From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir 9781575063638

Citation preview

From Author to Copyist

Prof. Zipi Talshir [photo by Prof. David Talshir]

From Author to Copyist Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible

in Honor of Zipi Talshir

edited by

Cana Werman

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2015

Copyright © 2015 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data From author to copyist : essays on the composition, redaction, and transmission of the Hebrew Bible in honor of Zipi Talshir / edited by Cana Werman.     pages cm Collection of essays resulting from a conference honoring Professor Zipi Talshir, an eminent scholar of Bible and history. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-350-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Bible. Old Testament—Criticism, Redaction—Congresses.  2.  Bible. Old Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—Congresses.  I.  Talshir, Zipora, honouree.  II.  Werman, Cana, editor. BS1182.4.F76 2015 221.6′6—dc23 2015022764

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 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  vii Academic Publications of Zipi Talshir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xiii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Septuagint and Samareitikon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Jan Joosten

1

The Text-Critical Contribution of the Antiochean Greek and Old Latin Texts—Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11 . . . . . . . . . .   17 Julio Trebolle Barrera The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 in Three Different Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   37 Emanuel Tov An Identical Scribal Mistake in 1 Kings 9 and 2 Chronicles 7: Consequences for the Textual History of Kings and Chronicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   53 Adrian Schenker Text and Context: The Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods and Its Literary, Administrative, and Legal Context . . . . . . . . .   63 Alexander Rofé Once Again: Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions . . . . . . . . . . .   81 Erhard Blum Ezekiel, a Singer of Erotic Songs? Some Text-Critical Remarks on Ezekiel 33:31–32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   95 Johan Lust If You Go Down to the Woods Today: B(e)aring the Text of Proverbs MT and LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Tova Forti Numbers 36:13: The Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy and the Redaction of the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Itamar Kislev v

vi

Contents

Bel and the Dragon: The Relationship between Theodotion and the Old Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Dalia Amara The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6: The Septuagint Version as Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Olivier Munnich Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi (Text and Versions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari Echoes of Solomon and Nehemiah: Hezekiah’s Cultic Reforms in the Book of Chronicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 David A. Glatt-Gilad Textual History through the Prism of Historical Linguistics: The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Noam Mizrahi Whodunit? Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles . . . . . . . . . . 223 Frank H. Polak Weighing in the Scales: How an Egyptian Concept Made Its Way into Biblical and Postbiblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . 249 Nili Shupak The Rabbinic Sages’ Allegation about LXX Genesis 1:1: Bickerman’s Cogent Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Mayer I. Gruber When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture? . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Anneli Aejmelaeus What Is a Biblical Book? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Ronald Hendel Revelatory Experiences as the Beginning of Scripture: Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . 303 Roland Deines The Canonization of the Hebrew Bible in Light of Second Temple Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Cana Werman Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .375

Preface On 3 January 2012, a group of scholars, students, family, and friends gathered at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev to open a three-day conference in honor of an outstanding scholar and wonderful friend, Professor Zipi Talshir, on the occasion of her 65th birthday. Among them was the late Professor Victor (Avigdor) Hurowitz. Professor Hurowitz was the one who opened the conference with warm words of greeting and praise for Zipi. The present volume is the product of this conference; it contains papers by nine of the participants, who later converted their lectures into articles to be included alongside contributions from other distinguished scholars. Professor Hurowitz’s sudden, tragic death, however, resulted in the sad effect that, despite his original wish and intention, no article by him could be included here. It therefore seems fitting to introduce this volume with the warm words that he extended to Zipi and the other guests at the conference. Distinguished guests—honorable dean, speakers at this event, members of the Talshir family, colleagues, friends, ladies and gentlemen—welcome! It is a gratifying privilege to open this conference honoring our friend Zipi Talshir on the occasion of her 65th birthday. Sixty-five or ‫ה‬′′‫ ס‬equals ‫( הס‬be silent)! As Scripture says, “Be silent, all the earth,” in Zipi’s honor! A statement attributed to Rabbi Judah ben Tema, found at the end of tractate Avot, chapter 5, reads: “He would say, ‘Sixty to old age, seventy to ripe old age.’” According to this calculation, Zipi has now reached the midpoint between old age and ripe old age. It’s hard for me to think of Zipi as an elderly, white-haired person, for we are both young and have lived barely half our life spans. I therefore prefer to pursue a different tack, taken from the ancient Akkadian calendar from Ḫuzīrīna, present-day Sultantepe in Turkey. According to this calendar, a 60-year-old is meṭlūtu and a 70-year-old is ūmū arkūtu. The second term means “long-lived.” The first term is usually interpreted “maturity” because it derives from the verb eṭēlu, which means to “reach maturity,” and in one text placed in opposition to ṣeḫrūtu, “youth.” But, as listed in a lexicon, it translates the Sumerian nun, “prince,” and appears between the Akkadian rubû, “prince,” and ašaridu, “goes before the camp.” The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary translates it “prowess” and “excellence.” There is vii

viii

Preface

no doubt in my mind that these terms are far more applicable to the guest of honor than “old age” and “ripe old age.” In any event, we all agree that 65 in gematria equals ‫ל‬′′ ‫ ;הל‬therefore, it would be most fitting to name this gathering ‫תהילה לציפורה‬, as the poem zamāri meṭluti izammurū states: “Sing praises of excellence.” We are all acquainted with Zipi and conversant with her many instructive studies. I cannot, however, open an academic conference honoring such an eminent scholar without first recounting something of her personal history and academic path and also providing glimpses of her activity. Born in Romania at the end of 1946, Zipi was nearly five years old when she and her mother made aliyah straight to a tent city in Atlit, to an army barracks left behind by the British, and then to a neighborhood of new olim on the outskirts of Petah Tikva. In an immigrant environment, she acquired—in addition to her native Romanian—Yiddish and of course the language of the state, Hebrew. And, because Romanian is descended from Latin, and Yiddish from German, and Hebrew from Hebrew, this paved the way to the study of ancient literature, philology, and the Bible and its ancient translations. She subsequently turned to skilled teachers to hone her talents. The year 1965 saw her enrolling as a student in the departments of Bible and Jewish History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Alongside her study of Bible and history, Zipi also engaged in what is currently referred to as “marriage studies,” and she received her “Mrs. Degree” after marrying a young kibbutznik, who set his eyes on ‫ ציפורה‬and other birds whose names he pursued. The beloved companions, Zipi and Dodik, married and the couple became a paragon of love, mutual admiration, and respect. Partners in family life, child-raising, and hospitality as well as gardening and research—they have, over the years, also built a joint library and have even published some studies together. Between children, Zipi found time to learn something from the leading biblical scholars, the wise men of Jerusalem. Her teacher par excellence was the late Prof. Isaac Leo Seeligmann, under whose direction she wrote her master’s thesis, spending much time at his home and his famed library. She began her doctorate with Prof. Seeligmann, completing it after his death under the direction of Prof. Emanuel Tov, the future editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls and recipient of the Israel Prize. While studying for her bachelor and master’s degrees, Zipi worked as a teaching assistant in the Bible Department and also as a research fellow for important projects in Jerusalem and Pennsylvania, including the Hebrew University Bible Project and the Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek and Hebrew Bible Database, under the supervision of such eminent scholars as Shemaryahu Talmon, Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, Emanuel Tov, and Robert Kraft. This activity helped shape her interest in the history of the scriptural text and its transla-

Preface

ix

tions, the Septuagint in particular, and she has even taught joint courses on these topics with Prof. Alexander Rofé. In 1990, the couple Zipi and Dodik Talshir and their four children—Gayil, Yaoz, Nimrod, and Lotan—began a new chapter in the Negev, at Ben-Gurion University: to paraphrase the psalmist, ‫גם ציפור מצאה בית ודודה קן לו‬, whereas others say, “He who wishes to increase wisdom should go south.” They packed the enormous library housed in their narrow quarters in the Kiryat ha-Yovel neighborhood in Jerusalem and moved it to the basement of their spacious home in Meitar, planting a garden paradise in which Zipi could rest from her labors, moving about at the breezy time of day, reading and researching. And what are the many studies she has carried out from her days in Jerusalem to those in Beer-Sheva? They cannot be numbered, and I must be content with mentioning but a few. As wise chefs state: “It is unnecessary to eat the entire pot to know that the dish is tasty.” Generally speaking, we can say that Zipi specializes in late biblical literature, the Septuagint, and textual criticism. Her first book, ‫המסורת הכפילה על פילוג המלוכה‬, was published in Hebrew and later in expanded form in English (The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom: 3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z). This study demonstrates Zipi’s academic maturity. Grounded in a reconstruction of the original Hebrew version that underlies the alternative story of the division of the kingdom found in 3 Kingdoms in the Septuagint (a task that requires profound knowledge of Greek and sensitivity to Greek and Biblical Hebrew alike), she defines the alternative story as rewritten history and clarifies its thrust and Second Temple period historical background. Her doctoral dissertation “First Esdras: Origin and Translation” continued the path set out in her master’s thesis. It served as the basis for two books published in the prestigious SBL series: Septuagint and Cognate Studies. The first volume is an expanded version of her doctorate that treats the composition of Esdras and its relationship to the biblical book Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, the underlying textual infrastructure of the parallel chapters in the MT, and the method and world view of the translator against the backdrop of his day. The second volume, part of which was written in collaboration with her husband, is a text-critical commentary on 1 Esdras. Biblical commentaries are an invaluable asset to biblical studies—as the much-needed commentary on 1 Esdras shows. In the meantime, Zipi has contributed a commentary on the book of Haggai to the Olam ha-Tanakh series. Apart from these books and scores of learned, instructive articles, Zipi has edited several volumes, among them Homage to Shmuel in honor of Shmuel Aḥituv, and On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism—Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Alexander Rofé, to which she contributed major papers. Recently, two volumes appeared under her editorship: The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies [all in Hebrew]. This

x

Preface

book will serve as an introduction to the Bible for scholars, students, and enlightened lovers of the Bible, to which Zipi’s contribution is a comprehensive article on textual criticism. And she is still going strong. At present, she is working on a critical edition of Chronicles for Biblia Hebraica Quinta, one of the leading works in the field of textual criticism. She is also slated to produce a commentary on Chronicles for the Mikra Leyisraʾel series. In addition to her intense involvement in research, writing, and academic editing, Zipi devotes time and energy to departmental matters. She chaired the department for four years, and one of her crowning achievements was the founding of the Deichmann Program for Jewish and Christian Literature of the Hellenistic-Roman Era. This program, headed by Zipi, and directed by Professor Cana Werman in collaboration with Professor Roland Deines of Nottingham University, is unique in Israel and attracts many students. Last but not least, Zipi fulfills the directive of the Great Assembly cited at the beginning of Avot: “Raise up many disciples.” She is an exemplary and devoted teacher, much beloved by her students. Zipi, we love you! Although Prof. Hurowitz’s description of Zipi’s scholarship surveys much of her work, it is incumbent upon me to add several remarks. Zipi’s research concentrates on the history of biblical texts and traditions. Her interests lie in the processes of text preservation and transmission, and the methods exercised by later authors in adopting and adapting existing texts and traditions to their own linguistic, literary, and ideological conventions. Thus, her study involves the ancient translations of the Bible, mainly the Septuagint, which, together with the biblical scrolls from Qumran, form the most valuable witness to the history of the biblical text and are most pertinent to the fields of biblical textual and literary criticism. These interests are well exemplified in her books, already mentioned above: her 1989/1993 book on The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom, which dares to present the lost story in its surmised original Hebrew form; the 1999 introductory book on 1 Esdras—an apocryphal book, preserved in Greek, which nevertheless has parallels in the main parts of the canonical books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, with the addition of a wisdom-oriented story that introduces the leader of the revival of Judah onto the stage of history; and her thorough, text-critical commentary on the book of 1 Esdras (2001), which offers a full reconstruction of the Hebrew-Aramaic Vorlage of the book, as well as a meticulous comparison of the canonical books and their counterparts in 1 Esdras (which, in her view, is a book created in order to accommodate the story of the three youths in the history of the Return). This last book completes her study of this intriguing ancient book, offering a comprehensive interpreta-

Preface

xi

tion of a work created in the Hellenistic period, on the verge of the Qumran literature. These works demonstrate Zipi’s combined interests by studying the translation techniques of those who produced the Greek versions of these compositions, by attempting to reconstruct their original Hebrew or Hebrew-Aramaic form, and by analyzing the ways in which the later authors reshaped and rewrote the biblical texts. The threefold method also appeared in Zipi’s articles, such as the 1996 article on the three deaths of Josiah, which follows the transmission of the story of the death of this cherished king in the books of Kings, Chronicles, and 1 Esdras; the 1995 “Contribution of Diverging Traditions Preserved in the Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible”; and in the extensive 2002 article on the nature of the edition of the book of Kings reflected in the Septuagint, which demonstrates the work of a redactor who tried to reorganize the course of events, especially with regard to Solomon’s reign. Zipi has also produced studies of a more general scope, especially in reference to synchronic and diachronic approaches to the study of the Hebrew Bible. Among them are “Text Criticism within the Frame of Biblical Philology” (2007); “Textual Criticism at the Service of Literary Criticism and the Question of an Eclectic Edition of the Hebrew Bible” (2012); and recently, “Texts, Text-Forms, Editions, New Compositions and the Final Products of Biblical Literature,” which appeared in the Munich 2013 Congress Volume (Vetus Testamentum Supplements). As was noted by Prof. Hurowitz, at present Zipi is working primarily on the book of Chronicles. Here too her interests focus on the ways in which the author of this book, who probably lived in the late Persian period, adopted the existing history of his people, as described mainly in the books of Samuel–Kings, and adapted it to his own literary taste and ideological concepts. Her work on Chronicles has two facets: strict text-critical research accompanied by a commentary centered on the transmission of the text that will be published as part of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart); and more exegetically- ideologicallyoriented research that will be published in the Mikra Leyisraʾel commentary series (Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv). Appreciation for Zipi’s high-level scholarship is evident in the present volume. Scholars from around the globe gladly presented to her the best of their scholarly crops. Some came all the way to our home in the desert to take part in the conference: Prof. Ron Hendel from the University of California–Berkeley; Prof. Anneli Aejmelaeus of the University of Helsinki, Finland; Prof. Julio Trebolle Barrera of the University of Madrid, Spain; Prof. Olivier Munnich of the Université Paris–Sorbonne; Prof. Jan Joosten of Oxford University, and Prof. Roland Deines of the University of Nottingham, England. Others sent in their essays for the volume: Prof. Erhard Blum from Tübingen, Germany;

xii

Preface

Prof. Johan Lust from the University of Leuven, Belgium; and Prof. Adrian Schenker of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Nor were the local Israeli scholars shy in their desire to contribute words of wisdom on this occasion. Eminent scholars from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Prof. Alexander Rofé and Prof. Emanuel Tov, joined colleagues from Tel-Aviv University, Prof. Frank Polak and Dr. Noam Mizrahi, and from the University of Haifa, Prof. Nili Shupak, Dr. Itamar Kislev, as well as Dr. Johnathan Ben-Dov who collaborated with another representative of Europe, Romina Vergari from Italy. From Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Zipi’s home university, five scholars honored her with the fruits of their research: Prof. Mayer Gruber, Dr. Dalia Amara, Dr. Tova Forti, Dr. David Gilad, and I. All made the effort to write on the theme of the conference and the volume, concentrating on the processes of the composition and transmission of the Hebrew Bible. I would like to thank all those who took part in the conference for three wonderful days of razor-sharp scholarship and deep, amicable feelings. I would like to thank all who contributed to this volume for their collaboration and for their willingness to offer up the best of their academic endeavors. In their names, I would like to say that it is an honor to dedicate our work to a dear colleague, an excellent scholar, and a wonderful friend. —Cana Werman Ben-Gurion University May 2015

Academic Publications of Zipi Talshir Authored Books

 1. The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Simor, 1989. [254 pages]  2. The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Reigns 12:24a–z). Rev. English ed. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 6. Jerusalem: Simor, 1993. [318 pages]  3. I Esdras: From Origin to Translation. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 47. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. [305 pages]  4. I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (chs. 3–4 in collaboration with D.  Talshir). Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 50. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001. [550 pages]

Edited Books

 1. Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible in Honour of Sh.  Aḥituv. Edited by Z. Talshir, S. Yona, and D. Sivan. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2001.  2. On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism. Edited by Z. Talshir and D. Amara. Beer-Sheva 18. Beer-Sheva, 2005.  3. Text Criticism and Beyond: In Memoriam of Isac Leo Seeligmann. Edited by A. Rofé, M. Segal, S. Talmon, and Z. Talshir. Textus 23. Jerusalem, 2007.  4. Text Criticism and Beyond: In Memory of Isac Leo Seeligmann. Edited by A. Rofé, M. Segal, S. Talmon, and Z. Talshir. Textus 24. Jerusalem, 2009.  5. Israel and Its Land: Inscriptions and History. Edited by Z. Talshir. Beer-Sheva 19. Beer-Sheva, 2010.  6. The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies. Edited by Z. Talshir. The Ancient Literature of Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011.  7. All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren. Edited by M. Gruber, S. Aḥituv, G. Lehmann and Z. Talshir. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 255. Göttingen, 2012.

