the past, and in light of Habakkuk’s forceful depicting of Babylon as a divinely appointed fisher to deport Judahites, who else might Jeremiah and the Judahite audience have envisioned to lead them northward?

2.4. Synthesis The mining of ancient Near Eastern evidence for divine fishers reveals an array of disparate forms. Both Mesopotamia and Ugarit conceived of deities governing the waters and, tangentially, the fishing industry (Nanše in Mesopotamia; Yam and Aṯiratu 61. So Carroll 1986, 346. For a similar biblical example of this concept, see Amos 9:1–4. 62.  Foreman provides a compelling argument in favor of the last phrase (“clefts of the rocks”) as a fowling, rather than a hunting metaphor (2011, 237–38).

Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

59

in Ugarit). Gods bear the epithet of a fisher in both those locations (Dumuzi and Papulegarra in Mesopotamia; Qadiš-wa-Amrar in Ugarit). Though the Ugaritic and biblical evidence differ in fundamental ways, they also share comparable ideas (for example, both Aṯiratu and Yhwh hold supervisory roles over a caste of fishers). The depiction of Yhwh as one who sends out fishers in Jer 16:16–18 introduces this concept by emphasizing his action and control. Like Mesopotamian deities equipped with personal fishing tackle, Yhwh also has both the authority to judge and the capacity to ensure commensurate and comprehensive judgment. It is this heavy emphasis on his action and the resulting ambiguity regarding the agent commissioned to fulfill his task, that, as Wuellner remarks, brings to light “the intimate connection between the one who authorizes the fishing and the ones who . . . go out and do the actual fishing” (1967, 92). From a general perspective, Yhwh’s recruitment of human fishers to accomplish his plan echoes a fundamental facet of Mesopotamia’s fishing industry: the temple alone authorized fishing rights within its jurisdiction in order to provide fish offerings for the patron deities (see §1.5.2 above). More specifically, this passage in Jer 16:16–18 draws from a well-established inventory of imagery that uses fishing terminology to signal divine retribution. The characterization of a deity equipped with a cosmic net designed to mete out punishment pervades both Mesopotamian and biblical literature. 63 Though Jer 16:16 does not present Yhwh as a fisher but rather as one who conscripts fishers, the the HB elsewhere portrays him just this way. As one who controls justice, Yhwh uses his own fishing tackle to punish offending parties, whether foreign (for example, Egypt in Ezek 29–32), domestic (for example, Israel itself in Amos 4:2; Ezek 12:13; 17:20; 19:1–9), or “other” (for example, Tannin as Pharaoh in Ezek 29, 32). It is no surprise, then, that when things fall apart for Job, he compares God’s punishment to a net (məṣūdāh) that encircles him (19:6). Ancient Israelite thought thus adapted a foundational theological tenet (divine retribution) by adopting common ancient Near Eastern imagery (divine fishers). It is to these “fishers of men” passages that the next two chapters turn. 63.  Note also the connection between nets and punishment in the angelic theophany at 1 En. 56:1: “Then I saw there an army of the angels of punishment marching, holding nets of iron and bronze” (Isaac 1983, 39).

C

h a p t e r

3

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image “Do not despise the fish because they are absolutely unable to speak or to reason, but fear lest you may be even more unreasonable than they by resisting the command of the Creator.” (Basil of Caesarea)

3.1. Introduction A natural corollary to the existence of fisher deities is the use of fishing tackle and/ or a net to fulfill their divine responsibilities. As the previous discussion on Yhwh as one who authorizes fishers in Jer 16:16 demonstrated, the deity ensured justice on earth, exacting retribution on the guilty. Much more than an Israelite innovation, this theological tenet and literary motif was entrenched within an already well-established ancient Near Eastern conceptual tradition. Biblical prophets elsewhere employ an array of dramatic images to announce this idea of looming divine retribution. On no less than five different occasions outside Jer 16:16 (Amos 4:1–3; Hab 1:12–17; Ezek 12:9–16; 17:16–21; 19:2–9), a prophetic message of judgment incorporates metaphors appropriated from the fisher’s social milieu, a curious Israelite phenomenon in light of both its general suspicion toward the sea and the inconspicuous societal role it appeared to play. 1 Why then did biblical prophets conceive of retribution and exile in such terms? A resolution emerges after these references are together viewed through the lens of fishing imagery and situated within their broader historical and political contexts. The signaling of divine justice through the use of fishing imagery is a feature much more at home in Mesopotamian literature, correlating generally with the more prominent economic and cultic role of fishing there. Though literary examples span Mesopotamian history (3rd millennium b.c.e. through the NA period), attestations burgeon between the reigns of Tiglath-Pileser III and Esarhaddon, at which time Assyria’s renewed expansionistic interests led to more regular interactions with the Levant. Assyrian royal inscriptions revived this imagery, frequently imbuing martial exploits of subjugation and forced migration with fishing metaphors. The prophets thus preserve a shared reality by framing the prospect of covenantal retribution and exile—concepts that were reified through 1.  This chapter focuses on those passages that emphasize the medium of divine discipline, not the source. Rather than reviewing, this chapter assumes and builds on the extended discussion in the previous chapter, which emphasized both medium and source in Jer 16:16. Ezekiel 29:1–6 and 32:2–9 also incorporate fishing imagery to connote divine discipline, but the overtly mythological character of that particular material distinguishes it from this here (addressed in ch. 4, below).

60

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

61

historical experiences—within fishing metaphors that resemble those propagated by the Assyrians themselves. These images, entrenched in realia, ironically resemble the imagery applied to Assyrian kings within their own inscriptions, likening them to fishers who subjugate and capture foreigners with their net. The chronological and literary propinquity of these fishing metaphors support this concept of shared reality and provide an explanation both for their appearance in the HB as well as their dynamic rhetorical effect. Each biblical reference exhibits its own idiosyncratic issues, which must first be accounted for and evaluated. This careful evaluation then opens the doors for intertextual analysis, placing the peculiarities of each individual passage in the context of the biblical evidence as a whole. The third and final objective is to juxtapose these results, placing the biblical fishing imagery within the context of the ANE in order to discern with greater precision the relationship between the literature and culture of ancient Israel and her neighbors.

3.2.  Textual Analysis (Amos 4:1–3; Habakkuk 1:14–17; Ezekiel 12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:1–9) 3.2.1.  Amos 4:1–3 3.2.1.1. Translation  4:1

 2  3

‫שׁמעו הדבר הזה פרות הבשׁן‬ ‫אשׁר בהר שׁמרן‬ ‫העשׁקות דלים‬ ‫הרצצות אביונים‬ ‫האמרת לאדניהם הביאה ונשׁתה‬

Hear this word, O Cows of Bashan,2 who are on the mountain of Samaria, who are oppressing the poor and crushing the destitute, who say to their husbands:3    “Bring that we may drink!”

2.  On the rare occasion the HB compares humans to cattle (Jer 31:17; Hos 4:16), men, not women, are involved. There is little cohesion among the abundance of scholarly commentary on this unique title. For example, Speier sees this as a double entendre based on the putative use of Arb. baṭne (“a voluptuously built girl”; 1953, 306–07). Some see in this reference a specific identification of and accusation against the women of Samaria, whose insatiable desire to carouse and whose controlling of their husbands leads to the perpetuation of injustice against the poor (cf. Paul 1991, 128). Others perceive a religious connotation signifying the women of Samaria’s self-designated title “cows of Yhwh,” who worship the “mighty bull of Samaria (Koch 1983, 46; Jacobs 1985, 109–10). Still others prefer a literal reading, where spoiled cattle boss their herdsmen around for water (e.g., RHB 5:237–38; Wolff 1977, 206). Though women are clearly singled out as culpable for the oppression in Samaria, the specific nature of the offenses eludes the modern interpreter. Moreover, the section (4:1–3), as well as the book as a whole, demonstrate that just as all Israel has shared in the injustice, so all Israel will experience the traumatic effect of divine judgment (which in this particular section will manifest itself via exile). The immediate context highlights this point by its vacillation between masc. and fem. forms following this initial fem. appellation. 3.  The term ʾādōn is relatively rare for “husband” in the HB (compared to ʾ īš and baʿal), but may function here as a foil with the following composite divine reference to ʾădōnay Yhwh.

62 4:2

Chapter 3 ‫נשׁבע אדני יהוה בקדשׁו‬ ‫כי הנה ימים באים עליכם‬ ‫ונשׁא אתכם בצנות‬ ‫ואתחריתכן בסירות דוגה‬

The Lord Yhwh has sworn by his holiness:4 “Look, days are coming upon you when one will lift you up5 with hooks, up to the last of you with fishing6 hooks.”

  4  5  6

4:3

‫ופרצים תצאנה אשׁה נגדה‬ ‫והשׁלכתנה ההרמונה נאם־יהוה‬

And you all shall depart through the breaches, each one straight ahead. You shall be cast out toward Harmon, declared Yhwh.

3.2.1.2. Commentary 3.2.1.2.1.  Literary and Historical Context Couched between a set of judgment oracles against Israel for its rampant injustice (3:9–11) and ostentatious affluence (3:12–15) and a sarcastic call to multiply transgression and empty worship (4:4–5) stands this oracle of judgment in 4:1–3. This section directly relates to 3:9–15 by maintaining a focus upon Samaria (3:9) as the object of punishment and oppression as its cause (cf. the use of ʿšq in 3:9; 4:1). More precisely, this unit warns of impending exile on behalf of both unbridled social oppression and decadence, doing so with greater immediacy than is typical for Amos. 7 The abrupt shift in imagery from the bovine (4:1) to ichthyological (4:2) realm draws attention to a skillful literary and rhetorical transformation. 8 The final verse of the unit (4:3) reifies the meaning 4.  Ps 89:36 contains the only other such example of Yhwh swearing by his own holiness, an act similar to swearing by his own self or name (cf. Gen 22:16; Jer 51:14) that, according to Paul, underscores the “irrevocability and irrefutability of the forthcoming divine punishment” (1991, 129). 5.  Niśśāʾ is formally either a D or N stem. The ambiguous agent presents the main difficulty with the former, but Amos’ reticence toward identifying the human source of coming judgment, as well as the LXX (λήμψονται), support this reading (contra Wolff 1977, 203). An impersonal, active D stem verb appears elsewhere in the book (e.g., 3:12; 6:12). Though Yhwh is “the most natural subject of the verb,” Amos maintains the anonymity of the agent in accordance with his penchant to preserve ambiguity in judgment oracles, such as haharmônāh in 4:3 (Nwaoru 2009, 468; cf. Ezek 29:4). The point is not the lack of agent or even textual corruption, but rather that the agent’s identity remains enigmatic (Yhwh?; Assyria?). 6.  A handful of scholars, including Sellin, Weiser, Maag, and Amsler read dūgāh as a secondary, misleading gloss that suggests the continuation of bovine imagery into 4:2–3 and thereby precludes any hint of authentic fishing imagery (cf. Waard and Smalley 1979, 233 n. 59). The basis for this emendation, which finds no textual support, is a rather simplistic evaluation of poetic license. 7.  Jeremias 1998, 63. Williams draws attention to how 4:1–3 stands out from its surrounding literary context (1979, 209). 8.  Paul specifically identifies the audience as the “women of Samaria” who boss around their husbands in order to feed their craving for self-indulgent pleasure (1991, 129). The combination of mixed images (cattle, fish) and mixed forms (masc. and fem. plural), however, caution against over interpreting, for ambiguity and irony are both literary devices wielded by the prophet to communicate his oracle of exile to the Northern Kingdom. Though the audience is initially addressed as plural and fem. (pārôt “cows”), only ʾaḥărītken (4:2b) preserves this fem. idea in 4:1–3. Because

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

63

behind the elevated language of 4:1–2 by employing imagery not of animals, but actual human captives led into exile as a “despised mass of humanity” (Jeremias 1998, 65). Though feigning to be privileged cattle, Amos exposes the Northern Kingdom’s true fate as that of a helpless fish caught by a hook. While Assyrian weakness marked by both internal decentralization and external threats from Urartu had afforded this sort of opportunity for political and social prosperity, the prophet here warns the people not only that the tables would soon be turning, but also that reality was not necessarily what it seemed to be. The narcissistic self-indulgence and social injustice of the elite in Israel during the middle of the 8th century b.c.e. demanded a commensurate punishment. 9 The prophet communicated the divinely appointed answer by presaging an ominous fate marked by imminent, inexorable, and total exile. In so doing, Amos introduces a central theme of the book (cf. 5:5, 27; 6:7; 7:11, 17; 9:4), invokes the idea of retribution theology, and crushes any hope the people laid up in the security of their land (Jeremias 1998, 63). This passage, full of vivid rhetoric and images foreshadowing a violent, imminent deportation yet riddled with problematic issues that have long preoccupied scholars, contributes to both the theological concept of divine retribution and the presentation of fishing imagery in the HB and the ANE. 3.2.1.2.2.  Fishing Terms and Imagery The fishing imagery in Amos 4:2 is unique within the HB by virtue of the employment of several rare lexical items: ṣinnôt and sīrôt (as well as dūgāh). While the first is a hapax legomenon in its current form, the latter reflects one of two potential lexical entries. Though the meaning of each is debated among scholars, nearly all 10 agree that it represents an authentic 8th century b.c.e. oracle and its imagery derives from the fishing milieu. 11 The following discussion examines and evaluates the relevant philological and literary evidence in order to clarify its meaning in the context of Amos 4:1–3 as well as its place within the broader biblical catalog of fishing imagery as divinely appointed deportation. masc.-plural forms are naturally inclusive of both genders, redaction criticism posits that the rest of the exclusively masc.-plural forms were altered secondarily from originally fem. forms. The existing divergent forms may, however, serve to indicate a level of joint responsibility from both genders (so Nwaoru 2009, 464), an unsurprising phenomenon within the confines of elevated, metaphorical language. 9.  The seriousness, if not certainty, of this punishment obtains in Yhwh’s self-reflexive oath formula, a form only Isaiah and Amos employ within the preexilic prophetic corpus (e.g., Amos 6:8; 8:7; Isa 5:9; 22:14; 14:24). For this grammatical phenomenon, see JM §165. 10.  Kleven disregards the clear shift in metaphor from bovine (4:1) to ichthyological (4:2), as well as the explicit fishing connotation marked by dūgāh later in 4:2, and attempts to circumvent the difficulties of the passage altogether by simply dismissing any potential fishing imagery (1996, 215–27). He instead suggests the passage maintains a rigid focus on the bovine characteristics of those led into exile. This creative, though myopic, assessment fails to account for the language, history of interpretation, and rich transmogrification of imagery in 4:1–3 from cows to fish to humans. 11.  Maag reads dūgāh as a gloss incorporated into the text to make the meaning of sīrôt explicit (1951, 138).

64

Chapter 3

3.2.1.2.2.1.  Ṣinnôt Attempts at identifying ṣinnôt have engendered a handful of different possible solutions, several of which remain highly speculative. 12 The broad range of meanings ascribed to this term effectively demonstrates the difficulty in such an endeavor. 13 Ascertaining its meaning requires more than a simple lexical analysis; a careful investigation of comparative linguistic, literary, and contextual factors is also necessary. The versions likewise evince disparate glosses for the term, unfortunately offering little clarification. The Greek phrase ἐν ὅπλοις “tools, equipment” generally refers to “arms, weapons” in the LXX, but here points more specifically to a “shield,” a reflex most likely influenced by the similar Heb. ṣinnāh “shield.” 14 The Vulg. (in contis “on poles”) and Theodotion (δόρασιν “spears”) certainly draw on this martial idea, although with a twist that more directly reflects a transformation of Heb. ṣēn “thorn” (Job 5:5; Prov 22:5). This leads to the most prominent scholarly position: ṣinnôt is not a hapax legomenon, but rather derives from ṣēn “thorn,” representing a specialized meaning within the context of fishing imagery in Amos 4:2. 15 3.2.1.2.2.2.  Sīrôt The second fishing term in 4:2 presents three possible interpretive options: (1) “hooks,” (2) “pots,” and (3) a meaning derived from the latter, “boats.” LXX εἰς λέβητας (“into cauldrons”), Vulg. in ollis (“in pots”) 16 and Syr. bqdrʾ (“in cooking pots”) each derive sīrôt from Heb. sīr “pot.” This is the most straightforward rendering given that the grammar (sīrôt is amply and exclusively attested for the pl. of sīr elsewhere in the HB) and the versions both support it. Tg. bdgwgyt (“in fishing boats”), several medieval scholars (Rashi, Kimḥi, Abarbanel), and one modern interpreter (Zolli) adapt this idea, investing it with the idea of a larger, water-based vessel suited for human transportation, hence a “boat.” The majority of scholars, however, understand sīrôt as a variant plural form of sīrāh “thorn” and thus as part of fishing tackle (“hook”) rather than a portable vessel. 3.2.1.2.3. Interpretation 3.2.1.2.3.1.  Hooked into Exile The philological and versional evidence unnecessarily clouds the meaning of the graphic image in Amos 4:2. Following Amos’s rhetorically charged venture around Canaan to ultimately expose and indict the Northern Kingdom itself comes a triad of 12.  For a breakdown of the different identifications of ṣinnôt and sīrôt, see tables 7–8, pp. 71 and 72 below. 13.  Bodi classifies Amos 4:2 as a “crux” (1991, 178). 14. Tg. trysyhwn “their shields” follows suit. For this nuanced meaning elsewhere in the LXX, see Pss 5:13; 90:4. 15.  Ṣinnôt appears in parallelism with paḥ “snare, trap” in Prov 22:5. A cognate noun with a reduplicated final consonant, ṣənīnīm “thorns,” occurs in both Num 33:55 and Josh 23:15. Vulg. in contis “on pikes,” though generally related to Gk. ὅπλον, may more specifically draw from the imagery of piercing objects, à la Heb. ṣēn “hook.” 16. The verse, which translates “and fiery pests shall cast those with you into cauldrons heated from below,” apparently misreads the adjective modifying sīrôt (dūgāh “fishing”), perhaps by reading Heb. dalqāh instead (Wolff 1977, 607). Vulg. in ollis ferventibus “in burning pots” follows the LXX.

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

65

messages (haddābār; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1) that sets the stage for woe oracles (5:18; 6:1, 4) and visions (7:1; 8:1; 9:1), which more fully illustrate the painful point: divine retribution to be enacted via exile (5:5, 27; 6:7; 7:11, 17; 9:4). Within those initial oracles of judgment 4:1–3 singles out the social elite for their oppression of the poor (4:1), highlights the seriousness of their offense (4:2a), and introduces the divinely appointed discipline via deportation (4:2b–3). Transforming agricultural terms (ṣēn “thorn”; ṣīrāh “thistle”) into fishing paraphernalia (hooks) that highlight geographic displacement, the shepherd from Tekoa takes the familiar and adapts it to communicate a jarring fate. The terms themselves (ṣēn and sīrāh) furthermore contextualize the very expertise of the prophet Amos. Instead of employing more common Hebrew terms for “hook,” ḥakkāh or ḥôaḥ/ ḥaḥ, he skillfully transformed a term endemic to his occupational background, herding sheep (cf. Amos 1:1; 7:14), imbuing it with fresh, nuanced meaning within the context of communicating this oracle of judgment. Sīrôt appears in parallelism with ḥôaḥ (and qimmōš “nettle”) elsewhere (Isa 34:13). 17 Ḥôaḥ occurs as an instrument to lead away both humans (Manasseh in 2 Chr 33:11; Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 19:28/Isa 37:29; Jehoahaz in Ezek 19:4; Pharaoh as tannīm in Ezek 29:4; and Gog in Ezek 38:4) and mythological creatures (Leviathan in Job 40:26) into exile or general submission. To be sure, interpreting this crux demands one account for the poetic parallelism between ṣinnôt and sīrôt and the overarching meaning of 4:1–3, both of which constrain the meaning of the middle verse. Reckoning these features and comparing them to the fishing imagery found elsewhere in the prophetic corpus and HB offers clarity and resolve to both the diverse interpretations and the various presuppositions underpinning them. The hallmark feature of biblical poetry, parallelism, grounds the meaning of Amos 4:2. The synonymous parallelism over the last two poetic lines pairs both the direct (ʾetkēm/ʾaḥărītkēn) and indirect objects (bəṣinnôt/bəsīrôt dūgāh). What is more, it uses a verb (wəniśśāʾ) to govern both direct objects via ellipsis. This synonymous syntactical structure effectively renders these cola as two sides of the same coin, with the second specifying the totality of the exile. In a passage widely regarded as having to do primarily with exile, the verb šlk “to cast, throw” in 4:3 corroborates the use of hooks as deportation devices in the previous verse. From this perspective Israelites are hooked like fish in water and then forcibly removed or “cast away” toward a foreign land. Isaiah 19:8 combines this verb with the direct object ḥakkāh in a poetic representation of a “fisher.” 18 An even closer semantic analogue 17.  Qimmōš parallels ḥôaḥ in Hos 9:6 and both ḥôaḥ and ḥārūl “nettle” in Prov 24:31. 18.  Cf. Jonah 2:4 for a poetic reflection of Yhwh “casting” (šlk) Jonah into the water in a manner reminiscent of a fish. The verbal sequence nśʾ + ṭwl occurs in Jonah 1:12, similar to that in Amos 4:2–3 (nśʾ + šlk), at the command of the prophet toward the Phoenician sailors in order to quell the tempest. Ironically, Driver (1954, 21), as well as Paul (1978, 185), submit the verb niśśāʾ as evidence against equating ṣinnôt with “hooks,” but the evidence from Ezek 29:4 (cf. 32:4), where Pharaoh as tannīm is “hooked” and drawn up from the water (wənātattī ḥaḥīm bilḥāyêkā . . . wəhaʾălītīkā mittôk yəʾōrêkā “I will place hooks in your cheeks . . . and lift you up from the midst of your streams”) as well as Hab 1:14–17 (see §3.2.2 below), suggests otherwise. Paul’s further argument that ṣinnôt as “hooks” does not yield such a basic or derived meaning anywhere else in the HB rests on slim evidence (the term appears only twice) and disregards the dynamic nature of poetic language. As Andersen and Freedmen perspicaciously note, ṣēn is used figuratively in each of its three attestations (1989, 421). Cf. fig. 12 (p. 82) below for visual evidence.

66

Chapter 3

to the idea presented in Amos 4:2–3 obtains in Ezek 32:4 (cf. Ezek 29:5, ntš) where Yhwh pledges to hook Pharaoh, there mythologically symbolized as tannīm “dragon,” and “cast” (ṭwl) him into the open field for carrion to devour his carcass. 19 The fundamental contention with this view stems from the pl. endings on both ṣinnôt and sīrôt, which diverge from the masc. pl. endings attested elsewhere. 20 The irregular, yet not infrequent, phenomenon of bi-gendered nominal endings in Hebrew animate nouns, however, diminishes the significance of this issue, especially in light of the poetic (and prophetic!) literary context. 21 From a grammatical perspective, both terms present similar difficulties. If ṣinnôt derives from ṣēn “thorn,” why does its plural ending diverge from the other biblical examples? And if sīrôt is a plural form of sīrāh “thorn,” how is one to explain its anomalous ending? Though there are no easy answers, the phenomenon of bi-gendered plural endings on inanimate nouns is well documented. Moreover, the fact that both nouns deviate from expectations betrays a purposeful literary flair that unfortunately remains enigmatic or impossible to ascertain. 22 The deviations reflect authentically diverse endings for these two terms that were at one point normative, putatively acceptable according to certain linguistic standards or in certain linguistic environments. Though the grammatical alignment between text and interpretation leaves unanswered questions, the parallelism, the surrounding literary context (4:1–3), the imagery it projects (forced exile), and the relationship it manifests vis-à-vis other similar biblical passages combine to project a coherent message that comports efficiently with what little we know of the prophet’s background and the rhetorical trajectory of the book as a whole. In all this, the prophet skillfully weaves diverse images (bovine in 4:1; fishing in 4:2; human in 4:3) into a complex vignette of divine accusation against the manipulation of power to the detriment of the defenseless, divinely appointed discipline for this injustice, and the looming consequences awaiting Samarian residents. 3.2.1.2.3.2.  From Deportation to Death An alternative position that has gained contemporary assent after the publication of Shalom Paul’s seminal study in 1978 relates Heb. ṣinnôt to the Aram. noun ṣnʾ (and 19.  Exodus 17:4 reverses the usage of nśʾ in Amos 4:2, highlighting the protection afforded by eagles’ wings. 20. For ṣinnīm, see Job 5:5; Prov 22:5. For sīrīm, see Isa 34:13; Hos 2:8; Nah 1:10; Qoh 7:6. Each reference to sīrāh outside of Amos 4:2 is articular. Harris proposes reading sīr as “thorn” instead of “pot”in Jeremiah’s second vision (1983, 282). 21.  Ben-Asher 1978, 1–14. Ben-Asher does not include the idiosyncratic examples of ṣēn/ ṣinnôt and sīr/sīrôt in his list of 117 examples of inanimate Hebrew nouns displaying a masculine and feminine ending, tacitly classifying them under the “dubious” category (1978, 1). The very reality of 117 unequivocal examples of this grammatical phenomenon warrants the plausibility of even more in disputed or difficult passages like Amos 4:2. Cf. Boadt 1980, 143 (“nouns with masculine and feminine forms in the plural are common among terminology for natural phenomena”: sun [šemeš], field [śādeh], river [nāhār], cloud [ʿāb], height [gāb], stone [ʾeben], day [yôm], dust [ʿāpār], year [šānāh], head [rōʾš]). 22.  The sudden shift from bovine to marine to human images and the dramatic reversal of fortune asserted in the passage (oppressor → exiled; affluence → captive) demonstrate the passage’s transformative meaning, in a manner not altogether dissimilar from the phonetic pun in Amos 8:1–2 whereby the prophet interpreted the divine word qāyiṣ “summer fruit” according to its intended meaning, the arrival of Israel’s qēṣ “end”. Cf. Fishelov 1989, 203–4.

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

67

its derivative forms ṣynʾ, ṣynyḥ, ṣnh, and ṣyntʾ ) “basket.” 23 Paul applies evidence from the Mesopotamian and Egyptian fishing industry, both of which relied heavily on basket fishing, to strengthen his argument. Though the basket may have been commonly employed in Mesopotamian and Egyptian freshwater locales, this evidence is too general 24 to address the specifics of fishing imagery in Amos 4:2. 25 More specifically, he categorizes ṣinnôt as a hapax legomenon, the one and only biblical vestige of Aram. ṣnʾ. This supposed cognate, however, does not appear until Late Aramaic (Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic; Kaufman 1992, 175–76). The lack of historical propinquity between the 8th century b.c.e. context of Amos 4:1–3 and the first attestation of ṣynʾ in Aramaic thus vitiates any potential relationship between these two terms. Paul then follows the versions in associating sīrôt with the lexical term sīr “pot.” Out of all the arguments available, this identification garners the strongest support a priori, for everywhere else sīrôt appears in the HB (1 Kgs 7:45; Jer 52:19; Amos 4:2; Zech 14:20; 2 Chr 4:11, 16; 2 Chr 35:13) it communicates just that meaning. In effect, this view suggests the 8th century b.c.e. prophet envisioned a scenario where Israelites were caught like fish via baskets and packed/transported in pots. 26 One can reconstruct a similar reality along the Levant whereby Tyrians transported fish throughout the area (Ezek 26:1–21, esp. vv. 5, 14), even down to the Fish Gate at Jerusalem (2 Chr 33:14; Neh 3:3; 12:39; Zeph 1:10), but a fundamental question still remains: Is this the point behind Amos 4:2? Paul draws on imagery from a Mari letter, which happens to be the first OB prophetic oracle (ARM 26 233; cf. Stökl 2012, 2, 29), to contextualize the idea of captives taken up and led away in fishing pots. 27 The disputed meaning of the relevant 23. 1978, 183–90; cf. Paul 1991, 128–36, which offers minimal changes to the previous analysis. 24.  Such generalization is nowhere more apparent than in his connection between sīrôt dūgāh “fishing pots,” Sum. gišmá -su-ku6, and Akk. elep bāʾiri “fisher’s barge, skiff,” which is undermined by his earlier, cogent conclusion that a marine exile did not fit the outlook of this passage. For these terms, see Salonen 1939, 34, 37–38; 1970, 71–72; CAD E 95–96, s.v. elippu usages e-1′, 5′, 6′. 25.  Spears, pikes, harpoons, and nets were all variously employed for saltwater fishing. For further analysis of the instruments and techniques associated with fishing in Mesopotamia, see Salonen 1970, 51–53, 20:1, and 22:1. For iconographic depictions of line fishing in Mesopotamia, see figs. 7–10 in §1.5.2 above. 26.  His citation of ample Mesopotamian evidence of catching, packing, and transporting fish (following Salonen 1970, 51, 55–57) is conspicuously obvious. Would one expect anything less than such evidence for fishing communities throughout history? In other words, just because Mesopotamians commonly caught fish in baskets, packed, and then transported their catch in pots— techniques common throughout space and time—does not thereby indicate this was the intended prophetic message to an 8th-century b.c.e. Samarian audience on the verge of national exile. 27.  Paul 1978, 189. For the editio princeps, see Dossin 1948, 125–34 (later reedited as ARM 26 233). The relevant section of the text reads: mārī šiprīka ana ṣērīya šu[pram-ma] u ṭēmka gamram ma[ḫrīy]a [š]ukum-ma u šarr[āni ša mār]ī Yamina ina sussul bāʾi[ri luša]pšilšunūti-ma maḫrīka luškunšunūti “Send your messengers and place your full report before me! And I will cause the Yaminite sheiks to writhe in the fisher’s chest so that I may place them before you” (lines 34–39). In this passage, a certain Itūr-asdu passes along a prophecy, transmitted from Dagan to a man in his Terqa temple, to his king, Zimri-lim. Due to the lacunae that include a verb (either pašālu “to writhe” or bašālu “to cook,” a phenomenon which may reflect a geographical dialectic isogloss) essential for interpreting the passage, the specific imagery involved in this exceptional passage

68

Chapter 3

passage notwithstanding, one line from a Mesopotamian text antedating the biblical passage in view by nearly a millennium is hardly compelling evidence in favor of this admittedly difficult prophetic terminology. Grammar thus becomes Paul’s greatest selling point. The exclusive use of sīrôt as “pot” elsewhere in the HB and the late Aramaic cognate of Heb. ṣinnôt (ṣnʾ ) comprises his evidence, proffering what he refers to as the position with the fewest weaknesses. Compromising rhetoric and imagery at the expense of grammar is, however, no real solution, particularly within a genre (prophecy) known for its elusive character. Moreover, this interpretation muddles the tight parallelism between two synonyms from the agricultural milieu transfigured as fishing hooks designed for deportation. It instead assumes a type of synthetic parallelism marked by a sequential progression from catching fish to packing and transporting fish already or about to be salted and dried. 28 Conversely, its presentation of lifting Israelites in both baskets and pots (niśśāʾ governs both poetic lines), even though these ideas serve two different functions, produces an awkward poetic arrangement. Finally, following Salonen, Paul contends 29 that hooks were not used in Mesopotamia after the third millennium b.c.e., nor was there even such a term for “hook” in Akkadian. 30 This is spurious, for hooks of various shapes, composition, and sizes, appear throughout all of Mesopotamia continuously from the fourth millennium b.c.e. onward, 31 remains dubious. Dossin suggests a D stem form of pašālu “to lead away” (Dossin 1948, 131; followed by Heintz 1969, 130), whereas von Soden (1950, 398; cf. AHw 841b), Paul (1978, 189), CAD (S 418, s.v. sussullu usage b), and Durand (ARM 26:475) read a Š form, both of which are elsewhere unattested in those stems. The verb does occur in the Gtn, often with reference to dogs “crawling on all fours” (cf. TCL 3:58 eli erbi rettīšunu iptaššilū “They continually crawled on all fours like a dog”; TCL 3:345 aššu eṭir napištišunu eli erbi rettīšunu iptaššilūma “In order to save themselves they continually crawled on all fours”), leading Craghan to adopt this reading (1974, 51 n. 82). I here adopt the majority reading (Š stem). For the Yaminites, see Dossin 1939, 981–99; 1959, 60–62. While some suggest this is evidence in favor of ṣinnôt as “baskets,” the Akk. noun (sussul/sussullu), whether translated “basket” or “chest,” has more to do with transporting fish than catching fish (contra Dossin 1948, 31; Moran 1969a, 623 n. 7, who read ṣuṣṣul “harpoon,” relate it to CH ṣilṣal in Job 40:31, and liken it to a cooking instrument [“spit”], but this term is found nowhere else in Akkadian). Such a difficult, partially effaced line appearing nearly a millennium before the context of Amos 4:2 provides minimal support either way. Considering the inherent difficulties involved, a more productive evaluation of its relationship to potential biblical references is the mere fact that the phenomenon of fishing imagery used to illustrate divine retribution transcended diachronic and geographical boundaries in the ANE. For additional related bibliography subsequent to the editio princeps, see Bodi 1991, 177–78: Marzal 1976, 57–58; Finet 1974, 41. 28. While Paul suggests that the second term is only a hook if the first term is a hook, thereby imposing the grammar on the parallelism and constraining the creative literary capacity of the author(s), a more productive approach allows the parallelism itself to help identify difficult terms. 29. Nevertheless, Paul himself admits that “hooks” makes good sense of ṣinnôt, yet ultimately decides against this because it nowhere else manifests such a “basic or derived meaning” and to do so would only exacerbate its difficulty (1991, 131–32). 30.  Salonen 1939, 38; 1970, 55. A cognate to Heb. ḥakkāh (lú ag-ga, lit., “man of the fishhook”) does occur, however, in Eblaite for “fisher” (MEE 2 8 obv. 10:11; cf. Dahood 1983, 60). 31.  For 1st millennium b.c.e. visual evidence from Nineveh dating to the reign of Sennacherib, see Paterson 1915, 231–32.