Articles

 1. Narrative Ties in Early Biblical Historiography [Hebrew]. Shnaton 5–6 (1981– 82): 69–78.  2. The Detailing Formula [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 51 (1982): 23–35.  3. I Esdras: An Image of a Literal Translation [Hebrew]. Pp. 47–52 in Proceedings of the 8th Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1. Jerusalem, 1982.  4. The Transmission of the Founding Tradition of the Second Temple [Hebrew]. Pp. 247–59 in I. L. Seeligmann Volume, Jerusalem, 1983.

xiii

xiv

Academic Publications of Zipi Talshir

 5. The Milieu of I Esdras in the Light of Its Vocabulary. Pp. 129–47 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of J. W. Wevers. Mississauga, ON, 1984.  6. Linguistic Development and the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the Septuagint. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986): 301–20.  7. Double Translations in the Septuagint. Pp. 21–63 in Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta, 1987.  8. The Representation of the Divine Epithet ‫ צבאות‬in the Septuagint and the Accepted Division of the Books of Kingdoms. Jewish Quarterly Review 78 (1987): 57–75.  9. The Nature of the Edition of the Book of Kings Reflected in the LXX: General Evaluation and Analysis of 1 Kgs 11 [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 59 (1990): 249–302. 10. A Creature Named Amlats (in collaboration with D. Talshir) [Hebrew]. Lešonénu 43 (1992): 47–52. 11. Is the Alternate Tradition of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kgdms 12:24a–z) Non-Deuteronomistic? Pp. 599–621 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Edited by G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 33. Atlanta, 1992. 12. The Original Language of the Story of the Three Youths (1 Esdras 3–4) (in collaboration with D. Talshir) [Hebrew]. Pp. 63–75 in “Shaʿarei Talmon”: Studies in Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. W. Fields. Winona Lake, IN, 1992. 13. The Concept of the Division of the Kingdom in the Book of Kings and in the Book of Chronicles [Hebrew]. Al ha-Pereq 7 (1994): 34–52. 14. Haggai: Introduction and Commentary. Pp. 137–67 in The Twelve Prophets. Edited by Z. Weissmann. The World of the Bible. Tel-Aviv, 1994. [Hebrew]. 15. The Contribution of Diverging Traditions Preserved in the Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible. Pp. 21–40 in VIII Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris, 1992. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 41. Atlanta, 1995. 16. The Story of the Three Youths (1 Esdras 3–4): Towards the Question of the Language of Its Vorlage (in collaboration with D. Talshir). Textus 18 (1995): 135–55. 17. The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography. Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996): 213–36. 18. Towards the Structure of the Book of Kings: Formulaic Synchronism and Narrative Synchronism [Hebrew]. Pp. 73–88 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to M. Haran. Edited by M. V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, IN, 1996. 19. The Unity of Structure in Genesis I–XI: Research on the Verge of Midrash [Hebrew]. Shnaton 11 (1997): 131–38. 20. Textual and Literary Criticism of the Bible in Post-Modern Times: The Untimely Demise of Classical Biblical Philology. Henoch 21 (1999): 235–52. 21. I Esdras. Pp. 341–42 in Dictionary of the New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. 22. The Reign of Solomon in the Making: Pseudo-Connections between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles. Vetus Testamentum 50 (2000): 233–49.

Academic Publications of Zipi Talshir

xv

23. The Apocrypha: Reconstruction or Translation (with Examples from Tobit and the Testament of Naphtali (in collaboration with D. Talshir) [Hebrew]. Pp. 216–33 in Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible in Honour of Sh. Aḥituv. Edited by Z. Talshir, S. Yona, and D. Sivan. Jerusalem, 2001. 24. Literary Design: A Criterion for Originality? A Case Study—3 Kgdms 12:24a–z; 1 K 11–14. Pp. 41–57 in La double transmission du texte biblique: A. Schenker Volume. Edited by Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 179. Fribourg and Göttingen, 2001. 25. Some Canon-Related Concepts Originating in Chronicles. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113 (2001): 386–403. 26. 1 Kgs and 3 Kgdms: Origin and Revision. Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11). Textus 21 (2002): 1–36. 27. Synchronic Approaches with Diachronic Consequences in the Study of Parallel Redactions. Pp. 199–218 in Yahwism after the Exile. Edited by R. Alberz and B. Becking. Utrecht, 2002. 28. The Qumran Fragments of the Book of Ezra (4QEzra). Meghillot 1 (2003): 213–18. 29. When Was the Bible Written? [Hebrew] Beit Miqra 176 (2003): 15–30. 30. The Double Month Naming in Late Biblical Books: A New Clue for Dating Esther? (in collaboration with D. Talshir). Vetus Testamentum 54 (2004): 549–55. 31. Greek Translations of the Hebrew Bible. Pp. 2225–34 in Übersetzung – Translation – Traduction: An International Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 1. Edited by H. Kittel et al. Berlin, 2004. 32. Proverbs 7 MT and LXX: Form and Content (in collaboration with T. Forti). Textus 22 (2005): 129–67. 33. Synchronic Approaches with Diachronic Consequences in the Study of Parallel Redactions: New Approaches to I Esdras. Beer-Sheva 18 (On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism; 2005): 77–97. 34. Are the Biblical Texts from Qumran Biblical? 4QTestimonia and the Minimalists. Meghillot 5–6 (2007): *119–*140. 35. Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches in the Study of the Hebrew Bible: Text Criticism within the Frame of Biblical Philology. Textus 23 (2007): 1–32. 36. Ben Sira 20:4; 30:20: Meaning and Transmission (in collaboration with D. Talshir). Pp. 193–232 in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey. Leiden, 2008. 37. The Biblical Scrolls from the Judaean Desert. Pp. 109–42 in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World. Edited by M. Kister. The Ancient Literature of Eretz Israel. Jerusalem, 2009. [Hebrew] 38. ‫( כן נאמן לן עם בתולה‬Sirach 30:20; 20:4): Transmission and Meaning (in collaboration with D. Talshir) [Hebrew]. Pp. 217–54 in Zaphenath-Paneah: Linguistic Studies Presented to Elisha Qimron on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by D. Sivan, D. Talshir, and C. Cohen. Beer-Sheva, 2009. 39. The Priority of Kings Compared with Chronicles [Hebrew]. Pp. 159–82 in Or leMayer: Mayer Gruber Volume. Edited by S. Yona. Beer-Sheva, 2010.

xvi

Academic Publications of Zipi Talshir

40. Ancient Composition Patterns Mirrored in I Esdras and the Priority of the Canonical Composition-Type. Pp. 109–29 Was 1 Esdras First? An Investigation into the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras. Edited by L. S. Fried. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. 41. 1 Esdras. Pp. 243−48 in vol. 1 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Oxford, 2011. 42. The History of the Biblical Text. Pp. 37–86 in The Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Essays. Edited by Z. Talshir. The Literature Created in Israel. Jerusalem, 2011. [Hebrew]. 43. Textual Criticism at the Service of Literary Criticism and the Question of an Eclectic Edition of the Hebrew Bible. Pp. 33–62 in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books. Edited by H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and J. Trebolle Barrera. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 246. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. 44. The Miscellanies in 2 Reigns 2:35a–o, 46a–l and the Composition of the Books of Kings/Reigns. Pp. 155–74 in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Helsinki, 2010. Edited by M. K. H. Peters; Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59. Atlanta, 2013. 45. The Relationship between SAM-MT, 4QSama, and Chr, and the Case of 2 Sam 24. Pp. 273–98 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by K. de Troyer, T. M. Law, and M. Liljeström. Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven, 2014. 46. Texts, Text-Forms, Editions, New Compositions and the Final Products of Biblical Literature. Pp. 40–66 in Congress Volume: Munich, 2013. Edited by C. M. Maier. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 163. Leiden: Brill, 2015. 47. Repeated Passages and Their Significance for the Composition of the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic Historiographies [Hebrew]. Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, in press. 48. The Census (2 Samuel 24 // 4QSama // 1 Chronicles 21) and the Map of Textural Witnesses to the Book of Samuel [Hebrew]. Meghillot (in press). 49. The Art of Quotation in the Book of Chronicles. Psalms and Chronicles. Edited by F. Hartenstein. Munich, in press.

Book Reviews

 1. Review of H.  Heather, Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job. Jewish Quarterly Review 74 (1983): 91–93.  2. Review of T. Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Index to I Esdras. Biblica 66 (1985): 438–40.  3. Review of H. Engel, Die Susanna Erzählung. Biblica 67 (1986): 580–86.  4. Review of A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint. Jewish Quarterly Review 78 (1987): 168–71.  5. Review of A.  Rofé, Introduction to the Prophetic Literature. Kiryath-Sefer 64 (1993): 356–57.

Academic Publications of Zipi Talshir

xvii

 6. Review of P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and J. E. Sanderson, editors, Qumran Cave 4, IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Dead Sea Discoveries  1 (1994): 140–46.  7. Review Article: Ezra–Nehemiah and First Esdras: Diagnosis of a Relationship between Two Recensions (in reference to D. Böhler, Die Heilige Stadt in Esdras a und Esra–Nehemia). Biblica 81 (2000): 566–73.  8. Review of R. F. Person, The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions. Journal of the American Oriental Society 120 (2000): 484–87.  9. Review of E. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4, XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–579) (in collaboration with D. Talshir). Journal of the American Oriental Society 120 (2000): 650–54. 10. Review of I. Kalimi, The Book of Chronicles: Historical Writing and Literary Devices [Hebrew]. Cathedra 102 (2001): 187–90. 11. Review of L. L. Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah. Journal of Semitic Studies 47 (2002): 147–49. 12. Review of J. H. Charlesworth, editor, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translatios, vol. 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (in collaboration with D. Talshir). Israel Exploration Journal 54 (2004): 105–9. 13. Review of N. Naʾaman, The Past that Shapes the Present. Zion 70 (2005): 229–36. 14. Review of P. S. F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative. Review of Biblical Literature 12 (2007). http://www.bookreviews.org. 15. Review of A. Rofé, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Beit Mikra 52 (2007): 164–79. 16. Review Article of Yonina Dor, Have the “Foreign Women” Really Been Expelled? Katharsis 10 (2008): 86–110. [Hebrew with English Abstract]

Research

 1. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 1. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.  2. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Jeremiah. Edited by C.  Rabin, S. Talmon, and E. Tov. Jerusalem, 1997.

Books in Preparation

 1. The Book of Chronicles: Introduction and Commentary. Mikra Leyisraʾel. Jerusalem: Magnes; Tel Aviv: Am-Oved.  2. Critical Edition of the Books of Chronicles. Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Abbreviations General a.m. b.c.e. BH BJ CBH Gk. HBCE Heb. JB LXX MH MT NETS NJPS NRSV n.s. NT OG OL QH SP/SamP SyrH RSV Th

anno mundi (in the year of the world) before the Common Era Biblical Hebrew La Bible de Jérusalem Classical Biblical Hebrew Greek The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition Hebrew Jerusalem Bible Septuagint Mishnaic Hebrew Masoretic Text New English Translation of the Septuagint New Jewish Publication Society Version New Revised Standard Version new series New Testament Old Greek version Old Latin Qumran Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch SyroHexaplaric version Revised Standard Version Theodotion’s version

Reference Works AB ABD ADPV AnOr

Anchor Bible Freedman, D. N., et al., editors. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Analecta Orientalia

xix

xx APAT APOT ATANT ATD BASOR BDB BEATAJ BETL BH 3, 4 BHQ BHS BHT Bib BibS(F) BIOSCS BK BKAT BWANT BZ BZABR BZAW BZNW CAD CAL CAT CATSS ConBOT CBET CBQ CCSL ConBOT CSCO

Abbreviations Kautzsch, E., translator and editor. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1900 Charles, R. H., editor. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913 Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Kittel, R., editor. Biblia Hebraica. 3rd–4th eds. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1937, 1951 Biblia Hebraica Quinta Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, editors. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983 Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblische Studien (Freiburg) Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Oppenheim, A. L., et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. (A–Z). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ Rainey, A. F. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. HO 25/1–4. Leiden: Brill, 1996 Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint/Scriptural Study Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series Corpus scriptorum christianum orientalium

Abbreviations CSEL CSLI CTAT DCH DDD DJD DSD EHAT EKK EncJud ErIsr EstBib ExpTim FAT GELS HAL HALAT HALOT HAR HAT HDR HeBAI HO HOr HSM HSS HTR HUCA ICC IEJ

xxi

Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Center for the Study of Language and Information. https://www-csli. stanford.edu/ Barthélemy, J.-D. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 3 vols. OBO 50. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982–92 Clines, D. J. A., editor. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993– Van der Toorn, K., B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, editors. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995. 2nd ed., 1999 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Roth, Cecil, ed. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972. 2nd ed. edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007 Eretz-Israel Estudios bíblicos Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009 Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3rd ed. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1967–96 Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner, et al., editors. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1967–90 Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. 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 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel Handbuch der Orientalistik Handbuch des Orients Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal

xxii IOS JANES(CU) JAOS JBL JJGL JJS JNSL JoüonMuraoka JPOS JPS JQR JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSQ JSS JSSM JSSR JTS KAT KHAT KHAAT KHC KS LD LEH Leš LHBOTS LSJ LSTS MGWJ MSSNTS

Abbreviations Israel Oriental Studies Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society (of Columbia University) Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991 Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Jewish Quarterly Review Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Jewish Studies Quarterly Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Monographs Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Alt, A. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 3 vols. Munich: Beck, 1953 Lectio Divina Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, editors. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003 Lešonénu Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by H. A. Jones. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968 Library of Second Temple Studies Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Monographs Series of the Society for New Testament Studies

Abbreviations MSU NCB NEAEHL NETS NIB NIBC NICOT OBO OLA Or OTL OtSt PG PSBA PTA RB REJ RevQ SB SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMS SBLRBS SBLSCS SBLSP SBLSymS SBLWAW SBOT SBS SJOT STDJ StOr SubBi TB TDOT TRE

xxiii

Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens New Century Bible Stern, E., editor. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993 New English Translation of the Septuagint. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ nets/edition/ Keck, L. E., editor. The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–2004 New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Migne, J.-P., editor. Patrologia Graeca Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen Revue biblique Revue des études juives Revue de Qumran Sources bibliques Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World The Sacred Books of the Old Testament Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia Orientalia Subsidia Biblica Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert Botterweck, G. J., and H. Ringgren, editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Trans. J. T. Willis et al. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Krause, G., and G. Müller, editors. Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977–

xxiv TSAJ TWNT TynBul TZ UT VigChrSup VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW ZDMG ZDPV

Abbreviations Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, editors. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932– Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Gordon, C. H. Ugaritic Textbook. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965 Vigiliae Christianae Supplements Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Septuagint and Samareitikon Jan Joosten Oxford

Introduction It is generally held that the Septuagint translators were Jews. 1 Indeed, how could it be otherwise? Who else, in the early Hellenistic period, had the linguistic and exegetical knowledge necessary to translate the old Hebrew Scriptures into Greek? It must be so. And yet, the religious identity of the translators merits renewed scrutiny. They were Jews, but what kind of Jews? Judaism of the Second Temple period was notoriously diverse, accommodating many different tendencies and theologies. Egyptian Judaism differed in many respects from Judaism in the metropolis. 2 On this too there is wide agreement. So, here is a question that has rarely been asked in recent times: which metropolis? 3 When the original Septuagint, the Pentateuch, was translated into Greek during the first half of the 3rd century b.c.e., the schism between “Jews” and “Samaritans” was probably still waiting to happen. 4 This raises the possibility that among the group who produced the Septuagint were “Jews” who looked Author’s note:  It is a pleasure to offer this essay to Zipi Talshir, from whom I have learned much and continue to learn. 1.  See recently E. Tov, “Reflections on the Septuagint with Special Attention Paid to the Post-Pentateuchal Translations,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, ed. W. Kraus, M. Karrer, and M. Meiser, WUNT 252 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 3–22, in particular pp. 5–7. 2.  See, e.g., my article “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History,” BIOSCS 43 (2010): 53–72. 3. In the 17th and 18th centuries, several authorities held that the Septuagint was based on the Samaritan Pentateuch; see, e.g., Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Rosenbusch, 1823) §§387–88; and see the overview of H. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 437–38. This line of reasoning was refuted by Wilhelm Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate (Halle: Renger, 1815), and consequently abandoned. 4.  See J. D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origins of the Samaritan Sect, HSM 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968); M. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, VTSup 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2009).

1

2

Jan Joosten

to Mount Gerizim—and perhaps paid their temple tax there—rather than Jerusalem as their spiritual center. As I will argue, this possibility needs to be taken seriously. I will approach this question in a roundabout way, taking my point of departure in a rather obscure corner of textual history and criticism. Samareitikon Readings in Manuscripts of the Septuagint An investigation of the relation between the Samaritans and the Greek Bible will naturally set out from a series of ancient readings expressly marked as Samaritan in origin. 5 Attestation and Origin When European scholars such as Petrus Morinus and Flaminius Nobilius began to collect and edit whatever they could find of the Greek text of the Bible in the late 16th century, they encountered among many other interesting things a number of marginal readings in manuscripts of the Septuagint—about 40, all of them in the Pentateuch—marked as σαμ, το σαμ, or in one or two cases: τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν “(the) Samaritan.” 6 Bernard de Montfaucon included these readings in his reconstruction of the Hexapla published in 1713, forming the hypothesis that Origen had incorporated them into the margins of his voluminous work and that they were transmitted from there into the manuscript tradition. 7 Frederick Field in his edition of 1875 followed suit and included, according to his own count, 43 readings attributed to this source. 8 Since Montfaucon and Field, many scholars have repeated the claim that the preserved Samareitikon readings were transmitted via the Hexapla. 9 It must be said, however, that Montfaucon’s evidence was flimsy, not to say nonexistent, and that no new data have come to light confirming this view. It is true that Sa5.  See R. Pummer, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” REJ 157 (1998): 269–358. 6. According to the Cambridge Edition (Brooke and McLean), τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν is spelled out in c2 (= R 135) on Gen 44:5, 15. Τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν is spelled out also in a scholion in 344′ on Gen 4:8 (see Origen on Genesis, PG 12, 101, but without reference to the Sama­ reitikon), but the term here most likely refers to the Hebrew text of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 7.  Bernard de Montfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (Paris, 1715), conveniently accessible in the reprint in PG 15. For the inclusion of Samareitikon readings, see §VIII (PG 15, col. 35). 8. Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vols. 1–2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), lxxxii–lxxxiv. 9.  See, e.g., J. Wasserstein, “Samareitikon,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. A. D. Crown, R. Pummer, A. Tal (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993), 209–10; A. D. Crown, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts, TSAJ 80 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 15; Pummer, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” 269; A. Schenker, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon: Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuch im 2. Jh. V.Chr,” in Samaritans: Past and Present, ed. M. Mor and F. Reiterer (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 105–21, in particular p. 109. A few scholars cautiously refrain from affirming this claim; see, e.g., S. Brock, “Bibelübersetzungen I,” TRE 6 (1980): 169; N. Fernández Marcos, Introducción a las versiones griegas de le Biblia, 2nd ed. (Madrid: CSIC, 1998), 176–79.

Septuagint and Samareitikon

3

mareitikon readings come to us via Septuagint manuscripts, especially catena manuscripts, which also transmit readings attributed to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. The latter likely go back to the Hexapla. 10 The association between the Samareitikon and the “Three” in transmission history may lead to the idea that they all go back to the same source. But thought should be given to the fact that the same channels also transmit ὁ Σύρος readings, which according to recent research were generated in the 4th century and could hardly have figured in the margins of the Hexapla. 11 The company they keep in the margins to Septuagint manuscripts says very little about the origin of the Samareitikon readings. It is to be noted, as well, that Jerome and Eusebius, who comment so enthusiastically on the various textual forms of the Greek Bible and who enjoyed direct access to Origen’s great work, never refer to the Samareitikon. Although this is an argument from silence, it does make the Hexaplaric origin of the preserved readings rather doubtful. Textual Profile 1: The Samaritan Tradition Whatever the origin of the Samareitikon readings, there can be no doubt that they form a well-defined group and that, as their name indicates, they ultimately originate from the Samaritan community. 12 To begin with, some of the readings clearly reflect the Samaritan Hebrew text, not the MT: Gen 46:28 Israel sent Judah ahead to Joseph to lead the way before him into Goshen (NRSV). σαμ ὀφθῆναι ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ to appear before him LXX συναντῆσαι αὐτῷ to meet him MT ‫ להֹורֹת ְל ָפנָיו‬ ְ to show the way before him SP ‫להראות לפניו‬ (lērå̄ʾot) to appear before him The Samareitikon reading agrees not only with the consonantal text of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), but also with the Samaritan reading tradition, where 10.  See R. Ceulemans, “Greek Christian Access to ‘The Three’, 250–600 ce,” in Greek Scriptures and the Rabbis, ed. T.  Michael Law amd A.  G. Salvesen, CBET 66 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 165–91; O.  Munnich, “Les révisions juives de la Septante: Modalités et fonctions de leur transmission. Enjeux éditoriaux contemporains,” in La Bible juive dans l’Antiquité, ed. Rémi Gounelle and Jan Joosten, Histoire du Texte Biblique 9 (Prahins: Zèbre, 2014), 141–90. 11.  See H. Lehmann, “The Syriac Translation of the Old Testament as Evidenced around the Middle of the Fourth Century (in Eusebius of Emesa),” SJOT 1 (1987): 66–86; B. ter Haar Romeny, “‘Quis sit ὁ Σύρος’ Revisited,” in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments, ed. A. Salvesen, TSAJ 58 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 360–98. 12. The Samareitikon readings are given on the basis of the second apparatus of the Göttingen edition of the Pentateuch. A full edition with Hebrew and Aramaic parallels from the MT, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the targums is found in Pummer, “Greek Bible and the Samaritans.”

4

Jan Joosten

the verbal form is interpreted as a niphal. 13 The MT reads a different verb, “to show the way.” 14 Samareitikon readings agree with the consonantal text of the SP against the MT also in Exod 32:18; Lev 13:51, 52; Num 32:29, 31; and Deut 27:4, 26. 15 If they agreed only with the SP, readings like this could be explained as ad hoc renderings of the Samaritan text. The profile of Samareitikon readings is much more involved, however. The readings agree, not only with the Samaritan text where it differs from the MT, but also and far more often with Samaritan exegesis, notably in the form it takes in the Samaritan Targum: Gen 44:5 σαμ καὶ αὐτὸς πειρασμῷ πειράζει ἐν αὐτῷ LXX αὐτὸς δὲ οἰωνισμῷ οἰωνίζεται ἐν αὐτῷ MT ‫ְ והּוא נַחֵׁש ְינַחֵׁש ּבֹו‬ STAJ ‫ והוא נסוי ינסי בה‬

And he with a testing he tests by it And he with divination divines by it (≈ SP) And he with a testing he tests by it

Here the Samareitikon reading has not simply been derived from the Samaritan Hebrew but rests on an interpretation designed to exonerate Joseph of magical practices. The same interpretation surfaces in the Samaritan Targum. As Field already realized, the agreement between Samareitikon readings and the Samaritan Targum is surprisingly frequent. 16 A large majority of Samareitikon readings show striking similarity to the Samaritan Targum—sometimes with all manuscripts, sometimes only with some of them. In recent years, a few scholars have attempted to relativize the alliance between Samareitikon readings and the Samaritan Targum by pointing to the fact that similar interpretations are at times found in the Jewish targums as well. 17 This is true but irrelevant. 13.  For the reading tradition of the Samaritans, see Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, vol. 4: The Words of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1977). See also S. Schorch, Die Vokale des Gesetzes,vol. 1: Genesis, BZAW 339 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); A.  Tal and M. Florentin, The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2010). [Heb.] 14.  The reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch is also attested in the Peshitta: lmeṯḥzāyû qdāmaw(hy) “to appear before him.” 15.  Admittedly, it also happens once or twice that the Samareitikon reading follows the MT against the SP in one or the other small detail, such as the rendering of a waw or the particle ‫כי‬: see the readings in Gen 50:19 and Exod 14:20. These readings may indicate that the Samaritan text was not entirely unified. Some of them may also be due to the fact that the Samareitikon was not a fresh translation of the Samaritan Hebrew but a revision of the Septuagint (see below). 16.  Field, Hexapla, lxxxiii–lxxxiv and 329–30; Samuel Kohn, “Samareitikon und Septuaginta,” MGWJ 38 (1894): 1–7, 49–67, in particular pp. 2–7, 49–50. 17.  See particularly Pummer, “Greek Bible and the Samaritans.”

Septuagint and Samareitikon

5

As is well known, the Jewish and Samaritan Targums stand in some sort of relation to one another. In many passages, the Samaritans may have borrowed readings from Targum Onqelos or other Jewish sources. A source agreeing with the Samaritan Targum may therefore be expected to agree now and then with Jewish sources. However, none of the Jewish targums aligns systematically with the Samareitikon readings in the way the Samaritan Targum does. Moreover, some of the readings are attested in no Jewish sources. 18 There must be a direct relation between the two sources. Only a handful of Samareitikon readings do not agree with the Samaritan Targum. Some of these may have been attributed to the Samareitikon by mistake. 19 Others may go back to a targumic rendering that is no longer preserved. 20 The manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum are notoriously late, and they attest great textual fluidity. Textual Profile 2: The Connection to the Septuagint In addition to the connection with Samaritan exegesis, Samareitikon readings show clear dependence on the Septuagint. The 19th-century scholars who worked most on these readings did not underscore this characteristic, but it is undeniable. Some of the readings link up with typical Septuagint vocabulary. The Tetragrammaton is rendered with Greek κύριος (Exod 12:42). The “Tent of Meeting (ʾohel moʿed)” is called ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, as in the Septuagint (Exod 38:26[8]). The altars of Balaam, referred to as βωμόι in the Septuagint, are called θυσιαστήρια in the Samareitikon reading (Num 23:1)— using a word found for the first time in the Septuagint and probably created by the translators themselves. Other readings preserve elements of the Septuagint text: Exod 32:18 σαμ

οὐκ ἔστι φωνὴ ἀποκρίσεως ἀνδρείας καὶ οὐκ ἔστι φωνὴ ἀποκρίσεως ἥττης ἀλλὰ φωνὴν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐγὼ ἀκούω

It is not the voice of an answer of courage, nor the voice of an answer of defeat, but the voice of sins I hear.

18.  See, e.g., Gen 49:23; Lev 13:8; 25:5. See in more detail my essay “Des targumismes dans la Septante?” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten, JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 54–71, esp. pp. 69–71. 19.  Thus the Samareitikon readings in Gen 5:25, 26 were almost certainly attributed to this source by mistake, on the basis of an error made by Jerome. See A. Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, ed. L. Geiger (Berlin: Gerschel, 1876), 4.122. 20.  See, notably, the reading in Exod 3:22, καὶ διασώθητε ἀπὸ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων “and you will be saved from the Egyptians,” reading the Hebrew verb as a niphal. This interpretation is not reflected in the reading tradition as recorded by Z. Ben-Ḥayyim; it is not found in the extant manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum or in the Arabic version of the Samaritans, or in any other Samaritan source I have been able to retrace. Nevertheless, it is typologically similar to many Samaritan readings in that it implies taking the nota accusativi as a preposition meaning “with” (interpreted as “from with” in the context).

6

Jan Joosten LXX MT SP

Οὐκ ἔστιν φωνὴ ἐξαρχόντων It is not a voice of those striking up κατ᾿ ἰσχὺν οὐδὲ φωνὴ a song of force, nor the voice of those ἐξαρχόντων τροπῆς, ἀλλὰ striking up a song in a rout, but a φωνὴν ἐξαρχόντων οἴνου voice of those striking up a song of ἐγὼ ἀκούω wine I hear. ‫ֲלּוׁשה קֹול עַּנֹות אָנ ִֹכי ׁש ֹ ֵמ ַע‬ ָ ‫אֵין קֹול עֲנֹות ּגְבּורָה ְואֵין קֹול עֲנֹות ח‬ ‫אין קול ענות גברה ואין קול ענות חלושה קול עונות אנכי שמע‬

Although the Samareitikon diverges a great deal from the Septuagint, agreeing pointedly with the SP, it preserves the conjunction ἀλλά, which has no equivalent in the Hebrew text. 21 Rather than attributing this to coincidence, I see this as the Samareitikon’s being a somewhat radical rewriting of the Septuagint. Anonymous Readings Representing the Samareitikon Field counted 43 Samareitikon readings, a number that is still regularly quoted in reference works and encyclopedia articles. 22 Samuel Kohn in the 19th century knew several more readings, however, and as more ancient manuscripts were collated, the actual number of readings grew. The Cambridge and Göttingen editions of the Septuagint increased the number, successively. Reinhard Pummer, who recently drew up a list on the basis of the Göttingen Pentateuch, assures us that 70 readings are marked (το) σαμ in the manuscripts. 23 To these marked readings, a number of anonymous readings need to be added. Field recognized four anonymous marginal readings as belonging to the Samareitikon. Geiger added about 12, and Kohn around 50. In the preparation of the Göttingen volume of Leviticus, Detlef Fraenkel noted that anonymous readings in the margin of Codex M and its group tended to agree with the Samaritan Targum in the same way as the Samareitikon readings. 24 In the second apparatus of the Göttingen Leviticus, 74 anonymous readings are identified as being equal or similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch. Altogether some 100 readings are to be reckoned with. These anonymous readings indeed closely resemble the marked Samareitikon readings. They agree with the Samaritan Pentateuch where it diverges from the MT: 21. Other Samareitikon readings that have preserved elements of the Septuagint are: Exod 26:5; Num 4:25; and 31:16. In a few instances, the reading agrees in small details with the Septuagint and MT against the Samaritan Pentateuch: see Gen 50:19 and Exod 14:20. Compare what was said in n. 15 above. 22.  See, e.g., Brock, “Bibelübersetzungen I,” 169; Fernández Marcos, Introducción, 174. 23.  Pummer, “Greek Bible and the Samaritans.” 24.  See J. W. Wevers, Leviticus, Septuaginta 2/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 32 n. 1.

Septuagint and Samareitikon

7

Lev 19:25 M′ καὶ συνάξετε (ὑμῖν τὴν πρόσοδον αὐτοῦ) and you will gather LXX πρόσθεμα (ὑμῖν τὰ γενήματα αὐτοῦ) an adding MT ‫הֹוסיף‬ ִ ‫ ל‬ ְ to add SP ‫ להאסיף‬ to gather 25 Abstaining from picking the fruit of a fruit-tree for the first four years and not eating it until the fifth year serves to augment the harvest according to the MT but to gather the harvest according to the Samaritan Pentateuch. The interpretation of this divergence cannot be discussed here, but it is clear that the marginal reading in the M group agrees with the SP against the MT. The anonymous readings also agree, sometimes strikingly, with the Samaritan Targum: Lev 11:22 M′ γοβα LXX βροῦχον ST ‫גובה‬ MT ‫ ≈( ָהא ְַרּבֶה‬SP) Instead of the Septuagint’s βροῦχος “locust,” the marginal reading gives a Greek transcription of the Aramaic equivalent in the Samaritan Targum. While clearly reflecting the Samaritan text and exegesis, many of the unmarked readings also link up in some way with the Septuagint, showing that they actually depend on the latter: Lev 4:5 M′ οὗ τετελείωται ὁ τόπος whose place has been made perfect LXX ὁ τετελειωμένος τὰς χεῖρας who has made his hands perfect ST ‫דאשלם ית אתרה‬ MT vacat SP ‫אשר מלא את ידו‬ In translating the idiomatic expression “to fill the hand” (meaning “to consecrate”), the marginal reading reflects the interpretation of “hand” as “place,” in agreement with the Samaritan Targum. At the same time, the reading preserves the verb used in the Septuagint, τελειόω “to make perfect, to consecrate.” 26 25.  This may be a passage where the consonantal text of the SP and the reading tradition disagree; see Tal and Florentin, Pentateuch, 698. The Samaritan Targum reflects the consonants of the SP, however. 26. See also Lev 16:26, where typical Septuagint vocabulary is found in the Sama­ reitikon reading.

8

Jan Joosten

The anonymous readings have the same profile as the marked Samareitikon readings. They are transmitted via the same sources. At times, an anonymous reading in one manuscript is identified as το σαμ in another. 27 For all these reasons, it seems that the marked and unmarked readings all originate from the same textual source. Glosses or Remains of a Complete Version of the Pentateuch? A question that may be addressed at this juncture is the nature of the Samareitikon readings: Are they ad hoc glosses produced on the basis of the Samaritan tradition by a knowledgeable scholar of antiquity? 28 Or are they extracts from a full Greek version of the Pentateuch? Although the first possibility cannot definitively be excluded, the evidence favors the second one. External evidence is tenuous but interesting. Montfaucon drew attention to a note of Epiphanius on the Bible translator Symmachus. Epiphanius states that Symmachus was a Samaritan who converted to Judaism and wrote his translation “in order to refute the interpretation” of his former co-religionaries: 29 Οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ Σύμμαχος πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν παρὰ Σαμαρείταις ἑρμηνειῶν ἑρμηνεύσας τὴν τρίτην ἐξέδωκεν ἑρμηνείαν. This Symmachos published the third translation so as to distort (?) the interpretations in use among the Samaritans. (Epiphanius, De mens. et pond. 16, PG 43, 264)

The passage seems to indicate that the Samaritans had their own Greek translation of the Pentateuch at the time of Symmachus. Origen could therefore have excerpted it in his Hexapla. Montfaucon himself admitted that Epiphanius’s testimony is not always trustworthy, however. Stronger arguments can be drawn from the character of the readings themselves. Some of them are highly original, as we have seen above. Others, however, are rather plain and consist of expressions more or less synonymous with the Septuagintal equivalent. 30 Instead of the Septuagint’s προφυλακή “guard,” for instance, the Samareitikon reading is φύλαξις “guarding” in Exod 12:42 (‫ֻרים‬ ִ‫ׁשּמ‬ ִ ‫ ;)לֵיל‬instead of ἀπερίτμητος, it is ἀκρόβυστος, both words meaning “uncircumcised” (Lev 26:41). 31 Although in these passages the Samareitikon reading conforms to the Samaritan Targum, the Septuagint reading would have been perfectly acceptable as an equivalent. There would have been no reason to provide these Samareitikon readings if they originated as ad hoc renderings of the Samaritan Targum. Thus, these readings appear to witness a running Greek text. 27.  See the list in Pummer, “Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” passim. 28.  As suggested by Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, 122. 29.  Montfaucon, PG 15, col. 36. 30. See Kohn, “Samareitikon,” 51. 31.  See also the readings in Exod 14:15; Lev 25:25; 26:41; 26:43; Num 4:25.

Septuagint and Samareitikon

9

An additional argument is the occasional attestation of doublets (and even one triplet) among the Samareitikon readings: Exod 8:14 σαμ σωροὺς σωρούς· βωμοὺς βωμούς LXX θημωνιὰς θημωνιάς MT ‫ָרם‬ ִ ‫חמ‬ ֳ ‫ָרם‬ ִ‫חמ‬ ֳ (≈ SP)

heaps, heaps; bases, bases heaps, heaps (The Egyptians gathered the frogs together) in heaps

Such doublets are not easy to explain, but they indicate a high likelihood that the readings were drawn from a Greek source, not produced ad hoc on the basis of the Samaritan tradition. 32 Possible Direct Attestations of the Samareitikon Alongside the marginal readings in Septuagint manuscripts that have been gathered ever-more exhaustively since the 17th century, paleographic and epigraphic evidence has come to light that presents a similar textual profile. The Giessen Fragments In 1911, Alfred Rahlfs and Paul Glaue published four fragments of a Greek manuscript of Deuteronomy that had recently been discovered in Antinoopolis in Egypt (P. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26, parchment, paleographically dated to the 5th–6th century). According to their analysis, the manuscript did not represent the Septuagint but the Samareitikon. Their main arguments were: a.  the manuscript supports the Samaritan reading “Mount Gerizim” (αργαριζιμ or αρ γαριζιμ in Greek) in Deut 27:4, where the MT has “Mount Ebal”—the place where an altar was to be erected upon the people’s entry into the promised land; b.  the manuscript has a number of readings similar though not identical to Samareitikon readings in other passages (notably, συνετοί “understanding” for ‫“ זקנים‬elders,” rendered σοφοί “wise” in the Samareitikon); c.  the manuscript has at least one reading that agrees strikingly though not exclusively with the Samaritan Targum (Deut 29:23[24] ‫—מה חרי האף‬ [ως ις]χυρα η οργη “how strong is the anger”). This conclusion has been accepted widely. It was contested, however, by Emanuel Tov in an article published in 1971. 33 In Tov’s view, the readings singled 32.  Doublets are found also in Exod 26:5; 28:4 (triple translation); Lev 8:9; Num 29:35; 31:18. 33.  For an example of the acceptance of this conclusion, see, e.g., Fernández Marcos, Introducción, 175; E. Tov, “Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the Septuagint?” RB 78 (1971): 355–84.