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

69

largely mirroring the evidence from Egypt, as well (see p. 20 above). 32 Regardless of the ubiquity of their Israelite use, 33 the CH inventory did include terms for hooks and the HB employed them in fishing contexts (for example, Job 40:26; Ezek 29:1–6; Hab 1:14–17), thus rendering the literary silence from cuneiform presumptuous and limited. 34 Because fishers used pots to transport and preserve them for human consumption, what is the rhetorical effect of fish caught in baskets and transported in pots only to be thrown away? The conception of fish transportation in this verse presupposes several crucial features of imagery Paul’s analysis overlooks. 35 First, the idea of transporting fish in pots assumes the fish are already dead or are soon to die (via the process of salting and drying). Second, the idea of “casting” in 4:3 (“You shall be cast out toward Harmon”) confuses the purpose behind transporting fish (human consumption) in the first place, gaining little significance from 4:2. The problem with the first presupposition is that exile, not death, is the primary rhetorical thrust of the oracle of judgment in 4:1–3. 36 The residents of Samaria had yet to experience exile and thus had yet to be captured (cf. Nwaoru 2009, 467). The issue with the second presupposition surfaces only when Amos 4:2 is placed within the context of similar biblical examples where fishing imagery symbolizes both divinely appointed discipline (Hab 1:14–17; Ezek 12:13; 17:16–21; 19:2–9) and a transformed reality (Ezek 29:1–6; 32:2–9). These passages, like Amos 4:2, employ fishing metaphors to stress the displacement resulting from discipline. The import of this 32. Cf. Brewer and Friedman 1989, 26–31. Paul concedes this point, but he suggests basket fishing was still the “simplest method for catching fish.” Speculation on what was simplest or most common, while productive generally toward a more refined idea of fishing techniques in the ANE, ultimately contributes minimally to the question of meaning in Amos 4:2. 33. Bronze fish hooks have been found at Tell ʿAddschūl (Petrie 1931–1934, 85–87). For hooks used with nets, see Petrie 1928, 11–13; 1931–1934, 22, 84. According to Galling, bones could also be used in this capacity (1937, 168). For copper hooks found near the Gulf of Aqaba, see Glueck and Albright 1938, 5, 13. 34.  Moreover, it disregards the iconographic evidence of both hooks and lines used in Mesopotamia and Egypt (Paterson 1915, 231–32; Brewer and Friedman 1989, 26–31). Using Ezek 29 as a comparison, Williams suggests Amos 4:2 could simultaneously serve complementary functions, literal (the people will be led away with hooks in their noses/mouths) and metaphorical (this deportation will resemble fish caught in hooks; 1979, 209). 35. While Paul is just one of many adherents of this position (e.g., Held, Bodi), his analyses (1978 and 1991) remain the standard modern arguments in its favor, leading others (e.g., NET) to consequently adopt this position. 36.  The reading of Snaith (“shields” and “fish pots”) implies this latent reality where Samarians face the threat of an exile that leads to death (1960, 24). Wolff, following Rudolph, cogently recognizes the shift in metaphor from the bovine to ichthyological realm but prefers to superimpose the fishing imagery onto the the bovine imagery and thus envisions a “harpoon” used as a form of ox-goad, rather than a “fish hook,” which putatively reflects a corpse rather than a deportee (Wolff 1977, 607; Rudolph 1971, 158–61). Conversely, his suggestion that ṣinnôt and sīrôt together image captives being led away by ropes and harpoons ironically envisages more of a cattle drive than a fishing expedition. His reference to Ea triumphing over Mummu in EE (1:72: mummu ittamaḫ ukāl ṣerressu “Ea controlled Mummu, held [him] by a nose-rope”) is irrelevant to the meaning of sīrôt in Amos 4:2 by nature of its radically different context. As Nwaoru acknowledges, ropes without hooks will not catch fish (2009, 467)

70

Chapter 3

divinely decreed punishment, however, transcended the mere idea of relocation. The guilty would be caught, lifted up, and cast like fish extracted from water, forcibly removed from all that was familiar. Those who had manipulated their affluence and power to prey on and take advantage of the poor and defenseless would suddenly be exposed as mere fish, caught on a hook, extracted from their homeland, and cast away to an unknown and unfamiliar destination. 37 In so doing, the oppressor suddenly meets a humiliating, yet commensurate, end. 38 Paul’s thorough study unfortunately demonstrates a propensity to miss the forest (the essence of Amos 4:2 in context) for the trees (the grammatical details in 4:2), despite its invaluable assemblage of data on the history of interpretation and ancient Near Eastern comparanda. 3.2.1.2.3.3.  Cattle-Driven by Nose-Rope Schwantes, followed by Wolff, developed a third position that attempted to connect Heb. ṣinnôt to a rare Akk. term ṣinnatu “nose-rope,” leading him to suggest “rope,” or better “noose,” for ṣinnôt in Amos 4:2 (Schwantes 1967, 82–83; Wolff 1977, 203). Akkadian ṣinnatu comes to mean “nose-rope,” however, based solely on its position parallel to the more common ṣerretu “nose-rope,” which was a controlling device that passed through either the nose or muzzle of a beast of burden or a human captive (cf. CAD Ṣ 136, s.v. ṣerretu A meaning 1). In fact, it only appears in lexical texts alongside ṣerretu, outside of a lone attestation in a very difficult NB letter. For this reason, CAD suggests ṣinnatu may simply be a homonymic variant of ṣerretu. 39 What is more, Dossin has recently demonstrated that what was previously understood as ṣinnatu is actually sinnatu, invalidating any formal linguistic relationship between the Hebrew and Akkadian terms. 40 Both the speculative connection between Heb. ṣinnôt and Akk. ṣinnatu and the fact that nowhere else in the LXX does ὅπλον mean “rope” render this position dubious. 3.2.1.2.3.4.  Carried Away on a Shield Several modern scholars (Snaith; Driver) read ṣinnôt as a form of Heb. ṣinnāh “shield,” despite a lack of internal and external support. Driver speculates that Israelite deportees 37.  Note the difficulty with the last term in 4:3. Nwaoru notes the ambiguity in this word accords with Amos’s penchant not to disclose the “final destination of those cast out in the context of punishment” (2009, 463–64). It seems to be a geographical term, but unidentified and unknown. This anonymity reflects the historical reality of the time, when Israel was prosperous and faced little external threat due to Assyrian weakness. Mishael argues Assyria was in the back of the author’s mind, which may be true (though impossible to prove!), but the mystery of the exiles’ final destination ironically accords with a generation bereft of major political powers (1990–91, 160–65). 38.  For other examples of reversal in the HB, see 1 Sam 2:4–8; Job 5:11–13; 34:24–28; Pss 107:40–41; 113:7–8; Qoh 4:14; Ezek 17:24; Hos 2:13–15. 39.  CAD Ṣ 136, s.v. ṣinnatu B. Schwantes also turns to a Delphic inscription to suggest that Gk. ὅπλον also meant “rope” (1967, 82–83). Be that as it may, the dubious relationship between the Akkadian and Hebrew terms severely weakens his argument and renders any attempt to validate this Greek reading at Delphi insignificant for the word in Amos 4:2. 40. See Dossin’s note in ARM 13 56:4; Paul 1991, 184. Though captives were, in fact, led at times by ropes through the nose, this does not characterize the exile imagery presented in Amos 4:2 (for iconographic representations of human exiles led away via nose-rope in the ANE, see Rawlinson 1871, 243 [Sargon II]; Mekhitarian 1954, §82; cf. Albenda 1986, pls. 75, 82).

71

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

Ṣinnôt

Thorns > Hooks

Baskets

Scholarly Sources

 1. Osty  2. Weiser   3. Rinaldi  4. Sellin  5. Dalman  6. Maag  7. Rudolph  8. Williams   9. Ibn Ezra 10. Harper 11. Nötscher 12. Weiser 13. Robinson 14. Cripps 15. Hammer-shaimb 16. Tur-Sinai 17. Craghan 18. Waard and Smalley 19. HALOT

1. Paul 2. Ibn Ganaḥ 3. Ibn Balʿam 4. Eliezer Beaugency 5. Bodi (following Held) 6. Fishelov

Ancient Versions and Modern Translations

Table 7.  Scholarly and Versional Positions on Ṣinnôt

  1. V (contis)*   2. Th. (δόρασιν)*   3. JPS   4. ESV   5. NRSV   6. NIV   7. KJV   8. NASB   9. Segond 10. Schlachter 11. Wycliffe (“shafts”) 12. Coverdale (“spears”) 13. Knox (“spears”)

1. NET 2. NJPSV

Boats

Shields

1. Rashi 1. Driver 2. Metsudat 2. Snaith Zion 3. Abar-banel 4. Zolli 5. Kimḥi 6. Luria

Ropes, Cords 1. Schwantes 2. Wolff 3. Koch

1. LXX 1. NABRE 2. V (contis)* 3. Tg. 4. Aquila 5. Sym. 6. Th. (δόρασιν)* 3. NEB 4. Lamsa (“weapons”) 5. REB

were lifted up and carried on shields due to their physical fatigue (Driver 1954, 20). Moreover, Snaith’s presentation of those carried on shields as corpses misses the point of the imagery altogether: the discipline is not necessarily death, but exile. All this leaves the reader wondering why Assyrian soldiers would carry POW’s with them on shields during their long trek eastward? 3.2.1.2.3.5.  Marine Transportation A fifth position reads ṣinnôt as “boats” on the basis of a faulty understanding of the parallel term sīrôt. This position was popular among medieval interpreters, but has curried

72

Chapter 3 Table 8. Scholarly and Versional Positions on Sīrôt

Ancient Versions and Modern Translations

Scholarly Sources

Sīrôt

Nettles > Fish Hooks or Harpoons

Boats

Pots

 1. Osty  2. Weiser (“Stacheln”)   3. Rinaldi  4. Schwantes (“thorns”)  5. Maag  6. Dalman  7. HALOT  8. Wolff (“harpoon”)  9. Rudolph (“harpoon”) 10. Harper 11. Cripps 12. Nötscher 13. Hammershaimb 14. Tur-Sinai 15. Waard and Smalley 16. Koch

1. Rashi 2. Kimḥi 3. Abarbanel 4. Zolli

 1. Driver  2. Paul   3. Ibn Ezra (“baskets”)  4. Snaith   5. Menahem ben Sarug   6. Eliezer Beaugency  7. Ehrlich  8. Cramer  9. Bodi (following Held) 10. Craghan 11. Fishelov (“baskets”)

  1. ESV   2. JPS   3. NIV   4. KJV   5. NASB   6. NRSV   7. Segond   8. Schlachter   9. NABRE

1. Tg.

  1. LXX   2. Aq.   3. V   4. S   5. NET   6. NEB (“baskets”)   7. Wycliffe   8. Coverdale (“pans”)   9. REB (“baskets”) 10. NJPSV (“baskets”) 11. Knox (“cooking-pan”)

little support post-Enlightenment. 41 Given the context of a prophesied exile from Samaria, it is furthermore very unlikely Amos had a marine deportation in mind. 42 3.2.1.2.4. Conclusion The very existence of five different positions on one passage demonstrates the inherent difficulty in ascertaining its meaning and the frustration scholars have experienced in light of this reality. Only one, however, presents a tenable defense of its poetic features, fishing imagery, meaning in context (both 4:1–3 and Amos as a whole), and relationship to other similar passages in the HB. The specialized nuances of ṣinnôt and sīrôt deftly reflect pastoral terms familiar to the prophet that he transformed in order to recontextualize a foundational deuteronomic reality (divine retribution). As the next section 41.  To my knowledge, Luria is the only modern adherent of this position (1966–67, 6–11). 42.  Paul remarks that the idea of a marine exile simply does not fit “the geographical/​ideational outlook of the prophet” (1978, 188).

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

73

demonstrates, the image of a fisher’s hook forcibly removing a people group from their homeland by divine appointment is not particular to Amos 4:2, but rather a leitmotif of biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature. 3.2.2.  Habakkuk 1:14–17

3.2.2.1. Translation 1:14

‫ותעשׂה אדם כדגי הים‬ ‫כרמשׂ לא־משׁל בו‬

You [Yhwh] make43 mankind like44 the fish of the sea, like the crawling things45 that have no ruler.

  43  44  45

1:15

‫כלה בחכה העלה‬ ‫יגרהו בחרמו‬ ‫ויאספהו במכמרתו‬ ‫על־כן ישׂמח ויגיל‬

1:16

‫על־כן יזבח לחרמו‬ ‫ויקטר למכמרתו‬ ‫כי בהמה שׁמן חלקו‬ ‫ומאכלו בראה‬

He [Nebuchadrezzar] brings all of it up with a hook, drags it with his net, gathers it in his dragnet, (and) thus rejoices and celebrates. Therefore he sacrifices to his net,46 and makes offerings to his dragnet,47 for by them his portion is fat, and his food is rich.

  46  47

  48  49

1:17

‫העל כן יריק חרמו‬ ‫ותמיד להרג גוים לא‬ ‫יחמול‬

He shall then continue to empty his net,48 mercilessly killing nations.49

43. Van Dijk’s attempt to reassess this second masc. sg. verb as a third masc. sg. that means“to gather” stands on thin evidence (1969, 446; cf. Dahood 1983, 60). 44.  The use of the preposition kə as an “object of adequacy” following ʿśh is unique to this passage, according to Humbert 1944, 127. 45. Hebrew remeś typically refers to a land dwelling creature which crawls on the ground, but here in Hab 1:14, as well as possibly in 1 Kgs 5:13 and Ps 104:25, it may designate a marine, or at least amphibious, animal. 46.  The Tg. reads “weapons” instead of “net.” 47.  The Tg. recontextualizes this reading completely, changing “empty the net” to “send the armies” and “seine” to “standards,” which were worshiped by the Romans (cf. Cathcart and Gordon 1989, 149). For Roman veneration of martial standards following the destruction of the second temple, see Tertullian, Apology 16; J.W. 6:316. For a more detailed analysis of the Roman worship of such standards, see Atkinson 1959, 246–49. 48.  Cathcart prefers romḥô “spear” over ḥermô “net” due to the fact that a spear has a holder, follows the verb ryq, and has the same consonants. It would thus function as a wordplay on the earlier term for “net.” Supporting his argument is the lack of versional support for DSS ḥarbô “sword,” which probably represents a late-stage correction, once romḥô had become corrupted into ḥermô as influenced from that term in vv. 15–16. The rationale for all rests largely on conjecture. 49.  The current translation assumes the initial heh in 1:17 is a dittograph from the final word in the preceding verse (bərīʾāh), resulting in the third repetition of the resultative phrase ʿal kēn “therefore” in 1:15–17. This reading obtains strong versional support (cf. 1QpHab [ʿal kēn], LXX [διὰ τοῦτο], and Vulg. [propter hoc ergo]).

74

Chapter 3

3.2.2.2. Commentary 3.2.2.2.1.  Literary and Historical Context A century and a half after Amos addressed Samaria, Habakkuk picks up this literary motif once again, approaching it from a different perspective and investing it with fresh meaning for his own context. Habakkuk’s impassioned inquiry (“How long? ”) in 1:2–4 concerning Yhwh’s apparent toleration of evil elicits a vexing response in 1:5–11: Babylon is the answer to the problem of rampant Judahite sin. 50 Unsatisfied, Habakkuk objects, offering a visceral retort that rails against the inhumanness of humanity. Though Habakkuk does not report the ensuing historical aftermath—as does his contemporary Jeremiah—his dynamic imagery paints an agonizing picture entrenched in a reality tragically akin to that of Amos in the mid-8th century b.c.e. Samaria. The following discussion illustrates how these prophecies used recycled motifs to showcase an ironic historical reality: the same fishing imagery used by ancient Israelites to characterize the divinely appointed justice at the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians was likewise used by Assyrians themselves. In this complex reflex of cultural convergence, opposing forces collided as fishers chased fish that characterized not only themselves but their predators in like manner, events interpreted by both parties as divinely orchestrated. 3.2.2.2.2.  Fishing Terms and Imagery Habakkuk augments the imagery in Amos, adding another reference to hooks and introducing the most common ancient Near Eastern representation of fishing imagery: the fisher’s net. This passage thus presents the fullest portrayal of fishing imagery in the HB. Moreover, the three different fishing terms Habakkuk employs differ from those found in Amos 4:2 (and in the following passages, Ezek 12:13; 17:16–21; 19:1–9). The evidence from Hab 1:15–17 exhibits an extensive repertoire of fishing imagery. Hooks and nets together portray humanity as pervasive, defenseless, and utterly dependent fish in 1:14 to construct an imposing portrayal of the Babylonian forces, using various techniques for one pragmatic purpose: world conquest. 51 This idea is clearest in 1:15 as the Babylonian leader finds joy in his capture of human beings. With each subsequent 50.  Vasholz argues both 1:2–4 and 1:12–17 (which he further takes as one homogenous speech) refer to the Assyrians, rather than the Babylonians, on the basis of his idiosyncratic perspective whereby the prophecy must have been delivered before Nabopolassar (626–605 b.c.e.), the founder of the NB empire, came to power (1992, 50–52). 51.  For an approbative example of an animal without a ruler, see Prov 6:8: “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider its way and be wise! Without having any ruler, officer, or governor, she prepares her food in the summer and gathers her grub in the harvest.” In EG, the mother goddess’ cry of anguish at the demise of her creation in the wake of the flood invokes a comparable idea (cf. 12:123: kī nūnī umalla tâmtam-ma “like a school of fish they [i.e., drowning humans] fill the sea!”). Haak suggests this metaphor communicates the weakening or decentralizing of government Habakkuk witnessed during the last few decades before the exile (1991, 51). He extends this argument further, suggesting that the deterioration of the monarchy was, alongside the issue of social injustice, a major issue for the prophet (1991, 113). Vanderhooft posits Habakkuk’s “observation of Babylonian imperial practices” as the source of this comparison (1999, 155).

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

75

casting of a line and dragging of a net, he accumulates not only more power and possessions, but also pleasure. Wrapped up in this imagery is the reality of exile for nations, such as Judah, who, like a school of fish trapped in a net, are forcibly removed from their homes and displaced to a foreign land. Rather than identifying a particular Mesopotamian ritual, 52 the sacrificial activity mentioned in 1:16 serves as an incisive metaphor, in fact, a theological polemic between Babylon and Judah. 53 Whereas Habakkuk abhorred the evil he witnessed run amok (cf. 1:2–4), he still recognized that Babylon, who attributed its success to martial strength (a temptation Israel knew all too well, for which see 1 Sam 8; 2 Sam 24), was worse than Judah (1:13). 54 The same net the Babylonians bestowed with sacrifices and offerings—appurtenances typically reserved for a deity—afforded them such an affluent, luxuriant lifestyle. Yhwh directly confronts this perspective in his later response to Habakkuk’s second complaint, articulating that the righteous, whether individual or corporate, will live (that is, survive death that comes to everyone else) not by merely upright deeds, ostensibly manifested by military success, but by trusting (cf. 2:4) regardless of external circumstances (cf. Haring 2013, 56–59; 2 Pet 2:5–9). More specifically, net worship reflects the well-attested Mesopotamian belief in the net as a divine symbol. 55 Because the members of the Mesopotamian pantheon each wielded their own net in order to inflict divine punishment, martial victory evinced divine favor, engendering the need to give thanks. 56 Habakkuk thus grounds Nebuchadrezzar’s net worship in a fundamental theological reality: battle success derives ultimately from the gods, who extend their net to capture and deport enemies. The prophet’s bewilderment culminates then in his final, desperate claim that Yhwh simply allows Babylon to continue conquering and deporting the nations without intervention (1:17).

52.  There is no interpretive connection between cultic fish offerings, which were common in Mesopotamia from the 4th millennium through the NB period (for examples, see NeK 2′:5′ [isḫi nūni apsî “{I, Nebuchadrezzar offered} a string of fish from the Apsu”]; VAB 4 154A 4:38; 92 2:29 [“Every day . . . I supplied copiously on the table of Nabu and Nana, my lords, a string of fish {isi nūnim}]” ), and the worship imagery here. Vanderhooft proffers that 1:16 illustrates not only worship of the fishing net as a source of martial strength, but also a satire on this Babylonian cultic practice. He wonders if 2:18–19 (referring to man-made gods) provides further evidence for a polemic against and rhetorical reversal of Babylonian cultic norms, even while humbly acknowledging the speculative nature of this argument and its relative lack of effect on the meaning of the passage (1999, 156–57). 53.  Roberts concurs, stating that “Habakkuk’s comment is hardly a fair appraisal of the religious situation in Babylon, but there is a certain truth to his statement in terms of the ultimate significance Nebuchadrezzar placed upon his military” (1991, 104). 54.  For similar examples which affirm that both parties are reprehensible, see Gen 38:26; Ezek 16:52. 55. Contra Zwickel, who suggests reference to the Babylonian cult is an utterly Hebrew projection rather than a reflex of historical awareness (1987, 73). 56. Cf. Dhorme 1907, 64. For a possible Eblaite reference to worshiping a divine net, see MEE 1:1570 (dir-mu), which Dahood normalizes ḥirmu “Divine Net” (cf. also the PN i-ti-ir-mu / ʾitti-ḥirmu/ “with [me] is the Divine Net” [1983, 60; cf. MEE 1:1008]).

76

Chapter 3

In viewing the section from afar, Habakkuk’s complaint in 1:12–17 is rooted not only in a vindictive rage against the Babylonian war machine but Yhwh’s toleration of idolatry and his reticence to address the escalating violence it produced on an international scene. How could a righteous God appoint such a barbaric, idolatrous nation that endlessly and futilely sacrificed to its own nets, as a disciplinary tool? 57 Habakkuk’s comparison of humanity to fish in 1:14 is a direct indictment against God. In so doing, he refuted the idea that humans lacked a real leader (mōšēl), for the HB elsewhere classifies Yhwh in this role (for example, Pss 22:29; 59:14; 103:19; Job 25:2; 1 Chr 29:12; 2 Chr 20:6; cf. Judg 8:23; Andersen 2001, 190). The problems for Habbakuk are that Yhwh’s (in)actions contradicted his position of leadership, and his answer to localized sin involved the proliferation of widespread violence at the hands of a wicked nation. What he witnessed was incongruent with what he knew to be true about God (Andersen 2001, 187). Despite the bleak outlook of looming incursion and divine silence, Habakkuk’s future had yet to be determined, meaning that God was capable still of reversing his declaration that Babylon was the resolution to sin. 58 His decision to take his stand atop a watch post—hoping his complaint had moved Yhwh away from what he perceived to be divine negligence and toward mercy as he anxiously awaited Yhwh’s response to his cognitive dissonance—makes this immediately clear. The Babylonian exile would eventually clear up any theological misconceptions about the potential relationship between divine judgment and righteousness, for as Jeremiah (for example, 24:1–10; 25:8–11; 27:1–11; 29:1–14; 39:9–10), Ezekiel (for example, 5:5–17; 12:19–20; 16:51–59; 33:27– 57. Contra Andersen (2001, 189–90), who suggests this idea is far too heavily influenced by Isaiah’s perception of Assyria as “Yhwh’s razor” (Isa 7:20). Though Andersen is right to point out Babylon’s indiscriminate slaughtering of all people, even those presumed to be righteous, the relationship between Yhwh and Babylon as a divinely appointed instrument is integral to the book’s structure. It is Yhwh himself who raises up the Babylonians for the express purpose of addressing injustice (1:6), whether concerning Judah alone or the general injustice among the nations. Habakkuk thus draws attention to a problem that Isaiah either did not see or did not identify. 58. Contra Andersen, who sees in Habakkuk’s second complaint a universal scope to his cry for justice. Though Habakkuk does, in fact, allude to creation (and specifically, Gen 1) by the use of its language, Andersen’s proposal that Habakkuk’s distress revolves around God’s neglect of creation misses the point. For Hab 1:14–17 as a reflection of a distortion of the intended created order, see Sweeney (2000, 468). It is not a philosophical debate, but a confrontation entrenched in the fear and exasperation of his own context. Having recently endured the untimely death of Josiah, whose faithfulness to Yhwh exceeded that of any other Israelite king (2 Kgs 23:21–25), and the wickedness of his successor, Jehoiakim (cf. Jer 36), Habakkuk conceived of the nations as diminutive and dependent fish, desperate for their true leader to intervene. While 1:14 does refer to creation’s need for leadership, the sudden shift from the second masc. sg. verb in 1:14 to the third masc. sg. verb in 1:15 (note also the two different variations of pronominal suffix at the end of 1:14 and beginning of 1:15, which may simply reflect two different diachronic stages of textual transmission), which shifts the address from God to the Babylonian king, precludes any potential leveling out of imagery. Habakkuk perceives both the divine and human sphere intimately involved. All creation may be in desperate need of leadership, but Babylon alone has asserted itself as a world conqueror, and, via Yhwh’s own command, had set its sights on Judah. And while Andersen is correct that 1:14–17 does not reflect nationalistic overtones (à la Jonah), his attempt to divorce this rich imagery from space and time rings hollow.

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

77

Table 9.  Eannatum The Stele of Vultures: Eannatum (ca. 2450 b.c.e.) Ningirsu secures victory for Eannatum and Lagaš, capturing the citizens of Umma in his cosmic net. (Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin 1909, 95–7; Jacobsen 1976, 247–59; Sollberger 1956, 9–16; Kramer 1963, 310–13)

29), and Lamentations (for example, 2:19–22) demonstrate, both the righteous and the wicked would together suffer on behalf of the actions of the latter. 59 Habakkuk’s honest persistence shows he had neither accepted nor adopted this sobered reality. 60 3.2.2.2.3.  Ancient Near Eastern Background Habakkuk 1:14–17 is one of several biblical reflexes of fishing imagery used to connote divinely appointed discipline via exile, but its explicit mention of a foreign nation as the divine instrument (cf. 1:6) to mete out said punishment is unique (cf. Jer 16:16). One nation’s plundering of another as the result of divine decree is a recurrent motif in Mesopotamian literature from the third millennium b.c.e. through the NA period. 61 The most visual analogue comes from the SoV, which depicts Ningirsu gripping a net full of captives he has taken from Umma in order to defend Eannatum, king of Lagaš (table 9). 62 Later historiographical texts from the reign of Enmetena (2418–2391 b.c.e.), king of Lagaš, reflect on that event, envisioning Ningirsu, at Enlil’s behest, casting a “great battle net” (s a - š u š - g a l) on Umma, Lagaš’s rival city-state (table 10). Soon afterward in northern Mesopotamia (ca. 2300 b.c.e.), Sargon the Great left behind a Victory Stele with an (omen) inscription and accompanying relief that virtually mirrors the iconography of the SoV. 63 Sargon captures a cohort of enemy POW’s, beats them 59.  This is not, however, to say that theodicy found a resolution (but cf. 2:4, where God pledges to rescue the righteous by means of “his” faithfulness). The Old Greek replaces Heb. kullōh “all of it” with συντέλειαν “consummation” (also in Hab 1:9), which regularly glosses a number of different Hebrew terms, such as kəlīl “whole” (Judg 20:40), ʾaḥărīt “end” (Deut 11:12), qēṣ “end” (Dan 12:13), kāllēh “to bring to an end” (Ps 58:14 [59:14 in MT]), and kālāh “complete destruction” (Jer 4:27). In so doing, this narrows the object of divine wrath from humanity to the impious and ever so slightly distances Nebuchadrezzar’s activity from the indiscriminate, universal onslaught exhibited in the MT, thus obviating the brunt of theodicy’s force there. Such a stroke of revisionism may have satisfied later contexts, but the experiences of Habakkuk and the generations succeeding him defied such a reality. 60.  The authentic wrestling in the context of an open future, demonstrative of a theological naiveté to which later Judeans were not privy, offers literary support for a preexilic date of the book. 61.  Zwickel curiously speculates that since the terms in Habakkuk also show up in Isaiah with reference to Egypt, the fishing imagery did not come from Mesopotamia but rather his own homeland (1987, 73). Unfortunately, he arrives at this conclusion without investigating the actual Mesopotamian evidence. 62.  Parrot suggests this iconographic example provides a close analogue to Hab 1:14–17 (1957, 14). 63.  For this text, see Spycket 1945–46, 151–56 (esp. p. 152, fig. 1); Pézard and Pottier 1926, 35. Amiet opines that on both this and the SoV the king devotes his enemies to the goddess, Ištar (1953, 151–52).