10

Jan Joosten

out by Rahlfs and Glaue could be explained otherwise: “Mount Gerizim” in Deut 27:4 might reflect the original text of the Septuagint; the agreements with the Samareitikon and the Samaritan Targum could equally well be viewed as agreements with Jewish sources. Moreover, Tov found an argument against the identification of the Giessen fragments with the Samareitikon in the fact, which he demonstrates convincingly, that the fragments represent a revision of the Septuagint. 34 That the Giessen fragments are part of a revision of the Septuagint is an important observation. But it does not militate against Rahlfs and Glaue’s hypothesis. As we have seen, the marked Samareitikon readings likewise link up with the Septuagint in several ways. To my mind, the differences between P. Giessen and the marginal readings are to be explained by the nature of the evidence. The marginal readings may have been selected precisely because they differed from the Septuagint. The Giessen fragments represent a running text, incorporating alongside some striking variants a text that is close to the Septuagint but revises it on the basis of the Hebrew text. Apart from the striking reading in Deut 27:4, there is no overlap between P.  Giessen and the attested Samareitikon readings. Nevertheless, the similar profile of the material does make it likely that the two witnesses ultimately attest the same Greek version produced by and transmitted among the Samaritan community. The Samaritan Inscription from Thessaloniki An inscription discovered in what may be the remains of a Samaritan synagogue in Thessaloniki incorporates a Greek translation of Num 6:22–27, the priestly blessing. 35 In another brief article, Tov has argued that this text also is a revision of the Septuagint. His data are again convincing. But there is an additional dimension to this Greek text: apart from being based on the Septuagint, it also contains a few typical Samaritan readings. In one variant, the extract agrees with the Samaritan reading tradition:

34.  The dependence of the Giessen text on the Septuagint was not entirely overlooked by Rahlfs and Glaue, although they do not stress this characteristic. 35. See the recent edition with a photograph and discussion of earlier literature in D. Noy, A. Panayotov, and H. Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, vol. 1: Eastern Europe, TSAJ 101 (Tübingen:   Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 100–105. The Samaritan character of the inscription is certain: the Greek text of Num 6:22–27 is preceded and followed by a Hebrew benediction in Samaritan script, and the inscription ends with a blessing on the city of Shechem: “Prosper, Neapolis, with those who love you!” The inscription is dated to the 4th–6th century on palaeographic grounds.

Septuagint and Samareitikon

11

Num 6:27 Thess. καὶ θήσεται (= θήσετε, and you will set (my name on them) 36   act. fut. pl.) LXX καὶ ἐπιθήσουσιν and they will set (my name on them) MT ‫ׂשמּו‬ ָ ‫ְ ו‬ and they will set (my name on them) SP ‫( ושמו‬read wšīmû, m. pl. imperative) and set   (my name on them) 37 ST ‫( ושוו‬pael m. pl. imp.) and set (my name on  them) It also agrees with the Samaritan Targum in another detail 38 and gives the name of Moses in the form Μουση, 39 which is unusual in the Septuagintal tradition but corresponds to the Samaritan pronunciation mūši. 40 The text is very short. No marked Samareitikon readings are preserved for this passage, nor do the attested readings correspond to any striking equivalents in the inscription. Nevertheless, the general profile of the text conforms rather well to that of the Samareitikon as far as we can determine on the basis of the other witnesses. Papyrus Geneva 99 P. Geneva 99 (Δ4 in Brooke-McLean) is a tiny fragment from the 5th–6th century containing parts of a Greek translation of Gen 37:3–4, 8–9. Rahlfs argued that it represents the Samareitikon, but Tov contested this identification. In the Göttingen edition of Genesis, the fragment is said to represent a Greek translation of a Jewish Targum. 41 It attests several readings that more closely resemble the Hebrew text (both MT and SP) than does the Septuagint. But it 36.  The verbal form has been parsed as third-person-singular future passive ever since the editio princeps of Pelekides in 1955. It is to be noted, however, that the form θήσεται is not attested as a future passive in Biblical Greek, where τεθήσεται is used instead (also in compounds). In any case, confusion between αι and ε is so frequent in Greek epigraphy that the form may equally well be read as second-plural future active. In view of the manifest Samaritan character of the inscription and the proximity of the latter reading to the Samaritan tradition, this would seem to be preferable. 37. Ms shechem 6 actually reads ‫ ;ושימו‬see Tal and Florentin, Pentateuch, 425. 38.  In Num 6:22, the inscription has ἐλάλησεν μετά “he spoke with” instead of the Setuagint’s ἐλάλησεν πρός “he spoke to.” This corresponds to the Samaritan Targum. 39.  The editors propose normalizing this to Μωυση, but there seems to be no good reason to do so. See Noy, Panayotov, and Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, 1.101. 40.  The form Μουση is found, for Moses, in single witnesses to the Septuagint text of Exod 15:24 and Num 12:2. For more information on the different forms of this name, see W. Genesius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, ed. R. Meyer, H. Donner, and U. Rüterswörden (Berlin: Springer, 2010), 749. 41. J. Wevers, Genesis, Septuaginta 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 28.

12

Jan Joosten

also contains one striking reading that agrees with both the Samaritan reading tradition and the Samaritan Targum: Gen 37:3 P.Gen LXX MT SP STC(EB)

. . .] σοφῶν . . . a son] of wise men υἱὸς γήρους a son of old age ‫ְקנִים‬ ֻ‫בֶן ז‬ ‫( בן זקנים‬read ban zåqīnem) ‫ בר חכימין‬ a son of wise men

The rendering σοφῶν agrees with the Samaritan reading tradition, where the Hebrew equivalent is vocalized as a masculine-plural adjective: Joseph is “a son of old men” to Jacob; it agrees with the Samaritan Targum in that “old men” is interpreted as “wise men.” The textual character of the fragment is thus compatible with Rahlfs’s suggestion. The Greek Bible of the Samaritans Each of the three witnesses inspected in this section represents a Greek version of the Pentateuch in use among Samaritan readers. It is practically impossible to prove that the three represent the same Greek text, and equally hard to prove that any of them represents the version from which the marked Samareitikon readings were excerpted. Nevertheless, analogy and general likelihood suggest that Greek-speaking Samaritans in Late Antiquity would have used and worked from only one Pentateuch text—a text known, perhaps, in a variety of forms in different localities but ultimately going back to a single textual form. In the present state of our knowledge, it seems legitimate, therefore, to attribute the marginal readings and the other three witnesses to the same Greek version, the one referred to in Antiquity as the Samareitikon. 42 Conclusions and Perspectives Looking back at the different pieces of the puzzle, a global picture emerges that, in spite of many holes, allows the formulation of a hypothesis. The Date of the Samareitikon In the 19th century, Kohn and Geiger situated the origin of the Samareitikon readings shortly after the time of Alexander the Great, around the same time that the Jews produced their Greek version of the Torah. 43 As Rahlfs and Glaue 42.  The Syrohexapla and a few Greek minuscules contain the translation of “harmonizing” pluses in the Samaritan Pentateuch. The relation of these additions to the Samareitikon is doubtful, however. See Pummer, “Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” 313–14, for a list of these pluses. 43.  Kohn, “Samareitikon,” 52; Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, 122. The same time frame is adopted in the idiosyncratic theory of Gaster, which was defended in his

Septuagint and Samareitikon

13

realized, the date envisaged by Kohn and Geiger can hardly be correct. If the Samareitikon was a revision of the Septuagint, it must be later. This would also be in agreement with more recent work on the date of the Samaritan Targums. 44 How much later is hard to say. If the claim that Samareitikon readings were included in the margins of the Hexapla is rejected, as I think it should be, the only remaining terminus ad quem is the date of the manuscripts. The Sama­ reitikon could then have emerged at any point in time between, roughly, the 1st century b.c.e. and the 5th century c.e. The only specific indication of a more precise period would be the historical one derived from Epiphanius by Montfaucon. If Symmachus was a Samaritan converted to rabbinic Judaism, and if he intended by his translation to refute the Greek version already in use among his former coreligionaries, and if this version was the Samareitikon, then the latter must have been in existence before the year 200 c.e. or so. Recent investigations—by Barthélemy, van der Kooij, and Salvesen 45—have shown that Epiphanius’s testimony may originate from a reliable source (perhaps Origen), and that the main elements of his testimony on Symmachus may be authentic. But this whole line of reasoning remains tenuous. The time frame implied by Epiphanius’s stray remark seems rather plausible, however. If Greek-speaking Samaritans produced a Greek version of the Pentateuch agreeing with their Hebrew text and with their exegetical traditions, it stands to reason that they would have done so shortly after that text and those traditions emerged. The definitive “parting of ways” between Jews and Samaritans may have set in with the destruction of the Temple on Mount Gerizim by John Hyrcanus at the end of the 2nd century b.c.e., and seems to have been accomplished by the end of the 1st century c.e. 46 Both the consonantal text and the reading tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch may have been fixed during this same period. 47

Schweich lectures of 1923; see M.  Gaster, The Samaritans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925), 112ff. 44.  See A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, vol. 3 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1983); R. Macuch, “Les bases philologiques de l’herméneutique et les bases herméneutiques de la philologie chez les Samaritains,” in Études samaritaines: Pentateuque et Targum—exégèse et philologie, chroniques, ed. J.-P. Rothschild and G. D. Sixdenier (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 149–58. 45.  See A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, JSSM 15 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1991), 283–97, where earlier literature is discussed. 46.  See above, n. 4. 47. See S.  Schorch, “La formation de la communauté samaritaine au 2e siècle avant J.-Chr. et la culture de lecture du Judaïsme,” in Un carrefour dans l’histoire de la Bible, ed. I. Himbaza and A. Schenker, OBO 223 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 5–20.

14

Jan Joosten

What Was the Samareitikon? In earlier publications, the Samareitikon has often been viewed as the Samaritan equivalent of the Septuagint. In light of what has been said so far, however, it seems more judicious to qualify the Samareitikon as the Samaritan equivalent of Theodotion or Aquila. 48 As the proto-MT and rabbinic interpretation gained prominence, from the 1st century b.c.e. onward, learned Greekspeaking Jews produced revisions of the Septuagint version that agreed better with the standards of their time. The earliest evidence for this process of textual adjustment is the kaige recension attested in the Twelve Prophets Scroll discovered in Nahal Hever. Later stages of the same process are Theodotion and Aquila. The revisers in the Kaige-Theodotion-Aquila school brought the Septuagint into line with the emerging Masoretic Text, both on the word level and on the level of larger-scale differences. They developed an increasingly consistent method that allowed them to express in Greek whatever was present in Hebrew. They also translated the Greek text in a way that agreed with the exegetical and theological norms of their day. Renderings of this school often cohere with exegetical niceties that are also transmitted in the rabbinic targums and midrashic literature. Roughly during the same period, it seems, Greek-speaking Samaritans adapted the Septuagint Pentateuch to the textual and exegetical norms that had emerged within their circle. The product of this effort was the Samareitikon, the scattered attestations of which have been charted above. Like their Jewish colleagues, the Samaritan revisers sought to adapt the Greek version to the Hebrew text that had come to be adopted by their community. Their renderings adhere more literally to the Hebrew wording than does the Septuagint—although they never attained the degree of accuracy (some would say fanaticism) that is evinced in Aquila. And just as the Jewish recensions are close to the Jewish targums in regard to their theology and exegetical basis, so the Samareitikon is close to Samaritan exegesis as expressed in the Samaritan Targum. Implications for the Septuagint This brings us back, in extremis, to the Septuagint. How can one explain that Greek-speaking Samaritans based their version of the Pentateuch on the Septuagint? Did they not have the resources necessary to produce their own Greek version from scratch? Is that why they borrowed the Jewish translation? A possible analogy to this process is that of the Arabic version of the Samaritan Pentateuch. When Aramaic had died out as a living language and an Arabic version became necessary, the Samaritans did not produce a fresh translation from within their own tradition. They borrowed the tafsir of Saadia Gaon, and adapted it progressively to their own text and exegesis. The Arabic translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch is attested in a bewildering variety of 48. Compare Schenker, “Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon,” 111–12.

Septuagint and Samareitikon

15

manuscripts and text-types, but the Saadianic substratum clearly appears in all old manuscripts, as is indeed noted by Samaritan authorities. 49 Perhaps something similar happened a thousand years earlier: observing the need for a Greek version of their holy scriptures, the Samaritans took over the Jewish Septuagint and adapted it to their own traditions. A different approach seems to be preferable, however. The Septuagint version of the Pentateuch was produced, as practically all specialists agree, during the first half of the 3rd century b.c.e. This is more than two centuries before the “schism” between Jews and Samaritans according to recent research on this issue. Several sources attest animosity between the respective religious communities, one being centered in Jerusalem and the one on Gerizim. 50 The temple establishment in Jerusalem may not have recognized the legitimacy of the temple on Mount Gerizim (built early in the 5th century, perhaps), and vice versa. But a clean break between the two communities is unlikely to have come about before the destruction of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim by John Hyrcanus at the end of the 2nd century b.c.e. In this perspective, it makes little sense to attribute the Greek translation of the Pentateuch to Jews, as opposed to Samaritans. Josephus reports on conflicts in Alexandria, probably in the 2nd century b.c.e., between those who recognized only Jerusalem as the spiritual center of their faith and those who were attached to Mount Gerizim. 51 Even if these reports contain a kernel of truth, they should probably not be interpreted to mean that these two groups represented distinct and separate communities— if Josephus saw things this way, his views may have been anachronistic. It is much more reasonable to suppose that Egyptian Judaism of the Hellenistic period was composed of a group looking to Jerusalem and a group looking to Gerizim, in addition perhaps to some who recognized the legitimacy of both sanctuaries, and some who could not care less. The community among which the Septuagint came into being included the forebears of both those who would later adhere to Pharisaic/proto-Rabbinic Judaism and those who would later be called Samaritans. If this line of reasoning is sound, it turns out that the Greek-speaking Samaritans who produced the Samareitikon did not borrow the Septuagint from the Jews. They updated and adapted their received text of the Pentateuch to more recent conditions. In this respect, they were acting in the same way as the Jewish groups responsible for the kaige-Theodotion-Aquila recensions of the Septuagint. 49.  See H. Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989), 1.iii–iv. 50.  See, e.g., Sir 50:26. 51.  Ant. 12.7–10 and 13.74–79. For analysis and bibliographical references, see R. Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, TSAJ 129 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 179–99.

The Text-Critical Contribution of the Antiochean Greek and Old Latin Texts—Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11 Julio Trebolle Barrera Universidad Complutense, Madrid In the last 40 years, vast changes have taken place in all the fields of biblical research but most significantly in the area of the historical criticism of the text of the Hebrew Bible, thanks in a large measure to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The faithfulness of the text transmitted by the medieval Masoretic tradition has been confirmed, but at the same time, the text of the Greek version has been vindicated as the reflection of a Hebrew Vorlage different from the version transmitted by the Masoretic tradition. Other Hebrew texts also, which reflect a textual plurality unimaginable only two decades ago, have been acknowledged, especially regarding the historical books or Former Prophets. Goal and Methodology The aim of this essay is to present a practical case of textual criticism, using as a starting point the Old Latin (OL) and its Antiochean Greek Vorlage, with the aim of establishing the Old Greek (OG) text. The conclusion of this case study will lead us to a series of considerations regarding the history of the text of the historical books. Special attention will be given to the question of whether adequate methodology has been employed regarding the plural textual transmission of these books. In the landscape of biblical studies, specifically textual criticism, emphasizing the importance of the OL version is at the very least odd, if not slightly aberrant. While the Vulgate has been generally devaluated, the OL has practically been forgotten. Nevertheless, the OL translates with remarkable literality a Greek text of the 2nd century, earlier than Origen’s Hexaplaric recension. Author’s Note:  I thank Andrés Piquer Otero for translating this paper from the Spanish original. This research has been carried out within the frame of the project “Edición electrónica políglota-sinóptica de 1–2 Reyes” of the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, 2010–13.

17

18

Julio Trebolle Barrera

Its text therefore has considerable critical value. In order to remind us of the importance of this version, I will present a brief summary of the contribution of the OL to the textual study of several biblical books. •  In the historical books, particularly in 1–2 Samuel, the OL represents a proto-Lucianic Greek text that is very close to the original Greek version, which in turn was based on a Hebrew text that is different from the Masoretic tradition and that quite frequently agrees with the Qumran text of Samuel. 1 •  In Exodus, the OL (Monacensis) knew a different version of chs. 36– 40, where the LXX lacks parts of the MT and occasionally provides additional details. •  In Joshua, the OL reflects the Syrian or Lucianic text transmitted by manuscripts gn-dpt (Thdt). At times, it has important critical value for the reconstruction of the LXX text. 2 •  In Judges, Billen underscored the value of the OL (Lugdunensis), proving that it is based on a text very similar to the LXX original. Its evidence together with other versions, such as the Sahidic Coptic, allows us to retrieve the earliest form of the LXX. 3 •  In Jeremiah, the Wirceburgensis codex of the OL omits MT 39:1– 2. Origen’s Greek text marks these verses with an asterisk. This combined evidence indicates that these verses did not appear in the LXX, and neither did vv. 4–13. This is another example demonstrating the importance of the OL as a witness to the OG and to a very early form of the Hebrew. 4 •  In Ezekiel, the OL (Wirceburgensis) and Greek manuscript 967 are the only witnesses preserved that show that the order of chs. 37–39 in the MT is not the original order. The earliest text followed the sequence 38–39–37 and omitted 36:23c–28. 5 The OL and the Coptic version often follow the text of 967. 1.  E.  Ulrich, “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel: 1980 Proceedings IOSCS, ed. E. Tov (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980) 121–65; idem, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1978). 2.  J. Trebolle Barrera, “The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honor of Johan Lust, ed. F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne with the collaboration of B. Doyle (Leuven: University Press and Peeters, 2005) 401–14. 3.  A. V. Billen, “The Old Latin Version of Judges,” JTS 43 (1942): 140–49, esp. p. 145. 4.  P.-M. Bogaert, “La Vetus Latina de Jérémie: Texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jer 39 et 52),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible, ed. A. Schenker, SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 51–82. 5.  P. -M. Bogaert, “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante: Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le papyrus 967,” Bib 59 (1978): 384–95.