78

Chapter 3 Table 10.  Enmetena Royal Inscriptions of Enmetena (2418–2391 b.c.e.; cf. Table 9 for this same event)

´ iš[a] ([Umma]), and “E-anatum gave the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil to the leader of G made him swear to him by it” (RIME 1, 1.9.3.1, 16 12–17) [Whenever I do transgress, may the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil, king of heaven and ´ iša (Umma)!”] (RIME 1, 1.9.3.1, 16 earth, by which I have sworn, descend upon (ḫé-šuš) G 34–40; reconstructed by Frayne) “[If anyone from Umma violates the agreement] may the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil, ´ iša (Umma)!” (RIME 1, 1.9.3.1, 17 6–20) by which he has sworn, descend upon G “He cast (bí-šuš) the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) upon it at Enlil’s command” (RIME 1 1.9.5 1:28–29)

Table 11.  Sargon the Great Sargon’s Victory Stele (ca. 2300 b.c.e.) Sargon of Agade captures enemies in a net. (Spycket 1945–1946, 151–56 [esp. 152, fig. 1]; Pézard and Pottier 1926, 35; cf. Amiet 1953, 151–52)

with a mace, and envelops them in a net (table 11). A century and a half later, Agade, the first major Semitic conurbation and the fruit of Sargon’s imperial success, fell to the Gutians, a tribe from the Zagros mountains, who pillaged the city and its environs. This watershed event, commissioned by the head of the Mesopotamian pantheon, Enlil, effectively brought the Akkadian Empire to an end. An apologetic account of the city’s fall, The Curse of Agade, compares the Gutian forces to a divinely appointed net that ensnares a field of animals (table 12). 64 Hammurapi later refers to himself as a net spread out for his enemy (table 13). 65 While these examples precede Habakkuk’s context by nearly 1,200 years, much closer examples emerge in both the mytho-historical (EI) and historiographical (Assyrian royal inscriptions) literature of the 1st millennium b.c.e. Habakkuk’s comparison of humankind to fish helplessly caught in a hook and ensnared in a net by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadrezzar (1:14), resembles Erra’s contemplation over whether or not to discipline humanity in EI (1:42; table 14). 66 His decision in the affirmative shows up 64. Cf. Cooper 1983, 56–9; ETCSL 2.1.5 (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text =t.2.1.5#). The common, primarily agricultural, Sum. term gu “cord, net” (cf. Akk. qû “thread, flax”) is here used to denote a “net” or “snare.” As elsewhere, the specific occupational source of net imagery is left ambiguous. Another Sumerian text responding to the fall of a major Mesopotamian city, The Lament for Ur, casts the devastation from a different perspective: “Your fisherman (once) carrying fishes, an evildoer captured, how long . . . ? ” (Samet 2014, 75:365). 65.  In an anomalous, variant passage from the Apology of Hattušiliš, the royal protagonist claims that once Ištar ensnared his arch rival, Urḫitešup “like a fish in a net” (ḫūpalaza), he then proceeded to arrest and deport him in order to prevent any further insurrection (KBo 6:29 + 2:33–35; Götze 1967, 50–1). 66.  Later in that same epic Išum wrestles with theodicy in a similar way to Habakkuk, attempting to cajole Erra that the human offense is not as severe as that of the Anzu, and that Erra’s

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

79

Table 12.  Curse of Agade Curse of Agade (OB version; fragments from Ur III) “Because of him [i.e. Enlil], they stretched their arms out across the plain like a net (gu) for animals.” (Cooper 1983, 159; ETCSL 2.1.5 (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl. cgi?text=t.2.1.5#)

Table 13.  Hammurapi Code of Hammurapi (1792–1750 b.c.e.) “[Hammurapi], the net (sapāru; ensnaring) the enemy.” (Code of Hammurapi 2 68) “I [i.e. Hammurapi] am a net (sa-pàr), spread out (lá-a-me-en) for the enemy.” (TLB 2 3:6; Sjöberg 1961, 51)

Table 14. Erra and Išum (EI) Erra and Išum (8th b.c.e.?) “When the clamor of the inhabitants becomes distresses you and your heart desires to throw a net (šakān kamāri), to kill mankind, and to slaughter the herds of Šakkan.” (1:41–43) “As if to bind (kamēšu) the evil Anzu, [his net] (šēssu) is spread out (šuparrura[t]).” (3c: 33; reconstructed by Cagni 1969, 98) “The residents of Babylon—they the bird, you their snare (arru)—you bound (takmiššūnima) in your net (šēti), you caught (tabīr [following Cagni 1969, 107; AHw 4b; contra CAD A/1 38, s.v. abāru III]), you slew them, O warrior Erra.” (3:18–19) “Its people the herds, their god the slayer, whose net (šētīšu) is finely meshed (inša piqatūma); husbands were not extracted (out of it), but they died by the weapon.” (3:94). For these references, see Cagni 1969; 1970; Bodi 1991, 171–73.

later within a lengthy speech by Išum (3:18–19) describing the post-judgment aftermath where Babylon and its residents, the objects of Erra’s wrath, are ineluctably caught in a divine net. 67 His fury not satiated, Erra craves even more devastation. Rather than simply deporting the Babylonians, Erra eventually transforms into a killer, likening the people of Babylon to livestock led to the slaughter by a butcher (4:94). 68 The text here envisions a divine net swallowing up human beings and leading them to death. Each punitive standards or battle tactics should thus not be universalized (3c:33; see Cagni 1969; 1970). Bodi offers a comparative analysis of literary elements found in both EI and Ezekiel, but as demonstrated here, the former shares even stronger affinities with the book of Habakkuk (1991, 162–82). 67.  Two Akkadian words in parallelism denote the net imagery here (arru “snare, decoy” and šētu “net”). Both represent tools used by the hunter and fowler. The different terms for “net” in the ANE are quite plastic, just as are the techniques employed by the hunter, fisher, and fowler. 68.  “Its (i.e., Babylon’s) people are livestock, their god (i.e., Erra) is the slayer. He it is whose net is tight(ly bound). They could not draw husbands (out of it), but (rather) died by a weapon” (4:93–94). Akkadian māḫiṣu derives from a term which evinces the base meaning of “beater,” but here refers more to “slaying, slaughtering, and butchering” (so Bodi 1991, 173 n. 42; contra Cagni 1969, 114–15).

80

Chapter 3 Table 15.  Adad-nirari II Royal inscription of Adad-nirari II (911–891 b.c.e.)

“I spread (asḫup) like a battle net (kīma šuškalli), I enclose like a net (kīma ḫuḫāri); at the mention of my strong name the princes of the four quarters quake like reeds in a storm, at the start of my campaign their weapons melt as if in a kiln” (RIMA l/2 A.0.99.2:21, p. 148; cf. 2R 67:13; dated to his second regnal year) “The king will clamp down on (usaḫḫap) his servants like a battle net (kīma šuškalli)” (RIMA 1 A.0.99.4: 9′–12′, p. 157; Cf. CT 28 48 K.182+:7 [SB ext.]; dated to his fourth regnal year)

Table 16.  Šamši-Adad V Royal Inscription of Šamši-Adad V (824–811 b.c.e.) “I spread over (asḫup) the entire land of Nairi like a cast net (kīma sapāri)” (RIMA 2/3 A.0.103.1:6, p. 183; 1R 29 2 6)

of the five instances of a term for “net” in EI signals a divine weapon (Bodi 1991, 173). Though this text goes further than any of the passages in the HB that we are discussing, the idea of divinely appointed deportation by a cosmic net displayed in EI demonstrates that the biblical references reflect a well-established ancient Near Eastern literary trope. Though the interaction in EI is between the supernal and human realm, the most common Mesopotamian examples of divinely appointed discipline using fishing imagery come from the NA historical inscriptions. Outside the few references deriving from the 3rd millennium and EI, the use of this brand of fishing imagery proliferates in the annals left behind by NA kings. Starting in the 9th century b.c.e., an annal from the second regnal year of Adad-nirari II (911–891 b.c.e.) compares this king’s battle strength to a net that causes foreign leaders to tremble with fear (table 15). A later annal of Šamši-Adad V (824–811 b.c.e.) similarly likens his subjugation of Nairi to a net (table 16). References like this burgeon in both quantity and specificity a century and a half later with the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 b.c.e.), who overpowered a trio of southern tribes, Bīt-Kapsi, Bīt-Sangi, and Bīt-Urzakki, “like a cast net” (kīma sapāri; BM 118933. Cf. ICC 51a; STP 96; RINAP 1 7:6, p. 31 [= Annal 11 in Tadmor 1994, 46–47, pl. 7]). A later summary inscription recycles this same imagery in order to describe how Tiglath-Pileser III routed the Puqudu tribe and carried away an abundance of its spoils (table 17; K 3751; cf. 2R 67; RINAP 1 47:13, p. 118 [= the Summary Inscription from Calah 7 in Tadmor 2007, 160–61, pl. 54]). The annals of Sargon II, the king who usurped the throne of Tiglath Pileser III’s son, Šalmaneser V, revivified this literary motif. In Sargon II’s victory over the Mannaeans and their capital city, Izirtu, his annals equate the king’s martial activity to that of a net (ḫuḫāriš; Fuchs 1994, 99A; Lie 1929, 15:86). A nearly identical passage describes his conquest of Tabal as if conducted with a net (šētiš; Lie 1929, 200–201). Another annal once again describes how his troops subjugated Marubištu “like a net” (ḫuḫāriš) but adds an important detail: the Assyrian troops brought Marubištu’s ruler and warriors in fetters before Sargon II himself, presumably with the intention of deportation (Lie 1929, 75:5; see

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

81

Table 17.  Tiglath-Pileser III Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 b.c.e.) “I spread over (asḫup) Bit-Kapsi, Bit-Sangi, (and) Bit Urzakki like a cast net (kīma sapāri)” (BM 118933; STP 96; ICC 51a; RINAP 1 7:6, p. 31; Annal 11:6 in Tadmor 2007, pl. 7) “I spread over (asḫup) the Puqudu like a cast net (kīma sapāri), massacred them in great numbers, and carried off much booty from them.” (Text K 3751 = IIR 67; RINAP 1 47:13, p. 118; Summary Inscription 7:13 in Tadmor 2007, 161; dated to Tiglath-Pileser III’s 17th palû [ca. 729 b.c.e.] in commemoration of the construction of Calah’s royal palace, this is the “the most detailed of Tiglath-Pileser’s Summary Inscriptions” [Tadmor 2007, 154]).

Table 18.  Sargon II Royal Inscriptions of Sargon II (722–705 b.c.e.) “I spread over (asḫ[up]) Izirtu, his royal city of the land of the Mannaeans, as with a net (ḫuḫāriš) and I massacred them in great numbers.” (Annal 86; Fuchs 1994, 99; Lie 1929, 15:86) “[Sargon], valiant one, from whose trap (gišparrīšu) the evildoers do not escape.” (TCL 3 118) “I covered (ukattima) the entire land of Tabal as with a net (šētiš).” (Annals 200–201; Fuchs 1994, 125; Lie 1929, 200–01) “Up to Marubištu a fortress which (sits) on a mountain peak and rises from the plain, with. . .and they overthrew (isḫupū-ma) that fortress as with a net (ḫuḫāriš), and they brought him, together with his warriors, before me in irons and fetters.” (Annals 420–21; Fuchs 1994, 181; Lie 1929, 75:5) “I spread over (asḫup) those regions as with a net (ḫuḫāriš).” (Gadd 1954, 177:46) “[Sargon,] who caught the Ionians, who live in the sea as if they were fish.” (Lyon 1883, 14:25 [cf. 4:21]; Winckler 1889, pl. 38 4:35) “He spread out over them (isḫupšunūti) like a net (kīma sapāri).” (Winckler 1889, pl. 44 B 6)

Gadd 1954, 177:46). When attacking the island dwellers of Ionia, his historical report most closely reflects the imagery presented in Habakkuk. On that occasion he caught the Ionians as if they were fish (table 18; see Lyon 1883, 14:25 [cf. 4:21]; Winckler 1889, pl. 38 4:35). His son, Sennacherib, similarly scared away Lulî, the king of Sidon, like a fish to Cyprus, where he disappeared on behalf of the awesomeness of Aššur (table 19). Mesopotamian literary examples demonstrating the greatest literary and chronological propinquity to Habakkuk’s fishing imagery come from the royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon (681–669 b.c.e.). In a hexagonal prism celebrating his military achievements, such as the westward campaign against Abdi-Milkūti and the Sidonians, Esarhaddon claims, at the direct commissioning of Aššur, chief of the Assyrian pantheon, to have caught (abāršu) the retreating Sidonian king “like a fish from the midst of the sea” (table 20; RINAP 4 1, 2:65). The fishing nature of this capture is appropriate given Sidon’s maritime location. His annals rerecord this same event, replicating the imagery identically, on no less than four other occasions (1 5:10–25; 2 1:14; 6 2′:16′; 60 obv. 1′). While the fishing imagery in Hab 1:14–17 envisions Nebuchadrezzar as a war-mongering tyrant, who, as a fisher, demonstrates his limitless power by capturing the nations in his net as fish, this inscription, in like manner, later alludes to Esarhaddon’s same Sidonian expedition in order to underscore the unrivaled martial prowess and universal sovereignty of his kingship. 

82

Chapter 3

Figure 12.  The Victory Stele of Esarhaddon from Zinçirli, in which Esarhaddon (not in photo) leads a supplicant (Baʿal of Tyre?) away via rope and hook in his cheek. Located at the Pergamon Museum, Berlin. Public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_stele_of_Esarhaddon# mediaviewer/File:Assarhaddon_Berlin_022008.jpg).

Table 19. Sennacherib Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib (705–681 b.c.e.) “[Lulî], king of Sidon, [became scared of battle], fl[ed] like a fish (kīma nūni ip[paršid]) [to Cyprus, which is in the midst of the sea, and took refuge [there]. In that same land, he resorted to a mountain] on account of the awesomeness of the w[eapon of Aššur, my lord].” (RINAP 3/2 45:1′–4′).

Though the attestations of these themes in Mesopotamian literature span nearly two millennia, the frequency multiplies during the first millennium b.c.e. royal inscriptions of the NA kings. As with ḥakkāh, ḥērem and mikmeret in Hab 1:14–17, the Mesopotamian evidence from the 1st millennium b.c.e. likewise uses different terms to communicate a singular point. The number of pertinent lexemes used in the 1st millennium b.c.e. evidence (including EI) is strikingly balanced: sapāru (“cast net”) 8×, šētu (“net”) 5×, ḫuḫāru (“net”) 5×, šuškallu (“battle net”) 4×, gišparru (“trap”) 2×, kamāru (“net”) 1×,

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

83

Table 20.  Esarhaddon Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon (681–669 b.c.e.) “By the command of Aššur, my lord, I caught him [Abdi-Milkūti] like a fish from the midst of the sea (kīma nūni ultu qereb tâmtim abāršu-ma) and cut off his head. I carried off his wife, his sons, his daughters, his palace servants, gold, silver, goods, property, precious stones, multicolored garments and linen(s), elephant hide(s), ivory, ebony, boxwood, everything of value from his palace in huge quantities, (and) led away his extensive populace which was innumerable, oxen, sheep and goats, and donkeys in huge numbers to Assyria. (Hexagonal Prism from Nineveh that records Esarhaddon’s military exploits known as Nineveh A [#BM 121005]: ICC pl. 54; RINAP 4 1 2:72–80) “The one who fled into the sea to save his (own) life did not escape my trap (gišparrīya) and did not save himself. I caught (abāršu-ma) the swift runner (lit. “knee opener”) who took to the stepped ascents of remote mountains like a bird from the midst of the mountains and bound his arms. I made their blood flow out like (water from) a breach in mountain gullies. I ripped out the roots of the Sutu, who live in tents in a remote place, like the striking of a raging storm. Neither he who made his fortress the sea nor he who made the mountain his stronghold escaped my (divine) net (saparrīya) (or) successfully escaped. I ordered the (re)settling of those of the sea to the mountains (and) those of the mountains to the sea. At the command of Aššur, my lord, who can rival me in kingship? Moreover, who among the kings, my fathers, was there whose dominion was as great as mine? From the midst of the sea, my enemies spoke thus: ‘Where can the fox go to get away from the sun? ” (RINAP 4 1 5:10–25) “the one who conquered Sidon, which is in the midst of the sea. . .I caught (abāršu) Abdi-Milkūti, its king, who had fled in the face of my weapons into the midst of the sea, like a fish from the midst of the sea and cut off his head. I carried off. . . [see list above at 1 2:72–80].” (Hexagonal prism that is a truncated version of Nineveh A, known as Nineveh [Prism] B [#IM59046], dated to ca. 676 b.c.e.: RINAP 4 2 1:14–30) “In my second campaign, (as for) Abdi-Milkūti, king of Sidon, (who) did not fear my lordship (and) did not obey the words of my lips, who trusted in the rolling sea and threw off the yoke of Aššur—I leveled Sidon, his supply city, which is situated in the midst of the sea, like a flood. . ..Abdi-Milkūti, its king, in the face of my weapons, fled into the midst of the sea. By the command of the Aššur, my lord, I caught him (abāršu) like a fish from the midst of the sea and cut off his head. I carried off [see list above at 1 2:72–80; 2 1:14–30].” (Fragment of an octagonal prism known as Nineveh [Prism] D or Nineveh [Prism] S [#BM 134465] that is similar to Nineveh A: RINAP 4 6 2:10′–23′) “I conquered [Sidon], caught (abāršu) [its king] like a fish, and cut off his head.” (Broken alabaster tablet from Aššur, now in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum [#EṢ 6262] known as Aššur-Babylon E [AsBbE] RINAP 4 60 obv. 2′–3′)

arru (“snare”) 1×. 69 The attendant verbs modify these apparatuses in several ways. They either describe different aspects of the fishing process—the act of spreading the net over 69.  And just as the terms (both in the HB and cognate literature) have particular nuances, they also demonstrate overlapping semantic domains. Though the gišparru was made of wood, and should thus be translated “trap” rather than “net,” it nevertheless customarily parallels other clear terms for “net,” such as šētu and šuškallu (cf. CAD G 106–7, s.v. gišparru usage a). For example, see Maqlû (3:157–60), which compares four of the seven terms in view above: kīma ḫuḫāri isḫupu eṭlu kīma šēti ukattimu qarrādu kīma šuškalli ašarēdu ibarru kīma gišparri iktumu danna “it spread over the

84

Chapter 3 Table 21.  Aššurbanipal Royal inscriptions of Aššurbanipal (668–627 b.c.e.)

“the cast net of the great gods (sapār ilī rabûti), my lords, which was inescapable (naparšudi), spread over them (isḫupšunūti), and no one escaped (ipparšid).” (BM 1701 = VAB 7; cf. IIT 9; Borger 1996, 235; Cf. A §40; 4:53–69)

Table 22.  The Disciplinary Function of a King’s Net ABL 1102 rev:7 (vol. 11; p. 1211) “If he flees, he is on his own. The net (šēti) of the king encircles him (lamatuš; stative from lawû). Your gods will deliver him into your hands.” (K 82–5–22, 116; NA tablet from Nineveh; collated by M. Dietrich and the BM; RCAE 2 264–5; cf. de Vaan 1995, 298–300; von Soden 1966, 14)

Table 23.  Haruspicy BM 22694 (94–1–15, 496) RA 67 41:7 “The king will spread over his slaves like a battle net” (kīma šuškallim isaḫḫapšunūti). (haruspicy of unknown date and provenance; cf. Aro and Nougayrol 1973, 41:7)

enemies (Akk. saḫāpu “to spread”; katāmu “to cover” [=Sum. š u š “to cover”]) or catching enemies in said spread net (bâru “to catch”)—or modify the net’s inescapability (madādu II “to escape”; naparšudu “to flee”). The evidence as a whole, from the mid-3rd millennium b.c.e. SoV down to Aššurbanipal’s mid-7th century b.c.e. royal inscriptions (table 21), 70 demonstrates shared imagery that likewise weaves through Hab 1:14: a monarch cast as a fisher who catches foreign peoples like fish, an inescapable net wielded by that same king, and the divinely appointed discipline that commissioned the event in the first place (see tables 22–23). 71 3.2.2.2.4 Interpretation Having addressed the language, imagery, and ancient Near Eastern comparanda, one essential question remains: what does Hab 1:14–17 mean in light of all this? The Babylonians, in general, and Nebuchadrezzar, in particular, function as fishers (and hunters) only by way of the vehicle of metaphorical language. The metaphor affords a writer the potential to transcend the literal in order to communicate fuller or richer meaning. In this passage Habakkuk skillfully applied “the generalizations of his time and environyoung man like a net, covered the warrior like a net, caught the pre-eminent one like a battle net, enveloped the strong one like a trap” (RBS 5 13′–2). 70.  For examples from Aššurbanipal, see Borger 1996, 235; A §40, 3:53–69. 71.  According to Herodotus, the Persians practiced a military operation known as “netting,” which was conducted after the acquisition of fresh territory (Hist. 3:149; 6:31; cf. Geog. 10:1.10). The conquering army would link hands and empty the land of its people, handing over the now desolate and uninhabited area to someone new. Herodotus mentions this practice particularly in records of island campaigns, such as against Ionia, where it was impractical (Lundbom 1999, 770).

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

85

ment” to the Chaldeans (Zwickel 1987, 73). To that end, the prophet, aghast at the rampant evil within and without his own milieu, summons a deity, who at one point established cosmic order in the primeval past by vanquishing the forces of chaos, to return to form (Cathcart 2010, 345). His complaints are not merely philosophical abstractions concerning theodicy, but visceral protests that grow out of a deeply personal and reified situation (cf. Andersen 2001, 171). While fishing played a more integral role in Mesopotamian society than in ancient Israel, this association relies less on a socioeconomic extraction than it does on established literary conventions and political climate. 72 This is appropriate in light of the fact that, as in Amos 4:2, the ultimate effect of the fishing imagery manifests international implications. The fishing instruments—hook and seine— combine to provide a comprehensive portrayal of divinely appointed exile. Habakkuk and Amos both appropriated imagery more characteristic of the cultures surrounding Israel (Mesopotamia and Egypt) than Israel itself in order to communicate a jarring point: the nation that perceived itself to be a fisher of men had set its sights westward and was suddenly poised to cast its net over the nations, including Judah! The evaluation of Habakkuk’s relationship to the Mesopotamian sources suggests neither that Habakkuk, the later of the two, drew upon or was even familiar with the imagery from Esarhaddon’s Sidonian incursion nor that the passages do not also show important differences (for they clearly do!). There is likewise no explicit sign of literary dependence. Both of these texts have their own distinct contexts. What precisely, then, is the relationship between Hab 1:14–17 and the Mesopotamian literature surveyed above? The net as an instrument of hunters, fowlers, and fishers served as an efficient literary demonstration of divine retribution. This net symbolism shows up in the earliest preserved cuneiform evidence, but falls into desuetude for most of the 2nd millennium b.c.e., only to resurface in the royal inscriptions of the NA kings. It is noteworthy that this literary reemergence coincides with Assyria’s reconsolidating of power in the first millennium b.c.e. This literary renaissance—attested in both Mesopotamia (NA period) and Egypt (Saite Dynasty; cf. Sanders 2009, 149; Hallo 1996, 88–89)—adds archaic imagery to a burgeoning inventory intended to portray these Assyrian monarchs in a cer72.  In a passage that likely depends on Jer 16:16, 1QHa 13:9–11 refers to fishers and hunters as those who seek the lives of the unrighteous, doling out judgment upon the “children of iniquity” (bənê ʿawlāh). In a similar vein, Mesopotamian theology recognized the existence of one particular demon named alluḫappu “net.” Had economy served as the measure for the fishing metaphor, would not Egypt and its highly developed fishing commerce have filled that role most efficiently? Zwickel’s suggestion that Heb. vernacular related the term “Chaldean” to “fishers” relies on very thin evidence (1987, 73). It is true that the Chaldeans, who had joined Nabopolassar’s forces in the middle of the 7th century b.c.e., originated near the Persian Gulf and thus would have been familiar with fishing practices. His attempted linguistic comparison (or, in his words, “phonetic allusion”) between the Akkadian term for “Chaldean” (bit-Dakūrri) and Hebrew word for “fisher” (dayyāg/dawwāg), as well as Akk. šukuddāku and Sum. šu-ku6, creates many more problems than it actually answers. One need not relegate the line of argumentation to uncertain linguistic associations in order to conclude that Habakkuk used this instance of fishing imagery appropriately. Though Zwickel admits Habakkuk showed “no further knowledge of the Chaldeans” (1987, 73), he provides no explanation for how the prophet actually acquired such specialized information in the first place.

86

Chapter 3

tain light. These images proliferated in NA royal self-presentations of the most powerful humans in the known world at the time, disseminated as deliberate propaganda throughout the ANE. It is this same imagery Habakkuk appropriates and perpetuates, though from the opposite perspective. Habakkuk affirms this propaganda, designating the nations as fish about to be caught in the mighty Babylonian net and deported eastward. The Mesopotamian evidence helps contextualize Hab 1:14–17, demonstrating that the Judahite prophet drew not necessarily from any one passage, 73 but from an already burgeoning literary inventory that reflected the sociopolitical reality of Assyrian/Babylonian hegemony, the growing post-612 b.c.e. reality that Babylon was both the new force on the block and ready to demonstrate such to the world, and the theological reality of punishment as divinely appointed. To this end Habakkuk preserves the general idea of exile as demonstrated by Amos by invoking his prophetic predecessor’s fishing imagery to communicate this painful reality a century later in a similar, but very different context. For those with a discerning ear and a familiarity with prophetic tradition, the signs all pointed to an ominous tempest on the horizon. 3.2.3.  Ezekiel 12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:1–9 3.2.3.1. Translation 3.2.3.1.1.  Ezekiel 12:13–14 12:13

‫ופרשׂתי את־רשׁתי עליו‬ ‫ונתפשׂ במצודתי‬ ‫והבאתי אתו בבלה ארץ כשׂדים‬ ‫ואותה לא־יראה וׁשם ימות‬

12:14

]‫וכל אשׁר סביבתיו עזרה [עזרו‬ ‫וכל־אגפיו אזרה לכל־רוח וחרב‬ ‫אריק אחריהם‬

I will spread my net over him, he will be seized in my snare. and I will bring him to Babylon, the land of the Chaldeans, but he will not recognize it and there he will die. And I will scatter to every wind all those who surround him—his helpers74 and all his troops—and I will brandish the sword after them.

  74

3.2.3.1.2.  Ezekiel 17:16–21 17:16

‫חי־אני נאם אדני יהוה אם־לא‬ ‫במקום המלך הממליך אתו אשׁר‬ ‫בזה את־אלתו ואשׁר הפר את־‬ ‫בריתו אתו בתוך־בבל ימות‬

As I live, declared Lord Yhwh, surely in the place of the king who enthroned him, whose oath he despised and whose covenant he breached, in Babylon he will die.

73.  Though the extant NB literature does not yet include any fishing metaphors comparable to those used in the NA royal inscriptions, the impact of this reality on Habakkuk is irrelevant. The implementation of said metaphors by a Judahite prophet is not a matter of linguistic translation, but image appropriation and recontextualization of a general ancient Near Eastern leitmotif that, as Amos 4:2 conveys, had already entered Israelite thought. 74.  Following the LXX, Syr., and Tg. (sg. “helper” in MT).

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image 17:17

‫ולא בחיל גדול ובקהל רב‬ ‫יעשה אותו פרעה במלחמה‬ ‫בשפך סללה ובבנות דיק‬ ‫להכרית נפשות רבות‬

87

Pharaoh,75 with his strong army and great company, will not help him in battle when siege ramps are erected, and siege walls are constructed to cut off many lives.

  75

17:18

‫ובזה אלה להפר ברית והנה נתן‬ ‫ידו וכל־אלה עשׂה לא ימלט‬

He despised the oath in breaking the covenant. You see, he gave his hand and did all these things, [but] he shall not escape.

17:19

‫לכן כה־אמר אדני יהוה חי־אני‬ ‫אם־לא אלתי אשׁר בזה ובריתי‬ ‫אשׁר הפיר ונתתיו בראשׁו‬

Therefore thus said Lord Yhwh: As I live, surely it is my oath which he despised and my covenant which he broke. I will place it upon his head.

17:20

‫ופרשׂתי עליו רשׁתי ונתפשׂ‬ ‫במצודתי והביאותיהו בבלה‬ ‫ונשׁפטתי אתו שׁם מעלו אשׁר‬ ‫מעל־בי‬

And I will spread my net upon him, he will be seized in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon and enter into judgment with him there for the treachery which he has committed against me.

17:21

‫ואת כל־מברחו [מברחיו] בכל־‬ ‫אגפיו בחרב יפלו ונשׁארים‬ ‫לכל־רוח יפרשׂו וידעתם כי אני‬ ‫יהוה דברתי‬

The choice76 men among his troops will fall by the sword and those remaining will be spread to every wind. Then you shall know that I, Yhwh, have spoken.

  76

3.2.3.1.3.  Ezekiel 19:1–9 19:1

‫ואתה שׂא קינה אל־נשׂיאי ישׂראל‬

19:2

‫ואמרת מה אמך לביא‬ ‫בין אריות רבצה‬ ‫בתוך כפרים רבתה גוריה‬

19:3

‫ותעל אחד מגריה‬ ‫כפיר היה‬ ‫וילמד לטרף־טרף‬ ‫אדם אכל‬

And you, raise a dirge for the princes of Israel, You shall say: What was your mother? A lioness! Among lions she crouched; in the midst of young lions she reared her cubs. She reared one from her cubs. He became a young lion, learned to seize his prey, and ate men.

75.  Scholars are divided on the authenticity of this term. Greenberg, for example, suggests it is much too specific to be considered original and removes it in an attempt to resolve the integrity of the chapter as a whole (1983a, 315). Block, however, retains the term due to its inherent difficulty and because to do otherwise “neutralizes Ezekiel’s penchant for departing from anticipated meanings with unannounced shifts in usage” (1997, 545). 76.  MT: “fleeing,” by error of metathesis. The LXX (followed by Vulg., Cpt., and Bohairic) omits 20b–21a (wahăbīʾôtīhū . . . mibrāḥāw).

88

Chapter 3 ‫וישׁמעו אליו גוים‬ ‫בשׁחתם נתפשׂ‬ ‫ויבאהו בחחים‬ ‫אל־ארץ מצרים‬

The nations heard about him; he was caught in their net77 and they brought him in hooks to the land of Egypt.

19:5

‫ותרא כי נוחלה‬ ‫אבדה תקותה‬ ‫ותקח אחד מגריה‬ ‫כפיר שׂמתהו‬

When she saw that she had waited in vain, her hope perished, (so) she took another of her cubs (and) made him a young lion.

19:6

‫ויתהלך בתוך־אריות‬ ‫כפיר היה‬ ‫וילמד לטרף־טרף‬ ‫אדם אכל‬

And he prowled in the midst of the lions; he became a young lion, learned to seize prey, and ate men.

19:7

‫וידע אלמנותיו‬ ‫ועריהם החריב‬ ‫ותשׁם ארץ ומלאה‬ ‫מקול שׁאגתו‬

He knew his widows and destroyed their cities. The land and its fullness became desolate at the sound of his roar.

19:8

‫ויתנו עליו גוים‬ ‫סביב ממדינות‬ ‫ויפרשׂו עליו רשׁתם‬ ‫בשׁחתם נתפשׂ‬

19:4

  77

Then the nations set against him from provinces78 all around; they spread their net upon him and he was taken in their net.

  78

19:9

‫ויתנהו בסוגר‬ ‫בחחים‬ ‫ויבאהו אל־מלך בבל‬ ‫יבאהו במצדות‬ ‫למען לא־ישׁמע קולו עוד‬ ‫אל־הרי ישׂראל‬

They placed him in a neck-stock (and took him) in hooks. They brought him to the king of Babylon (and) brought him into a prison so that his voice would no more be heard on the mountains of Israel.

3.2.3.2. Commentary 3.2.3.2.1.  Literary and Historical Context The three Ezekiel passages recycle nearly identical language to promulgate the message of divine discipline. The final two (17:16–21; 19:1–9) replicate and expand on the generic imagery in the first (12:13). While none makes plain the source of imagery, the use of hooks and nets reflect a reality where the roles and implements of the hunter, fowler, and fisher overlap. This study includes all three on account of the ambiguity of their imagery and the use of similar metaphors in explicitly fishing contexts elsewhere in Ezekiel (Ezek 26:1–21; 29:1–6; 32:1–9; 47:1–12). 79 Though 12:13, 17:16–21, and 19:1–9 77. Following Held (1973, 173–90). 78.  Against the BHS, Zimmerli suggests emendation is unnecessary here in light of the “clear text tradition and the sustainability of the content” (1979, 390). 79.  For 26:1–14 and 47:1–12, see see §6.2.2 and §6.3, respectively. For 29:1–6 and 32:1–9 see §4.2.2.