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11

19

•  In Daniel, papyrus 967 represents the earlier form of the Greek text, the order of chapters of which was 1–4, 7–8, 5–6, and 9–12, followed by the stories of Bel and the Dragon and Susanna. This arrangement is attested by the Latin writer Quodvultdeus. 6 The quotations by Justin, Tertulian (partly), Cyprian, and Victorinus of Pettau fall somewhere between the LXX and Theodotion. 7 •  In the Song of Songs, the OL presents the same verse order in ch. 5 as in Greek Papyrus R 952 (5:12, 14b, 13, 14a, 15). 8 •  In Job, the OL quotations by the Latin Fathers, as well as the Coptic Sahidic attest a shorter text (compared with the MT) that is very close to the Greek original. 9 •  In the book of Esther, “The Greek model of the Old Latin (La-GrIII) represents the first Greek translation of the book, and the other two forms, the L text (GrII) and the LXX text (GrI), are later.” 10 Some of the books mentioned above have appeared in the Qumran collection in textual forms closest to the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, such as 4QSama and 4QJerb, d, or in an independent tradition, such as 4QJosha, 4QJudga. Other books that attest plural editions besides Joshua are: Judges, Samuel, Jeremiah, Exodus, Numbers, Ezekiel, Daniel, Song of Songs, Job, and possibly Esther. 11 Therefore, the secondary versions of the LXX play an important role in the identification of the ancient strata of the LXX and, occasionally, of its Hebrew Vorlage when it differs from the MT. 12 6.  A. Geissen, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap. 5–12 zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther 1,1a–2.15 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967, PTA 5 (Bonn: Habelt, 1969). 7.  R. Bodenmann, Naissance d’une exégèse: Daniel dans l’Église ancienne des trois premiers siècles (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986) 10–106. 8.  D. De Bruyne, “Les Anciennes Versions latines du Cantique des Cantiques,” Revue bénédictine de critique, d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 38 (1926): 97–122. 9.  F. C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, with an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah (Cambridge, 1896), 8–9 and 32–34; L. Dieu, “Nouveaux fragments préhexaplaires du livre de Job en copte sahidique,” Muséon 31 (1912): 147–85. 10.  J.-C. Haelewyck, “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint: With Special Emphasis on the Book of Esther,” JTS 57 (2006): 439–73. 11. E. Ulrich, “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text,” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995, ed. D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks, STDJ 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 78–105. 12.  In the Apocrypha, the OL preserves the original order of the text of Ecclesiasticus / Sirach against the whole Greek manuscript tradition that has 13:13b–36:10 before 30:25– 33:15a. In Baruch, the OL translates four textual forms, two of them dependent on the older Greek. Judith has been transmitted in three forms: that of the LXX, the “Lucianic” text, and ms 58, followed by the OL. The closer the variant is to the text of ms 58, the higher the guarantee of its originality is. In Tobit, the OL, although not free of corruption and contamination, contributes to the reconstruction of the text of the Sinaitic recension (GII), the oldest of the three types of Greek texts. In 1 Maccabees, the OL text often departs from the known

20

Julio Trebolle Barrera

Considering only the books of Samuel–Kings for a moment, the critical value of the OL is linked to that of its Vorlage: an Antiochean Greek text of a preHexaplaric and pre-Lucianic type which the Latin version translates in an extremely literal way. The contribution of the OL to the history of the text has been approached in different ways. Vercellone observed the affinity between the OL text in the marginal notes in some codices from León (in the north of Spain), and the Greek Lucianic text. 13 Wellhausen and Driver underlined the points of contact between the OL readings and the Lucianic or Antiochean text. 14 Burkitt was the first to observe that the OL text reflects a “Lucianic before Lucian” Greek text. 15 On the other hand, Rahlfs and Dieu spoke of “Lucianic retouches” in the OL of Kings i.e., Lucianisms in the OL; these would not indicate early readings but rather be the result of late revisions, made from readings of the Lucianic Greek, quite widespread in the West. 16 B. Fischer, however, argued that he could prove the opposite. To do this, he advanced the fact that Cyprian’s Latin texts have more points of contact with the Lucianic Greek (necessarily earlier than the 4th-century Lucian) than with the text considered to be the LXX, that is, the text following Codex Vaticanus (or the B text); besides, later Latin writers tend to correct many Lucianisms in favour of readings extant in the majority of the LXX mss. Even though it is not possible to accurately characterize the precise type of work done by Lucian in his recension, the OL seems to go back to a similar Greek text-type which has not been preserved. According to Fischer, “A text of the OL is older and more original when it has a higher number of Lucianic readings.” 17 Indeed, the evidence of 4QSama (4Q51), which evidences readings that agree with the Lucianic text against the MT and the LXXB, proves the hypothesis of the existence of a “Lucian before Lucian.” 18 The OL must be the translation of Greek manuscript tradition. In many cases, it is attesting a lost Greek text that is superior to the one we know. In 2 Maccabees, the OL and the Armenian version bear joint witness to a now-lost short form of Greek text. Most parts of the OL additions in Wisdom go back to the first Greek translation. 13. C. Vercellone, Variae Lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum (Rome, 1864), 2.436. 14. J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871), 221–24; S.  R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), lxxvi–lxxx. 15. F.  C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894), cxvii. 16. A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königbücher, Septuaginta Studien 3 (Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 169; L. Dieu, “Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille latine (I et II Samuel),” RB 16 (1919): 390–403. 17. B.  Fischer, “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher,” Studia Anselmiana 27–28 (1951): 175; R. S. Haupert, “The Relation of Codex Vaticanus and the Lucianic Text in the Books of the Kings from the Viewpoint of the Old Latin and the Aethiopic Versions” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1930), 29. 18.  F. M. Cross, “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts,” Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 306–20 (esp. p. 315).

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11

21

a Greek text very similar to the text that was the basis of the Lucianic recension. Thus, it is an important aid in the identification of pre- or proto-Lucianic readings preserved in the Antiochean text, as well as in the reconstruction of the OG and, ultimately, its Hebrew Vorlage. 19 Before using the OL version for textual criticism of the LXX, one must discard the internal OL variants produced during the textual transmission of this version: scribal errors, omissions and additions, linguistic or stylistic revisions, influences of the Vulgate tradition in the pre-Jerome text, and so on. Another very important preliminary stage would be to distinguish between the text transmitted as OL that reflects a kaige Greek text (LXXB) and the proper OL text that follows a pre-Lucianic and OG original. 20 Thus, for instance, in 2  Kgs 3:4 a reading transmitted as OL (Al.) in the León codices (Beuron 91–95), 21 et Mosa rex Moab erat pecuarius, et praestabat regi Israel ex subiectione centum millis, agrees with the kaige text: και Μωσα βασιλευς Μωαβ ην νωκηδ και επεστρεψεν τω βασιλει Ισραηλ εν τη επαναστασει εκατον (LXXAB). The expression ex subiectione corresponds to εν τη επαναστασει which has no equivalent in the MT and is missing in the pre-Lucianic text that is attested in the Armenian, Ethiopic, and the OL; it is marked with an obelus in the Syro-Hexaplaric version. In contrast, the reading Et Mosa rex Moab ferebat tributum regi Israel centum ignores the addition of the kaige text (ex subiectione). It translates a pre-Lucianic text preserved in a typical duplicate of the later Lucianic text, which juxtaposes an OG reading with a kaige reading. In this duplicate, the expression ην φερων φορον belongs to the OG text, whereas και επιστρεφων constitutes the kaige reading. Following are two examples from the marginal readings of the León codices (Beuron 91–95.) They belong to kaige section γδ (1 Kings 22–2 Kings). These feature longer readings, which nevertheless correspond to the pre-Lucianic / OG text and go back to a Hebrew Vorlage that differs from the MT. It is remarkable that, in the second case, the Antiochean is attested in the OL, Armen­ ian (in its pre-Hexaplaric stratum), Coptic, and Ethiopic: 19.  P.-M. Bogaert, “Bulletin de la Bible latine (1955–75),” Bulletin d’ancienne littérature chrétienne latine 5, Revue bénédictine de critique, d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 74–84 (1964–74): 162; E. Ulrich, “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel: 1980 Proceedings IOSCS, ed. E. Tov (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980), 121–65. 20. J. Trebolle Barrera, “Textos ‘Kaige’ en la Vetus Latina de Reyes (2 Re 10,25–28),” RB 89 (1982): 198–209. 21.  Manuscripts 91 (Codex Gothicus Legionensis, dated 960), 92 (Legionensis 2, 1162), 94 (Library of El Escorial, 1478), and 95 (Emilianensis 2–3, 12th century). The edition of these manuscripts by Antonio Moreno is a considerable improvement over the edition by Vercellone cited by Brooke-McLean: A. Moreno Hernández, Las glosas marginales de Vetus latina en las Biblias Vulgatas españolas: 1–2 Reyes (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1992).

22

Julio Trebolle Barrera 1.  1 Kgs 22:32: ‫ יהושפט‬MT; Ιωσαφατ LXXB] + και κυριος εσωσεν αυτον LXXL (bgouc2e2); et Dominus saluauit illum OL; ‫ ויהוה עזרו‬2 Chr 18:31. The presence of this “plus” of LXXL in the OL proves that it is earlier than the historical Lucian. The fact that it also appears in Chronicles indicates that it was part of the Hebrew tradition. One could argue that it is an interpolation introduced in Kings, 22 but doubtless it is an ancient reading and belongs to the OG. 23 2.  1 Kgs 22:34: ‫ בקשת‬MT; τοξον LXXB] + αυτου LXXL (boxyc2e2); suam OL Arm Copt Aeth(uid). The proto-Lucianic character of the reading αυτου is proven by its presence in the OL, Armenian (in its pre-Hexaplaric stratum), Coptic, and Ethiopic. These daughter versions confirm a pre-Lucianic (prior to the historical Lucian) provenance of many readings in the Antiochean text, which are identical or very close to the OG texts. It is possible to add to these versions the Georgian text that occasionally attests pre-Lucianic (OG) readings, especially when it agrees with other versions on which it does not directly depend, such as the Armenian, OL, Ethiopic, and Sahidic Coptic versions. 24

A striking case has been presented by Andrés Piquer. 1 Sam 28:3, 9 features the rare Hebrew word ‫( ידעני‬yideʿonî) / ‫ידענים‬, “wizard/s,” translated in the B majority text by a more precise expression: τους γνωστας. The Lucianic text offers τους αποφθεγγομενους απο της γης, “those who utter from the earth”; which is reflected exactly in the OL as et eos qui respondebant a terra; in Sahidic Coptic “those who would answer from the earth”; and also in the Georgian version “those who speak from the earth.” This is a very meaningful case of variant readings that are attested “in the Lucianic text and in several (and mutually unrelated) secondary versions, some of which (mainly OL) are recurrently used as a touchstone to define Lucianic variants as Old Greek readings.” 25 22.  Montgomery argues that it was added “on the assumption that the king’s cry was to God”; J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), 346. 23. R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 50; G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984). 1.370. 24. A. Piquer, P. Torijano, and J. Trebolle Barrera, “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions: The Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III–IV Regnorum,” in Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism, ed. H.  Ausloos et al., BETL 213 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 251–81. 25. A. Piquer, “Who Names the Namers? The Interpretation of Necromantic Terms in Jewish Translations of the Bible,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honor of Julio Trebolle Barrera, ed. A. P. Otero and P. A. Torijano (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 241–276, esp. p. 267. The term was rendered “Wahrsager” in W. Kraus and M. Karrer (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung (Stuttgart:

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11

23

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11 Our case study in this paper is 2 Kgs 8:10–11. The MT reads:

‫אמָר לֹא [לֹו] חָיֹה ִת ְחיֶה ְו ִה ְר ַאנִי יְהוָה ִּכי־מֹות יָמּות׃ ַוּיַעֲמֵד אֶת־ ָּפנָיו‬ ֱ ‫יׁשע ל ְֵך‬ ָ ‫ֱל‬ ִ ‫‏וַּיֹאמֶר ֵאלָיו א‬ :‫ָׂשם עַד־ּבֹׁש ַוּי ְֵבּךְ ִאיׁש ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬

The NJPS translates: Elisha said to him, “Go and say to him: You will recover. However, the Lord has revealed to me that he will die.” The man of God kept his face expressionless for a long time.

This rendering ventured to identify the subject of the last clause (‫ ויעמד‬. . .) as “the man of God.” Additionally, it interprets the clause to describe the physical signs of the ecstatic state of the man of God: “the man of God kept his face expressionless for a long time.” The NRSV translates the verse in a different way, avoiding an explicit subject: “He fixed his gaze and stared at him, until he was ashamed (‫)עד בש‬.” BHS marks v. 11a as “uncertain”; it is absent in the Syriac version; and is one of the cases qualified as a crux interpretum. A minor difficulty is the kethiv ‫לא‬, usually corrected into ‫לו‬, with the qere, followed by 18 medieval manuscripts as well as by the LXX and the other versions. Major difficulties lie in the MT expressions ‫ ויעמד את פניו‬and ‫וישם עד בש‬, the text and meaning of which are uncertain indeed (see table 1). The methodological process to follow is summarized in the title of a paper of mine published in Textus in 1984: “From the Old Latin through the Old Greek to the Old Hebrew (2 Kgs 10:25–28).” 26 The analysis starts off with the secondary versions, not only the OL, but also the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Georgian. According to the methodology proposed by Lagarde following Lachmanian theories, the first step to take in order to recover the OG text would be to identify the LXX recensions, since they constitute a key element in the process of distinguishing between primary and secondary readings. The analysis follows the order of the text and advances from the least important and more problematic to the more determinant and, I hope, safer. (1) The OL has for the Hebrew ‫—לך‬vade, as is the case in the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. The three of them reflect the Greek πορευου attested by the Lucianic recension, against the reading δευρο in the Greek majority text represented by the B text, which corresponds to that of the kaige or proto-Theodotionic Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009). This translation is too generic, based on the development of the ancient versions presented by A. Piquer. It was the bias of the ancient versions, which progressively distanced themselves from the technical, specialized terms about the mantic practices of the ancient Near East and opted for more-generic words such as επαοιδος οr τερατοσκοπος and the terms that are used today to translate the pair of MT words ‫ אבות‬and ‫ידענים‬, “medium” and “wizard,” respectively. 26. J. Trebolle Barrera, “From the Old Latin through the Old Greek to the Old Hebrew (2 Kgs 10:25–28),” Textus 11 (1984): 17–36. Today, I would correct this title to read, not of “the Old Hebrew,” but of “an Old Hebrew.”

24

Julio Trebolle Barrera

Table 1 OL

LXX

LXXB

L

MT

Vade et dic

Πορευου και ειπε

Δευρο ειπον

‫לך אמר‬

illi

αυτω (‫)לו‬

αυτω (‫)לו‬

]‫לא [לו‬

Vivens vives tu

Ζωη ζησει

Ζωη ζηση

‫חיה‬ ‫תחיה‬

~

και εδειξεν μοι

~

Κυριος

et ipse morte

και αυτος θανατω

οτι θανατω

morietur

αποθανειται

αποθανη

καθ’ ως εδειξε μοι

~

~

Kυριος

~

~

et stetit

και εστη Αζαηλ

και παρεστη

ante faciem eius

κατα προσωπον αυτου

τω προσωπω αυτου

et posita erant

και παρεθηκεν

και εθηκεν

‫והראני‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫כי מות‬ ‫ימות‬

‫ויעמד‬ ‫את פניו‬ ‫וישם‬

ενωπιον αυτου munera

τα δωρα (= ‫)מנחה‬

usque dum putrida

εως ησχυνετο

εως αισχυνης

‫עד בש‬

fierent

recension. The version πορευου is, on the other hand, pre-Lucianic, as suggested by the OL and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. The translation of the Hebrew ‫ לך‬as δευρο is a feature of the kaige recension, as shown by the equivalents of ‫לכי‬/‫ לך‬in 2 Kings (kaige section). 27 On the other hand, the use of δευρο (sing.) and δευτε (pl.) is more frequent in 2 Kings than in any other biblical book. The evidence is presented in tables 2–3. (2) I note in passing the literalism of the OL as well as of the Greek it renders. It is manifested in the translation of the typical Hebrew expressions ‫חיה‬ ‫ תחיה‬and ‫מות ימות‬, rendered as Ζωη ζηση = Vivens vives and θανατω αποθανη = morte morietur. (3) After this, the OL reads et stetit ante faciem eius, corresponding to the Lucianic reading και εστη Αζαηλ κατα προσωπον αυτου, the B text και παρεστη τω προσωπω αυτου, and MT ‫ויעמד את פניו‬. The Lucianic text makes the subject explicit here: “Hazael” and not “the man of God.” Frequently, the Lucianic recension has a double translation for ‫את פניו‬: the first is κατα προσωπον αυτου, 27. H. Ávalos, “δεῦρο–δεῦτε and the Imperatives of ‫הלך‬: New Criteria for the ‘Kaige’ Recension of Reigns,” EstBib 49 (1989): 165–76.

25

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11 Table 2

‫ לכי‬,‫ = לך‬δευρο kaige version; πορευου OG version 2 Kings  1:3 δευρο] πορευθητι A 55 121 247 372 Arm Aeth SyrH; πορευου 158 243aa  3:13 δευρο omnes  4:3 δευρο] Abi Arm Aeth SyrH(mg) (= πορευου)  4:7 δευρο] πορευου 19 82 93 108 127 372 700 Arm Aeth  4:25 δευρο] omit 19 82 93 108 700; sub ÷ SyrH  4:29 δευρο] πορευου 19 108 82 93 127 700 Arm Aeth OL  5:5 δευρο] Abi Arm Aetha (= πορευου)  5:19 δευρο] πορευου 19 82 93 108 158 127 Arm Aeth  6:3 δευρο omnes  7:9 δευρο και εισελθωμεν] πορευθωμεν 19 93 108 127  8:1 δευρο] πορευου 19 82 93 108 127 Arm Aeth Thdt  8:8 δευρο] πορευου 19 82 93 108 127 93 Aeth; exi Arm  8:10 δευρο] πορευθητι 19 93 108 127 Arm Aeth OL  9:1 δευρο] πορευου 19 82 93 108 127 158 Arm Aeth OL 10:16 δευρο omnes 14:8 δευρο] δευτε omnes

= OG = OG? = OG = OG = OG = OG? = OG = OGbb = OG = OG = OG = OG

aa.  OG πορευου = ‫ ≠ עלה לך לקראת‬MT ‫קום עלה לקראת‬. bb.  OG has two verbs, και νυν πορευθωμεν, against three verbs in the MT ‫לכו ונבאה‬ ‫ ונגידה‬and in the kaige B text. NRSV “Therefore let us go and tell” omits the MT ‫לכו‬. The exact match of the MT ‫ לכו‬should be δευτε, not δευρο. Also the transition from “you” to “we” in the MT does not make much sense: “Go, let us go and announce.”