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

89

may not have fishing most clearly in mind, 80 the imagery they project makes a strong case for their definitive relationship to others that do. Where the material from Hab 1:14–17 used fishing imagery to provide a general description of divine discipline via imminent Babylonian incursion, these Ezekiel passages zero in on the punishment of certain individuals in power. As a film producer cinematographically alters the particular shot of the denouement, Ezekiel draws the audience near to the unfolding scene. This perspectival shift produces a palpable irony where a prophet in Judah delivers a general message concerning his nation’s fate, while another prophet in Babylonian captivity demonstrates greater specificity regarding the details of the same event. Conversely, Ezekiel, like Habakkuk, was well acquainted with the political figures in power during Judah’s last years as he himself witnessed Jehoiakim’s rebellion against Babylon and eventual death, the untimely desserts of which fell to his son, Jehoiachin, whom he accompanied along the lengthy trek eastward in fetters. Habakkuk looks forward with perplexity to events yet to transpire, while Ezekiel looks back and mourns with his funeral dirge. Ezekiel thus experienced the aftermath of the horror his prophetic contemporary had earlier struggled to understand: Yhwh had commissioned Nebuchadrezzar to capture Judah and her leaders as a fisher catches a fish, removing them from their native land. 3.2.3.2.2.  Interpreting a Prophetic Act in 12:13–14 As is characteristic of the prophetic ministry of Ezekiel, who dramatized his oracles more than any other prophet, the point of ch. 12 revolves around a prophetic act. In this particular symbolic role-play, which happens to be the first reference to Babylon in the book of Ezekiel, Yhwh tasks the prophet with portraying Judah’s looming captivity. To fit the role he packs bags (Heb. kəlī) representative of an exile, digs a hole in the city wall, carries his belongings on his shoulder through said hole away from the city, and covers his eyes so as never again to see that land, all within the broad daylight and public sight of his fellow exiled Judahite neighbors. Together, these actions comprise a sign to the people that the foretold Babylonian catastrophe is both impending and decisive. As the prophet’s actions symbolized deportation, so the people will experience this same fate. What is more, Yhwh pledges to spread his rešet over Zedekiah, king of Judah, capture him in his məṣôdāh, and transport him blindly to Babylon, where he will die (12:11–13). 81 To that end, Zedekiah’s ostensible safeguard, Jerusalem, ironically transforms into the very net that captures him. 82 The text thus presents a dual reality where Zedekiah is captured by the Babylonian monarch and forces on one level, and Yhwh, the exactor of retribution for those who defy his oath, on another level (cf. Allen 1994, 182). The interpretation underscores 80.  Strawn suggests 12:13 and 17:20 reflect lion hunt imagery, where Yhwh as hunter pursues an Israelite king as leonine prey (2009, 51, 56, 71), yet without any explanation. 81.  The deportation and blinding of Zedekiah reflect common ancient Near Eastern tactics exacted on covenant-breaking vassal kings. The punishment of blinding for covenant breach is specifically articulated in Sefire 1A:35–42 (Fitzmyer 1967, 14–17, 52–58; cf. Deist 1971, 71–72). See also the NA relief depicting Sargon II pluck out an enemy’s eyes (Parrot 1958, 82:23). 82.  Cf. the Hymn to Enlil (lines 17, 26), which compares Nippur to an inescapable trap set to capture enemy lands.

90

Chapter 3

divinely appointed and wide-scale dissemination of Judahites in exile, albeit with a small contingent (ʾanšê mispār) of escapees whom God preserves for the express purpose of introducing the nations to Yhwh (12:14–16). Scholarship largely regards the prophetic act itself as original, but the explanation in 12:10, 12–14 as a secondary interpolation, inserted perhaps by Ezekiel post-586 b.c.e. 83 This proposal hinges, however, on the answer to the question: What is it that Zedekiah will not see? Is it the nearest antecedent, ʾereṣ kaśdīm “land of the Chaldeans” (12:13)? While the blinding of vassal captives was common practice and Zedekiah was, in fact, blinded, such a precise prediction is out of character with biblical prophecy, in general. Since other biblical accounts report that Zedekiah’s eyes were, in fact, gouged out before leaving for Babylon (cf. 2 Kgs 25:7; Jer 38:7; 52:11) and due to the fact that Ezek 17:16–21 does not include this detail, most scholars see 12:13 as ex eventu, regardless of whether or not Ezekiel himself or someone else served as glossator. 84 Another answer to the question (“What is it that Zedekiah will not see? ”) may be the prophet’s homeland, Judah itself, mentioned already in 12:6, 12. 85 If correct, the line “he will not see it” in 12:13 has nothing to do with blinding. 86 Both arguments thus rule out the prospect of this Judahite king ever seeing his homeland again. In any case, rešet and məṣūdāh work together, like ḥereb in 12:14, to identify Yhwh’s retributive weaponry and showcase their role in his divinely appointed punishment against the king of Judah, as well as the irrevocability of his imminent exile. 3.2.3.2.3.  Covenant Breach in 17:16–21 Ezekiel recycles this same motif of the divine retributive net five chapters later. Where 12:13 interpreted a prophetic act, 17:16–21 (and esp. 17:20) uses a nearly identical message to interpret an allegory, both of which apply specifically to Zedekiah, king of Judah. In this allegory, an eagle lops off the top of a cedar (17:3) and transplants it (17:4–5) so that it puts forth a low, spreading vine (17:6). This vine grows toward a second eagle in hopes that the eagle would water it (17:7). Even though it was planted in fertile soil and near abundant waters (17:8), its shallow roots would be able to withstand neither the second eagle’s uprooting nor the heavy sirocco (17:9–10). The point of the allegory is cast in political terms: Nebuchadrezzar had already deported Jehoiachin to Babylon (17:12) and replaced him with Zedekiah, who subsequently breached the suzerain-­vassal 83. Cf. Uffenheimer 1978, 45–54. Zimmerli suggests the imagery is original in 19:8, recycled in 17:20 and augmented with reference to Babylonian deportation, and then again in 12:13 with the additional remark about blinding (1979, 274). He further speculates that 12:13 was designed for those closest to Zedekiah, while 17:20 was intended for an exilic audience. 84.  Block sees in this “blinding” not the fulfillment of a specific event (Zedekiah’s blinding), but rather a general “announcement of the doom of the prince” made possible by the “pregnant use of language, not by specific prediction” (1997, 366–67). 85. So Block (1997, 377–78) and Friebel (1989, 643). As Block notes, this obviates the abrupt shift from Zedekiah not seeing his own land (12:6, 12) to the country of destination, Babylon (12:13). Moreover, this interpretation finds inner-biblical support in Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding Jehoahaz’s fate (22:10–12) to be carried away captive, never to see his homeland again. 86.  One could argue that, by definition, if he will not see Babylon (because he will be blind) neither will he see his own land.

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

91

covenant they had established by attempting to acquire Egyptian aid (17:13–15). 87 The fate of Zedekiah mirrors that of the well resourced, but thinly grounded, vine. To that end, Yhwh swears that he will requite a level of punishment on Zedekiah’s head that is commensurate with his own rebellion (17:19), deporting him eastward and felling his troops (17:20–21). The chapter concludes with a poetic coda picking up the allegory again, but with identified characters and a hopeful outcome, in which Yhwh pledges to restore the cedar so that it fructifies (17:22–24). 88 As Greenberg asserts, 17:19 marks a major transformation from an earthly realm where kings establish covenants and fight battles to a divine realm where Yhwh’s own covenantal relationship with Judah, and her king, supersedes and governs over all earthly activity. 89 Chapter 17 crushes Zedekiah’s hope in the prospective triumph over Babylon enabled by the mobilization of Egyptian forces, forcefully reminding his exilic audience of Yhwh’s universal sovereignty. In a passage which largely echoes 12:13–14, including the recycling of netting terminology, this shift in the planes of agency demarcates a fundamental distinction between the two. The role of 17:20 stands out as a loose restatement of 17:16 (this time from a divine perspective) and a wholesale replication of 12:13. Though Ezekiel regularly demonstrates a penchant toward switching metaphors (cf. 19:1–9 and 10–14; 32:2–10; 34:1–16 and 17–31), the purpose of this restatement is not initially clear. Because this verse contributes little to the developing indictment against Zedekiah, what meaningful purpose, then, does its inclusion accomplish? 90 The redundant, clunky position of 17:20 may offer a glimpse into the prophet’s psyche. By the very nature of textual reuse, this verse endorses Ezekiel’s cyclical view of history. Though circumstances change and time marches forward, an underlying reality binds history together. Behind this reality stands the fundamental notion that Yhwh views the covenant relationship very seriously. In breaching an oath with Yhwh, who served as both witness and guarantor, Zedekiah thereby brought divine judgment on his own head. 2 Chronicles 36:13 expands on the event’s details, noting that Nebuchadrezzar hišbīʿô bēʾ lōhīm “made him [Zedekiah] swear by God.” 91 While this practice has not yet appeared in NB inscriptions, there is NA evidence of a vassal swearing not only by the suzerain’s pantheon but also by his own gods. Indeed, this text provides evidence for the continued practice. 92 Ezekiel 12 and 17 together promulgate 87.  According to Greenberg (1983b, 153), the historical context here is the end of the reign (and life) of Psammetichus II (589 b.c.e.), while Bakon (2008, 100) and Greenberg (1983a, 315) suggest a later date during the reign of Hophra (588–587 b.c.e.). 88.  Not surprisingly, scholars disagree on the exact identification of each role. For an overview on the different scholarly interpretations of ch. 17, see Block (1997, 523–26). 89.  Greenberg 1983b, 153. “The impact of Yahweh’s assuming personal responsibility for the initiation and the maintenance of the political treaty between Nebuchadnezzar and the vine-­ monarch draws international affairs and the divine will together” (Durlesser 1988, 80). 90.  Durlesser goes so far to suggest that it actually “damages the rhetoric” (1988, 82). 91.  The Chronicler may serve as an early commentary on this Ezekiel passage (so Greenberg 1983a, 315). 92.  The parade example being that between Aššur-nirari V and Matiʾilu, who swears by both the Assyrian gods and his own, including Adad of Aleppo (Laato 1992, 160–61; Cogan 1974, 46–49; Deist 1971, 71–72; Tsevat 1959, 199–204). Vanderhooft adduces the Esarhaddon-Baʿalu

92

Chapter 3

Zedekiah’s treachery (maʿal) against Yhwh and the ensuing consequences: capture in Yhwh’s net, removal from Judah, and exile in Babylon. If, as Allen suggests, Ezek 17 postdates Ezek 12, the prophetic act in the former went unheeded by Zedekiah (1994, 260). What is clear, however, is that Ezekiel recycles a stock phrase in a new literary context (allegory) and for a particular rhetorical effect (covenant breach), for the purpose of indicting the same individual (Zedekiah). As 17:21 further demonstrates, the king’s failed leadership has implications on a national scale. 93 These corporate ramifications notwithstanding, the punishment revolves fundamentally around the actions of one person. All others suffer collateral damage on behalf of Zedekiah’s infidelity to his earthly and divine covenants. The divine net and snare thus come for him alone. 3.2.3.2.4.  Lion “Netting” in 19:1–9 Chapter 19 of Ezekiel consists of a formal dirge (qināh), styled as an allegory, for the nəśīʾê yisrāʾēl “the princes of Israel.” Although the net imagery in 12:13–14 and 17:16–21 is ambiguous, the overt leonine metaphor in 19:1–9 raises an obvious question: what has this to do with fishing? Ezekiel 19:1–9 merits incorporation into a study like this due to its unique reuse of imagery common to the fisher in both Ezekiel and elsewhere in the HB. The juxtaposition of 19:1–9 alongside 12:13–14 and 17:16–21 also yields some new evidence toward the identification of lion cubs in 19:2–4 and 19:5–9. This section explores these lines of correspondence in order to demonstrate both the fluid inventory of net imagery and its adroit appropriation by the prophet. The overwhelming preponderance of scholarship pertaining to this section revolves around one issue: the identification of the lioness and her two cubs (9:3–4; 5–9). The reams of paper to sort through in order to disentangle scholarly rumination on this crux testify to an inverse correlation with the relative cohesion among scholars. The only real consensus exists for the identity of the first lion cub, and this is because of a reference to deportation in Egypt (9:4b), which implicates Jehoahaz alone. 94 The identification of the mother lioness divides between two major positions: Judah (or the Davidic line) and Hamutal, biological mother of both Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. Greater disagreement surrounds the identification of the second lion cub. 95 Most medieval (Jewish and Christian) of Tyre inscriptions as further evidence (cf. RINAP 4:1, 5, 30, 34; cf. fig. 12 above [p. 82] and Sefire 1A:7–13 [Fitzmyer 1967, 12–13, 32–40]). The Hittites also invoked both the deities of suzerain and vassal as witnesses in oaths (cf. Hempel 1957, 1512–16). 93.  The manifold consequences, individual and communal, for covenant breach are spelled out in Lev 26:14–33. For a detailed treatment of maʿal in the HB and ANE, see Milgrom 1976, 236–47. For the concept of king as culpable for the entire nation in Hittite historiography, see Malamat 1955, 12. 94.  A number of scholars identify 9:4b as an interpolation, which thus completely reopens the issue. There is no agreement among these scholars regarding the reevaluated identity of the first lion cub in the urtext. Suggestions range from Jehoiakim (cf. Brownlee 1972, 93–103), to Jonathan the Maccabee (cf. Irwin 1943, 122), to the Israelites living in Babylonian captivity (Messel 1945, 78–81). 95.  Begg provides an invaluable survey of the history of interpretation (up to 1989), including extensive bibliography (1989, 358–69). The following relies heavily on this study. One recent addition to this bibliography is Korpel’s creative identification of the lioness as Jezebel and her cubs as Ahaziah and Jehoram (2009, 70–85). According to Brownlee (1972, 95), the traditional

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

93

and early modern Christian interpreters preferred Jehoiakim due largely to a straightforward interpretation based on monarchic succession. 96 There are two major weaknesses with this: 1) Jehoiakim was elected king by Neco (2 Kgs 23:34), not the people of Judah (19:5); and (2) Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24:6; Jer 22:18–19; 36:30; 2 Chr 36:6), not in Babylon (19:9). 97 The strengths of identifying this figure as Jehoiakim’s successor, Jehoiachin, are obvious, for they rectify both deficiencies with the previous option: Jehoiachin was, along with Ezekiel(!), deported to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:12–13) where he apparently died (cf. 2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:34), just as he was presumably chosen to rule in a natural manner, by the people themselves (Cf. 2 Kgs 24:6). 98 Like Jehoahaz, he too experienced a very short reign. The central problems with this position, however, stem from the incongruity of his alleged voluntary surrender in 2 Kgs 24:12 and the suggestion in Ezek 19:8–9 that he was forcibly deported, as well as the increased evil presented in 19:5–9 that would appear to better resemble his father, Jehoiakim. 99 The final major position, Zedekiah as the second cub, began to flourish only after scholars put forward the theory of Hamutal (2 Kgs 24:17) as the lioness. 100 The fate of Zedekiah, deported to Babylon where he would die in ignominy, according to 2 Kgs 25:6–7, aligns with 19:8–9 better than either of the previous two alternatives. While Nebuchadrezzar, not Hamutal, elected Zedekiah, 2 Kings interestingly does not report Hamutal being deported with her offspring, as it does for Nehushta, mother of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:12, 15). 101 There is no surefire or simple answer to the identification of the second lion cub. If anything is clear it is that this issue is unclear. The arguments for both Jehoiachin and Zedekiah have strong arguments in their favor. This comparative study, however, view is Jehoahaz as the first lion cub (19:3–4), Jehoiachin as the second lion cub (19:5–9), and Zedekiah as the vine (19:10–14). 96.  Though this view has diminished recently, Begg takes up this position by arguing adamantly for a sequential development in light of the literary precedents in chs. 17–18 (1989, 366–69). His desire to fit all four of the final Judahite kings into ch. 19 as well as his assumption that Ezekiel would necessarily have mentioned his fellow deportee, Jehoiachin, both appear somewhat forced, if not arbitrary. Durlesser wisely reminds that “the very nature of allegory should warn interpreters against a rigorous identification of every element in the story with historical facts” (1988, 107). 97.  The tone of 19:9 further expresses a sense of definitiveness (cf. 19:14 for this same sentiment), suggesting that the king’s deportation also became his final resting place. 98.  Begg (1989, 366) argues against Zedekiah based on his presupposition that Ezekiel must have mentioned his fellow deportee, but as Allen demonstrates, the prophet’s high regard for this Judahite monarch (and his preservation of Jerusalem) provides just as strong a counter argument (1994, 288). 99.  Moreover, it it is hard to imagine the heightened violence described in 19:6–7 as reflective of Jehoiachin, whose reign spanned barely more than three months (cf. 1972, 98). 100.  This view ironically burgeoned only after two 19th-century scholars, Orelli and Oort, independently arrived at the conclusion that the lioness represented Hamutal, breaking with what was a unanimous consensus (cf. Begg 1989, 363). Many, such as Durlesser (1988, 108) and Bakon (2008, 101), have since followed suit. 101.  It is the prophets who transform the idea of dirge for the deceased, offering them to the living with acute force (cf. Beentjes 1996, 22).

94

Chapter 3

presents evidence in favor of the latter alternative. The juxtaposition of nearly identical phrases in 12:13, 17:20, and 19:8 (pāraś + rešet) demonstrates the phenomenon of literary recycling known elsewhere in ancient Near Eastern literature (see §3.2.1.3 above). Though the literary form varies in these passages (prophetic act in ch. 12; allegory in ch. 17; dirge > allegory in ch. 19), the point remains the same: to be captured in a net implies an inescapable punishment. 102 This sense of finality reflects the prophetic perception of time as interconnected (for example, past events led to present circumstances, while the future hinges on present choices) as seen most clearly in the composition of Zedekiah’s dirge before his own death. 103 Ezekiel 12:13 implied the culprit would no longer see his land, 17:18–21 remarks that the culprit’s covenantal treachery against Yhwh will receive commensurate punishment not only upon his own head but also those of his comrades, and 19:8–9 claims that lōʾ-yiššāmaʾ qôlô ʿôd ʾel-hārê yiśrāʾēl “his voice will no longer be heard on the mountains of Israel.” In no passage was the punishment arbitrary, but rather the consequence for an explicitly mentioned offense meted out on a particular person: mərī “rebellion” (12:2– 3) 104, ləhāpēr bərīt “breaking the covenant” (17:8), and ʾādām ʾākāl wayyēdaʿ ʾalmənôtāyw wəʿārêhem heḥĕrīb “He ate men. And he knew his widows and destroyed their cities” (19:6–7). In the case of the latter passage, it is important to note that the description of the second lion includes exacerbated violence compared to the first. In light of the confidence with which one can identify Jehoahaz as the first cub, it is perplexing how Jehoiachin, the king who temporarily helped preserve Jerusalem through his compliance with Babylon (something Jeremiah unsuccessfully begged Zedekiah to emulate in Jeremiah 27; 37:2) and whose promotion in Babylon preserves the sole means of hope at the end of the DtrH, might be identified as this even worse agent in 19:5–9. After all, it was Zedekiah alone whose rebellion led to such an ignominious end (i.e. capture, blinding, deportation, death). The juxtaposition of Jehoahaz as the first lion cub and Zedekiah as the second lion does reflect a biological reality (that is, both were sons of Hamutal), but the rhetorical force of this combination derives more from a schematic structure which creates a merism, identifying the first and last of the final four Judahite monarchs. 105 102.  Even though Block (2010, 219–20) disagrees with this particular designation, he argues the echoes of Gen 48:8–9 in Ezek 19:19 imply that as heirs of Jacob’s prophecy the last Judahite kings deserved the punishment coming their way, which signaled the end of the dynasty, at least in its current form. The huntress’s use of ḥărāmīm “dragnets” in the figurative context of Qoh 7:26 presents a comparable depiction of the net’s efficacy. 103. Cf. Allen 1994, 286. Zimmerli uses the fact that 19:2–9 does not yet suggest a national exile to argue for a preexilic date (1979, 396). 104.  Admittedly, ch. 12 does not level a specific accusation against Zedekiah. Though the references to mərī (12:2–3) and tôʿēbāh (12:16) address transgression on a national level, the king, as the nation’s politico-religious leader, was explicitly and most dramatically implicated for the corporate treachery. Zedekiah’s indictments in chs. 17 and 19 justify the punishment promised, averring that he did his fair share to contribute to the ominous ordeal. 105.  Recognition of Zedekiah as the second lion cub does not preclude identifying Judah as the lioness, a point conceded even by those who disagree with this position (cf. Block 1997, 604). Brownlee affirms: “The logic of this situation [the ‘thy’ or ‘your’ in vv. 1, 12] is that Ezekiel

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

95

While Ezekiel could have transferred the imagery of a transgressor captured in a divine net to an altogether different king in ch. 19, the preservation of this motif in different literary forms for the express purpose of identifying the very last king of Judah serves a much larger purpose: it symbolizes the very end of Jerusalem, too. Where Yhwh provides a ray of hope in 12:13–14 and 17:16–24, 19:1–9 (as well as 19:10–14) shows no prospect of divine intervention and offers no hope for rescue or salvation. The evidence against him (and her!) was overwhelming: from rebellion to covenant breach to widespread oppression and injustice. Ezekiel thus adeptly reproduces a stock phrase to communicate an acute point: Zedekiah’s end was imminent, irrevocable, and emblematic of the fate of the entire country. 106 Chapter 19 thus serves as a literary fulfillment of the predictions in 12:13–14 and 17:16–21. The divinely appointed discipline that had been forecasted in very definite terms was here shown to have been faithfully executed by the nations of Egypt and Babylon. In so doing, the divine net was thus realized within the confines of human machinations. 107 3.2.3.2.5.  Ancient Near Eastern Background The ancient Near Eastern fishing imagery related to Habakkuk described kings fulfilling divine mandates to capture vassal kings and their lands. The material contextualizing Ezekiel cuts out the middle man altogether. Binding together all three Ezekiel passages, as well as that in 32:3 (ūpāraśtī ʾet-rištī ʿālāyw “I spread my net upon him”), 108 is a phrase that resembles another such one from Akkadian literature: šēta nadû/šuparruru/ saḫāpu. 109 The idea of a divine net used to exact retribution transcends cultural and geographical boundaries. Its ubiquity in mythological literature throughout space and time regarded Judah as his own mother and composed a pair of funeral dirges as deeply moving as he would have composed for his own physical mother, except that an element of ethical indictment is subtly woven into the poems” (1972, 102). Allen subscribes to this view (1994, 287–89). According to Beentjes, in designating Hamutal as the lioness, “the metaphor defeats its object, because first of all Hamutal’s career hides not only from biblical, but also from historical perception” (1996, 25). The prophet’s point, however, is not to provide a historical lesson (such as about Hamutal’s life and destiny), but to “describe . . . a situation of misery and deportation abroad which has entered (‘Now’), and to connect this negative description with the previous period of glory in the home land (‘Once’). . . . A consistent reading of the second half of the qīnāh (vv. 10–14) is solid proof that it must be something else that the prophet is looking at” (Beentjes 1996, 25). 106. If Zimmerli is correct that this imagery originated in 19:8–9, was reproduced in 17:20, and then again in 12:13, the latent accusation specifically leveled against Zedekiah becomes explicit. The stock phrase would thus transfer all its various layers of insinuations (e.g., covenant breach in 17:16–21; violence and evil in 19:5–9) in the recycling process, removing all doubt to later audiences just what it meant to have Yhwh’s net spread over them. 107.  In an ironic twist, the tetragrammaton does not occur in Ezek 19, but its unmistakable divine imprint nonetheless remains. 108.  So 12:13. The syntax of 17:20 deviates slightly (ūpāraśtī ʿālāyw rištī), while 19:8 changes both the number (first common sg. to third masc. pl. [including the attendant pronominal suffix]) and form (wəqātal to qātal) of the verb (“They spread their net upon him”). 109.  E.g., referring to a witch “whose net is cast (nadâta šēssa) in the streets” (Maqlû 7:86); “the fowler cast his net (šēdu iddīma) and persistently prayed to Šamaš (BWL 221:1–5); Erra spreads his net over Babylon as if he were attempting to capture Anzu” (Erra 3c:33; šētu reconstructed).

96

Chapter 3

led Eliade to refer to the “net” as the “archetype of divine or cosmic retribution” (Eliade 1991, 149, 159). Undergirding these references lies the fundamental concept (I give a detailed analysis of fisher deities in ch. 2) in which each member of the Mesopotamian pantheon possessed their own net in order to enact vengeance or discipline upon the earthly realm. 110 For example, Ningal casts an inescapable net over the rebellious and evil one, before handing him over to her husband, Nungal, who leads him away blindfolded and naked. 111 Enlil himself is likened to a “huge net, spread over heaven and earth” (cf. Klein 1991, 292–313 [esp. line 172]). Both Marduk and Nergal employ the net as a means to punish unfaithfulness in EI. 112 This concept appears at least twice in the OB materials from Mari. ARM 10 80 contains a letter written to Zimri-lim (1775–1761 b.c.e.), king of Mari, in which a certain Inib-šina warned him not to place faith in the king of Ešnunna. Inib-šina reports to the Mariote king a message he overheard a prophetess utter, by which Dagan had pledged to “collect him [the king of Ešnunna] into a net, which I will draw tight.” 113 A second example emerges in ARM 13 23:9–10, 114 where a certain Mukannišum, an official under Zimri-lim, reports to his king the message brought to him by a prophet (Akk. aplûm “answerer”). In this foreboding prophecy, the aplûm, speaking on behalf of Dagan once again, presaged Babylon’s doom, which would consist of being gathered (upaḫḫarka) into 110. Cf. JRAS Cent. Supp. pl. 8 5:27: lā šāšuru miliktim DN tābikšunu šaškalluššu “those who are of the wrong persuasion, it is DN who collects them in his net; KAR 128:10: tušāḫiz pī mātika lā etēq [māmīti] naṣār šipāri “you taught your country not to transgress an oath (and thus) keep out of the net (of the gods).” KAR 45 rev. 1:17 (SB rel.; var. from dupl. K. 2367:7′ [unpubl.]) complements this idea of a divine net (“I transgressed your net[?] many times, [an act] that is displeasing to you [my god].” When Enki created the world, according to EWO (274–84), he placed in charge of the marshes certain deities whose net would not allow fish to escape (cf. Kramer and Meier 1989, 48). 111.  For this text, see Frymer 1977, 81–82. For Šamaš, see Wiseman 1958, 649–51: “May Šamaš clamp a bronze trap (ḫuḫāru ša siparri) over you; may he cast (lidīkunu) you into a net (gišparri) from which there is no escape (ša lā naparšudi); may he never let you out alive (ayy-ušēṣi napšatkun).” For the inescapability of the net itself, see 4R 26 no. 2:11f.: “(the net) through whose interstices no fish escapes.” 112.  Marduk’s word is elsewhere compared to a net (cf. Poebel 1927, 161–76, 245–72 [esp. pp. 262–63]). Aeschylus’s Oresteia (Libation Bearers) shows awareness of the same motif when Orestes vows: “as they by treachery killed a man of high degree, by treachery tangled in the self same net (βρόχος) they too shall die, in the way Loxias (i.e. Apollo) has ordained, my lord Apollo whose word was never false before” (lines 556–59; cf. Lattimore 1953, 113; for an edition, see Smyth 1963, 214). 113.  ARM 10 80:14–15: u ana šētim ša uqaṣṣaru akammissu. Cf. ARM 10, pl. 35; Dossin 1967. Moran cogently rejects the translation of Dossin (“mais aver le blé que je moissonnerai”), whose reading of še-im for še-tim and coloring of uqaṣṣaru (Heb. qāṣīr “harvest, reap”) with West Semitic influence are both unwarranted (1969b, 53 n. 1). For a recent assessment of kaṣāru, see Waldman 1969, 250–54. Another viable reading for uqaṣṣaru is “I will hold fast” (so Moran 1969, 53 n. 1), but the basic idea of an escapable net obtains in either case. Paul (1978, 189–90) has suggested this text, as well as the following one (ARM 13:23), relates to Amos 4:2, but they much more productively contextualize the material in Hab 1:14–17 and (especially!) Ezek 12:13, 17:16–21, and 19:1–9. 114.  For the transliteration, see Bottéro 1964, 15–43.

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

97

a net (ana pūgim). In classifying this idea as a symbol of divine justice, Heintz posited the original Sitz im Leben as the “rite of celebration of a victory” (1969, 135). Comparable to the modern Western legal practice where a witness pledges not to commit perjury (“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God”) by placing one hand on a Bible, in one OB text judges order the defendant to “swear an oath in the Šamaš temple in Larsa in the cast net (saparrim).” 115 As in the Ezekiel passages, particularly those of 12:13–14 and 17:16–21, the occupational source of the net imagery remains ambiguous. Be that as it may, this metaphorical ensnaring of a rebellious human in the net of a deity is a long-standing Mesopotamian motif that goes back to the earliest textual records. 116 Inaugurating this tradition is the well known SoV, on which a relief and attendant oath describe the divine punishment of Ningirsu, patron deity of Lagaš. With mace in hand, Ningirsu captures the residents of Umma, Lagaš’s rival city-state, in a large net. The accusation brought forth against these ensnared victims, whose floundering indicates a sense of helplessness and inevitability, 117 functions as the basis of the (prophetic?) message and stems from a situation of covenant breach. In a reversal of the shift from human to divine planes of agency in Ezek 17, the SoV moves from divine to human planes of agency. Ningirsu must first secure victory before Eannatum, king of Lagaš, can do so on the human plane. In using material from the Enmetena Cones A–B, 118 Jacobsen demonstrates this shift in agency by reconstructing the political and theological background to the event, suggesting that the conflict stemmed from a border dispute between the two city-states. 119 In order to defend his city, Ningirsu chose to take action, predestining Eannatum to defeat Umma. His seed having been fertilized within Baba and his newborn body sustained by the nursing of Ninḫursag, he was equipped for battle via instruction from Ningirsu within a dream. Having left Umma vulnerable and in disarray, Ningirsu left Eannatum to take advantage of the situation. 120 115.  BM 16764:25–6, 35; Veenhof 2003, 325. The é-dub-lá-maḫ “the place of Nanna’s judgment” is likewise known as the “cast net” in an inscription of Amar-Sin (UrE 1 71:19–21; see Steinkeller 1985, 39–46). This locale continued to function as a “court” up through the OB period (see Charpin 1986, 332 n. 2). 116. Cf. Malamat 1965, 214–19. Heintz suggests the “divine net” imagery entered Egypt during the 18th Dynasty (1969, 135). For more on this idea in Egypt, see Alliot 1946, 57–118. 117. See Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin, 1909; Parrot 1948, 95–97. For a critical edition, see Jacobsen 1976, 247–59. For the text, see Sollberger 1956, 9–16. For translation, see Kramer 1963, 310–13. 118.  For this historiographical reference Enmetena recalls Ningirsu fighting against Umma at Enlil’s behest (inim), spreading (bí-šuš) a “great battle net” (sa-šuš-gal) upon it (RIME 1 E1.9.5.1 1:28–29); “E-anatum gave the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil to the leader of ´ iš[a] ([Umma]), and made him swear to him by it” (RIME 1 E1.9.3.1 16:12–17). Later in this G same column, Frayne restores in lines 34–40: [“Whenever I do transgress, may the great battle net of Enlil, king of heaven and earth, by which I have sworn, descend upon Giša (Umma)!”]. A third passage comes from Eannatum himself and declares that the battle net of Enlil will come against any leader of Umma who reneges against the agreement (col. 17, lines 6–20). 119.  Jacobsen 1976, 250–55. 120.  Poebel first suggested this reconstruction (1927, 224).

98

Chapter 3

If this interpretive reconstruction holds, the textual material corresponds directly to the iconographic material, which illustrates Ningirsu carrying the captured citizens of Umma on one side and Eannatum leading his troops to battle on the other. The preserved portion of text represents a nine-fold refrain in the form of an oath whereby the Mesopotamian pantheon threatens to send down their various tools of divine retribution (the šuš-gal net of Ninḫursag, Enki, Utu, and Nanna 121, as well as the serpent of Ninki) onto Umma in the event of insubordination. In a manner reminiscent of the prophetic act of Ezekiel 12, the SoV thus symbolizes the divine discipline to be exacted in the event of infidelity to the oath. 122 3.2.3.2.6. Interpretation The net is just one tool among many (including the sword in 12:14; 21:8–10; etc.) in Yhwh’s divine arsenal. As ch. 4 below demonstrates, the implementation of divine weapons for retribution against the covenant breach and treachery of humans comprised just one facet of the arsenal’s capability, of which Ezekiel himself was clearly aware (cf. Ezek 29:1–6; 32:2–9). The three Ezekiel passages analyzed above highlight the former use, where Yhwh uses his net to reprove a human leader who has betrayed his responsibility to lead Israel and failed to promote justice, model humility, and maintain covenant fidelity. 123 Each reference, though cut from a common stock, applies to different literary contexts to single out one man, Judah’s last king. Ezekiel 19:1–9 (and esp. vv. 5–9) injects it with a sense of finality, highlighting the reality that there will be no further opportunities for divine deferral. The threshold for discipline had been met, leaving Judah without options, waiting for the hammer to drop or more specifically, the “net to spread.” Like Habakkuk, Ezekiel forecasted a simple solution: Babylon. Ezekiel 17:16–21 used this same imagery within a different genre (allegory) to address the covenant breach, insinuating serious implications as a result of the promise of punishment commensurate to the crime. And though Ezek 12:13–14 bears the quality of a more generic indictment, addressing no specific accusation against the guilty party, it inherits and tacitly communicates the gravity of the situation made clear in the other two passages. 124 This comparative analysis confirms the assertion of Eliade, which identified the net as the paramount archetype of retribution. 125 The use of Yhwh’s net herein demonstrates an 121.  This same tripartite sequence occurs with Ninḫursag (col. 17, lines 21–26; dn in -ḫ urs a g - k [a]; col. 17, lines 42–47; col. 18, lines 8–22). This sequence appears once again with a battle net of Enki (col. 18, lines 23–29; 19, lines 1–7; 19, lines 20–34), Nanna (19:35–20:6; 21:4–11; 22:7–23:8), and Utu (rev. 1:1–7; rev. 1:24–30; rev. 1:1–3:1). 122.  Online: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/cc302k/NE/NE_images/9902210010.jpg. 123.  For the idea that the king bears the brunt of punishment as a representative of the people during national catastrophes, see Malamat 1955, 1–12. 124.  Zimmerli’s confidence in a clear redactional progression from 19:8 to 17:20 to 12:13 is speculative, even while it helpfully demonstrates the adaptation of the imagery over time (cf. 1979, 166, 274, 393–94). 125.  Eliade 1991, 149, 159. Cf. Sundén, who uses Matt 13:47–50 to suggest a similar reality: “En Matthieu 13:47–50 le thème de l’intuition de la rétribution cosmique, dont l’archétype est précisément “le filet,” se trouve obscure par le myth de la peine avec le Jugement Dernier” (1967, 441).

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

99

Figure 13.  The Stele of Vultures from Tello where Ningirsu holds the šušgal-net filled with captured citizens of Umma. Housed at the Louvre, Paris. Public domain.

ancient Near Eastern principle where religion and politics were two facets of the same complex reality. The net is a martial (and judicial) tool that falls upon those guilty of covenant unfaithfulness (cf. Bodi 1991, 181–82).

3.3. Synthesis The preceding discussion compares a set of five different passages that use hook and net imagery in order to communicate the onset of divinely appointed discipline. All five manifest their own idiosyncrasies deriving from their different literary and historical contexts, but together each of them utilizes metaphors related to the paraphernalia of the fisher: hooks and nets. The interpretive yield from this comparative analysis goes even further. This final section briefly reviews two overarching extrapolations drawn from the preceding discussion. 3.3.1.  Israelite Fish Deported by Foreign Fishers Weaving through each of the five passages under review is the commonality of discipline manifested specifically through exile. Be it by hook or net, Amos, Habakkuk, and Ezekiel all use fishing imagery to express imminent deportation. In Amos 4:2, the ṣinnôt and sīrôt, presumably symbolizing the Assyrian war machine, pull an oppressive Samaria like fish out of their familiar waters and remove them toward an unknown locale. Over

100

Chapter 3

a century later, Hab 1:14–17 replicates this imagery to single out the Babylonians as world conquerors who are on their way to target the nations, including Judah, using a host of different varieties of fishing instruments to subjugate them. The theme of exile is likewise central to all three of the Ezekiel passages, which single out Zedekiah and his troops as the victims to be forcibly removed from their homeland once Yhwh’s net finally falls on them. Though only made explicit in Hab 1:14, each of the five passages depicts God’s people, be it the political leader(s) or the entire nation, as fish, helpless to defend themselves once the divine declaration of discipline has been made. In the three Ezekiel passages, the means of exile is Yhwh’s net alone (rešet; məṣūdāh), in Hab 1:14–17 Yhwh delegates this role to Nebuchadrezzar and the Babylonian army, and Amos 4:2 leaves the agency formally ambiguous, even though the context implicates Yhwh once again as the agent behind the coming punishment. Yhwh’s wielding of a cosmic net of retribution mirrors a fundamental tenet of Mesopotamian theology. As shown by a variety of different genres of inscriptions from disparate historical periods, each member of the pantheon possessed a net that they used to arbitrate justice on earth. In fact, the examples start burgeoning in the first millennium b.c.e., particularly within the context of NA historiographical literature. It may be no coincidence, then, that the expansionistic philosophy of Assyria during the 8th century, which produced royal inscriptions that envision their own subjugation and deportation of neighboring lands with fishing metaphors, coincides with the appearance of this same imagery in the biblical corpus. Just as Assyria conceived of itself as a fisher catching other lands like fish, so the biblical prophets described their own fate as helpless fish waiting to be ensnared in either the divinely appointed net of a foreign foe or the very net of Yhwh himself. To this end, Mesopotamian and biblical literature depict two sides of the same coin. 3.3.2.  History, Literary Recycling, and the Paradox of Fishing Images There is one final question left to address: Why fishing imagery in the HB? Though fishing played an essential role in Mesopotamian commerce and cult, the same was not true for ancient Israel. A general aversion to the sea (that is, Mediterranean) 126 combined with very few available freshwater sites (Galilee, Jordan River) to ensure fishing played no major role in ancient Israel. 127 Whence did this literary conceptualization come and for what reason? Grounded in the eastward campaigning of 9th b.c.e. Assyrian kings like Šalmaneser III, who personally interacted with Jehu (or his emissary), Adad-nirari III, who forced Jehoash into regular payments and besieged Damascus in 796 b.c.e., and reasserted in the literature of Tiglath-Pileser III and beyond, Amos adeptly interpreted political writing on the wall: it would only be a matter of time before Assyria attempted 126.  Riede uses the portrayal of the sea in the book of Jonah as further evidence that Israelites were “non-seafarers,” fearful of dangers lurking in the sea (2002, 240). Cf. Williamson 2006, 226; Foreman 2011, 235–36. 127.  Firmage (1992, 1147) argues that, in any event, the fish extracted from the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River would only have been enough for local markets. He extrapolates from the relative dearth of literary and archaeological analysis of fish bones that “the ancient Israelite diet in most places was fish-poor.” The small amount of fish Israelites did, in fact, eat “had to be purchased from foreign agents (Job 40:30; Neh 13:16).” For more on this, see §1.5.3 above.

Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image

101

to claim Israelite territory as its own. In so doing, he preserved and recontextualized an enduring Mesopotamian concept. Though imagery akin to the Assyrian royal inscriptions has yet to emerge from the NB corpus, Habakkuk and Ezekiel did not appropriate their fishing imagery in a vacuum, but rather within the contexts of a well-established historical reality and literary inventory. With the conquest of their northern neighbors from Samaria and the subsequent bi-directional deportation led by Sargon II etched in their shared memory, these two prophets envisioned history repeating itself in the wake of the emergence of a new eastern power: Babylon. It was thus a short hermeneutical step from the horrors of history past to those of history present. This reality at once bound peoples from disparate eras. The fishing imagery in Habakkuk and Ezekiel exemplifies the processes of reinterpretation, the result of which portrayed to some only a general presentiment about looming divine discipline. The interpretive paradigm grounded in history that Habakkuk and Ezekiel used here helped form an acute message, imbued with foreboding meaning, that manifested an inexorable fate of divinely appointed deportation. Mirroring the phenomenon of literary recycling evidenced in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, the biblical prophets reused imagery within their inventory. 128 The fact that fishing played such a minimal role in the lives of most Israelites makes the rhetorical effect of its imagery all the more dramatic and ironic. This strategic employment of fishing language thus communicated fresh meaning that preserved historical realities shared and experienced by both their Israelite ancestors in tragedy and their Mesopotamian neighbors in triumph. 128.  According to Fishbane, “intertextuality is the core of the canonical imagination; that is, it is the core of the creative imagination that lives within a self-reflexive culture shaped by an authoritative collection of texts” (2000, 39).

C

h a p t e r

4

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery 4.1. Introduction The sea was not the only source of fear in ancient Israel. A closely related manifestation of the marine world is its most fearsome resident: the sea monster. The HB knows at least three names for (or types of) this creature: Leviathan, Tannin, and Rahab. 1 A common ancient Near Eastern literary caricature of chaos, in general, and the sea, in particular, these three beasts represented a liminal reality, bridging the human and divine. Though God created the Tannin like the rest of the created order according to Gen 1, the majority of HB references distinguish it (as well as its counterparts, Leviathan and Rahab) as something altogether “other.” Despite the fact that catching one naturally requires fishing equipment and that numerous texts depict a cosmic conflict between it and Yhwh (for example, Isa 27:1; 51:9; Job 9:13; 26:12; Pss 74:13–14; 89:11), only three biblical references actually use fishing terminology in such contexts: Job 40:25–32, Ezek 29:1–6a, and 32:1–10. The latter two passages combine to form an extended metaphor, but they each present unique, as well complementary, features. The former passage stems exclusively from a sequence of rhetorical questions that all but refutes Job’s capacity to actually fish the monster. And while the concept of Chaoskampf is muted in all three, similar imagery functions prominently in Marduk’s conflict against disorder in EE. In spite of the various literary and rhetorical differences between these texts, what unifies each of them is the thematic representation of “big-game” fishing (fishing for creatures larger than life). 1. Cf. hannāḥāš “the serpent,” which lives at the depths of the sea and submits to Yhwh’s command (Amos 9:3).

102

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery

103

4.2.  Hebrew Bible (Job 40:25–32; Ezekiel 29:1–6a; 32:1–10) 4.2.1.  Job 40:25–32 [Eng. 41:1–8] 4.2.1.1. Translation 40:25

‫ בחכה‬2 ‫תמשׁך לויתן‬ ‫ובחבל תשׁקיע לשׁנו‬

 

Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook?  3 Or restrain its tongue with a cord?  4

  2  3  4 

2.  Budde (1913, 246) and Hölscher (1937, 95), followed by Gordis (1978, 480), noted a possible pun between timšōk “you can draw out” and an Eg. pemsaḥ “crocodile” (Arb. timsaḥ; Copt. temsaḥ). De Wilde (1981, 386), following Delitzsch (1866, 365–66), went so far as to posit an original temśaḥ that was later replaced by liwyātān. The use of māšak, however, is apropos in this fishing context and complementary to the action verbs in other similar contexts (cf. ʿālah [H] in Hab 1:15 and Ezek 29:4; nāśaʾ in Amos 4:2). Liwyātān appears six times in the HB. Isa 27:1 (bis) anticipates an eschatological battle between Yhwh and a Leviathan qualified as a “fleeing” (bāriaḥ) and “twisting” (ʿăqallātôn) serpent (nāḥāš), as well as a “dragon in the sea” (hattannīn ʾăšer bayyām). According to Ps 74:14, however, Yhwh had already defeated such a multicephalic beast in primeval history (cf. Ps 74:12). The sufferer Job beckons professional diviners, known for their penchant to invoke Leviathan’s chaotic powers, to curse the day of his birth in 3:8. Conversely, both Ps 104:26 and Job 40:25–41:26 depict Leviathan in a positive light, as a creature of Yhwh. Most scholars today affirm a direct conceptual connection between Heb. liwyātān and Ug. lītānu. When taken together, the comparative evidence establishes Leviathan’s aquatic abode and serpentine (or reptilian) form (cf. Ug. bš/ṯn) as its two fundamental traits. Some traditions emphasize its multiple heads (Ps 74:12–14; KTU 1.3 3:41–42; KTU 1.5 1:1–4, 27–31; cf. Tell Asmar Cylinder Seal), but this is inapplicable to the description in Job 40:25–41:26. Though the HB has preserved divergent traditions for Leviathan, Fox unnecessarily bifurcates them and overlooks the poetic license to emphasize different characteristics (2012, 265). The fact that Job 40:25–41:26 does not explicitly adduce Leviathan’s multiple heads or specifically serpentine form does not imply it designates another creature. The sum of evidence argues for a dynamic relationship between Yhwh and Leviathan that defies simplistic conclusions. 3.  MT “you can/will.” Beer (BH2 vel; BHK) and Gray (1921, 332) insert an interrogative particle, which also appears in one MT ms and the Qumran Tg. Budde (1913, 246), Gunkel (1895, 71), and Beer (BH2 frt) alternatively restore Heb. ʾap I “how,” suggesting its deletion was a victim of haplography after ʾap II “nose” at the end of 40:24. For a recent detailed bibliography on the various positions on “Leviathan,” see Clines 2011, 1190–92. Though its precise identification remains not only largely elusive but also ultimately irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage, this study views Leviathan as a creature the ancient audience would have understood to be real—abnormal features and all. 4.  Restrain: Scholars and translations have traditionally derived Heb. tašq ī  aʿ from from šqʿ “sink” (for a representative position, see HALOT 2:1645: “restrain, thrust down” [in a trick to catch it]). But Michaelis, in his work on the Samaritan text of Lev 8:13 [standing in for MT’s ḥābaš “bind”], already identified a šqʿ II “bind” (1774, 21747; 1775, 179–224), which, with support from certain ancient versions (Vulg. ligabis; Aq. συνδήσεις; Th. δήσεις), has led others to follow suit (e.g., Dhorme 1926, 571; Clines 2011, 1158; JB; NEB). Cord: Although ḥebel can ambiguously refer to a snare or trap (Ps 119:61; Isa 5:18), the basic idea of a “cord” wrapped around liwyātān’s tongue is in view here. Cf. Ps 140:6, where the haughty (gēʾ īm) use ḥăbālīm “cords” to help capture the psalmist by keeping a rešet “net” firmly spread out on the ground. Ea’s binding and subjugation of Apsu’s vizier, Mummu, in EE 1:72 offers a similar idea: “Ea controlled (ittamaḫ) Mummu, held [him] (ukāl) by a nose-rope (ṣerressu)” (cf. EE 4:117).

104 40:26

Chapter 4 ‫התׂשים אגמון באפו‬ ‫ובחוח תקוב לחיו‬

Can you place a rush5 in its nose?  6 Or pierce7 its cheek with a hook?  8

  5  6  7  8

40:27

‫הירבה אליך תחנונים‬ ‫אם־ידבר אליך רכות‬

Will it multiply (pleas) for mercy to you? 9 (Will) it speak tender words?

  9

40:28

‫היכרת ברית עמך‬ ‫תקחנו לעבד עולם‬

Will it make a covenant with you, to be taken as your perpetual slave?

40:29

‫התשׂחק־בו כצפור‬ ‫ותקשׁרנו לנערותיך‬

Will you play with it as (with) a bird? (Will) you put it on a leash10 for your girls? 11

‫יכרו עליו חברים‬ ‫יחצוהו בין כנענים‬

(Will) fishing partners haggle over it? 12 (Will) they divide it up13 among the merchants? 14

  10  11

40:30   12

While the planes of agency differ in these two contexts (exclusively divine in EE; human-“other” in Job), they both use the illustration of a rope through the nose to emphasize authority. For a similar depiction in Hittite literature, where the mortal Ḫupasiya bound a serpentine creature with a rope, see The Illuyanka Myth (B 1:13′–16′ ; cf. Beckman 1982, 11–25). 5. The ʾagmôn is a symbol of weakness in the book of Isaiah (e.g., 9:13; 19:15; 58:5). In Is 9:13 and 19:15 it contrasts kippāh “palm branch” in order to form a merism, while Second Isaiah uses the image of a bent ʾagmôn to identify meaningless fasting efforts (58:5). The fourth and final reference, if not a misreading of wəʾōgēm “burning” (dittography of final nun, so BHS and HALOT 1:10), likens the smoke protruding from Leviathan’s nostrils to that which ascends from a boiling pot and [burning] ʾagmôn in Job 41:12). 6.  Cf. the last inquiry about Behemoth in 40:24: “Can you pierce (its) nose with snares? ” 7.  Although the use of nāqab to pierce a victim is confined to bəhēmôt in 40:24 and liwyātān here, the king of Assyria elsewhere uses a ḥôaḥ to lead Manasseh into exile in 2 Chr 33:11. 8. Hooks (ḥaḥīm) pierce the cheeks of both the tannīn in Ezek 29:4 and Gog, king of Meshech and Tubal, later in Ezek 38:4. Wolfers argues forcefully for ʾagmôn as “bulrush” and ḥôaḥ as “bramble,” which there represent absurd weapons for capturing a Leviathan (1990–1991, 170– 75). But as Clines quips, it is absurd enough to think he could use a hook (2011, 1158). 9.  The depiction of a desperate and humiliated liwyātān continues its presentation from 40:25–26 as an ensnared victim. 10.  The “binding” connoted by Heb. tiqšərennū refers to the domestication of liwyātān, as if it were a pet. Contrary to Tur-Sinai (1957, 564–65), who compares the creature to a bird ensnared and bound in order to be served as a dinner entrée by maidservants (naʿărôtêkā), there is no hint of slaughter or even conflict. 11.  Thomas’s alternative reading, “like a young sparrow” (kannōʿār; cf. Arb. nugharat), achieves efficient parallelism, but at the cost of emending the pl. ending (-ôt), suffix (-êkā), and replacing the prefixed preposition l “for” with k “like” (1964, 114–16). Though Gordis follows this etymological identification, he attempts to do so without resort to emendation, reading nəʿārā instead of nōʿār, a prefixed l that indicates movement to another state, as well as a distributive pl. form (1978, 491–94). While LXX ὥσπερ στρούθιον παιδίῳ “like a sparrow for a child” appears to support both readings prima facie, the Qumran Tg. replicates the MT. 12.  Partners: Though a hapax legomenon (N.B. not ḥābēr “companion”), the qaṭṭāl nominal form ḥabbārīm presupposes an occupational term (so NJB “the fishing guild”; REB “partners in the fishing”; Terrien 1963, 264 “fishing syndicates”). Tur-Sinai (1957, 565) suggests instead ḥabbār “keeper of the granary” based on Ug. bt ḫbr, but the latter term is rather a GN, “house of Khubur” (cf. KTU 1.14 3:29).

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery 40:31

‫התמלא בשׂכות עורו‬ ‫ובצלצל דגים ראשׁו‬

105

Can you riddle15 its hide with spears? 16 Or its head with a fishing harpoon? 17

  13  14  15  16  17

40:31

‫שׂים־עליו כפך‬ ‫זכר מלחמה אל־תוסף‬

Lay your hands on it (and) remember the struggle—you (will) not do it again!

Haggle over it: The mercantile context of 40:30, marked by terms like ḥabbārīm and kənaʿănīm, establishes Heb. yikərū “they will bargain” as a derivative of krh II “to purchase, barter for,” over and against krh III “to give a feast.” Though the LXX (ἐνσιτοῦνται “feed”) putatively follows the latter option, commercial fishers consuming their catch before merchants first divide it up (40:30b) defies the flow of the passage (Clines 2011, 1159). 13.  The merchants divide up Leviathan itself, rather than the profit gained by its sale (contra Dhorme 1926, 572–73; Habel 1985, 569–70). 14.  In their identification of Leviathan as a whale, the REB and NEB move 40:25–30 back to follow 39:30, arranging it as the last of the wild animals in the first divine speech (cf. Tur-Sinai 1957, 556–77). Both translations then conflate the bəhēmôt and liwyātān of the second speech into one animal: the crocodile. 15. Heb. hatmallēʾ “can you fill? ” Based on his reading of the following indirect object, śukkāh, as “boat,” Kinnier Wilson suggests hatmallēʾ refers to “loading” Leviathan onto a shipping vessel (1975, 11). The anatomical references to the creature’s skin and head in 40:31, however, presuppose the resumption of a piercing action. 16. Heb. bəśukkôt “with spears.” This translation follows the JB and Clines (2011, 1160). Though a hapax legomenon, most scholars (for a representative presentation, see Clines 2011, 1160) and translations (so NJPSV) connect śukkāh to śikkīm “thorns” in Num 33:55, both of which perhaps stem from a common Semitic root (both geminate and hollow): śkk “to pierce” (cf. Arb., Eth., and Tigrinia śwk/śkk; Arb. šauk “thorns”). The nuanced use of a śukkāh as a fishing instrument yields a noteworthy analogue in Amos’ two fishing instruments, ṣinnôt and sirôt, for two particular reasons: (1) grammatically, it provides another example of a noun with a bi-gendered plural form; and (2) semantically, it mirrors the literary transformation of a botanical term, namely, a “thorn,” into a device designed to catch fish. LXX πλωτόν “swimming; fleet” (followed by Kinnier Wilson 1975, 11; Driver 1957, 52–72 [śeket]) apparently reads Heb. śəkīt, which appears elsewhere only in Isa 2:16 (śəkiyyôt) and may derive from Eg. śkty. This disregards the influence of 40:31 on the following verse, which underscores the creature’s imposing size and power. The mysterious suggestion of Tur-Sinai (1957, 566) that śkwt means “cloves” (ostensibly related to Akk. šikkatu “pin, nail”) fails on the same account. 17. Heb. bəṣilṣal dāgīm, lit., “harpoon of fish.” Gordis speculates that ṣilṣal dāgīm, the former a hapax legomenon, may derive from ṣilṣal “whirl, buzz” (1978, 482). In accordance with its previous interpretation of Heb. śukkāh, the LXX reads another term for a ship (ἐν πλοίοις ἁλιέων “in ships of fishers” [followed expectedly by Kinnier Wilson, 1975, 11 n. 1, who translates “{will you load} his head into a fishing vessel”]; cf. Bowman [1941, B obv. line 6, p. 303, C rev. line 5, p. 304] for two references to ṣlṣl in a fragmented Aramaic inscription, both of which he translates “boat”). Tur-­ Sinai’s creative proposal that ṣilṣal actually represents bəṣalṣūl (MH “chive”) misses the point of the passage altogether (1957, 566). The combination of two consecutive piercing weapons leads right into the climactic 40:32, which warns of the grave consequences for attempting to even “lay a hand” on Leviathan. Moreover, Kubina views śukkāh and ṣilṣal as weapons which betray influence from Egyptian mythology, in which Horus uses a harpoon to attack his rival Seth, there manifested as a hippopotamus (1979, 93).

106

Chapter 4

4.2.1.2.  Literary Context In two lengthy speeches spanning chs. 38–41, Yhwh addresses the sufferer, Job, from the midst of the whirlwind. The first speech surveys a number of different aspects of the cosmos, including the solar realm (38:12–27), meteorology (13:28–30, 34–38), astronomy (38:31–33), and eight species of fauna (lion in 38:39–40; raven in 38:41; mountain goat in 39:1–4; wild ass in 39:5–8; wild ox in 39:9–12; ostrich in 39:13–18; horse in 39:19–25; hawk/eagle in 39:26–30), all for the purpose of beckoning his disputant to consider the insight of God and the precision and order of his creation. Job’s terse response in 40:3–5 neither concedes ground nor capitulates, but with conviction pledges to say no more about his own suffering. Although the reader is left wondering how the dialogue might continue at this juncture, Yhwh commences a second speech. In this first part of this message, Yhwh sarcastically challenges Job to try and “play God” to see if he could do it any better (40:7–14). This reproof then zeroes in on two monstrous beasts, bəhēmôt “Behemoth” (40:15–24) and liwyātān “Leviathan” (40:25–41:26). To that end, the rational and didactic overtones marking the first speech give way to the poetic, instilling an element of wonder and exposing a concept of justice that transcends the human senses (Clines 2011, 1203). Fronting the lengthy lyrical description of Leviathan is a spate of rhetorical questions that functions to expose the disparity between this creature and Job. In envisioning an epic struggle between the protagonist and liwyātān, the beginning (40:25–26) and end (40:30–32) of this section draw on imagery from the fishing trade. Hovering over this inquisition is an acute irony that stems from the sheer reality that Job would stand no chance against this creature, regardless of the level of his own skill, tools, and methods. 4.2.1.3.  How (Not) to Catch a liwyātān No other passage in the HB employs as many different fishing terms as does Job 40:25–32. The rarity and derived meanings of these terms, however, preclude a simplistic description of how exactly to subdue the liwyātan. What is more, the sarcastic nature of the questions Yhwh proffers to Job implies these implements would provide little help in catching this creature. A perusal of the terms demonstrates both a diversity of vocabulary and the consequent need to evaluate each one on its own terms (see table 24). Out of all six terms, only one (ḥakkāh) appears in another unequivocal fishing context. The frontal position of ḥakkāh—an exclusive tool of the fisher in the other two biblical attestations—demonstrates that the liwyātān, as opposed to the terrestrial bəhēmôt (40:15), is an aquatic animal. The use of ḥôaḥ (40:26b) complements this reality, clarifying the method of fishing with a ḥakkāh, although with a bit more poetic license. Where ḥôaḥ typically refers to a thorn or thistle, the derivative form ḥaḥ elsewhere refers to a “hook.” In a passage nearly identical to 40:26b (Ezek 29:4), the ḥaḥ draws up another monstrous creature, the tannīn (MT tannīm): The use of ḥôaḥ as a fishing instrument preserves a literary device that stems back to the 8th century b.c.e. In Amos 4:2 (see ch. 3), the prophet transforms two botanical terms for “thorn” (ṣēn and sīrāh) that appear infrequently in the HB into imposing tools wielded to capture and deport Samarians from their homeland. But unlike Amos, the ḥôaḥ in Job 40:26b does not carry overtones of divine retribution. It does, however,

107

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery Table 24.  Fishing Tools in Job 40:25–32 Instruments in MT

Cross-references

LXX ἐν ἀγκίστρῳ “with a fish hook”

1. bəḥakkāh “with a fish hook” (40:25a)

Isa 19:8 (metonymic for fisher); Hab 1:15 (used by Nebuchadrezzar to catch Judahites)

2. beḥebel “with a cord” (40:25b)

Pss 119:61 (set up by the wicked); 140:6 (used φοβεὰν “rope, by the wicked to spread a net) halter”

3. ʾagmôn “rush” (40:26a)

n/a

4. bəḥô ḥ “with a hook” (40:26b)

2 Chr 33:11 (Manasseh captured and exiled ψελίῳ “ring” with hooks by the king of Assyria); cf. Table 1.

5. bəśukkôt “with spears” (40:31b)

hapax legomenon (although cf. śikkīm “thorns” in Num 33:55)

πλωτόν “fleet, ship”

6. bəṣilṣal dāgīm “with fishing harpoons” (40:31b)

hapax legomenon

ἐν πλόιοις ἁλιέων “in fisher’s boats”

a

κρίκον “ring”

demonstrate both the flexibility of Hebrew poetry and a veritable conceptual relationship between the thorn and fish hook in ancient Israelite thought. Sandwiched between the two references to “hook” stand two related implements. While the ḥakkāh and ḥôaḥ pierced the liwyātan’s hide, the ḥebel “cord” and ʾagmôn “rush” serve an altogether different purpose. These fibrous implements force the animal into submission. The big-game fisher could theoretically hook the liwyātān from a distance, but binding its tongue with a cord (40:25b) and wrapping a cord made of rushes through its nose would require close proximity. The nature of such activity demonstrates the very otherness of this marine creature. As the rhetoric of the passage forcefully emphasizes, however, all such attempts to subdue the liwyātān are futile, if not absurd. Neither the most advanced technology nor man’s most devastating blow stands against it. In the staccato enumeration of deficient techniques in 40:25–26, the highly sardonic nature of this passage squashes any hope in their efficacy. The A:B::B1:A1 chiasm furthermore suggests this list aims for comprehensiveness, stressing the irony of fantasy (Job subduing Leviathan) and reality (Job unable to subdue Leviathan). A hiatus in fishing terminology ensues after 40:26, but resumes in 40:31 with the rare terms śukkôt “spear” and ṣilṣal “harpoon.” Though these terms occur nowhere else in the HB, the images in 40:25–26, the maintained sequence of rhetorical questions, and the qualification of the two hapax legomena with anatomical references (ʿôrô “its hide”; rōʾšô “its head”) once again presuppose the use of piercing agents. The resumption of fishing imagery in 40:31 forms an inclusio, ranging from the ḥakkāh of 40:25a to the ṣilṣal of 40:31b. Term after term, verse after verse, Job 40:25–31 goes to pains—using a range of dramatic hyperbole—to express the simple fact that Job would stand no chance against liwyātān. The progression of risible images then culminates in 40:32, which offers a solemn warning to any presumptuousness: merely laying a hand on the liwyātān is enough to never risk it again.

108

Chapter 4 Table 25. Piercing the “Cheek” of a Sea Monster in the Hebrew Bible Job 40:26b

‫“ ובחוח תקוב לחיו‬Can you pierce its cheek with a hook?”

Ezekiel 29:4a ‫“ ונתתי חחים בלחייך‬And I will place hooks in your cheeks”

4.2.1.4. Interpretation Unlike the humans captured either by the fishing tackle of foreign nations (at the divine commissioning of Yhwh) or by Yhwh himself (as seen in Jer 16:16, Amos 4:2, Hab 1:14–17, Ezek 12:13, and 17:20), the victim here actually lives in the water. The HB knows several names for a great sea monster: Rahab (cf. Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps 89:11; Isa 51:9), Tannin (cf. Gen 1:21; Isa 27:1; 51:9; Ps 74:13; 148:7; Job 7:12), and Leviathan (cf. Isa 27:1; Ps 74:14; 104:26; 3:8; 40:25–41:26). While all three creatures appear in Job and at least 25 times altogether—often in mythological contexts emphasizing either primeval or eschatological conflict between Yhwh and chaos (for example, Isa 27:1; 51:9; Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps 74:13–14; 89:11)—only one passage employs fishing imagery: Job 40:25–32. That this passage includes no such conflict despite the presence of fishing paraphernalia only extends the irony further. The fishing metaphors in Job 40:25–32 appear not in prosaic or even prophetic contexts but in rhetorical questions entrenched within a much larger legal disputation between Yhwh and a man he has allowed to experience severe suffering. Each iteration progressively reinforces the same fundamental truth: Job has no shot at catching Leviathan. The litany of inquiries effectively drives this point home by the use of penetrating hyperbole, tacitly demonstrating that the locus of the problem lies not in the efficacy of the equipment, but in Job himself. Neither is the problem specific to Job; it is germane to all humans. The pointless prospect of domesticating Leviathan, or even just bringing it into the human realm develops into an over-the-top jest. Job cannot hope to bring it under control or force it into submission (40:25–28), transform it into a child’s play toy (40:29), skin it into fillets ready-made for the seafood market (40:30), or lace its hide with harpoons (40:31), for Leviathan is “other” (Clines 2011, 1192). Coated with razor-­sharp rows of shields as armor (41:7) and terrifying teeth (41:6) and equipped with the ability to breathe fire (41:11–13), Leviathan is in a league of its own: awe-inspiring, suited for battle, and liminal (i.e. bridging the human and divine spheres). 18 For all the danger one risks by approaching this beast, however, it shows no signs of belligerence toward either Yhwh or humankind (Clines, 2011, 1192; cf. Newsom 2003, 249). There is no overt indication of Chaoskampf and to suggest otherwise requires im18.  Ps 18:9 describes Yhwh himself with the ability to breathe fire (cf. KTU 1.83). “Suited for battle”: Cf. Ps 74:14a (ʾattāh raṣṣaṣtā rošê liwyātān “You [i.e. Yhwh] yourself crushed the heads of Leviathan”), which assumes “maritime chaos endangered the earth, but was subdued by Yhwh” (Uehlinger 1999, 513). Zeus’s hybrid (part human, part serpent) nemesis, Typhon, exhibits similar qualities of liminality.