Table 3

‫ = לכו‬δευτε kaige version; πορευθητε / πορευεσθε OG version 2 Kings  1:2 δευτε] πορευθητε Arm Aeth OL = OG  1:6 δευτε omnes  6:2 δευτε] πορευεσθε 19 93 108 127 158 Arm Aeth = OG  6:13 δευτε] πορευθητε και 19 93 108 127 OL; Ite Arm Aeth = OG  6:19 δευτε omnes  7:4 δευτε omnes  7:14 δευτε] πορευθητε 19 93 108 127 245 Arm Aeth = OG 22:13 δευτε] om Lucifer; Abite Arm

26

Julio Trebolle Barrera Table 4

LXX MT 1 Sam 16:21 και παρειστηκει ενωπιον αυτου ‫ויעמד לפניו‬ 1 Sam 16:22 παριστασθω . . . ενωπιον εμου ‫ לפניו‬. . . ‫יעמד‬ Β 1 Kgs 1:2 και παραστησεται τω βασιλει LXX (Rahlfs); ‫ותעמד לפני המלך‬ ενωπιον τω βασιλει Α; ενωπιον του βασιλεος x; εναντι του βασιλεως L (19 82 93 108 127) 1 Kgs 10:8 οι παρεστηκοτες ενωπιον σου ‫העמדים לפניך‬ 1 Kgs 12:8 των παρεστηκοτων προ προσωπου αυτου ‫העמדים לפניו‬ 1 Kgs 12:10 οι παρεστηκοτες προ προσωπου αυτου > 1 Kgs 17:1 ω παρεστην ενωπιον αυτου ‫עמדתי לפניו‬ 1 Kgs 18:15 ω παρεστην ενωπιον αυτου ‫עמדתי לפניו‬ 2 Kgs 3:14 και εστη ενωπιον αυτου ‫ותעמד לפניו‬ 2 Kgs 4:12 ω παρεστην ενωπιον αυτου ‫עמדתי לפניו‬ 2 Kgs 5:16 ω παρεστην ενωπιον αυτου ‫עמדתי לפניו‬ 2 Kgs 8:9 και εστη ενωπιον αυτου ‫ויעמד לפניו‬

complementing και εστη, the second is ενωπιον αυτου, following right after και παρεθηκεν. Now, ενωπιον αυτου is characteristic of the OG, corresponding to ‫לפניו‬. The verb is reflected both in the LXX (εστη/παρεστη) and in the OL (stetit) in the qal form wayaʾamod, not in hiphil wayyaʾamed as in the MT. This is the usual expression: ‫( עמד‬qal) + ‫ = לפניו‬παρισταναι + ενωπιον + genitive. There are 12 cases of this sort in Samuel–Kings (see table 4). To this list, 2 other cases should be added. 1 Kgs 12:6, ‫העמדים את פני שלמה‬, is the only other case in which the MT features the particle ‫ את‬instead of ‫לפני‬, but the LXX reproduces the usual expression παρεστωτες ενωπιον Σαλωμων here, which suggests the Hebrew expression ‫( העמדים לפני שלמה‬cf. v. 8). In 1 Kgs 1:2, the usual form παρισταναι + ενωπιον + genitive goes back to the OG: this is the reading in manuscript group A 247 ενωπιον (του βασιλεως), against B τω βασιελει, or L εναντι του βασιλεως. Our case, 2 Kgs 8:11, ‫ויעמֵד את פניו‬, is the only case constructed with the verb in hiphil and with the particle ‫את‬. 28 The Greek translation with the dative και παρεστη τω προσωπω αυτου is also rather unusual. In conclusion, the OG reading here is και παρεστη ενωπιον αυτου (“and stood before him”), reflected literally in the OL et stetit ante faciem eius. (4) The next OL reading, et posita erant munera usque dum putrida fierent, further contributes to the reconstruction of the OG text. It agrees with the Lucianic reading και παρεθηκεν τα δωρα (= ‫ )מנחה‬εως ησχυνετο. 28. The hiphil of ‫ עמד‬followed by the particle ‫ את‬appears, albeit without ‫פנים‬, in 1 Kgs 12:32: ‫“ והעמיד בבית אל את כהני הבמות‬and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places,” which is rendered και παρεστησεν εν Βαιθηλ τους ιερεις των υψηλων.

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11

27

Table 5

1 Sam 9:24 1 Sam 9:24 1 Sam 21:7 1 Sam 28:22 2 Sam 12:20 2 Kgs 6:22

LXX MT παρεθηκεν αυτην ενωπιον Σαλωμων ‫וישם לפני שאול‬ παραθες αυτο ενωπιον σου ‫שים לפניך‬ εκ προσωπου κυριου παρατεθηναι αρτ. ‫מלפני יהוה לשום לחם‬ παραθησω ενωπιον σου ψωμον αρτου ‫ואשמה לפניך פת לחם‬ παρεθηκαν αυτω αρτον ‫וישימו לו לחם‬ παραθες αρτους. . . ενωπιον αυτου B; ‫שים לחם ומים לפניהם‬ παραθες αυτοις αρτους. . . L

The Greek verb παρατιθεναι is always constructed with the accusative and corresponds to ‫ שׂים‬in the qal, also always with the accusative (see table 5). The MT expression with the verb missing its complement is odd at the very least. (5) In the OL and LXXL, the complement of the verb et posita erant = και παρεθηκεν is munera = τα δωρα (without equivalent in the MT). In the OG, δωρα is the characteristic equivalent for ‫מנחה‬, compared with the transcription μαναα/μαανα. Rahlfs concluded that the original version contained the transcription μαναα. In his opinion, the Lucianic recension changed μαναα into δωρα due to a desire for stylistic variation. 29 Nevertheless, the transcription μαναα, as other transcriptions in Samuel–Kings, only appears in kaige sections and is therefore a feature of the kaige recension. The OG did not transcribe but translated into Greek the Hebrew technical terms that the kaige recension considered necessary to transcribe. The cases in which the word ‫ מנחה‬appears translated or transcribed are distributed in the non-kaige and kaige sections as follows: 30 Non-kaige sections: δωρα δωρα // 2:46b δωρα την ολοκαυτωσιν B] + το δωρον Ο Arm; * α′ σ′ et donum * SyrH την ολοκαυτωσιν 2° B Z 509 460 Aeth] + και το δωρον Ο rel Arm CopB(vid) SyrH 1 Kgs 10:25 Δωρα 1 Sam 10:27 1 Kgs 5:1 1 Kgs 8:64 1 Kgs 8:64

29. A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königbücher, Septuaginta Studien 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1911), 140. 30. P. Torijano Morales, “Textual Criticism and the Text-Critical Edition of IV Regnorum: The Case of 17:2–6,” After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts— The Historical Books, ed. H.  Ausloos, B.  Lemmelijn, and J.  Trebolle Barrera (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 195–212.

28

Julio Trebolle Barrera Kaige sections:

2 Kgs 8:8 2 Kgs 8:9 2 Kgs 8:11 2 Kgs 17:3 2 Kgs 17:4 2 Kgs 20:2

μαανα / μαναα / μαννα] δωρα L 121mg158 Josephus; δωρα μαανα 318 μαανα / μαννα] δωρα 127mg 460 Josephus; moneta OL > MT LXX] δωρα 19 55 82 93 108 127 158 372 554mg SyrH; munera OL μαανα / μαναα / μαναχ] δωρα L 158-460-700 Lat (munera) μαναα] δωρα L 328 460–700; munera OL; donum ArmM1500 μανααν] δωρα L–82 460 Arm; μαννα δωρα 158

Despite the paucity of cases, it is evident that in the non-kaige section the OG version translated ‫ מנחה‬as δωρον/δωρα (1 Sam 10:27; 1 Kgs 5:1 // 2:46b; 10:25). In 1 Kgs 8:64, Codex Vaticanus alone reads την ολοκαυστωσιν, while the Origenian text (A 247 Arm), α′, σ′, and the Syro-Hexaplaric version preserve the ancient reading και το δωρον (et donum). Notably, in its second occurrence in the same verse, ‫ מנחה‬is transmitted by the original το δωρον in the main textual tradition (with the exception of B Z 509 460 Aeth), together with the Armenian, Coptic (vid), and Syro-Hexaplaric tradition. In the kaige section, the recensional text (LXXB) substitutes the term of the Origenian version δωρα with the transcription μαανα/μαναα. Nevertheless, the Lucianic text, the OL, and Armenian versions, together with the text of Josephus preserve the old reading. E. Tov noted that the transliteration is one of the characteristics of the kaige recension. 31 Besides, it should be taken into consideration that in such cases the Lucianic tradition and other mss related to this text type, as well as the Armenian and Georgian (?)—as in 2 Kgs 17:3.4— have preserved the OG version. Therefore, Rahlfs’s opinion about the secondary character of δωρα must be reconsidered. 32 In this context, our case, 2 Kgs 8:11, becomes especially meaningful. Against the minus in the MT and LXXB, the Lucianic text and OL transmit the OG reading δωρα (munera) as a necessary complement of the verb παρεθηκεν “he set the present. . . .” The sequence of events in the narrative is as follows: “The king said to Hazael: ‘Take a present with you and go to meet the man of God. . . .’ So Hazael went to meet him, taking a present with him” (8:8–9). What is expected is that Hazael deposits the gifts before the man of God, which actually happens in 8:11, according to the OG text: και παρεστη ενωπιον αυτου και παρεθηκεν τα δωρα “and (Hazael) stood before him and he set the present. . . .” The Greek και παρεθηκεν τα 31.  See E.  Tov, “Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament. A Further Characteristic of the Kaige-Th. Revision?” in idem, The Greek and the Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 501–512. 32.  “Noch deutlicher zeigt sich das Streben nach Abwechselung bei L . . . wenn er in II 8,8f. 17,3f je einmal μαναα neben δωρα beibehält,” Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königbücher, 182 (also pp. 108 and 248).

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11

29

δωρα reflects a Hebrew Vorlage ‫וישם את המנחה‬. The verb ‫ שׂים‬in qal, like the matching παρατιθεναι, is always accompanied by an accusative, explicit or implicit (e.g., “and he set (them) before Saul” [1 Sam 9:24]), as displayed in table 5. Again, in 2 Kgs 8:11 the verb ‫ וישׂם‬requires an object, which must be ‫את המנחה‬, as attested by the proto-Lucianic text and the OL. (6) The final MT expression, ‫( עד בשׁ‬ʿad boš) is also difficult, as shown by the diverse proposals of the modern versions: “(kept his face expressionless) for a long time” (NJPS), “(and stared at him) until he was ashamed” (NRSV), “(son regard devint fixe) à ´ lextrême” (BJ), “bis er sich schämte” (Septuaginta Deutsch). This time the difficulty does not lie in the text, but in its meaning, conditioned by the identity of the subject of the preceding verb, either Hazael or the man of God. In order to elucidate this issue, we must return to the OL: (et posita sunt munera) usque dum putrida fierent. This corresponds to the Antiochean text: (και παραθηκεν τα δωρα) εως ου εσαπρισαν “and he deposited the gifts until they became putrid.” The Septuaginta Deutsch translates the Lucianic text “Und Azael trat vor sein Angesicht und legte ihm die Geschenke vor, bis er sich schämte.” Italics mark the differences between L and B. Nevertheless, the Septuaginta Deutsch reproduces in L the translation of B: “bis er sich schämte.” In fact, the Greek construction (τα δωρα) εως ησχυνετο, with a neuter plural subject and singular verb should be translated: “and he set the presents until they became putrid.” The tendency to assimilate the texts confined by tradition to the margins to the central or majority trend has always led copyists, translators, and editors (among them, A. Rahlfs himself) consciously or unconsciously to reproduce the standard text, thus concealing, as in the textual tradition itself, the original variety of readings. The two Greek verbs, σαπριζειν and αισχυνειν, go back to an interplay between the Hebrew roots ‫ באשׁ‬and ‫בוש‬. The verb σαπριζειν appears in the LXX only in this passage and in these manuscripts. The verb σαπριουν translates the Hebrew ‫ באשׁ‬in Qoh 10:1: ‫“ יבאיש‬give off a foul odor.” The noun σαπρια means “rottenness,” “putridity,” like the adjective σαπρος, “rotten,” “putrid.” The noun is used for ‫ באשׁ‬in Joel 2:20: ‫“ ועלה באשו ותעל צחנתו‬its stench and foul smell will rise up.” The Greek αισχυνειν translates ‫ בושׁ‬in the rest of the biblical books, saliently in the Psalms and prophetic books, where it often appears. But in the historical books, the verb ‫ בושׁ‬appears, besides our case, only in Judg 3:25; 5:28; 2 Sam 19:6; 2 Kgs 2:17; 8:11; and 19:26. In three of these cases, it is part of the expression ‫( עד בושׁ‬Judg 3:25, εως ησχυνοντο; 2 Kgs 2:1, 7 εως (ου) ησχυνετο; and 2 Kgs 8:11, εως ησχυνετο LXXL). The verb αισχυνειν comprises the basic meanings “to make ugly, disfigure” and “to be ashamed, feel shame.” The root ‫“ באשׁ‬to be fetid” is paralleled in Akkadian baʾāšu “to smell,” “stink,” with a derivate meaning, “to become odious” in niphal and “make

30

Julio Trebolle Barrera

odious” in hiphil. 33 The verb (baʾaš) appears in four passages: 1 Sam 13:4 (niphal); 27:12 (hiphil); 2 Sam 10:6 (niphal); and 16:21 (niphal). Notably, the Greek translation uses the verbs αισχυνειν and καταισχυνειν. It seems, then, that on certain occasions the roots exchanged meanings. Thus, P. R. Ackroyd interpreted ‫ באשׁ‬as ‫בושׁ‬, relying on the shared Greek equivalents αισχυνειν and καταισχυνειν; 34 he notes, however, that the Vulgate, targum, Peshitta, and Arabic instead imply the meaning “to be evil,” “to do evil,” “to attack”: •  1 Sam 13:4: ‫“ וגם נבאש ישראל בפלשתים‬Israel had become odious to the Philistines,” et erexit se Israel versus Philistiim, Vulg.; ‫אתגרי‬, the targum; also Peshitta and Arabic. •  1 Sam 27:12: ‫“ הבאש הבאיש בעמו בישראל‬he (David) has made himself utterly abhorrent to his people,” multa mala operatus est, Vulg.; ‫אתגראה‬, the Targum; Peshitta and Arabic. •  2 Sam 10:6 (1 Chr 19:6): ‫“ ויראו בני עמן כי נבאשו בדוד‬the Ammonites saw that they had become odious to David,” injuriam fecissent David, Vulg.; ‫אתגריאו‬, the targum, also the Peshitta, Arabic, and Symmachus εκακουργησαν. •  2 Sam 16:21: ‫“ כי נבאשת את אביך‬you have made yourself odious to your father,” quod foedaveris patrem tuum, the Vulgate; ‫אתגריתא‬, targum, Peshitta, and Arabic. According to Ackroyd, the “most probable” explanation for this choice of equivalent—with the meaning “being evil,” “doing evil” or “attacking”— comes from the Aramaic usage of ‫באשׂ‬, although Late Hebrew could also have developed the same meaning. He therefore suggests the existence of a double equivalence for the root: ‫ באשׂ‬I, “stink,” and ‫ באשׂ‬II (= ‫)בושׂ‬, “become ashamed.” As Tsevat has noted, the context in the cited cases is “in the field of government and politics.” In his view, then, the correct meaning would be “to provoke, challenge,” already known by the targum, “to attack.” 35 Thus, S. R. Driver translated ‫ באשׂ‬in 1 Sam 13:4 as “made itself malodorous against.” 36 In the four mentioned passages, the term ‫ באשׁ‬is understood in a context of provocation to war. In 1 Sam 13:4, Israel is said to incur the wrath of the Philistines (having struck down their prefect). In 1 Sam 27:12, Achish is misled to think that “David has made himself utterly abhorred by his people Israel.” In 2 Sam 10:6, the Ammonites humiliate David’s messengers by shaving their beards 33.  BDB, ad. loc. Compare particularly D. Cohen, Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques (Paris: Mouton, 1976), 2.41. 34.  P. R. Ackroyd, “The Hebrew Root ‫באש‬,” JTS n.s. 2 (1951): 31–36. 35. M.  Tsevat, “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel,” JSS 9 (1958): 237–43, esp. pp. 242–43. 36. S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 98.

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11

31

and cutting off their garments. In 2 Sam 16:21, Absalom seizes David’s harem as a sign of rebellion. It seems, then, that ‫ באש‬in the above-mentioned phrases and contexts is a technical term that carries the meaning “to declare war.” The term ‫ באשׁ‬also appears in a context of war in Isa 34:3; Amos 4:10; and Joel 2:20. In the song of the vine (Isa 5:12), the word ‫באשים‬, usually rendered “bitter or wild grapes,” can be also translated, as H. Wildberger does, “overripe, stinking grapes.” 37 The text and context of 2 Kgs 8:11 are comparable to 2 Kgs 2:17 MT, ‫ויפצרו‬ ‫בו עד בש‬, και παρεβιασαντο αυτον εως ησχυνετο “they urged him until he was ashamed” (NRSV), “they kept pressing him for a long time” (NJPS). After the verb ‫“ ויפצרו‬they kept pressing him,” the meaning of ‫ עד בש‬is set in a context of violence. Judg 3:25 is another case in which ‫ עד בש‬is similarly translated as εως ησχυνοντο, which also alludes to a violent situation: the servants of Eglon who thought that the king was relieving himself in the cool chamber “waited until they were embarrassed.” The translation of ‫ עד בש‬with εως ησχυνοντο (Judg 3:25) or εως (ου) ησχυνετο (2 Kgs 2:17) confirms, in our case, the reading of LXXL, εως ησχυνετο against εως αισχυνης of the B text—a single and exceptional choice. (7) It still remains to analyze the expression ‫“ והראני יהוה כי‬the Lord has revealed to me that. . . .” The OL is not aware of this clause. In the Greek textual tradition, it is located at two different points: the B text reads και εδειξεν μοι Κυριος οτι, and like the MT, the clause is placed between the two parallel oracle clauses, “You will certainly recover, but (the Lord has revealed to me that) he will certainly die.” The L text reads καθ’ ως εδειξε μοι Kυριος and places the clause just after the oracle: “‘You will certainly recover,’ but he will certainly die (as the Lord has revealed to me).” The same expression appears again later in v. 13: “The Lord has revealed to me that (you are to be king over Aram).” The narrative combines two elements. The first is the consultation in a case of disease, implying the presentation of gifts by the sick person or his messenger to the man of God who, in return, is expected to pronounce an oracle. The second is a prophetic vision, the perspective of which goes beyond the aim of the consultation: the matter is no longer the disease but, rather, the future of the consultant, who is about to become king. A comparable narrative is found in 1 Samuel 9, which begins with Saul’s search for the lost donkeys, continues with a consultation with Samuel, and concludes with the return home of the main character after having been pronounced the future king. In our narrative, Hazael goes to consult Elisha regarding the future of Ben Hadad’s disease and presents him with the appropriate gifts. The prophet then has a vision that he communicates to the messenger, announcing that “he is to 37. H.  Wildberger, Jesaja, BKAT 10/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 169.

32

Julio Trebolle Barrera

be king over Aram.” Some scholars argue that the latter is secondary, whereas the original narrative centered on the consultation only. Thus, H. C. Schmitt attributes 2 Kgs 8:11b–13a to what he calls the “gottesmanbearbeitung.” 38 Würthwein distinguishes between a first interruption in vv. 10b–11a, 13b, and another one in 11b–13a. 39 G. Hentschel detects a first interpolation in vv. 11– 13a and a second re-elaboration with the insertion of 10b and 13b. 40 These scholars’ analysis was probably influenced in part by anachronistic considerations regarding the moral standards of a prophetic passage that involves deceit or lies. Other scholars, like Rehm, defend the literary unity of the narrative. 41 In my opinion, the consultation with the prophet cannot be separated from the prophetic vision. The narrative is structured as a command-fulfillment sequence and, as such, requires that the narrative display continuity at least until the messenger offers the gifts to the man of God. The gifts motif constitutes the line of the narrative: “Take a present with you and go to meet the man of God (8:8). . . . So Hazael went to meet him, taking a present with him” (9) . . . , “and (Hazael) stood before him and he set the present . . .” (11). The structure of the story determines its literary unity. The narrative is articulated via a typical series of questions and answers that follow each other as the two speakers alternate: Hazael: “Shall I recover . . . ? . . . ,”—Elisha: “You shall certainly recover, but . . . ,”—Hazael: “Why does my lord weep?. . .,”— Elisha: “Because I know the evil that you will do . . . ,”—Hazael: “What is your servant . . . ? . . . ,”—Elisha: “You are to be king over Aram . . . ,”—BenHadad: “What did Elisha say to you? . . . ,”—Hazael: “He told me that you would certainly recover.” If the text of 11b–13a is omitted, this sequence of questions and answers is broken up. It would make Elisha speak in two contiguous speeches with repetitions (in italics) that do not agree with the style of the narrative: “Elisha said to him. ‘Go, say to him, you shall certainly recover; but the Lord has shown me that he shall certainly die.’ (Hazael) stood before him and set the presents until they became putrid. Elisha said, ‘The Lord has shown me that you are to be king over Aram.’” The gifts motif is precisely the link between the consultation and the vision. The rotten and stinking gifts become a symbol of provocation and menace from Hazael, which justifies Elisha’s lamentation and weeping. It 38. H.  C. Schmitt, Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972), 82 and 224. Compare with the criticism by E. Ruprecht, “Entstehung und zeitgeschichtlicher Bezug der Erzählung von der Designation Hasaels durch Elisa (2. Kön. viii, 7–15),” VT 28 (1978): 77 n. 10. 39. E.  Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige, ATD 11/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1984), 318–21. 40. G.  Hentschel, 2 Könige, Die neue Echter Bibel (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1985), 35–36. 41. M. Rehm, Das zweite Buch der Könige: Ein Kommentar (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1982), 84.

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11

ET Go and say to him You will recover

but he shall die (as has revealed to me the Lord). And (Hazael) stood before him and he set the presents until they became putrid

Old Greek πορευου και ειπε αυτω Ζωη ζησει

Και αυτος θανατω αποθανειται/νη (καθ’ ως εδειξε μοι Kυριος) και παρεστη ενωπιον αυτου και παρεθηκεν τα δωρα εως ησχυνετο

33

Table 6

OG Vorlage MT ET ‫לך‬ ‫ לך‬Go ‫אמר‬ ‫ אמר‬and say ‫לו‬ ‫לו‬/‫ לא‬to him, ‫ חיה תחיה חיה תהיה‬You will recover. — ‫ והראני‬However, the Lord — ‫ יהוה‬has revealed to me ‫והוא‬ ‫ כי‬that he ‫מות‬ ‫ מות‬will die ‫ימות‬ ‫ימות‬ ‫(כאשר הראני‬ )‫יהוה‬ ‫ויעמד‬ ‫ ויעמד‬And he fixed ‫לפניו‬ ‫ את פניו‬his gaze ‫וישם‬ ‫ וישם‬and stared at him, ‫את המנחה‬ ‫עד‬ ‫ עד‬until ‫בש‬ ‫ בש‬he was ashamed (?)

is necessary to grasp the tone of menace symbolized by the stinking, “odious” gifts in order to understand the prophet’s reaction and his immediate reference to the wars against Israel that Hazael, the new king of Aram, will undertake. If the vision is part of the whole consultation-vision narrative, the repetition of the words that allude to the vision in 8:10 and 8:13, “the Lord has revealed to me that,” may not be original. As mentioned, in v. 10 the phrase is placed at different points in the MT and the OG Vorlage. It is quite frequent that texts placed in different locations show signs of interpolation. It is imaginable that this expression originally belonged in v. 13, from where it was taken and added to v. 10. Now a reconstruction of the OG and its Hebrew Vorlage may be attempted (see table 6). The most relevant changes between the MT and the Hebrew Vorlage of the OG are as follows: •  In the OG Hebrew, the subject of the verb ‫( ויעמד‬και παρεστη) is not the man of God as in the MT and LXXB (kaige) but the Syrian Hazael as attested by the pre-Lucianic and OL texts. •  Also, the expression constructed with the verb ‫ ויעמד‬is not MT’s ‫( ויעמד את פניו‬however that odd expression could be translated) but ‫“ ויעמד לפניו‬and (Hazael) stood before him (the man of God).”

34

Julio Trebolle Barrera •  The phrase και παρεστη τα δωρα assumes the verb ‫ וישׂם‬followed by the accusative ‫את המנחה‬, against the strange MT expression, which is lacking a direct object ‫וישׂם עד בשׁ‬. •  The expression και παρεστη τα δωρα εως ησχυνετο “and he set the presents until they became putrid” requires a text similar to the MT ‫( עד בשׁ‬or ‫ )באשׁ‬but with the meaning of “stinking,” “reeking,” as the consequence of “rotting,” deriving from “ashamed,” “rendering odious,” “threatening,” “attacking.” A transition takes place from the physical to the moral level, which also happens with the Latin term foedari in the famous motto Malo mori quam foedari “Better dying than becoming foul / tainted / contaminated / dishonored.” 42

Conclusion The preceding discussion leads to some conclusions. The textual diversity offered by the versions of the LXX is larger than the tradition preserved in the manuscripts of the LXX, which underwent a process of diversification but, except for stylistic features, moved in the direction of becoming increasingly closer to the Masoretic Text. The secondary versions, on the other hand, given that some of them were produced before Origen’s recension (as is the case of the OL) or because they preserve a strata of a pre-Hexaplaric text (as is the case of the Armenian version), have become an indispensable tool in the production of a critical edition of the LXX. As Lagarde posited, the way to reconstruct the OG is through a preliminary reconstruction of the text’s three basic recensions, the trifaria varietas which according to Jerome already existed at his time: Hesichius’s text, which circulated in Egypt; Lucian’s text, which circulated through Syria and Asia Minor; and Origen’s, from Palestine. 43 From the recension attributed to Hesichius, almost nothing is known. There are, nevertheless, manuscripts that represent a Hexaplaric text—the so-called A text—and others that represent the Lucianic recension, which in turn was influenced by the Hexaplaric recension—the L text. But in the books of Samuel–Kings, we encounter a different scenario: the B text, which is the majority text, transmits the OG in the non-kaige sections, and a kaige text in the kaige sections. Therefore, Samuel–Kings presents a specific form of trifaria varietas, 44 which thus requires a special methodology. 42.  This motto appears in Vittore Carpaccio’s painting Young Knight in a Landscape (1530) in Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid. 43.  P. de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863), 2. 44.  The B text was circulating in Egypt, from where Codex Vaticanus seems to have come; the L text (as is well known) was known in Syria, and the A text was forced on Constantinopole, probably beginning at the moment when Constantine commanded that manu-

Case Study: 2 Kings 8:10–11

35

The first step is to identify and discard Hexaplaric readings, which is not a simple or easy task. Some versions, such as the Armenian, were revised according to a Hexaplaric model and could contribute to this enterprise. The difficulty becomes greater when we come to the analysis of the Lucianic recension: after having discarded the Hexaplaric readings, we still must identify the pre-Lucianic readings. Toward this aim, the secondary versions are helpful—either those produced in pre-Hexaplaric times, such as the OL; or those that were rendered from a pre-Hexaplaric Greek original, such as the Armenian and Georgian, and then revised to fit a Hexaplaric model. This pre-Hexaplaric and pre-Lucianic stratum will be in a large measure the oldest textual level that can be reached, also taking into account the linguistic and stylistic changes that may have taken place in the interval between the original version and the oldest attainable textual layer. It is a pleasure for me to dedicate this paper to Prof. Zipora Talshir who made important contributions to Septuagint studies over her entire career and, in particular, to the textual and literary history of the books of Kings and 1 Esdras “from origin to translation.” scripts produced in Caesarea be taken to the capital. This triple textual form seems to agree with the geographical shape of the trifaria varietas in Jerome’s time.

The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 in Three Different Versions Emanuel Tov The Hebrew University, Jerusalem The textual witnesses of Hebrew Scripture differ in many chronological details, both in individual instances and in groups of details, such as the chronologies of the kings of Judah and Israel, the chronology of the flood, and the genealogical lists. The topic of this essay is the systematic differences in three textual witnesses to the genealogical lists in Genesis 5 and 11: the MT, LXX, and SP. Special attention is given to the background and Sitz im Leben of these differences. My working hypothesis is that the differences among the three texts do not indicate regular scribal activity but reflect two or three different recensions or editions of a single list. The weakness of this theory is that the tendencies of the presumed recensions cannot be established with certainty. The lists of the antediluvian (Gen 5:1–32) and postdiluvian patriarchs (11:10–32), both named sefer toledot, have been transmitted in three different versions that preserve major differences among them: the MT, LXX, and SP. Each of these three witnesses is followed by a number of additional sources (see below). The differences pertain to the chronological data, not to the names, although in one case the LXX includes a patriarch not found in the other two sources (“Kenan II”; see below). Although the LXX has been transmitted in Greek, these details should not be ascribed to the translator but to his Hebrew Vorlage. 1 I thus compare three sets of Hebrew data, expressing a view 1.  It seems to me that translators may have changed major or minor details, but they did not go so far as to recalculate the logic of genealogical lists. The LXX translation of Genesis is relatively literal, although some freedom in small details is recognizable, but no large-scale translational pluses, minuses, or changes are found in this version (regarding the differences in Gen 31:46–52, the LXX probably reflects an earlier text; see my Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012], 309). Accordingly, any recalculation of chronological lists by a translator is highly unlikely. Furthermore, the LXX version of the lists has much in common with the SP version (see below), especially in ch. 11, strengthening the conjecture that the two phenomena took place at the Hebrew

37

38

Emanuel Tov

on their comparative value and the possible relation between them. At the same time, it should be remembered that these three witnesses constitute three out of many texts, since in early centuries several or many additional scrolls were circulating, requiring us to retain humility in analyzing the known sources. In the analysis of these texts, some tendencies are recognized, but several details will remain nebulous, not only because the recognition of any tendency is hypothetical, but also because of the possibility of scribal mistakes, complicating the recognition of any tendency. 2 Beginning with the list of the ten antediluvian patriarchs in 5:1–32, I have recorded the following data from the MT, SP, and LXX in tables 1–4: 1.  Name of the patriarch: •  f(athered)—the date at which the patriarch fathered his first son, or when the son was born, 3 •  r(emainder) of years that the patriarch lived after the birth of his firstborn, •  t(otal) number of years of the patriarch (this number is lacking in ch. 10). To these numbers, I have added in brackets the absolute dates according to the biblical chronology. 4 [text continues on p. 41] level. On the other hand, some scholars ascribe the changes to the Greek translator himself: G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 130; É. Puech, Qumran Cave 4.XXVII—Textes araméens, deuxième partie: 4Q550–575a, 580–587 et Appendices, DJD 37 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2009), 263–89 (esp. p. 264). Henceforth: Puech, “4Q559.” 2.  One possible source of discrepancy between the chronological data is the writing of numbers with number signs, such as found in some of the nonbiblical Qumran scrolls, especially in calendrical texts. See my Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 212–13. No number signs have been found in biblical texts from the Judean Desert, but they could have been included in earlier copies. In any event, most of the differences are too systematic to be ascribed to scribal mishaps. Whenever the numbers do not conform with the views of R. S. Hendel (The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], 73), he assumes scribal error, for three patriarchs in the antediluvian list (pp. 64–69) and for four patriarchs in the postdiluvian list (pp. 73–74). 3.  The term used in these lists for fathering (‫ )הוליד‬probably refers to the birth of the firstborns. There is some imprecision with this term, for example, in the case of Noah, where 5:32 mentions the fathering or birth of Noah’s three sons in a single year. The reference to Abraham’s age at the time of his son’s birth (21:5, ‫ )בהולד לו את בנו‬strengthens the theory that the phrase refers to the birth of the son rather than the fathering, even though a different conjugation of the verb is involved. 4.  Earlier lists agree in most of the details adduced here on the basis of the biblical text, e.g., J. Skinner, Genesis, ICC, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930), 134, 233; Hendel, Genesis, 65, 72.

39

The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 Table 1.  Antediluvian Patriarchs in the LXX and SP in Genesis 5 (Compared with the MT) Name

MT

LXX

Summary

SP

Summary

Adam born [a.m.]

[0]

same

— p 100

same

—

230

remainder

800

700

total years

930

same

lived [a.m.]

[0– 930]

same

—

[0–930]

—

[130]

[230]

—

—

—

m 100 same

same

same

fathered [a.m.] 130

same same

same same

Seth born [a.m.]

fathered [a.m.] 105 [235]

205 [435]

remainder

807

707

total years

912

same

lived [a.m.]

[130–1042] [230–1142]

p 100

m 100 same

—

same same same [130–1042]

same same same —

Enosh born [a.m.]

[235]

[435]

fathered [a.m.] 90 [325]

190 [625]

remainder

815

715

total years

905

same

lived [a.m.]

[235–1140] [435–1340]

— p 100

m 100 same

—

— same same same [235–1140]

— same same same —

Kenan born [a.m.]

[325]

[625]

— p 100

—

—

170 [795]

remainder

840

740

total years

910

same

lived [a.m.]

[325–1235] [625–1535]

—

[325–1235]

—

[395]

—

—

—

m 100 same

same

same

fathered [a.m.] 70 [395]

same same

same same

Mahalalel born [a.m.]

[795]

fathered [a.m.] 65 [460]

165 [960]

remainder

830

730

total years

895

same

lived [a.m.]

[395–1290] [795–1690]

p 100

m 100 same

—

same same same [395–1290]

same same same —

Jared born [a.m.]

[460]

fathered [a.m.] 162 [622]

[960] same [1122]

— same

[460] 62 [522]

— m 100

40

Emanuel Tov Table 1.  Antediluvian Patriarchs in the LXX and SP in Genesis 5 (Compared with the MT) Name

MT

LXX

remainder

800

same

total years

962

same

lived [a.m.]

[460–1422] [960–1922]

Summary same same —

SP

Summary m 15

785

m 115

847 [460–1307]

—

[522]

—

Enoch born [a.m.]

[622]

[1122]

fathered [a.m.] 65 [687]

165 [1287]

remainder

300

200

total years

365

same

lived [a.m.]

[622–987]

[1122–1487]

­— p 100

m 100 same

—

same [587] same same same

same same

[522–887]

—

Methuselah born [a.m.]

[687]

[1287]

— m 20

[587]

—

167 [1454]

remainder

782

802

total years

969

same

lived [a.m.]

[687–1656] [1287–2256]

—

[587–1307]

—

[874]

—

[654]

—

p 20

same

67 [654]

m 120

fathered [a.m.] 187 [874]

m 129

653

m 249

720

Lamech born [a.m.]

[1454]

fathered [a.m.] 182 [1056]

188 [1642]

remainder

595

565

total years

777

753

lived [a.m.]

[874–1651] [1454–2207]

p6

53 [707]

m 30 m 24 —

m 129 p5

600

m 124

653 [654–1307]

—

Noah [707]

—

fathered [a.m.] 500 [1556]

born [a.m.]