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery

109

posing the force of other contexts on this passage. 19 Conversely, Yhwh speaks proudly of Leviathan. 20 He presumably could hook Leviathan, but the text says nothing of this. 21 In this instance, Leviathan emphasizes both Yhwh’s power and human powerlessness. Yhwh’s didactic example confronts Job and his questioning of the nature of divine justice with a dramatic illustration of creation and the cosmos that transcends any of his previous assumptions. As the world suddenly becomes much bigger than he had ever imagined, so justice becomes more complex. 22 But why fishing imagery? If this language shows up only in hypothetical, rhetorical contexts, what point does it actually communicate? Though the text plainly articulates the ineffectiveness of human techniques against Leviathan, are the fishing terms employed merely because of the creature’s aquatic habitat? Unlike the previously discussed passages in chs. 2–3, there is no hint of exile. But in those previous analyses, fishing imagery typically connotes divine authority, in general, and divine retribution, in particular. Though retribution is not in view, the same paradigm obtains for Job 40:25–32, but the tone is rhetorical and speculative, rather than prophetic and declarative. Job has no shot at taming Leviathan; this responsibility belongs to Yhwh alone. Having already claimed to perfect the principles of “just rule” (cf. Job 29) in his own localized context, Yhwh challenges Job to implement them in a cosmic one. 23 After calling Job to “gird up [his] loins like a man” (ʾĕzor-nāʾ kəgeber ḥălāṣêkā) in 38:3 and 40:7, Yhwh ups the ante by commanding him, in effect, to try out “playing God” for a bit (ʿădēh nāʾ gāʾôn wāgōbāh wəhôd wəhādār tilbāš “Dress yourself with majesty and honor; clothe [lit. “you will clothe”] yourself with glory and splendor”). In fact, if Job, is capable of divine responsibilities (zərôaʿ kāʾēl “[if he has] an “arm like God”; cf. 40:9), then Yhwh pledges to endorse his ability to save himself (wəgam-ʾănī ʾôdekā kī-tôši a  ʿ ləkā yəmīnekā [40:14]). This lofty discourse quickly deflates with the awe-inspiring descriptions of Behemoth (40:15–24) and Leviathan (40:25–41:26) and imagery drawn from the hunt. Just as Job cannot subdue Leviathan with a ḥakkāh or riddle his hide with a ṣilṣal, neither does he have the chops to be God. That the fishing equipment are inadequate against Leviathan thus refers more to the agent wielding it than to the efficacy of the tackle (cf. Fyall 2002, 19.  For an example of this imposition, see Day 1985, 69, 83–4. Kinnier Wilson suggests the Leviathan passage is a reenactment of Yhwh’s original battle where this time Job attempts (unsuccessfully, no less) to stand in for Yhwh as hero-god (1975, 12; contra Fox 2012, 266). 20.  In his analysis of the divergent depictions of deity and sea creature in the HB, Smith persuasively argues that when the latter is domesticated, as is the case here in Job, it reflects the creature’s “beloved” relationship with El, but its pugnacious demeanor elsewhere reflects its relationship with the hero-god (2001, 36–37). The book of Job knows both traditions (cf. 26:12–13; 40:25–41:26). Watson avers that these divergent traditions “mirror the competing voices of the Old Testament regarding the origin of that which is negative in the world in creation and history, since both the option of God’s pan-causality . . . and dualistic schemas . . . are attested” (2005, 392). 21.  Fox 2012, 266–67. The relationship echoes Marduk’s ownership of a pet mušḫuššu (“snake”), which appears on several NB glazed bricks. 22.  O’ Connor remarks that Job 40:6–41:26 revolves not around battle or conflict, but rather “God’s pleasure in their [Behemoth’s and Leviathan’s] beautiful wildness” (2013, 176). 23.  Habel 1985, 558. This recalls God’s primordial creation of the tannīn in Gen 1:21.

110

Chapter 4

159). But the very imagery itself—restraining, covenanting with, domesticating—likewise demonstrates that fishing (or hunting, for that matter) is not the focal point. Leviathan is no small fry and Job is fundamentally human. Since divine authority is latent in the use of fishing imagery elsewhere and since Yhwh alone governs justice, 40:25–32 repeatedly highlights the depth and complexity of divine justice. The “otherness” of Leviathan and the inadequacy of Job to successfully fulfill the challenge offer Job sublime insight not just into his own limitations, but also into mysterious divine machinations and a multifaceted reality where Yhwh, like his creation Leviathan, cannot be controlled or domesticated (Walton 2012, 409). The point of all of this is not to chastise or patronize Job, but to elicit a fresh, dynamic “articulation of faith” (Balentine 1998, 272). 4.2.2.  Ezekiel 29:1–6a and 32:1–10 4.2.2.1. Translation 4.2.2.1.1.  Ezekiel 29:1–6a 29:1–3a

‫בשׁנה העשׂירית בעשׂרי בשׁנים‬ ‫עשׂר לחדשׁ היה דבר־יהוה אלי‬ ‫לאמר‬ ‫בן־אדם שׂים פניך על־פרעה‬ ‫מלך־מצרים והנבא עליו ועל־‬ ‫מצרים כלה דבר ואמרת כה־‬ ‫אמר אדני יהוה‬

In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth (day) of the month, the word of Yhwh came to me: “Son of man, direct your face toward 24 Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt. Speak and say: Thus said Lord Yhwh:

‫הנני עליך פרעה מלך־מצרים‬

‘Look, I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt,25 the great dragon who lies in the midst of his Nile,26 who said: “The Nile is mine; I made it for myself.”

  24

29:3b

‫התנים הגדול הרבץ בתוך יאריו‬ ‫אשׁר אמר לי יארי ואני עשׂיתני‬   25  26

24.  The idiom “set one’s face toward” here replaces the standard ʾel with ʿal. 25.  The fixed date of January 7, 587 b.c.e. (Parker and Dubberstein 1956, 28; contrast LXX δεκάτῳ “twelfth [year]” [589–88 b.c.e.]) situates this oracle—the earliest among Ezekiel’s prophecies against foreign nations— within the reign of Hophra/Apries (589–570 b.c.e.). 26.  Dragon: Among the 15 HB attestations of tannīn “dragon, monster; serpent,” only those in Ezek 29:3 and 32:2 deviate in form (tannīm). Outside of a handful of contexts where the word refers to a serpent (viz., Exod 7:9–10, 12; Deut 32:33; Ps 91:13; cf. Neh 2:13), it typically designates a “(sea) monster” in passages connected to creation (Gen 1:21; cf. also Job 7:12 and Ps 74:13, in which it was either subdued or slain by Yhwh in primeval history), politics (Jer 51:9 as Nebuchadrezzar; Ezek 29:3 and 32:2 as Hophra), and cosmic eschatological conflict (Isa 27:1; cf. Rev 12–13). According to Lewy (1895, 15), tannīn linguistically relates to Gk. θύννος “tuna.” Firmer correspondence obtains from Ug. tnn (*tunnānu), well known from the Baʿal Cycle. In fact, tnn appears eight times in the Ug. corpus (in which two appear in personal names; cf. Whitaker 1972, 619). In three passages, it denotes a mighty sea monster killed by either Anat (cf. KTU 1.3

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery 29:4

‫ונתתי חחים [חחיים] בלחייך‬ 27  ‫והדבקתי דגת־יאריך‬ ‫בקׂשקׂשתיך‬ ‫והעליתיך מתוך יאריך‬ ‫ואת כל־דגת יאריך בקׂשקׂשתיך‬ ‫תדבק‬

111

I will place hooks in your cheeks and will cause the fish of your Nile to cling to your scales. I will bring you up from the midst of your Nile and all the fish of your Nile will cling to your scales.

 27

29:5

‫ונטשׁתיך המדברה‬ ‫אותך ואת כל־דגת יאריך‬ ‫על־פני השׂדה תפול‬

‫נתתיך לאכלה‬

‘I will cast28 to the wilderness,29 you, and all the fish of your Nile. You will fall upon the surface of the open field 30 [to be] neither gathered 31 nor collected. To (the) beasts of the earth and birds of the heavens: I (will) give you as food.

‫וידעו כל־ישׁבי מצרים‬ ‫כי אני יהוה‬

Then all the inhabitants of Egypt will know that I am Yhwh.

‫תאסף ולא תקבץ‬ ‫לחית הארץ ולעוף השׁמים‬

  28  29  30  31

29:6a

3:40; 1.83:8) or Baʿal (1.82:1). Elsewhere, it shows up in fragmentary contexts (KTU 1.16 5:31–32 [tnn created by El to aid Kirta]; 1.6 6:51). Nile: Or “his rivers/streams” (passim). Six of the eight instances of this term in 29:1–10 are plural in form (cf. 29:3, 4 [thrice], 5, 10). Egyptian literature does, in fact, refer to Nile branches as their own, individual “Nile” (Gardiner 1947, 2:153 *f; cf. Freedy and Redford 1970, 471; Boadt 1980, 28). 27.  For the pronominal suffix’s datival usage, see JM, §125ba. The most natural object of the datival suffix (“I made it for myself ”) is the Nile itself, a concept that dovetails nicely with the well-known Egyptian understanding of divine kingship and Pharaoh’s governance over the Nile (cf. Currid 1997, 240–44). A reflexive usage is also permissible (i.e., “I made it myself ”). For the use of the dative suffix elsewhere in Ezekiel, see 5:25; 16:21, 52; 21:32; 27:10; 28:3; 29:3; 31:8; 32:11; 37:15 (Boadt 1980, 30). 28. For nṭš as “hurl,” cf. Ezek 32:4 and Isa 22:17. 29.  For Yhwh’s analogous punishment of the sea monster, Rahab, see Ps 89:11: ʾattāh dikkiʾtā kəḥālāl rāhab:: bizrôaʿ ʿuzzəkā pizzartā ʾôyəbêkā “You crushed Rahab to pieces like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your strong right arm.” 30.  This same destination for tannīn appears at 32:4. The phrase ʿal-pənê haśśādeh broadly refers to an outlier area, such as a forest (1 Sam 14:25), grazing pasture (Jer 9:22; 2 Kgs 9:37), and desolate wilderness (Ezek 33:27). The references in 29:5 and 32:4 appear to have this latter locale in mind, by nature of both reference to scavenging and death. Both the śādeh and midbār “wilderness” can resemble a place of ṣalmāwet “heavy darkness” and death (Jer 2:6; Job 10:21). The fate of the apocalyptic θηρίον “beast” in Rev 19:20, thrown into the lake of fire, draws on this imagery. 31. For ʾāsap and qābaṣ as a poetic pair elsewhere in the prophetic corpus, see Isa 43:9; Ezek 11:17; 39:17; Joel 2:16; Mic 2:12; 4:6; Hab 2:5; Zeph 3:8. Though ʾāsap generally means “assemble,” it can take on the specialized meaning of “gathered (into a grave)” (cf. 2 Kgs 22:20; Sir 38:16; 44:14). This verb also appears with this meaning on a fragmentary Phoenician burial inscription from Byblos (Cross 1979, 40–44).

112

Chapter 4

4.2.2.1.2.  Ezekiel 32:1–10 32:1

‫ויהי בשׁתי עשׂרה שׁנה בשׁני־‬ ‫עשׁר חדשׁ באחד ׁשלחד היה‬ ‫דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬

In the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, on the (first) day of the month,32 the word of Yhwh came to me:

  32

32:2

‫בן־אדם שׂא קינה על־פרעה‬ ‫מלך־מצרים‬ ‫ואמרת אליו‬ ‫כפיר גוים נדמית‬ ‫ואתה כתנים בימים‬ ‫ותגח בנהרותיך‬ ‫ותדלח־מים ברגליך‬ ‫ותרפס נהרותם‬

“Son of man, raise a dirge33 for Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say to him: You liken yourself 34 to a lion35 of the nations, but you are a dragon in the seas. You flail in your rivers, make the water turbid36 with your feet, and muddy your37 rivers.38

  33  34  35  36  37  38

32:3

‫כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫ופרשׂתי עליך את־רשׁתי בקהל‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫והעלוך בחרמי‬

Thus said Lord Yhwh: I will spread out my net over you in the assembly of many people and I39 will bring you up with my dragnet.

  39

32.  I.e., March 3, 585 b.c.e. (Parker and Dubberstein 1956, 28). 33.  While 32:2b implements an expected qīnāh (3/2) meter associated with a dirge (as well as possibly 32:3, 8a), 32:1–16’s emphasis on “forensic proof,” not “lament,” leads Zimmerli to suggest that the references to qīnāh in the opening (32:2) and closing (32:16) label the entire section, despite the balanced 3/3 metrical structure elsewhere (1983, 157). 34. Though Allen prefers to read dmh I “to destroy” here (1990, 129), most others follow dmh II “to be like,” which most naturally continues the metaphor from ch. 29 and communicates the rhetorical force of shifting imagery from lion to dragon. 35.  For royal and divine leonine imagery in Egypt and the ANE, see Strawn 2005, 152–86. 36.  Cf. Akk. mê dalāḫu which can have both a literal (“to muddy water”) and metaphorical (“to confuse the political order”) meaning (AHw 152b–153b; CAD D 43a–46a, s.v. dalāḫu meanings 1a, 2c; cf. Garfinkel 1983, 65). The passage in Ezekiel incorporates both: as a tannīn, Hophra muddies the water of his Nile; as Pharaoh he confounds international politics by coming to aid Judah. Cf. EE 1:108: dalḫat tiʾāmatam-ma urri u mūša idulla “Tiamat was stirred up, roaming around day and night.” For the point of rendering water undrinkable by trampling it, see Ezek 34:18–19. 37.  So LXX; MT “their rivers.” 38.  The term for Nile, yəʾōr, appears eight times in ch. 29, but surprisingly not once in 32:1– 10. This negative complements the exclusive use of conceptual and mythological images in Ezek 32:2c–10 (for example, the elements characteristic of the Day of Yhwh), which seems to distance the dragon metaphor from realia. The same creature is in view, however, despite the elevated language. Greenberg further notes that the “collocation of the cosmic and the trivial in the description of the monster turns out to be ironic. Not only is the monster effectual only in his limited element but all that he effects there is ‘muddying’—a disturbance of the peace” (1997, 657). 39.  For the first sg. (ἀνάξω “I will bring you up in my net”) found in some Greek texts in contrast to the third pl. of the MT, see Allen (1990, 129) and Greenberg (1997, 651): Yhwh alone interacts with Tannin in both 29:3–6a and 32:2–10 (both the most immediate antecedent [ʿammīm] and the reference to Babylonian action in the prophetic interpretation [32:11–16] may have influenced this switch from first to third person).

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery 32:4

‫ונטשׁתיך בארץ‬ ‫על־פני השׂדה אטילך‬ ‫והשׁכנתי עליך כל־עוף השׁמים‬ ‫והשׂבעתי ממך חית כל־הארץ‬

113

I will cast you to the earth and hurl you onto the surface of the open field. I will cause all the birds of the heavens to settle upon you and all 40 the beasts of the earth to satisfy themselves on you.

 40

‫ונתתי את־בשׂרך על־ההרים‬ ‫ומלאתי הגאיות רמותך‬

I will strew your flesh upon the mountains and fill the valleys41 with your maggot-infested carcass.42

32:6

‫והשׁקיתי ארץ צפתך מדמך‬ ‫אל־ההרים‬ ‫ואפקים ימלאון ממך‬

I will saturate the land (with) the flow of your blood up to the mountains so that the streams will be full of it.

32:7

‫וכסיתי בכבותך שׁמים‬ ‫והקדרתי את־ככביהם‬ ‫שׁמשׁ בענן אכסנו‬ ‫וירח לא־יאיר אורו‬

(When) I extinguish you43 I will cover the sky and make the stars dark. I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon shall not emit its light.

32:5

  41  42

  43

32:8

‫כל־מאורי אור בשׁמים אקדירם‬ ‫עליך‬ ‫ונתתי חשׁך על־ארצך‬ ‫נאם אדני יהוה‬

32:9

‫והכעסתי לב עמים רבים‬ ‫בהביאי שׁברך בגוים‬ ‫על־ארצות אשׁר לא־ידעתם‬

32:10

‫והשׁמותי עליך עמים רבים‬ ‫ומלכיהם ישׂערו עליך שׂער‬ ‫בעופפי הרבי על־פניהם‬ ‫וחרדו לרגעים‬ ‫אישׁ לנפשׁו ביום מפלתך‬

I will darken all the luminaries in the sky over you. I will place darkness over your land, announcement of Lord Yhwh. I will provoke the heart of many people when I bring about your destruction among the nations— among lands which you do not know. I will appall many nations on account of you. Their kings will bristle with horror because of you when I brandish my sword before them. They shall tremble every moment— each one for his own life on the day of your downfall.

40.  MT “the beasts of all the earth.” 41.  For the image of Edomite bodies similarly strewn across the land, see Ezek 35:8. For other instances of bodily dismemberment, see Judg 19:29; 1 Sam 11:7. Due to the similarities between the fates of Tannin here and Osiris in the Edfu Horus myth, Margulis argues Ezekiel was probably familiar with this Egyptian narrative (1967, 334–38). 42.  The last term in 32:5b has been construed in different ways, the evidence for which, see Zimmerli 1983, 155. I here read a term related to rimmāh “worm,” following Sym. and Syr. (so Greenberg 1997, 652; contra Boadt [1980, 137–38], who prefers “exalted, high”). 43. For kābah signaling death elsewhere, see Isa 43:17 (see Block 1998, 206 n. 44).

114

Chapter 4

4.2.2.2.  Historical and Literary Context In his seventh and final war oracle, Ezekiel turns his attention southward to Egypt. From his initial commands to prophesy against her in 29:2 and to raise a dirge against her in 32:2, Ezekiel thoroughly upbraids Israel’s southern neighbor. This oracle, the longest among the seven against foreign nations between chs. 25–32, employs a number of engaging metaphors to communicate both Egypt’s ostensibly elevated position (for example, a towering cedar envied even by the trees of Eden [ch. 31]; a creative “great dragon” reminiscent of Mesopotamian royal and divine ilk [ch. 29, 32]; a powerful lion [ch. 32]) and its seismic downfall (for example, descent into Sheol [31:15–18; 32:16– 32]; 44 a “dragon” caught in a net and eviscerated [29:3–6a; 32:3–10]). From its haunting repetition and biting irony, Ezek 29–32 comprises one devastating blow after another against Egypt in order to assert Yhwh’s preeminent authority over all potential rivals. Though Egypt (and metonymically Pharaoh) feigns to threaten Yhwh, the pericope progressively exposes its latent weakness and subordination, reverses any such threat, and resolves the putative crisis by vindicating Yhwh and pronouncing Egypt’s ignominious fate (cf. Boadt 1980, 170). Though Ezek 29–32 shares motifs akin to other prophetic oracles against Egypt, such as Isa 18–19 and Jer 46, the “great dragon” metaphor appears only here. And though references to dragons (whether Leviathan, Tannin, or Rahab) occur elsewhere in the HB—to symbolize Chaoskampf (for example, Job 26:12–13; Ps 74:12–17) or otherwise (creation in Gen 1:21; Ps 104:24–26)—only Job 40:25–32, Ezek 29:3–6a and 32:2–10 use fishing imagery to describe these passages. Ezekiel 29:1–6a and 32:1–10 together form a composite, yet homogeneous, whole. The tannīn “great dragon” and Egypt form a complementary pair: the latter as a stereotype of enmity toward Yhwh (spanning the watershed Exodus event up through its recent dominion over Judah in the late 6th century b.c.e.), and the former as a long-standing “personification of chaos or those evil, historical forces opposed to Yhwh and his people” (Heider 1999, 836). Just as Ezekiel hyperbolically likened Tyre to an awe-inspiring mercantile ship in ch. 27 in order to reveal its true fraudulent nature and ominous destiny, so he uses the image of a great tannīn in chs. 29 and 32 as an apropos caricature of Egypt. 4.2.2.3.  How to Catch a Tannīn Unlike Amos 4:2 and Job 40:25–32, Ezek 29:1–6a and 32:1–10 employ terms to convey a fishing scenario that requires no specialized or nuanced meaning (see table 26). Along with Hab 1:14–17, these two passages (29:1–6a; 32:1–10) provide an expansive catalog of fishing tools. Though both make metaphorical reference to hook and net, the identity of targets differ. The Babylonian king catches humanity (including Judah) like helpless fish in Habakkuk, while Yhwh himself catches Tannin, which represents Pharaoh Hophra, in Ezek 29 and 32. The prophetic interpretations of the dragon metaphor in Ezek 29:6b–12 and 32:11–16, however, draw on this idea, designating Babylon as the vehicle to fulfill Yhwh’s initiative. 45 44.  Williams-Forte conjectures the dragon is an ally of the chthonic Canaanite deity, Mot (1983, 18–43). 45. Ezekiel and his contemporaries, Habakkuk and Jeremiah, each expressed Yhwh’s appointment of Babylon as a divine tool of retribution (cf. Hab 1:2–17; Jer 20:4–6).

115

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery Table 26.  Fishing Tools in Ezekiel 29, 32 How to Catch a Tannin 1. ḥaḥīm “hooks (in its cheeks)” (Ezek 29:4a)

Cross-References 2 Kgs 19:28/Isa 37:29 (Yhwh’s hook in Sennacherib’s nose); Ezek 19:4, 9 (the nation’s hooks in the Judahite king’s nose); Ezek 38:4 (Yhwh’s hook in Gog’s cheeks); cf. Job 40:26d

LXX παγίδας “snare, trap”

2. wəhaʾălītīkā “I will Hab 1:15 (Nebuchadrezzar brings up all of humankind, bring you up” (Ezek including Judah, up with a hook) 29:4c); wəheʾĕlūkā “They will bring you up” (Ezek 32:3c)

ἀνάξω “I will bring you up” (bis)

3. ūpāraśtī “And I Isa 19:8 (designation of a fisher, spreading a mikmeret will spread out (my out over water); Ezek 12:13/17:20 (Yhwh spreads his net)” (Ezek 32:3b) rešet out over Judahite king); Ezek 19:8 (the nations spread out their rešet out over Judahite king); Hos 7:12 (Yhwh spreads his net out over Ephraim [as if it were a bird]); Ps 140:6 (the arrogant spread out a rešet over the psalmist); Lam 1:13 (Yhwh spread out a rešet over Judah)

περιβαλῶ “I will lay (upon you)”

4. rištī “my net” (Ezek See table 2, p. 36 above. 32:3b)

δίκτυα “net”

5. bəḥermī “my net” (Ezek 32:3c)

ἀγκίστρῳ “by my hook”

See table 3, p. 37 above.

As with Leviathan in Job 40:25–26, Yhwh mentions placing a hook in the cheek(s) of Tannin in Ezek 29:4. 46 But the two passages evince different perspectives: In its hypothetical rhetoric, Job 40:25–32 highlights the ultimately futile attempt of Job (or perhaps, any human) to hook and domesticate Leviathan, while Ezek 29:1–6a and 32:1–10 matter-of-factly report Tannin’s capture without any trouble. The crux of this distinction hinges on the agent. Yhwh effectively crushes any hope Job had of being able to tame the sea monster, but here in Ezek 29 and 32 he demonstrates his own capacity to do just that! And though both passages use tools from a fisher’s arsenal to hunt these “big game” marine animals, Job 40:25–32 shows no sign of conflict between Yhwh and Leviathan, whom he created. Conversely, cosmic battle images pervade Yhwh’s address to Pharaoh-as-Tannin in Ezek 29 and especially Ezek 32. The stock collocation of pāraś + rešet in Ezek 32:3 occurs for the fourth time in the book, nearly identically copying the three previous references. While the first three (12:13; 17:20; 19:8) create a multifaceted reading by infusing the very prophetic interpretation with divine net imagery, the prophetic interpretation of the extended fishing 46.  The term in Job 40:26 is the derivative ḥôaḥ. Moreover, the term for “cheek” is sg. in Job 40:26, but pl. in Ezek 29:4.

116

Chapter 4 Table 27.  The Use of Rešet in Ezekiel ūpāraśtī ʾet-rištī ʿālāyw

And I will spread out my net upon him (12:13)

ūpāraśtī ʿālāyw rištī

And I will spread out upon him my net (17:20)

wayyiprəśū ʿālāyw rištām

And they spread out upon him their net (19:8)

ūpāraśtī ʿālêkā ʾet-rištī

And I will spread out upon you my net (32:3)

metaphor in Ezek 29:1–6a and 32:1–10 does not appear until after the metaphor finishes (cf. 29:6b–12; 32:11–15). The net functions as a divine weapon of Yhwh in three of the four passages (and of the Babylonians in the fourth), but only here occurs within an explicit fishing context (see table 27). Nevertheless, the grammatical and syntactical affinities of these four recycled references provide strong evidence in favor of literary dependence. Ezekiel 29:1–6a and 32:1–10 thus represent an extended metaphor that commences and closes a lengthy oracle against Pharaoh Hophra. The former refers specifically to Yhwh hooking the creature (29:4a), causing fish (either Egyptian officials or, more generally, Egyptian citizens) to stick to its scales (29:4b), hauling them up together (29:4c), and casting it onto the open field as carrion for scavenger animals to consume. This section closes with an Ezekielian trademark, the recognition formula (wəyādəʾū kol-yōšəbê miṣrayim kī ʾănī Yhwh “Then all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am Yhwh”). 47 When ch. 32 picks up this same image, the discourse retrospectively reflects on the trouble Tannin caused before it had been caught (32:2). The text then re-describes the catch scene, but with certain deviations. Though Yhwh reeled Tannin in with (line and) hooks in 29:4, he employs nets (rešet and ḥērem) in 32:3, without mention of any accompanying fish. As in 29:5, Yhwh casts (nāṭaš) Tannin onto dry ground in 32:4 for the benefit of hungry birds and beasts. From there (32:5–10) the oracle expands the depiction in 29:1–6a by describing a gruesome picture: Yhwh strews Tannin’s carcass across the land (32:5), thereby saturating the ground with its blood (32:6), and causes a Day-ofYhwh-like eclipse over Egypt (32:7–8), engendering widespread fear and disgust toward Pharaoh on his demise (32:9–10). 4.2.2.4.  Interpreting Ezekiel’s Tannin Metaphor The distinctive fishing metaphor in Ezek 29 and 32 brings together the foregoing discussion in two particular ways. First, along with Job 40:25–32, these passages self-­ evidently reinforce the idea that to catch a sea monster requires fishing acumen and paraphernalia. In fact, it is the very nature of tannīn as an aquatic creature that requires fishing language at all. The lofty imagery of Ezek 29:3–6a and 32:2–10, however, achieves much more than recording a piscatorial tale; it offers a glimpse into Yhwh’s character and redemptive program: his preeminent authority and commitment to faithfully observe his covenantal obligations as suzerain. 47.  Boadt refers to the recognition formula as “the most decisive characteristic of Ezekiel’s theology” (1980, 170).

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery

117

It is this revelation of divine initiative and action that leads to the second point: the true human identity of tannīn, its unchecked hubris, and the consequent vulnerability of Yhwh’s people, together demand justice. Given the metaphor of a dragon and the reality of rebellion, the employment of fishing imagery fills both a physical (description of biggame fishing) and a theological (divine retribution) need. Though Job’s hypothetical mission against Leviathan stood no chance, Yhwh, as both a divine fisher and executor of justice, fits the bill perfectly. 48 While other passages utilize fishing language to connote retribution against human objects (Samaria in Amos 4:1–3; Judah in Hab 1:14–17 and Jer 16:16–18), Ezek 29:3–6a and 32:2–10 offer a more natural context for this imagery. In their images of fishing for sea creatures, realia, metaphor, and theology converge. Moreover, these two passages maintain—along with Amos 4:1–3, Hab 1:14–17, Jer 16:16–18, and Ezek 12:13–14, 17:26–21, and 19:2–9—the unifying manifestation of divine retribution as exile itself. Both the grisly metaphor of tannīn cast into its wilderness deathbed (29:3–4; 32:4–10) and the prophetic interpretation of this event (29:11–12; 32:9) forcefully communicate the same reality: the deportation of Pharaoh and the Egyptian populace, at the hands of Babylon, to foreign lands where they will perish (cf. Greenberg 1997, 603, 610; Allen 1990, 105). This theme not only reinforces Egypt’s fate elsewhere in Ezek 29–32 (cf. 30:23, 26), but preserves the Ezekielian literary topos of fishing tackle as an explicit means to deport. Though the triad of earlier passages related to the portentous fate of a Judahite king (12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:2–9) leaves the source of the metaphor ambiguous, the unequivocal fishing imagery in 29:3–6a and 32:2–10, combined with lexical links between fishing tools (rešet in 12:13; 17:20; 19:8; 32:3; ḥaḥ in 19:4, 9; 29:4; see table 27) and action verbs connoting exile (see table 28), demonstrate a literary cohesion among all five passages. The descriptive treatment of the fishing imagery in Ezek 29:3–6a and 32:2–10 above has left open the rhetorical effect, indeed the whole point, of Pharaoh as hattannīm haggādôl (29:3; and simply tannīm in 32:2) in the first place. As 12:13–14, 17:16–21, and 19:2–9 clearly attest, Ezekiel could have used net imagery to communicate Pharaoh’s impending judgment without recourse to metaphorically identifying him as a sea monster. Though scholars naturally endeavor to explain this literary phenomenon by either mining Egyptian literature or classifying it as Chaoskampf, 49 both fall short. And while the HB does feature examples of Yhwh as either having already defeated tannīn (for example, Ps 74:1–17; Isa 51:9–10; cf. KTU 1.3 3:38–42; KTU 1.5 1:1–4 = KTU 1.5 1:17–31) or poised to vanquish it in the eschatological future (for example, Isa 27:1), neither applies here. The precedents set by Job 40:25–32 and Ps 104:26 offer the reader a helpful reminder of alternative traditions, for along with them, these two Ezekiel passages likewise do not specifically conform to other biblical tropes. 48.  The punishment prescribed to Egypt in Ezekiel 29–32 presumably does not connect to Hophra’s attempt to relieve a beleaguered Jerusalem (cf. Jer 37:5, 11), but rather to their failure as an ally, neglecting a “universal morality” (Greenberg 1997, 611–13). Downsizing Egypt to a “lowly kingdom” precluded her pretentious pomp from ever again causing her northern neighbor to stop trusting in Yhwh. 49. So Gunkel (1985, 71–77) and Day (1985, 27). Boadt concurs, suggesting that the “original Chaoskampf becomes moralized into the battle of Yahweh to manifest his hegemony over the foreign idols” (1980, 173).

118

Chapter 4

The extended tannīn metaphor in Ezek 29 and 32 neither concerns restitution of the cosmic order nor mirrors Egyptian literary expression, but instead employs a unique rhetorical strategy that draws from biblical tradition. The dragon imagery foreshadows Ezekiel’s oracle against Egypt, serving to accentuate Pharaoh’s figure in order to then suddenly deflate it with caustic irony. Conversely, the hattanīm haggādôl both replicates a well-established Mesopotamian royal and divine title (Sum. u š u m - g a l; Akk. ušumgallu “great dragon”) and draws upon Israelite cosmological history (viz. Gen 1:21) to overturn sarcastically any of Pharaoh’s presumptuous self-identification as an awe-inspiring monarch among the nations. 50 In so doing, Ezekiel appropriated imagery from his current locale, Babylon, which also ironically happened to be the very nation he prophesied would soon reduce Egypt to a lowly kingdom (32:11–12). Ezekiel thus skillfully exposed the true subordinate status of both tannīn and Pharaoh before Yhwh, using fishing imagery to communicate a common biblical concept: as a fisher, Yhwh was kitted with concomitant equipment, while as a deity committed to justice, he was poised to implement said equipment against those deserving of retribution.

4.3.  Enūma Eliš A third example of “big-game” fishing derives not from ancient Israel, but Babylon, the nation that Habakkuk (1:14–17), Jeremiah (16:16–18), and Ezekiel (12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:1–9; 29:1–6a; 32:1–10) each prophesied would enact Yhwh’s call to justice against Judah. 51 Like Job 40:25–32, Ezek 29:3–6a, and 32:2–10, EE, 52 one of Mesopotamia’s most highly esteemed literary texts, describes the hunt and subjugation of a massive serpentine monster via the use of metaphors from the fishing trade. 53 EE extols the rise of Marduk to the head of the Babylonian pantheon after he defeated Tiamat, divine personification of the primeval open seas, whose body he transformed into various elements of the cosmos (for example, half of her body became the sky; her spit became the clouds, her head supported a mountain, and her eye sockets served as the source of both the Tigris and Euphrates). To do so, he wields his divine net to ensnare her whole before thrusting a strong breeze into her stomach, where he then shoots an arrow to end the conflict. 54 In order to quell the rebellion completely, he pursues Tiamat’s entourage, using a net to capture them all at once. In the aftermath of his decisive victory, Marduk 50.  For further discussion see Yoder 2013, 486–96. 51.  To my knowledge, these represent the only three examples within the literature of the ANE to use explicitly fishing tackle as a means to slay a dragon. 52.  Lambert 2013; Lambert and Parker 1966; Labat 1935. For Tablet 5 (see excerpt #4 in table 29, p. 120 below), see Landsberger and Kinnier Wilson 1961, 154–79. 53.  The numerous copies dating to the 1st millennium b.c.e., the extensive commentary on the 50 names of Marduk in the seventh and final tablet, and EE’s ritual application in the Babylonian New Year festival (Akîtu), together distinguish it among Babylonians from both a literary and religio-political perspective (cf. Foster 2005, 437). 54.  Tur-Sinai also found allusion to EE in Job 26:13, but to do so he had to emend the text to brūḥô śm ym śprh “with his wind he put Sea in his net” in order to acquire parallelism with hllh ydô nḥš bryḥ “his hand pierced the twisted serpent” (1957, 383–84). Though Akk. saparru would provide a well-established cognate to śprh, this neither legitimates the emendation nor establishes the dependence as real (see Cohen 1978, 50, 97–98).

Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery

119

Table 28.  The Rešet and Exile in Ezekiel 1. 12:14a

wəkōl ʾăšer səbībōtāyw ʾezrōh (Q “And I will scatter to every wind all those who ʿezrô) wəkol-ăgappāyw ʾĕzāreh surround him—his helpers and all his troops. . .” ləkol-rūaḥ

2. 17:21

wəʾēt kol-mibrāḥāyw bəkol-ʾăgap- “The choice men among his troops will fall by the pāyw baḥereb yippōlū wəhansword and those remaining will be spread to every nišʾārīm ləkol-rūaḥ yippārēśū wind.”

3. 19:4, 9

waybiʾūhū. . . ʾel-ʾereṣ miṣrāyim // waybiʾūhū ʾel-melek yəbiʾūhū bamməṣōdôt

4. 29:12

wahăpiṣōtī ʾet-miṣrayim baggôyim “I will scatter Egypt among the nations and will wəzērītīm bāʾărāṣôt disperse them among (foreign) lands”

5. 32:9

wəhikʾastī lēb ʿammīm rabīm bahăbīʾ ī šibrəkā baggôyim ʿalʾărāṣôt ʾăšer lōʾ yədaʿtām

“They brought him to the land of Egypt” // “They brought him to the king of Babylon, and brought him into a prison”

“I will provoke the heart of many people when I bring about your destruction among the nations, among lands which you do not know”

uses the monstrous, serpentine carcass of Tiamat to reorganize the cosmos with Babylon as its center. 55 The pantheon gladly receives Marduk, wonders at his skillfully crafted weapons, including his net, and ascribes him preeminent status. 56 The net thus plays an essential role in the slaying of Tiamat. Lambert refers to it as the “crowning example from [Marduk’s] battle equipment” (2013, 450). Rather than using it in a traditional sense, such as to enclose someone or something within it (cf. the SoV), Marduk employs it as a means to control and confound Tiamat just long enough that he can deliver the coup de grâce with his bow and arrow.

4.4. Synthesis So what are we to make of these “big-game” references? Despite their recourse to fishing tackle for the express purpose of catching a monster, two of the three examples (Job 40:25–32 and EE) depict more of a hunt than a fishing expedition. Moreover, all three reveal idiosyncratic features with regard to both the general and specific that require individualized treatment. For instance, EE provides a classic example of Chaoskampf, where a deity battles chaos personified in the form of an imposing creature in order to engender cosmic order. Both Tiamat and Job’s Leviathan boast terrifying fangs, the former of which was equipped with venom-spewing incisors (EE 1:135–36; 3:83–4; Job 41:6). Though Tiamat’s death affords both Marduk’s ascendance and the restructuring of 55.  The work has been dated anywhere from the middle of the second millennium b.c.e. to the beginning of the first millennium b.c.e. For a helpful survey of the different positions, see Lambert 2013, 439–44. 56.  Claims that the EB IV ʿAin Samiya cup depicts Marduk’s defeat of Tiamat have been refuted (Gates 1986, 75–81).

120

Chapter 4 Table 29.  Fishing Imagery in Enūma Eliš

1. Marduk’s net (4:41–44, 6:82–3)

“Then he made a net (sapāra) to encircle Tiamat within [or: entrails of Tiamat], he stationed the four winds so that none of her would escape. . .he attached the net (sapāra) at his side.” “Bēl [i.e. Marduk] took [lit. “received”] his weapon, the bow, and placed it before them. The gods, his fathers, looked upon the net (sapāra) that he had made.”

2. Slaughtering Tiamat (4:95–104)

“Bēl spread out (ušparir-ma) his net (sapārašu) and encircled her. He released the destructive wind, (which) he had stationed behind him, in her face. Tiamat opened her mouth to swallow it. [Marduk] inserted the destructive wind so she could not close her lips. The raging winds filled up her stomach; her insides were bloated. She opened her mouth wide. He shot the arrow (and) it broke open her stomach. It cut her insides (and) pierced the heart. He bound her (and) extinguished her life. He cast down her carcass (and) stood upon it.”

3. Capturing Tiamat’s allies (4:107–14)

As for her divine helpers who had come to her aid, they trembled, feared, and turned back. They attempted to force (their) way out to save their lives (lit. “his life”), (but) were not able to escape the grasp that enfolded (them). He enclosed them and shattered their weapons. They were cast (nadû-ma) in the net (sapāriš). They sat in the mesh (kamāriš). Hiding in corners, filled with woe. They were bearing his punishment, confined to prison.

4. Cosmic reorganization (4:137–38 [cf. SAA 03 039 rev. 1], 5:62–66)

He split her in two, like a fish for drying (mašṭê). Half of her set up and made as a roof (for) the sky. Spreading [half of] her as a cover, he established the earth. [After] he had completed his task inside Tiamat, [He spre]ad his net (sapārašu), let all (within) escape. He shaped the heavens and the netherworld [or: earth], [. . .] their bonds.

the cosmos, Leviathan nevertheless demonstrates no sign of hostility in Job 40:25–41:26. While other biblical and Ugaritic passages may preserve vestiges of Chaoskampf, the Leviathan in Job, humbled and declawed, shows no such indications. Moreover, Tannin in Ezek 29 and 32 bears the earmarks of a haughty, if not hostile, creature (for example, “the Nile is mine”), but the passage ultimately addresses an historical-political crisis, castigating a human object in its warning of divine retribution, rather than the need for cosmic equilibrium. By their very nature, all three creatures together stand outside of the human order: Tiamat as wild, primeval creator deity whose carcass helps organize the cosmos; Leviathan, so fearsome and “other” that humans are unable to catch it as one would a fish; Tannin as ostensible manifestation of supreme, creative power. The general rationale for their ensnaring, however, differs in each case: in slaughtering Tiamat, Marduk quelled her threat against the divine realm, allowed for his rise to power, transformed Babylon into the center of the universe, and harmonized the cosmos; the inability of Job to angle Leviathan emphasizes Yhwh’s (and its) otherness and authority; and the Tannin cartoon in Ezekiel exposes Hophra’s pride, impotence, subordination before Yhwh, and looming demise.

C

h a p t e r

5

Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy But he saw they had all fallen, in great numbers, In blood and dust, like fish that the fishermen Have drawn up on the curved beach out on the hoary sea In a net that has many meshes. (Cook 1993, 246 22:383–86a)

5.1. Introduction The foregoing discussion in chs. 2–4 has posited a number of literary correlations between a metaphorical net and divine justice. Accordingly, if the gods wielded nets and if said nets exacted retribution, as manifested by deportation, this relationship stands just a small hermeneutical step away from its logical end: the net as the “great leveler,” death itself. This natural outgrowth of the net as a negative instrument evokes a vivid portrayal of fate and inescapability, motifs which also describe the net as an instrument of justice. Though Hab 1:14–17 and the triad of recycled phrases in Ezekiel (12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:1–9) each lay special emphasis on the net as an exiling medium, the idea of the net as an agent of death is a concomitant. 1 And while Ezek 29 and 32 employ fishing imagery for a distinct rhetorical purpose, the ultimate result of catching the tannīn with a hook and net is the sea monster’s own demise, with carcass strewn across foreign topography and blood saturating the ground. 2 In only one biblical text, however, does this connection play a central role. Stripped of political overtones and devoid of covenantal insinuations, the net in Qoh 9:12 symbolizes the incongruity and unpredictability of life’s most devastating tragedies. The following chapter analyzes the interpretive significance of this particular image in Qoh 9:12 by first surveying analogous exemplars from Mesopotamian literature before placing it within its own literary context. 1.  Habakkuk 1:17 asserts that if Yhwh does nothing, the Babylonian king will continue to “empty his net, mercilessly killing nations.” Ezekiel 12:13 prophesies the king’s death in his country of exile, while 17:21 refers to the felling of his choice men by the sword. This idea is more subtle in Ezek 19:9, explaining the purpose of the Judahite king’s confinement so that “his voice would no more be heard.” 2.  One could, at least prima facie, argue that the concept of death undergirds all fishing metaphors, but the passages and contexts of those metaphors defy such a simplistic claim.

121

122

Chapter 5

5.2.  Mesopotamian Literature In contrast to the singular image of a net as death agent in the Hebrew Bible, Mesopotamian literature preserves nearly a dozen examples. Though these metaphors stem from different literary contexts (for example, sorcery, battle, lamentation, and so on) and exhibit different vantage points (for example, generic, self-referential, and so on), the concept of an inescapable net that captures and leads to tragedy (and typically, death), binds them together. Nowhere is the personification of the net as inexorable death clearer in Mesopotamian literature than in the portrayal of the chthonic demons (g a l 5- l á - z u) in DD (Table 30:1a). These “big men who bind the neck” (g ú k é š e - d a g a l - g a l) relentlessly search for Dumuzi, eventually outlasting Utu’s merciful magic that had time and again allowed the protagonist to escape, in order to secure and transport him back to the underworld with them. 3 The type of net they use (g u) mirrors that of the Gutians in the Curse of Agade, where at Enlil’s command it devastated the Akkadian capital and its environs. While Enlil ensured the efficacy of the net in that text, there is no such assurance in DD. The narrative itself, however, demonstrates this reality via the nature and provenance of the demons, as well as the use of literary repetition. These liminal beings bridge two “worlds” by collecting the human bounty owed to the netherworld. 4 Other inscriptions reinforce this attribution, likening the alû demon to that which envelops a human life at death like a net (table 30:1b). 5 Elsewhere demons swoop down like a net in order to infect young children with disease and even commit infanticide (table 30:1c). Lamaštu, the child-snatching demon well-known for terrorizing mothers and their infants, had a hand that was compared to a such a net. 6 The innocent Šubšimešre-šakkan, protagonist in Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, himself experienced Lamaštu’s terror when she descended on him, throwing his body into convulsions (lines 63–72) and then a despondent stupor (lines 73–79). Cast down on his face (line 70), he likened his plight to that of a helpless rag doll, thrown around by a “malevolent demon” and immersed 3.  In CoT 229, which both praises Isis for mourning her husband’s death and requests Osiris’s reassembly and resurrection, the deceased pleads for deliverance against the onslaught of fishers who attempt to bring about Osiris’s ultimate destruction (“second death”) by destroying his body, as well as his soul and spirit. Later, the deceased confidently asserts that no net will catch him or her (Faulkner 1973, 182–3). BOTD 153A likewise refers to chthonic fishers who use their nets to ensnare the dead. In an ironic twist, this particular spell resolves the tension by transforming the deceased itself into a fisher, enabling her or him to launch an offensive against the netherworld enemies (for a translation, see Andrews 1993, 149–52; cf. 153B for a similar spell). 4.  For the net as an agent of death in cultural memory outside of the ANE, see Gill 1876, 181–83; 1977, 161–63; Fox 1977, 234–36; Guerber 1948, 184; Tromp 1969, 172–75; Eliade 1991, 124–52. 5.  Cf. Damascus Document 4:14–19 and the “three nets of Belial”: “This (the terror and pit and snare of Isa 24:17) refers to the three nets of Belial, of which Levi, son of Jacob, said that he (Belial) caught Israel with them (when) he made them seem to be (lit., gave them before them as) three types of righteousness. The first is harlotry, the second wealth (Charlesworth: “arrogance”), and the third the defilement of the sanctuary. Whoever escapes the first is caught by that and who is saved from that is caught by this” (cf. Charlesworth 1995, 18–19). 6.  Rittāša alluḫappu “[Lamaštu’s] hand is a net” (4R 58 3:30; PBS 1/2 113 3:16 [dupl.]).

Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy

123

in a terrifying “sleep” (šittu) that he likens to a net (šuškalli) that covered (ukattimanni) him (line 72; cf. table 30:1d). Though this “righteous sufferer” would ultimately live, the visceral language does not view life as a possible outcome. As a spell that once uttered cannot be undone, so the net inherited an irrevocable connotation in Mesopotamian thought. 7 An Akkadian incantation from Boğazköy assumes this relationship between sorcery and net imagery in its ironic hex against a witch by way of a net (table 30:3). Although the net frequently appears as an inescapable force, the literature infrequently describes the result of the capture. Even an ambiguous telos, however, powerfully demonstrated the ominous fate of such an event. When the result is specified, it is fundamentally negative. As extensively discussed in ch. 3 above, reference to human ensnarement in the martial contexts of Assyrian royal inscriptions often denotes the horror of geographical displacement. Other examples depicting battle activity extend the metaphor further, employing the net to symbolize the indiscriminate atrocities of war. One passage in an inscription from Šalmaneser I (1274–1245 b.c.e.) aggrandizes this monarch’s power by comparing it to an “unsparing net of death” (table 30:2b). Another reference from the anti-witchcraft series, Maqlû (“Burning”), uses a distinctive repetition of different varieties of net to illustrate the terror wreaked upon even the strongest of warriors (table 30:2a). 8 While the net executes divine retribution elsewhere (chs. 2–4, above), the implications in these two texts highlight its impartiality, and, to a lesser extent, its limitless power. In other places this imagery exhibits a very personal element. Whether referring to one’s self or to another, the net delivers a tragic, if not fatal, blow. For example, the spreading net symbolizes calamity overwhelming one’s own home (table 30:4a). Elsewhere disease takes hold of one’s body, encompassing it (like a fish caught) in a mesh (table 30:4b). In the same way is evil (lemnu), in general, like a net’s strong grip, ensnaring one from within (table 30:4c). And though a witch may afflict one as a spreading net brings tragedy, one Maqlû incantation explicitly addresses this matter by calling on Marduk to reverse their fate, delivering the same ill-fated blow to the guilty (table 30:4d). 9 The frequent use of the accompanying verbs saḫāpu (“to spread over”) and katāmu (“to cover”) paints a shadowy vignette. The net delivers not from evil, but to evil. It exacts punishment, justice, and fate. Whether sickness, disaster, or death itself, the net leaves its victims hopeless. 7.  E.g., “a net (sa-pàr; saparru) (from which there is) no escape (nu-è-e; lā āṣê)” (CT 17 34:13 [dupl. AJSL 35 143:13f]); “I designed a spell for you that cannot be undone (lā pašāri), do not. . . . to the net (sa-pàr; saparrīka) (spread) for you” (STT 168:15f [and dupl. 171:15f]). This image stems from the pragmatic piscatorial need for a tightly-meshed net (e.g., “the net [šētu] was spread out [šuparrurtu] // the net [sapāru] which was spread out [tarṣu] over the sea” (4R 26 no. 2:11f; cf. also SBH 15 7:10). 8.  The inauspicious death of the Trojan War hero, Agamemnon, covered with a net while in a bathtub with his lover, echoes this idea in the first act of Aeschylus’s Oresteia (cf. Qoh 9:11). 9.  A similar idea appears in the fowling metaphor at 1QH 10:31: “And as for them, the net (rešet) they spread out (pārəśū) against me caught their feet, and the traps they hid for my life, they themselves fell into them. But my feet stand upon level ground” (cf. Schuller and Newsom 2012, 35:31).

124

Chapter 5 Table 30.  Deadly Nets in the Ancient Near East

1. Demons

a. “They [i.e., chthonic bounty hunters] twisted a cord (gu) for him [Dumuzi], they bound a net (sa) for him.” (DD 70:157) b. “You [O alû-demon] are the one who covers (ab-dul-u8-a; ikattamu) a man like a net (sa.dul.ginx; kātimti).” (CT 16 28:38–39) c. “Swooping down battle net (šuškallum saḫiʾeštum), ensnaring net (ḫuḫārum saḫiʾeštum [. . . to bringing disease upon children . . . strangle babies in their cribs, etc]).” (BM 122691 [=1931–4–13.4]; Farber 1981, 60–72; incantation similar in function to the Lamaštu series from “Tel Duweihes”) d. “Sleep covered me (ukattimanni) like a net (šuškalli).” (Ludlul 21:72)

2. Battle

a. “[a malevolent hand] spread over (isḫupu) the young man like a net (ḫuḫāri), covered (ukattimu) the warrior like a net (šēti), caught (ibarru) the preeminent one like a battle net (šuškalli), enveloped (iktumu) the strong one like a trap (gišparri).” (Maqlû 3:157–60; RBS 5 13′-2; Abusch and Schwemer 2008, 152; lines 161–64 in Meier 1967) b. kīma gišpar mūti lā pādê tebû kakkūšu “the onslaught of his [i.e. Šalmaneser I’s] weapons is like the unsparing net of death.” (AOB 1 112:14–15; RIMA 1, A.0.77.1, lines 14–15, p. 183)

3. Witches

“May the large battle net (sa-šú-uš-g[a-al]) spread over (ḫu-mu-šú; [l]isḫup) the corpse of that witch.” (PBS 1/2 122 r. 5f; Falkenstein 1939, 14)

4. Selfa. “A net (sa.al.ùr.ra; tēšû [for šēšû]) has spread over (bí.í b.šú; issaḫapšu) Referential that man in his own house.” (5R 50 2:54f; see Borger 1967, 8:73) b.“(Disease) overwhelms me (saḫpanni) like a net (šēti), it covers me (kutt[umanni]) like a net ([sa]pāri).” (BMS 12:50; cf. von Soden 1969, 87:50) c. “the evil (lemnu) that has seized me . . . has covered me (kut[tumanni]) like a net (šēti), overwhelmed me (saḫpanni) like a battle net (šuškalli).” (Ištar und Dumuzi 71:68–70) d. “[though] as a net (šēti) to cover me (kattamêya). . .I will cover (akattamšunūti) them like a net (šēti)” (Maqlû 2:165, 176; Abusch and Schwemer 2008, 145; lines 164, 175 in Meier 1967)

5.3.  Hebrew Bible (Qohelet 9:11–12) 5.3.1. Translation 9:11

‫שׁבתי וראה תחת־השׁמשׁ‬

Again I observed [lit., “saw”]10 that under the sun:11

   10   11

10.  rʾh is a diplographic addition, and thus unneeded, according to both Galling 1969, 114 and Lauha 1978, 172. Qohelet’s observational activity plays a central role in the book, as seen by 47 attestations of Heb. rāʾah. 11. As Seow demonstrates, the anomalous mērôṣ likely implies a martial, rather than an athletic context (1997, 307). Cf. comparable examples of fleeing in such contexts (Isa 30:16; Jer 46:6) and when running for one’s life (2 Sam 2:18–19; Amos 2:14–16). The 2 Sam 2 passage,

Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy ‫כי לא לקלים המרוץ‬ ‫ולא לגבורים המלחמה‬ ‫וגם לא לחכמים לחם‬ ‫וגם לא לנבנים עשׁר‬ ‫וגם לא לידעים חן‬ ‫כי־עת ופגע יקרה את־כלם‬

125

the race does not (necessarily) belong to the swift,12 nor the battle to the strong, nor even bread to the wise, nor even riches to the discerning, nor even favor to those with knowledge, for time and chance13 happen to them all.

  12  13

9:12

‫כי גם לא־ידע האדם את־עתו‬ ‫כדגים שׁנאחזים במצודה רעה‬ ‫וכצפרים האחזות בפח‬ ‫כהם יוקׂשום בני האדם לעת רעה‬ ‫כשׁתפול עליהם פתאם‬

For indeed,14 no one knows15 his time. Like fish caught in a maleficent net16 or birds caught in a snare, so all people are ensnared17 at18 a time of calamity19 when it [i.e., time] falls upon them suddenly.20

 14  15  16  17 

where a speedy Asahel pursues David’s foe, Abner, but ironically ends up dying, is a case in point for Qohelet. 12.  For different views on the origin of this common phrase in Qohelet (28 attestations), see Lavoie 1996, 441. 13.  Scholars regard the paratactic relationship between these two terms as either reflective of hendiadys (so Seow 1997, 308: “timely incident”) or distinct aspects of the same reality (so D’Alario 1998, 459). For a helpful summary of the evidence, see Schoors 1992, 217. Though Heb. pegaʿ means “misfortune” when followed by raʿ in its only other attestation (1 Kgs 5:18), like its LXX counterpart, Gk. ἀνάτημα, it carries no inherently negative connotation. “Chance does not always have to be mischance” (Schoors 2004, 410). Within Israelite thought, pegaʿ reflects providence, not coincidence. Qohelet himself recognized the role of providence in life’s most startling examples of “happenstance” (9:1, 12). Provan clarifies by describing Heb. pegaʿ as “simply something we encounter on the path of life—a circumstance or situation over which we have no control” (2001, 183). 14. Following Schoors, who maintains gam must be emphatic if kī is explicative (2013, 686); contra Gordis, who prefers a concessive meaning (“although”) based on similar uses in 8:12, 16 (1955, 298). 15.  Out of the 36 appearances of yādaʿ in Qohelet, negation precedes it on 14 occasions (4:13, 17; 6:5; 8:5, 7; 9:1, 5, 12; 10:14–15; 11:2, 5 [bis], 6) and it implies a negative answer to a rhetorical question on 6 others (2:19; 3:21; 6:8, 12; 8:1, 17). The lack of knowledge (human ignorance) is thus a central theme in Qohelet (cf. 2:16, 19; 3:22; 6:12; 7:14; 8:7; 9:5; 10:14; 11:2, 6). 16.  Tg., Vulg. “hook.” 17.  Although some dubiously read yūqāšīm as a Dp (for representative examples, see GKC §52s; Whitley 1979, 81) or N participle (HALOT 1:432), it is actually an old G passive participle, written plene (Schoors 2013, 688). Arguing against the former is the lack of the customary preformative mem (although Gordis remedies this by shifting forward the mem from the preceding kāhēm [1955, 298]), the doubled middle radical (contra Ginsberg 1961, 418, who suggests the preceding vowel is lengthened to compensate for its loss [for this phenomenon, see GKC §20n; §52s]), and any other attestations in the D stem. Other examples of such Masoretic confusion, where Dps replaced old G passives, which had long since fallen into desuetude, appear in Exod 3:2; Jer 13:10;

126

Chapter 5

5.3.2.  Literary Context Qohelet 9 approaches the concept of wisdom from several different angles. The first 12 verses’ fixation on fate demonstrates the limitations of wisdom (for example, it does not exist in the afterlife, according to 9:10; it cannot ensure victory, sustenance, or wealth, according to 9:11), while the final 6 verses exalt it over physical strength. 21 As noticed especially by the regular interchange between ḥay (“living”) and mēt (“dead”) in 9:3–5, the first 6 verses (9:1–6) emphasize the tension of life and its inevitable and universal antithesis: death. 22 Both the concept and problem of death play a major role elsewhere in the book (for example, 2:16; 3:2, 19–20). Rather than allowing himself to wallow in despair, however, Qohelet then shifts the topic abruptly in 9:7–10, building on this sobered reality in a positive manner by issuing a passionate call to wholeheartedly enjoy life while one has the opportunity. There is nothing to look forward to in the afterlife. The rhetorical roller-coaster continues in 9:11–12 when Qohelet returns to the topic of fate, or more specifically, one’s “time.” 23 These two verses form a new subunit 24 within the larger pericope of 9:1–12. 25 The linking phrase “man does not know” (ʾên yôdē  a ʿ hāʾādām [9:1]; lōʾ-yēdaʿ hāʾādām [9:12]) and the complementary use of raʿ in 9:3 and   18  19  20

23:32. Hitzig curiously argues that the participle here presupposes a scenario where the ensnared remained so throughout the rest of their life (1847, 192). 18.  The prefixed lamed is temporal in use (people are ensnared at [that is, at the time of] a time of calamity), without any sign of purpose or predetermination. For a similar biblical example, see Gen 8:11: “The dove came to him at the time of evening.” For further discussion on the relationship between time and raʿ, see §5.3.3.1.1 below. 19.  Some scholars read this as an attributive adjectival relationship (for a representative example, see Hertzberg and Bardtke 1963, 180: “zur bösen Zeit”), while others prefer a construct chain (for a representative example, see Michel 1989, 67: “Zeit des Unheils”) in light of the similar phrase “day of evil” (yôm rāʿāh) in 7:14. 20.  Cf. Jer 15:8, where ʿīr “anguish” and behālôt “terror(s)” “fall upon [Judahites] suddenly” (hippaltī ʿālêhā pitʾōm). One Tg. variant adds a deterministic slant, explaining that this time “is appointed . . . by heaven” (Levine 1981, 42–43). 21. 9:13–16 answers the question: is there any advantage provided by wisdom? According to Ogden, “Wisdom always is the highest value, for it is God who determines man’s fate. Regardless of when death may come, and no matter how incomprehensible life may be, even to the wise man, wisdom is always better” (1982, 167). 22.  Ogden identifies an a-a-b, a-b-b pattern of these two roots in 9:4–5 (1982, 162), an oscillation Krüger refers as a “deed-result connection” (2004, 174). 23.  Provan views 9:11–12 as the “tailpiece” to 9:1–10 (2001, 183). For the topic of fate in Greek literature, see Hesiod’s “Five Races” in the Works and Days. 24.  For 9:11–12 as a well-defined unit, see Lavoie 1996, 440. Although one expects a pətūḥāh, not a sətūmāh, under šabtī, this does not preclude the commencement of a new section (Seow 1997, 307). According to Walton, the use of a 1st person qātal + inf. clause pattern “often marks a shift in the text’s communication strategy” (2006, 67). 25. Cf. Ogden (1982, 165) for a characteristic assessment. Walton makes a strong case for a larger pericope that reaches back to 8:9 (2006, 67, 128). In favor of this latter position (8:9–9:12) is the resumption of Qohelet’s observational activity (of all that is done “under the sun”) and reference to life’s incongruity (e.g., the righteous receive what they do not deserve in 8:10, 14, but in 9:11 do not receive their just desserts). Murphy comes to a similar conclusion (vv. 11–12 as the

Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy

127

9:12 (twice in both verses) together form an inclusio. 26 While the first verse emphasizes life’s general unpredictability, the second draws on this idea by applying it specifically to tragedy. The highly structured and rhythmic set of five illustrations in 9:11 highlights the world’s incongruity and lack of “dependable connection between efforts and results, what one deserves and what one gets.” 27 Though the swiftest usually win the race and the strongest army usually takes the battle, there is no such guarantee. And though bread, riches, and favor usually follow the wise, discerning, and intelligent (cf. Prov 13:15), respectively, life is not so predictable. Experience itself overturns any paradigmatic schema of deeds and consequences. 28 “Time” and “chance” adhere to no rigid, human structure; one cannot reduce life and death to a set of calculations. 29 And tragedy inevitably strikes, without notice. From the perspective of Qoh 9:1–12, then, one is to enjoy life while he or she has the opportunity (9:7–10)! 30 5.3.3. Interpretation 5.3.3.1.  What Is So raʿ about a “Net” and “Time?” 5.3.3.1.1.  The Use of raʿ in Qohelet 9:1–12 The basic outline of 9:11–12 is lucid: the vagaries of human experience prevent systematization. Life cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. The analogies of a frontrunner not winning a race and the metaphor of a fish suddenly caught in a net palpably communicate this truth. The syntax itself in Qoh 9:12 reinforces the relationship between a “net” and “time,” for the ensnaring (šenneʾĕḥāzīm) of the former signals the descent of the latter (kəšettippôl). Though some scholars have suggested məṣôdāh as antecedent of the implied subject (“it”) of the imperfect verb tippôl (so Seow 1997, 308; Crenshaw 1987, 210) its relative distance from the verb—dismissing two other closer, second of two “reflections”), yet within the scope of 9:1–12 (1992, 88–95). Fox further suggests that 9:11–12 has no real relationship to surrounding sections (1999, 295–97). 26.  Ogden 1982, 165. Conversely, Crenshaw (1987, 164–65) and Whybray (1989, 145–46) see no real connection between 9:11–12 and other surrounding sections. But even those who see 9:11 as the start of a new unit (so Seow 1997, 47, 306–28; Backaus 1993, 274–75; Lohfink 2003, 114–16; Schoors 1982, 116 [classifying 9:11–12 as a new “major division”]) still relate it back to the preceding content. 27.  Fox 2004, 65; cf. Ogden and Zogbo, 1997, 338. In Krüger’s chiastic structure, 9:11–12 parallels 11:11–6 based on the correlating themes: “success not at one’s disposal/uncertainty of the future” (2004, 165–75). 28.  Dohmen and Rick 2004, 586. According to Fox, “all efforts and talents may founder on the shoals of happenstance” (1999, 89). 29.  The movie In A Better World (2010; original title Hævnen) illustrates this reality by the use of a veil, which is, at all times, the only barrier separating one from death. That veil disappears during personal tragedy, even if only for a second, but quickly returns, enabling the living to carry on. R. Akiba similarly proffered that “All is given in pledge, and a net is spread (mṣwdh prwśh) over all the living” (m. Abot 3:16). In this mixed metaphor, Akiba draws attention to the mystery of human free will and divine sovereignty. Humans are free to do as they choose, but what they do matters; they are responsible for their actions. With freedom (a pledge) comes culpability (a net). 30.  Siduri, the tavern keeper who confronts Gilgamesh in EG, likewise offers a “carpe diem” lesson, imploring the hero to cherish all that life offers (OB version 10:76–91).

128

Chapter 5 Table 31.  The Use of Raʿ (+ Rāʿāh and Rōaʿ) in Qohelet

  1. 1:13; 4:8; 5:13 (raʿ); 5:12 (rāʿāh [bis])

a. God gives humans an ʿinyan rāʿ to occupy themselves (1:13). b. Along with hebel “breath,” 4:8 considers it an ʿinyan rāʿ when one works only for themselves and is never satisfied with the fruit of their labor. c. An ʿinyan rāʿ refers to the misfortune of a father who withheld his riches, only to lose it, with none to offer his progeny, in 5:13 (“bad business deal” BDB 775; “bad luck” HALOT 1: 857). 5:12 considers this a ḥôlāh rāʿāh (“grievous evil” or “grave misfortune;” cf. 6:2)

  2. 2:17 (raʿ)

Refers to the universality of death in the world (cf. 2:16).

  3. 2:21 (rāʿāh)

Though one demonstrates wisdom and skill in their work (e.g., wealth, accomplishments, etc.), it will eventually pass down to a successor, and there is no guarantee that successor will steward it well. This is rāʿāh.

  4. 4:3 (raʿ)

Qohelet remarks that the unborn are better off than both the dead (who have experienced raʿ) and the living (who currently experience raʿ).

  5. 4:17 (raʿ)

Qohelet equates raʿ with the offering of a rash vow (lit., “the fools, a sacrifice”) that is left unpaid (cf. 5:1).

  6. 5:15 (rāʿāh)

That people are born with nothing and die with nothing is a ḥôlāh rāʿāh.

  7. 6:1–2 (rāʿāh + raʿ)

It is a rāʿāh and a ḥŏlī rāʿ (“grievous evil” or “grave misfortune”) that someone else gets to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor.

  8. 7:3 (rōaʿ)

Part of the idiom rōaʿ pānīm (“evil of face” > “sadness of face”).

  9. 7:14 (rāʿāh)

yôm rāʿāh (“day of evil”) contrasts yôm ṭôbāh (“day of good”), where the former refers generally to adversity or tragedy.

10. 7:15 (rāʿāh)

Life is unpredictable, in so far as the righteous one perishes “in his righteousness” (bəṣidqô) and the rāšāʿ (“wicked”) prolongs his life “in his evil” (bərāʿātô).

11. 8:3, 5–6 (raʿ; a. In reference to one’s response to a king’s command (8:3): “do not delay life in the when the matter is rāʿ” or “do not stand up for a matter (that) is rāʿ. state) b. Obedience precludes one from experiencing (lit., “knowing”) rāʿ (8:5). c. Though there is a time and way for everything, the rāʿāh of man is heavy upon him (8:6). 12. 8:9 (raʿ)

One man’s power over another leads to raʿ (8:9).

13. 8:11 (rāʿāh + Delaying the punishment of a maʿăśēh hārāʿāh (“evil deed”) encourages the raʿ) heart to do raʿ, for there is no fear of retribution. 14. 8:12 (raʿ)

raʿ is not necessarily a correlative of long life.

15. 9:3 (raʿ [bis])

a. The universality of death is raʿ. b. That the human heart is full of raʿ is also implicitly considered raʿ.

16. 9:12 (raʿ [bis])

As fish are caught in a net marked by raʿ, so humans are ensnared at a time qualified as raʿ. This “time” transcends human knowledge (cf. 9:11).

17. 10:5 (rāʿāh)

That fools (lit., “folly) are given authority and the rich sit in lowly positions is rāʿāh.

18. 10:13 (raʿ)

The discourse of a fool is hôlēlūt rāʿāh (“evil madness”) from beginning to end.

Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy

129

19. 11:2 (rāʿāh)

rāʿāh refers to unpredictable calamity (cf. 7:14).

20. 11:10–12: (rāʿāh [bis])

a. Given how ephemeral is one’s “prime of life,” one should remove rāʿāh (“pain”) and kaʿas (“vexation”). b. The yəmê hārāʿāh (“days of evil”) occur after one’s youth. In light of the previous reference, rāʿāh maintains the connotation of physical pain or ailment from aging.

21. 12:14 (raʿ)

Qohelet’s very last word, raʿ, along with ṭôb (“good”), is something God will judge.

viable antecedents, ʿēt and pāḥ—stretches probability. 31 The characterization of both terms as raʿ thus offers a formal association between them. The spreading of a net to haul in a catch of fish symbolizes the tragedy (i.e. what is so raʿ) of an appointed time that inevitably (but no less tragically!) falls on its victims. In light of the fact that “time” is the theme of 9:11–12, a fishing net functions as a vivid metaphor that modifies it! But there is more. In what way is the fishing net “maleficent” (raʿ)? And what does it mean to be caught at a “calamitous” (raʿ) time? The fact that the gripping force of the metaphors in Qoh 9:12 would still obtain without raʿ itself demonstrates the adjective’s salience to the verse’s overall meaning. The idea of a deadly net does not, however, seem to fit the context prima facie. Tragedy, whether fatal or not, is a widespread plague; inescapable, but not necessarily evil. From life’s first cry to its final breath, however, raʿ pervades human existence (cf. 8:6). For Qohelet, raʿ functions in a number of different ways (see table 31). It (or rāʿāh) qualifies the task God gives humans in 1:13, just as it represents that which he will one day judge, according to the book’s very last line (12:14). It can refer to death as a universal phenomenon (2:17; 9:3), as well as an unfair (2:21; 6:1–2; 8:12) or unpredictable event (7:15). raʿ is engrained within humanity (9:3). 32 Though death (māwet) is inexorable, and thus, at times, a neutral term (cf. 3:19), raʿ is exclusively negative in Qohelet. The severe impact of raʿ forces Qohelet to admit that the unborn are better off than both the living and the dead (4:3; cf. 7:1). At times human measures can obviate the pain of raʿ (for example, 8:3, 5–6), while at others raʿ is inescapable (for example, 2:17; 8:12; 11:2). Its dual usage in 9:12 reflects this latter reality. Since skill, strength, and wisdom 33 offer no guarantees of success or control in life (9:11), how can one stop the unstoppable (9:12)? Time itself is inscrutably qualified. “Despite their abilities, time and chance can play terrible tricks on all humans, who, 31.  The “evil time” of 9:12b is not a temporally defined moment but the disaster itself, which may “fall” on individuals throughout their life (Fox 1999, 200). 32.  Qohelet does not distinguish the adjective raʿ “evil, pernicious” from noun rāʿāh “calamity.” Variation between these two semantically overlapping terms may simply be stylistic. As the subheadings indicate, the forms of rāʿāh in 9:12 (bis) and 10:13 derive from the adjective raʿ (3rd fem. sg.) rather than from the noun rāʿāh. 33. “The vulnerability of wisdom is rooted in the human inability to know the future” (Schoors 2013, 689; cf. Kamano 2002, 208).

130

Chapter 5

unable to discern clearly whether a time is favorable or not, become entangled in a net of misfortune.” 34 While the descent of the net at an unfavorable time is itself lamentable, is there a larger context in which one may understand a further dimension to raʿ? Given the predominately negative features of deities as fishers in the ANE, of the fishing net as a means to enact divine retribution, and the frequent depiction of raʿ/rāʿāh throughout Qohelet, be it either moral or amoral, the use of this modifier for both “net” and “time” argues against a neutral connotation in 9:12, as well. And among the two faunal metaphors (fish and bird), which foreground the application to human life in 9:12, raʿ qualifies only the net that catches fish. 35 The idea of a maleficent net fits comfortably within the purview of fishing imagery elsewhere in the HB. The divine net is typically employed on behalf of some form of specified “evil” (cf. Amos 4:1–3; Hab 1:1–4, 14–17; Jer 16:16–18; Ezek 12:13–14; 17:16–21; 19:2–9; 29:3–6a; 32:2–10; cf. Job 19:6; Ps 66:11), but in Qoh 9:12 the net is itself raʿ. 36 Qohelet 9:12 makes no correlation between deed and consequence: “for time and chance happen to them all” (9:11). The broader literary context, however, establishes just such a connection. After having “laid to heart” (nātattī ʾel-libbī) and “examined” (lābūr) it all, Qohelet concludes that “the righteous and the wise, and all their works, are in the hand of God” (haṣṣaddīqīm wəhaḥăkāmīm waʿăbādêhem bəyad hāʾĕlōhīm) in 9:1. According to the following verses (9:2–3a), everyone—both good and bad 37—shares in the same “unfortunate” (rāʿ) fate (miqreh), which there refers to death. 38 Then in 9:3b, Qohelet explains that before this “unfortunate . . . fate” occurs, the hearts of all the living are full of raʿ (lēb bənê-hāʾādām mālēʾ-rāʿ). Despite the sequential relationship between raʿ and miqreh, the text stops short of asserting causal overtones. The use of overlapping motifs to frame the literary section of 9:1–12, however, illuminates this connection. On the one hand, the complementary concepts of miqreh’s universality in the opening section (9:1–6) and the unpredictability of ʿēt in its climax (9:11–12) provide thematic cohesion. 39 Everyone “is in the same boat,” constrained by fate and incapable 34.  According to Walton, raʿ means “misfortune” here because of the emphasis on mankind’s “lack of awareness” (2006, 130); cf. Kaiser 1995, 87. 35.  The use of ʾāḥaz to govern both faunal metaphors, before shifting to yāqaš when the illustration moves to the human realm, however, militates against any simplistic distinction between fishing and fowling nets. 36.  Schoors remarks that when used as an adjective, rāʿāh “enhances the negative content of the substantive it determines” (2004, 148). 37.  Following Aq. (καὶ τῷ κακῷ; followed by Syr. and Vulg.), according to an instance of homoioarkton in the three-fold alliterative sequence l-ṭ (laṭṭôb wəlarāʿ wəlaṭṭāhôr wəlaṭṭāmēʾ); contra BHK and BHS, which delete laṭṭôb altogether. 38. For miqreh elsewhere in Qohelet, see 2:14–15; 3:19 [thrice]. Although miqreh generally means “chance, circumstance; incident” (cf. 1 Sam 6:9; 20:6; Ruth 2:3; cf. Deut 23:11), Qohelet uses this term to denote “fate” (Aq. συνάντημα; Fr. sort; HALOT 1:629), which in both contexts refers to death (Schoors 2004, 203–4). According to Schoors (1998, 12), miqreh denotes the leveling effect of death, while D’Alario considers it the “natural destiny of all men” (1998, 462). 39.  In addition to the use of both the term raʿ and the reference to human ignorance in the pericope’s beginning and end, miqreh (“fate”) in 9:2–3 and its verbal derivative qārah (“to happen”) in 9:11 provide one further cohesive link to this literary unit.

Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy

131

of deciphering it. On the other hand, the three items qualified by raʿ—the human heart (lēb), the vehicle of tragedy (məṣôdāh), and the moment of its actualization (ʿēt rāʿāh)— each complement those same concepts of shared reality. To this end, humans resemble fish in so far as they share an identical, divinely controlled fate. Why then is the net and the time of its actualization so raʿ? Though some scholars delete raʿ after məṣôdāh (“net”) altogether (following Vulg. and Tg.), its otherwise strong versional evidence (MT, LXX) and plausible explanation for omission (homoioteleuton) combined with the collocation of raʿ and māṣôd elsewhere (məṣôd rāʿīm “a net of evildoers” in Prov 12:12), the nearly wholesale negative depiction of the fishing net in the HB (the only exception being Ezek 47:10), and the use of repetition elsewhere in this pericope (for example, ʿēt) argue forcibly against such drastic emendation. 40 Unfortunately those who choose to not emend the text provide only descriptive analyses (see §5.3.3.1.3), 41 referring to the net as “evil” from a human perspective 42 and an “evil time” as a euphemism for death (Ogden and Zogbo 1997, 341; Ogden 1982, 165). The literary context, however, indicates that raʿ does not exclusively originate from sources external to the human condition. As Qoh 9:1–3 admits, tragedy is, indeed, grievous, but it is not stochastic. Rather, it is ultimately rooted in a heart permeated by raʿ, which renders futile any potential plea of ignorance. Contrary to the idea that Qohelet purports a “tyrannical” deity, wielding his net to cut off human life in arbitrary fashion, 43 he explicitly affirms the complex reality of a moral dimension to raʿ. In arguing that raʿ here is necessarily moral in nature, Longman asserts that death is an obvious expectation at the end of a life “characterized by evil and madness” (emphasis original; 1998, 227). What emerges for Qohelet is a complex reality. Death itself is raʿ (9:11–12), but so are its impartiality and residence within each human heart. 44 Just as speed does not ensure victory, righteousness does not secure a long life (7:15). Sinner and saint share the same fate (9:1–3). The spreading of a “maleficent net” (the personification of death’s blow) at a “calamitous time” (the moment of death) confirms this.

40.  Galling (1969, 114) and Lauha (1978, 172) are two such scholars who delete raʿ after “net.” 41.  For example, Rudman refers to raʿ as “harmful” in 9:12, but offers no further clarification as to what this means, outside of excluding moral implication (1998, 469). It is unsurprising that this tendency coincides with a relative dearth of scholarly attention given to 9:11–12 (Lavoie 1996, 439). Ogden and Zogbo offer a more productive, although still general, analysis when they note that “evil” in 9:12d “describes some event or situation that has negative or painful results” (1997, 342). 42.  Though Qohelet does distinguish between quality of death, “he is only interested in the negative, viewing it from the standpoint of the man who suffers the misfortune (5:12–16), not the one who benefits” (Fox 1999, 67). Cf. the “dreadful bed,” a net spread out and camouflaged in a thicket, into which birds unknowingly fall in Homer’s Odyssey (Cook 1993, 247 22:468–72). 43.  Lavoie refers to humans as victims “left to the arbitrary control of the Creator who determines the pernicious fate of everybody,” due to their ignorance and impotence (1996, 44). 44.  Regardless of the precise Eng. translation for the second raʿ in 9:3 (e.g., “evil” or “repulsiveness,” as that which refers to meager bovine bodies in Gen 41:3), what results is an assertion about humans themselves.

132

Chapter 5

5.3.3.1.2.  Qohelet 9:11–12 and Habakkuk 1:12–17 in Dialogue Though Habakkuk and Qohelet differ in respect to both literary context (prophecy; wisdom literature) and particular use of fishing imagery (Babylonian exile; unpredictability of life’s tragedies), they also share several noteworthy affinities which shed light onto the use of raʿ as it pertains to fishing imagery. First, both Qohelet (3:18–21; 9:12) and Habakkuk (1:14–17) compare humanity to fauna. In fact, Qoh 3:18–21 and Hab 1:14–17 together suggest mankind is created in an image akin to animals. 45 According to the former, humans are “but beasts” (šəhem-bəhēmāh hēmmāh lāhem), destined for the same fate (miqreh). Qohelet 9:12 complements this sentiment, positing that humans, like fish, are caught suddenly and unawares. In the same vein, Habakkuk likens humans to defenseless fish of the sea, awaiting their ignominious fate in the net of the divinely appointed Babylonian forces (1:14–17). Second, the term raʿ plays a fundamental role in both Qoh 9:1–12 (and in the book, as a whole) and Habakkuk’s second disputation in 1:12–17. Within this prophet’s first disputation, he claims Yhwh makes him endure things like ʾāwen (“disaster”), ʿāmāl (“harm”), šōd (“oppression”), and ḥāmās (“violence”), without either hearing his cry nor delivering him (1:2–4). Habakkuk then builds on this initial accusation later in 1:13 by asserting that Yhwh’s eyes are “too pure to look at evil” (ṭəhôr ʿênayim mērʾôt rāʿ), yet ironically “gaze upon traitors” (tabbīṭ bôgədīm) and remain silent when the “wicked swallow up those more righteous than he” (bəballaʿ rāšāʿ ṣaddīq mimmennū). Faced with Babylonian deportation as the answer to Judahite oppression and sin, the prophet abhors the idea of a common fate for both the righteous and unrighteous. Qohelet, too, laments indiscriminate (9:3) and unpredictable (9:12) death, as well as the incommensurate destiny of those righteous who die earlier than the wicked (7:15). But while Habakkuk uses Yhwh’s own “purity” and his fellow Judahites’ righteousness as reason enough to rebut the divine plan, Qohelet observes evil in all people (9:3), affording him a different vantage point into divine machinations. Both Qohelet and Habakkuk shudder at death, but only the the former articulated an explanation for the apparent impartiality of the use of a divine net. 5.3.3.1.3.  Fishing and Death Unlike many other HB passages that employ fishing imagery to connote divine retribution (for example, Jer 16:16; Amos 4:2; Hab 1:14–17; Ezek 29:3–6a; 32:2–10), the fishing metaphor in Qoh 9:12 is primarily gnomic in scope. In those passages, the divine net symbolizes divine authority (to mete out justice). It maintains this general connotation in Qoh 9:12, for it is God who controls miqreh (“fate”), but more precisely signals the destiny of all people. 46 The cause for its descent stems neither from a broken covenant (as in Ezek 17:20; Hab 1:2–11), nor from oppression at the hands of the social elite (à la Amos 4:1–3), nor even from the arrogance of a foreign king (à la Ezek 29, 32), but rather from the inevitable (and devastating!) fate of humans every day in space and time. 45.  Schoors 2013, 688; Lavoie 1996, 445. According to D’Alario, “man is no different than fish or birds from the perspective of his unpredictable fate” (1998, 459). 46.  Lavoie 1996, 446. Schoors unnecessarily extends this notion by suggesting the net here symbolizes “arbitrary fate” (2013, 688).

Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy

133

Though Qohelet elsewhere delineates between righteous (ṣaddīq) and wicked (rāšāʿ; for example, 3:17; 7:15; 8:14; 9:2), all such distinctions break down in the context of reality. In fact, Qoh 9:12 “is the only text in the Bible that uses this image without any moral connotation” (Lavoie 1996, 446). There is no safeguard or insurance against this net, for woman and man together share the same ultimate fate: death. Within the unpredictability of the specifics (“no one knows his time”) is the predictability of the general (“all people are ensnared at a ‘time of calamity’”). Scholars have long noticed the centrality of death within Qohelet’s discourse. Lavoie refers to it as “la véritable nemesis du Qohélet.” 47 According to Lo, it “sets the stage for Qohelet’s arguments and binds the book together.” 48 The same holds for ch. 9 itself, a “particularly intense exposition on the implications of death” (Burkes 1999, 68). While 9:12 admittedly emphasizes the suddenness of the ʿēt rāʿāh rather than its cause (Walton 2006, 129), all scholars agree that the dual references to “time” convey an especially traumatic event. Some circumspectly allow for an idea of “time” broad enough to incorporate not only death, but also any other manifestations of tragedy within life. 49 The reason for this is plain: 9:12 does not explicitly refer to death in either temporal reference. Moreover, the following major section, 9:13–10:15, builds on 9:11–12’s idea of human finitude and the lack of guaranteed results in life (Walton 2006, 131; Backaus 1993, 275). These observations notwithstanding, other scholars maintain that at least one (if not both) attestation of ʿēt in 9:12 denotes death itself. 50 There are three lines of evidence in favor of this specific designation. First, as many scholars note, and as already elucidated in the previous section above, 9:12 evinces strong associations with 9:1–6, where miqreh and the moment of death represent equivalent entities. Second, the possessive (ʿittô) and calamitous (ʿēt rāʿāh) modifiers constrain the ʿēt in view. 51 In the two other attestations 47.  1992, 53. For direct references to death in Qohelet, see 2:14–16; 3:18–21; 4:2; 7:1; 9:3–6; for indirect references, see 1:4; 9:12; 12:1–7. 48.  Lo 2008, 85. She goes on to elucidate Qohelet’s dynamic relationship to death, which moves from hating life (2:17), to preferring death to life (4:2–3), heralding non-life (Heb. nāpel “stillborn child”) over life (6:3–6), opting to visit a grief-stricken house before a wedding banquet (7:1–4), suggesting death is better than the wiles of a (seductive) woman (7:26–29), to finally concluding that the living have hope (9:3–6; p. 93). 49. Those who hold to a broad designation of ʿittô in 9:12a include: Elster 1855, 114; Podechard 1912, 419; Aalders 1958a, 207; Reichert and Cohen 1984, 92; Loader 1979, 111–12; Glenn 1994, 327; Provan 2001, 183; Schoors 2013, 686; Walton 2006, 130. Those who hold to a similarly broad designation of ʿēt in 9:12d include: Lohfink 2003, 121; Krüger 2004, 174; Seow 1997, 308: “a timely incident”; Fox 1999, 259: “a complex of circumstances that occur together;” Provan 2001, 183; Walton 2006, 130 (“the certainty of death . . . remains in the background and fails to provide an interpretive function”); Lavoie 1996, 446; Schellenberg 2002, 118 (“unknowable future”). 50.  Those who argue ʿittô in 9:12a refers to death include: Fox 1999, 296–97; Jenni and Westermann 1975, 383; Olivi 2003) 189; Barton 1980, 2:164; Levy 1912, 119–20; Buzy 1946, 259; van der Ploeg 1953, 59; Steinmann 1955, 99–100; Spangenberg 1993, 142; Wilch 1969, 116; Menchén 1995, 125; Gilbert 1998, 177; Crenshaw 1987, 164–65; Longman 1998, 237; Backaus 1993, 274. Those who argue ʿēt rāʿāh refers specifically to death include: Ogden and Zogbo 1997, 341; Lauha 1978, 173; Backaus 1993, 274–75; Schwienhorst-Schönberger 1994, 109; Fischer 1997, 134–35; Rose 1999, 146; Gordis 1955, 298. 51.  According to Krüger (2004, 174) and Lohfink (2003, 121), ʿēt is the key term in 9:11–12.

134

Chapter 5

of ʿēt + possessive suffix in Qohelet, one refers to the beauty of God’s creativity in ʿittô (3:11), and the other refers to a predetermined death date for each person (7:17). 52 Qohelet distinguishes between the ʿēt rāʿāh (“time of calamity”) and the yôm rāʿāh (“day of adversity”) in 7:14, the latter of which plainly refers to non-lethal tragedy or adversity. The plausible correspondence in 9:12 between ʿittô and the moment when the “maleficent net” ensnares, combined with Qohelet’s allusion to death elsewhere via reference to “one’s time” (7:17), together provide rationale for this subtle literary variation. Third, the fishing imagery itself presupposes death. 53 While the grammar delimits the meaning of neither ʿittô nor ʿēt rāʿāh to death (both references are formally ambiguous), the metaphor of a fish caught in a net assumes this idea. 54 Ps 116:3 bolsters this idea in its conceptual presentation of the underworld as an inescapable strand of ropes (ḥebel) and nets (māṣôd). 55 Unlike other prophetic passages (for example, Jer 16:16; Amos 4:2; Hab 1:14–17; Ezek 12:13–14; 17:20–21; 19:2–9; 29:3–6a; 32:2–10) where the rhetorical objective of fishing tackle is made explicit (deportation), the metaphor here includes no such interpretive qualification and thus obtains its straightforward meaning: the rationale for catching a fish or a bird is to kill it (and not to throw it back). Qohelet could have circumvented the ambiguity in this metaphor (for example, stating the intended image explicitly, such as in Amos 4:1–3; evading a life-threatening comparison altogether, such as the use of yôm rāʿāh in the immediate context of Qoh 7:14; etc.), but instead used two faunal metaphors that naturally pointed to an identifiable, rather than an abstract, example of tragedy: death, the one “time” from which no one escapes. 56 52.  Most scholars classify Qohelet 9:11–12, as well as the book in general, as a tour de force on determinism (cf. Delitzsch 1982, 365–67; Rudman 1997, 418 [“God harvests human beings in order to impose the appropriate event in the individual’s life; cf. 411–12]; Fox 1999, 66 [“It is not that specific injustices are fated, but that injustice itself is built into the world and nothing can be done to remedy it”]; Lavoie 1996, 447; contra D’Alario 1998, 462–63 [“destiny is not an automatic, predetermined mechanism”]; see 3:10–15 for a depiction of God’s mysterious freedom). Despite the lack of a reference to God in 9:11–12, Qohelet operates with a plain sense of the divine control of fate (cf. 3:11; 7:14; 9:1–3; 11:5). 53. Contra Lavoie, who suggests the faunal metaphors emphasize human bêtise (1996, 444). 54.  This is not to say that fish were never released or that meshes sometimes failed. The bonds of any trap can always be freed by the trapper itself, allowing the captured animal to escape. The HB even offers examples of the dead coming back to life. But the imagery captures not the specifics or exceptions of the physical world, but the general and customary. And the basic point of fishing in the ANE was to provide a livelihood for one’s family or placate a deity with offerings. For humans it connoted life, but for fish it connoted death. Therefore, given the overwhelming propensity of caught fish to eventually be consumed and nets to efficaciously perform the job for which they were intended, fishing images, when viewed from the perspective of the fish, assume death. 55.  Following the emendation of r to d (məṣārê to məṣādê), which offers a more natural parallel to ḥebel, as suggested by HALOT 1:624. A broken passage from 1QHa 21:21 acknowledges this same theme in its reference to “snares of Abaddon” ([ṣmy ʾbdwn]) which flank an already spread out net of (the) “pit” ([np]rśh ršt š[wḥh]), the reconstruction of which follows Schuller and Newsom 2012, 67:21. 56. Cf. Seow 1997, 321. Despite its dreadful effect, Qohelet perceived death to be woven into the very fabric of life (cf. 3:2–8).

Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy

135

5.4. Synthesis Like the Mesopotamian passages discussed above, Qoh 9:12 does not present even the slightest prospect of rescue. Once ensnared in a divine net there was simply no escape. This comports with the shared Mesopotamian and Israelite conception of the afterlife as a meager replica of life on earth. Whether envisioning disease, death, or some other form of human tragedy, the net presents a dark symbol that contrasts vivacity. Qoh 9:12 affirms, from the standpoint of its victims, the universal presentation of a metaphorical divine net as a negative tool. It does not give; it only takes away. Its enclosure, similar to the lowering of a theatrical curtain, signals the descent of time and the termination of life itself. Not necessarily a tool of divine retribution, the net in Qoh 9:12 stands out from all other biblical examples of fishing imagery. According to Qohelet, every human has a predetermined “time,” of which they themselves are ignorant. But the “time” is fixed nonetheless. To that end, righteousness is no real security, for one way or another, time will fall on—just as a net likewise ensnares—each human at his or her appointed moment.

C

h a p t e r

6

“It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”: Fishing Imagery, Polarity, and Prophetic Literature

6.1. Introduction While the fishing metaphors discussed up to this point have been active instruments, the portrayal of fishing in the following three examples from the HB emphasize not a specific act-consequence progression, but a state. In each example, the state in view is a radical transformation of the status quo. The drying up of the Nile River in Isa 19:5–10 leads to a devastating collapse of Egyptian society that renders fishers aghast and unemployed. In Ezek 26:1–14, Tyrian pride in its mercantile prosperity and ostensible indestructibility leads to its conversion into a Waterloo, where fishers take advantage of its ruins as a place to dry their nets. And in Ezek 47:1–12, the prophet envisions an eschatological resurgence of life where the return of the divine presence engenders both a topographic and economic overhaul. From a rhetorical perspective, these three passages together connote polar realities: the worst of times for Egypt and Tyre, but the best of times for the locale where the divine presence resides. This chapter offers a detailed analysis of the individual character and presentation of each passage before juxtaposing them with one another in order to make comparative assessments. And due to the distinctive features of the second Ezekiel passage within the HB and Israelite topography and economy, the discussion concludes with a final reevaluation of the peculiar nature and function of fishing language in texts that concern a geographical location where fishing played a relatively negligible role.

6.2.  It Was the Worst of Times (Isaiah 19:5–10; Ezekiel 26:1–14) 6.2.1.  Egypt in Isaiah 19:5–10 6.2.1.1. Translation 136

Fishing Imagery, Polarity, and Prophetic Literature 19:5

137

‫ מהים‬1 ‫ונשׁתו־מים‬ ‫ יחרב ויבשׁ‬3 ‫ונהר‬

Water from the sea will be dried up2 and [the] river [i.e Nile] will run dry and be parched.

‫ נהרות‬4 ‫והאזניחו‬ ‫ וחרבו יארי מצור‬5 ‫דללו‬

The streams will stink; Egypt’s Nile branches will diminish and run dry.

  1  2  3

19:6

  4  5

1.  ‫ ונשׁתו־מים‬: Most scholars agree that hayyām here is a poetic designation for the Nile itself (see Wildberger 1991, 230), a comparison known even by historians in antiquity (cf. Pliny the Elder, Nat. 35.11: in Nilo cuius est aqua maris similis “in the Nile, whose water resembles the sea”; Seneca, Nat. 4A.2: continuatis aquis in faciem lati ac turbidi maris stagnat: “it [the Nile] stagnates in a continuous [flow] of water with the form of a wide, muddy sea”). Blenkinsopp goes even further, positing the Nilotic inundation as the referent behind hayyām (2000, 313). For familiarity with this annual Egyptian event elsewhere in the prophetic corpus, see Amos 8:8; 9:5; Jer 45:7–8; 46:7. This passage resembles the vocabulary employed to depict Baal’s vanquishing of Yam in KTU 1.2 4:27: yqṯ bʿl.wyšt.ym. Does this Ugaritic excerpt mean “the sea dried up” (root nšt), “Baal drank the sea” (root šty), “Baal placed the sea” (root šyt), or “Baal dispersed the sea” (root štt)? For discussion, see Smith 1994, 351–56. 2.  The LXX derives wəniššətū from an active form of šth (πίονται “they will drink”), rather than from nšt in the N stem. In so doing, ὕδωρ (= Heb. mayim) functions accusatively, which requires the insertion of a subject, ὁι Αἰγύπτοι, carried over from 19:4. Croughs keenly observes that this particular development arose not from confusion over the meaning of nšt, since LXX 41:17 correctly renders this verb (ἐξηράνθη “has been dried up”), but may have been influenced by Exod 7:24 (2001, 85). 3.  Job 14:11–12 employs comparable language and imagery (i.e., the drying of a river) to symbolize the finality of death, as well as the enervated existence in the afterlife. Though Werner (1986, 48) opines that Isa 19:5 cites the Joban verse, Balogh effectively repudiates this claim due to the common poetic juxtaposition of ḥrb and ybš (cf. Isa 42:15; 44:27; Jer 50:38; 51:36; Nah 1:4) and the lack of any peculiar features that single out these two texts as dependent (2011, 242 n. 161). Poetic parallelism between yām and nāhār appears frequently in the Psalter (24:2; 66:6; 72:8; 80:12; 89:26; 98:7–8; cf. Isa 50:2; Nah 1:4; Job 14:11). 4.  In light of nəhar-kəbār “Chebar Canal” in Ezek 1:1 and nahărôt bābel “the rivers of Babylon” in Ps 137:1, Wildberger suggests that nəhārôt here refers to artificial canals, while the yəʾōrê māṣôr are Nile branches (1991, 230, 246). Huddlestun questions this proposal, however, on the basis that only the current passage has an Egyptian locale in view (1996, 183). Many scholars consider ‫ והאזניחו‬a “double formative” or “mixed” verbal form, exhibiting customary features of both a Hebrew perfect and an Aramaic Aphel (see GKC §53p; IBHS §27.4c; cf. GKC §19m, §53g), which others simply identify as a prosthetic alef that aids in pronunciation (Watts 2005, 306; Wildberger 1991, 230). 1QIsaa preserves only the h, but 4QIsab replicates the MT. Though a hapax legomenon, znḥ I “to decay; be rancid” exhibits cognate evidence in Arb. zaniḫa “to be rancid”; z/saniḫ “to stink”. Presuming wholesale transposition, Wildberger opines it is a loanword from Eg. ḫnš (1991, 246; for Eg. ḫnš, see Calice 1936, 754). 5. For yəōrê māṣôr elsewhere in the HB, see 2 Kgs 19:24 (= Isa 37:25); Mic 7:12. Though most scholars concur that māṣôr is a stylistic variant of miṣrāyim “Egypt,” this identification has not gone unchallenged. The LXX (διώρυγες τοῦ ποταμοῦ “canals of the river”) distinguishes it from other references to Egypt, removing any formal association. Kaiser (1974, 98; following earlier scholars, such as Delitzsch, Dillmann, and BHK) suggests mṣr might strictly identify Lower Egypt,

138 19:7

Chapter 6 ‫ קמלו‬6 ‫קנה וסוף‬ ‫ערות על־יאור על־פי  יאור‬ 8

Rush and reed will rot away,7 (together with) papyrus along the Nile, at the mouth of the Nile.

  6  7  8

but this overlooks the fact that the passage renders judgment on the entire nation, not just the northern sector. Calderone (1961, 427–30) proposes transferring the initial m of māṣôr to the construct term, leading to yəōrêm ṣūr “channels of rock” (with enclitic m). This emended form would thereby literally represent the Nilotic cataracts just as it would metaphorically allude to a looming “siege” (Heb. ṣwr). In his opinion, this reference points to Kush, not Egypt, for miṣrāyim appears seven times in 19\:1–4 alone (p. 428). As Huddlestun cogently recognizes, however, its parallelism with nəhārôt weakens this argument (1996, 183). While Tawil uses Assyrian sources to help identify māṣôr in 2 Kgs 19:24 (= Isa 37:25) with Mt. Muṣri (mod. Jebel Bashiqah), the clear Egyptian context of Isa 19 precludes this connection in v. 6 (1982, 195–206). Despite the deviating versional evidence and few recent alternative proposals, cognate evidence (Akk. muṣur/miṣir “Egypt”) and the poetic structure of Isa 19:6 affirm the scholarly consensus. Though some scholars (Croughs 2001, 85; Gray, 1912, 327) attribute the LXX’s omission of the verb ‫ וחרבו‬to a lack of comprehension, it handles the term consistently in 17:4 and 19:6 (ἔκλειψις; ἐξέλιπον). Alternatively, the problem appears to derive from Heb. znḥ, in light of the use of ἐκλείψουσιν, as the first verb in LXX 19:6 may represent Heb. dll. 6. Heb. qml appears only here and Isa 33:9, where it denotes a reversal of prosperity in Lebanon. The semantic idea “rot, grow moldy” garners cognate support from Syr. qəmal “become moldy” (CSD 508), Arb. qamila “to become covered with black blotches (plants, after rain)” (HALOT 2:1108), and Akk. qummālu “skin complaint (affecting sesame, in particular)” (CDA 291). ‫ סוף‬is either an Egyptian loan (< ṯwfy; so Albright 1934, 65) or a Semitic loan into Egyptian (