[1056]

same [2142]

[1642]

same

same [1207]

—

age at the time 600 [1656] of the flood 7:6

same [2242]

same

same [1307]

—

remainder

350a

same

total years

950

same

—

same

same

same

—

same

—

lived [a.m.]

[1056–2006] [1642–2594]

—

—

—

flood [a.m.]

[1656]

—

[1307]

—

[2242]

a.  Noah fathered his children at the age of 500 (5:32), and he was 600 at the age of the flood (7:6). He lived another 350 years after the flood (9:28)—altogether, 950 years (9:29).

The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11

41

2.  Year of birth a.m.: dates of the complete life span of the patriarch according to the biblical chronology. 3.  Reconstructed summary of the relation between the sources, usually expressed as “p[lus] 100” (that is, the number in the LXX and/or SP is 100 years higher than the MT), “m[inus] 100,” or “same” (the LXX or SP is identical with the MT). The focus on the numbers of the MT is conventional and does not involve a judgment on the original status of the MT. The above-listed data reflect the MT, LXX, and SP, while the other sources agree with them, fully or partially. The targums, Peshitta, and Vulgate agree with the MT; Jubilees reflects the SP for the antediluvian patriarchs and the LXX for the postdiluvian patriarchs; Josephus usually reflects the LXX, with the exception of the date of Methuselah. Pseudo-Philo usually reflects the LXX, with a few MT readings. 5 In spite of the internal differences between the MT and the LXX in the dates of the fathering of the sons and the remainder of the years after the fathering, the totals for the MT and LXX are identical, with the sole exception of Lamech (life span in the LXX totals 24 years less than MT). The total number is almost always the same for the MT and the SP. This fact clearly reflects a tendency to postpone an unnamed event. The relationship between the three sources is emphasized in table 2, where the reconstructed data are omitted. In table 2, the assumption that these three texts derived from one original base form is logical since they significantly resemble each other. It is equally logical to reconstruct a fourth text as being archetypal; it was then changed or corrupted in the three known texts. 6 However, additional forms of this list, including earlier lists, may once have circulated, making it increasingly difficult to reconstruct the original form of the list. We now turn to some detailed remarks on the relationship of the three texts. The details in tables 1–2 show that the three texts evidence different versions, possibly recensions, of the same list. The three texts share the same patterns: a.  General structure, not involving narrative details, which are often added to some other lists. 5.  For a summary and references to studies of these postbiblical sources, see Hendel, Genesis, 69–71. 6.  This option was chosen by Hendel, ibid., 64–69. In his reconstructed original text of ch. 5, Hendel usually considers the joint reading of the MT and SP as original: once, he considers the original to be that of the MT and LXX; once, a reading of the SP; and once, he inserts an emendation (p. 130). In Genesis 11, he usually prefers the reading of the MT, thrice the MT and LXX, and once the LXX (see p. 146). Taken together, Hendel usually prefers the readings of the MT. However, I find it difficult to define criteria for determining the original status of details. Thus also Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 133: “[T]here is no obvious answer to the text-critical problems posed by these chapters. The LXX appears to have least in its favor, but whether the SamPent, MT or some other scheme is the most primitive is hard to tell.”

42

Emanuel Tov Table 2.  Antediluvian Patriarchs: Relations among the MT, LXX, and SP (Genesis 5) Name

MT

LXX

Adam

Summary

SP

Summary

p 100

same same

same

same

same same

105

205

p 100

same same

remainder

807

707

total years

912

same

same

same same

fathered

90

190

p 100

same same

remainder

815

715

total years

905

same

same

same same

fathered

70

170

p 100

same same

remainder

840

740

total years

910

same

same

same same

fathered

65

165

p 100

same same

remainder

830

730

total years

895

same

same

same same

fathered

162

same

same

remainder

800

same

total years

962

same

same

847

fathered

65

165

p 100

same same

remainder

300

200

total years

365

same

same

same same

fathered

187

167

m 20

remainder

782

802

total years

969

same

fathered

130

230

remainder

800

700

total years

930

fathered

Seth

Enosh

Kenan

Mahalalel

Jared

Enoch

Methuselah

m 100

m 100

m 100

m 100

m 100

same

m 100

p 20

same

same same

same same

same same

same same

same same

62 785

m 100 m 15

m 115

same same

67 653 720

m 120 m 129 m 249

43

The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 Table 2.  Antediluvian Patriarchs: Relations among the MT, LXX, and SP (Genesis 5) Name

MT

LXX

Lamech

Summary p6

SP

m 129

fathered

182

188

remainder

595

565

total years

777

753

m 24

653

500

same

same

same same

age at the time of the flood 600

same

remainder

350

same

same

same same

total years

950

same

Noah fathered

m 30

same same

53

Summary

600

p5

m 124

same same same same

b.  The chronological data are usually presented as round numbers, often including hundreds (100, 200, etc.). These round numbers appear more in ch. 5 than in 11 (table 3). c.  All of the patriarchs are included in all three sources. Thus, the following patterns emerge: a.  With the exception of Lamech, the total life span of the patriarchs coincides in the MT and the LXX. This is also true for the relation between the MT and the SP, with the exception of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. b.  While the texts agree regarding the total life span, there are still internal differences regarding the dates for the f(athering) and the r(emaining) number of years. The most frequent pattern for the LXX in ch. 5 is a larger number for f than in the MT (usually f + 100) together with a smaller number for the r(emaining) years, usually decreased by the same amount (r – 100), for Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Enoch, who appear continuously as the first five entries in the list, together with the seventh entry. In practical terms, most firstborns are born X years later in the LXX than in the MT, and in this way the subsequent events are also delayed by X years. In this way, the dates for the fathering of the firstborns in the LXX add 586 years to those of the MT, and as a result, the flood takes place 586 years later in the LXX (2242 a.m.) than in the MT (1656).   In two instances, the LXX equals the MT (Jared, Noah), while in two other instances the LXX follows a different pattern:   LXX f + 20, r – 20 (Methuselah)  LXX f + 6, r – 30 (Lamech)

44

Emanuel Tov c.  The SP usually agrees with the MT (Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Enoch, and Noah, appear continuously in the first five entries in the list, together with the seventh and last entry), but when it does not, the most frequent pattern for the SP in ch. 5 is a smaller number for f than in the MT, altogether decreased by 349 years. As a result of this manipulation, the flood occurs 349 years earlier in the SP (1307 a.m.) than in the MT (1656). In other instances, the SP presents lower numbers for the life span than MT: Jared 115 years, Methuselah 249, Lamech 124 years. d.  The differences among the numbers in the three sources cannot be coincidental. Compared with the MT, the data express a tendency to increase numbers in the LXX and decrease numbers in the SP. Furthermore, the LXX used large round numbers for six of the first seven patriarchs, leaving the smaller numbers for the next individuals in the list. The system is not straightforward, however, since in the case of Methuselah the LXX increased and decreased the number by 20 (f + 20, r – 20). 7

Background to the Differences Since the three texts usually agree, we should try to locate the common denominator of the differences. The LXX usually adds to the dates of f in the MT, and the SP diminishes them. Earlier research has suggested that the main reason for the changes is that the three texts revised an earlier text in which several patriarchs survived the flood. 8 This explanation is contradicted by the evidence of the LXX for Methuselah (see n. 7), but a better theory has not yet been presented. MT: It seems to me that a text such as the MT formed the basis of the revised form of the two parallel lists, but the MT itself could also have revised an earlier list. 9 In the MT, one patriarch dies in the year of the flood (Methuselah, d. 1656) and another patriarch 5 years beforehand (Lamech, d. 1651). These dates may reflect an attempt to bring the dates of these patriarchs into harmony with the date of the flood. 7.  The reason for this different pattern is unclear. If these numbers reflect a mistake in the calculation, it could explain the miraculous fact that in the LXX Methuselah survived the flood by 14 years. 8. Thus Hendel, Genesis, 62–64. Ulrich follows a similar path: E. Ulrich, “The Evolutionary Growth of the Pentateuch in the Second Temple Period,” in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31, 2007, ed. Akio Moriya and Gohei Hata, JSJSup 158 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 39–56 (47–48). 9. Thus Hendel, Genesis, 62.

The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11

45

LXX: The fact that almost all of the patriarchs did not survive the flood may indicate that at one point some patriarchs lived after the date of the flood according to the list. After all, the lists derived from a source other than the narratives. The one detail that goes against this theory is the strange fact that Methuselah was still alive 14 years after the flood, until 2256. At the same time, the personal data of most of the patriarchs were postdated, thus postponing the flood by 586 years from 1656 a.m. to 2242. SP: Differing from the LXX and the MT, the SP pushed the date of the flood up from 1656 to 1307 a.m., and in its system the patriarchs died either before the flood or in the very same year (Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech). I admit that there is no strong evidence indicating why an earlier list was revised in two or all three versions. Such a revision is more evident in the list of the postdiluvian patriarchs in ch. 11, to which we turn in table 3, while the pattern of increasing and decreasing the numbers in the LXX and the SP, more frequent than in ch. 5 (tables 1–2), is summarized in table 4. The details in tables 3–4 show that the three texts display different versions—possibly recensions of the same list. The search for the original form of this list is even more difficult than in ch. 5, while the recensional features are clearer. The three texts share the same patterns: a.  General structure. b.  With the exception of Kenan II in the LXX of 11:13 (beyond the MT and the SP), all of the patriarchs are included in the three sources. c.  The chronological data are presented as rounded and unrounded numbers, often including hundreds (100, 200, etc.), but the hundreds appear less often in ch. 11 than in ch. 5. d.  The SP and the LXX share revisional principles, leading to the suggestion that the MT may be closer to the original. The following patterns emerge: a.  In ch. 11, the LXX differs more from the MT than in ch. 5: the MT agrees twice with the LXX (Shem, Terah), while eight times the LXX has a larger number. Furthermore, Kenan II was added in the LXX, possibly in order to create a list of ten patriarchs, since strictly speaking, Abraham does not belong to the list in ch. 11. b.  The SP is more distant from the MT than in ch. 5. Twice it agrees with the MT (Shem, Abraham), but in all the other instances it differs, usually f + 100, r – 100 (Arpachshad, Shelah, Peleg, Reu, Serug), but also once f + 50, r – 50 (Nahor), and once f + 100, r – 160 (Eber). For Terah, see n. 12. [patterns continue on p. 48]

46

Emanuel Tov Table 3.  Postdiluvian Patriarchs (Genesis 11) in the LXX and SP (Compared with the MT) Name

MT

LXX

Summary

SP

Summary

Shem born [a.m.]

[1556]

[2142]

[1207]

fathered [a.m.]

100 [1656]

same [2242] same

same [1307] same

remainder

500

same

total years

[600]

same

lived [a.m.]

[1556–2156]

[2142–2742]

adjustment

+2

a

—

Arpachshad born [a.m.]

[1658]

[2244]

fathered [a.m.]

35 [1693]

135 [2379]

same

same

— +2 — p 100

p 27

same

same [600]

same

[1207–1807]

—

+2

—

[1309] 135 [1444]

— p 100

m 100

remainder

403

430

total years

[438]

[585]

lived a.m.

[1658–2096]

[2244–2829]

—

[1309–1747]

—

[2379]

—

—

—

p 127

303

same

438

Kenan IIb born [a.m.]

—

fathered [a.m.]

—

130 [2509]

remainder

—

330

total years

—

[460]

lived [a.m.]

—

[2379–2839]

p 130

—

—

p 330

—

—

p 460

—

—

—

—

—

Shelah born [a.m.]

[1693]

[2509]

fathered [a.m.]

30 [1723]

130 [2639]

remainder

403

330

total years

[433]

[460]

lived [a.m.]

[1693–2126]

[2509–2969]

born [a.m.]

[1723]

[2639]

fathered [a.m.]

34 [1757]

134 [2773]

—

[1444]

p 100

130 [1574]

p 27

433

m 73

303

—

[1444–1879]

—

[1574]

— p 100

m 100

same

—

Eber

remainder

430

370

total years

[464]

[504]

lived [a.m.]

[1723–2187]

[2639–3143]

p 100

m 40

p 60

—

134 [1708] 270 404 [1574–1978]

— p 100

m 160

m 60

—

47

The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 Table 3.  Postdiluvian Patriarchs (Genesis 11) in the LXX and SP (Compared with the MT) Name

MT

LXX

Summary

SP

Summary

Peleg born [a.m.]

[1757 ]

[2773]

fathered [a.m.]

30 [1787]

130 [2903]

— p 100

same

[1708] 130 [1838]

m 100

remainder

209

same

total years

[239]

[339]

lived [a.m.]

[1757–1996]

[2773–3112]

—

[1708–1947]

—

[1787]

[2903]

—

[1838]

—

p 100

109

— p 100

239

same

Reu born [a.m.] fathered [a.m.]

32 [1819]

132 [3035]

remainder

207

7

p 100

m 200

total years

[239]

[339]

lived [a.m.]

[1787–2026]

[2903–3242]

born [a.m.]

[1819]

[3035]

fathered [a.m.]

30 [1849]

130 [3165]

p 100

132 [1970] 107 239

—

[1838–2077]

—

[1970]

p 100

m 100

same

—

Serug p 100

130 [2100]

remainder

200

same

—

100

total years

[230]

[330]

—

230

lived [a.m.]

[1819–2049]

[3035–3365]

—

[1970–2200]

born [a.m.]

[1849]

[3165]

—

[2100]

fathered [a.m.]

29 [1878]

79 [3244]

remainder

119

129

— p 100

m 100

same

—

Nahor p 50

p 10

p 60

79 [2179] 69 148

— p 50

m 50

same

total years

[148]

[208]

lived [a.m.]

[1849–1997]

[3165–3373]

—

[2100–2248]

—

born [a.m.]

1878

[3244]

—

[2179]

—

fathered [a.m.]

70 [1948]

same [3314] same

same [2249]

—

remainder

[135]

[75]

—

total years

205

same

lived [a.m.]

[1878–2083]

[3244–3449]

Terah

c

—

same

same

—

145 [2179–2324]

[m 60] —

48

Emanuel Tov Table 3.  Postdiluvian Patriarchs (Genesis 11) in the LXX and SP (Compared with the MT) Name

MT

LXX

Summary

SP

Summary

Abrahamd born a.m.

[1948]

[3314]

—

fatherede [a.m.] 80, 100 [2028, 80, 100 2048]

same

remainder

same

total years

— f

lived [a.m.]

—

175

same

[1948–2123]

[3314–3489]

same —

[2249]

—

[2329, 2349] same — same [2249–2424]

same

same —

a.  When Noah was 500 years old, he fathered Shem (5:32), and since Noah was 600 years old at the beginning of the flood (7:6), Shem should have been 100 at that time, and not 2 years later, as in 11:10 (“When Shem was 100 years old he fathered Arpachshad, two years after the flood”), which conflicts with the list in ch. 5. Since the calculations for the postdiluvian generations begin with Shem, 2 years need to be added to the years after the flood (added to the year of birth of the first generation) by way of adjustments between the different documents. b.  This is an additional patriarch, who is mentioned in the LXX of 11:13. See below. This addition is artificial since the chronological data for Kenan II repeat those of his son, Shelah. Furthermore, no such person is known from the lists of the MT and LXX in 1 Chr 1:8, 24. c.  Gen 11:32. d.  The data about Abraham do not come from the list in ch. 11. e.  Gen 16:16; 21:5. f.  Gen 25:7.

c.  In both lists, all three sources agree with each other in the beginning and the end. d.  In six instances, the LXX and SP add the same amount of 100 years to f, while their calculations for r and hence also their totals differ:



Arpachshad f MT 35, LXX and SP + 100 Shelah f MT 30, LXX and SP + 100 Eber f MT 34, LXX and SP + 100 Peleg f MT 30, LXX and SP + 100 Reu f MT 32, LXX and SP + 100 Serug f MT 30, LXX and SP + 100 See also: Nahor f MT 29, LXX and SP + 50

The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11

49

e.  While in ch. 5 there is no certainty that the MT is closer to the original than the SP and LXX, in ch. 11 the SP displays distinct harmonizing (secondary) traits, sometimes shared with the LXX. 1.  It completes formulas: addition of ‫וימת‬, Gen 11:11, 13, 15, 17 LXX (καὶ ἀπέθανεν) and SP = 9:29.

2.  The SP adds summaries in the following way in Gen 11:11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25:

‫ שנה‬Y ,X ‫ויהיו כל ימי‬. In this formula, X stands for the name of the person and Y for the number of years (= 5:8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31).

Background to the Differences in Chapters 5 and 11 In ch. 5, the numbers in the SP and the LXX, possibly also in the MT, may have been meant to postpone the flood, avoiding a situation in which the patriarchs would be alive after the flood. On the other hand, in ch. 11 the main problem in the list of the MT is that most of the patriarchs were still alive during Abraham’s lifetime, for example, when Terah took Abram, Lot, and Sarai from Ur of the Chaldeans to Canaan (11:31). 10 At that time, Abram was 75 years old (Gen 12:4), in the year a.m. 2023 according to a calculation in the MT, while seven patriarchs were still alive according to the MT: Shem (d. 2156), Arpachshad (d. 2096), Shelah (d. 2126), Eber (d. 2187), Reu (d. 2026), Serug (d. 2049), and Terah (d. 2083). 11 The implication of Gen 11:31 is that Terah took Abram, Lot, and Sarai with him and that his older relatives were left behind in Ur of the Chaldeans. The MT thus presents us with a problematic text. It is not impossible that some texts adapted the genealogical list to the new surroundings in Genesis, avoiding a situation in which there would be surviving relatives at the time of Abram’s departure from Ur of the Chaldeans. The added years in the LXX (574 years), together with the added generation of Kenan II (130 years), postpone Abram’s lifetime by 704 years. As a result, according to the LXX, Abram left Ur of the Chaldeans in 3389 a.m., and at that time the other patriarchs had already died. Likewise, according to the SP, Abram left that city in 2324, 12 after the death of the other patriarchs. 10.  On the other hand, according to Hendel (Genesis, 71), it was more problematic that the patriarchs were alive at the time of Abraham’s birth. 11.  By then, Peleg and Reu had died (1996, 1997). 12.  According to the SP, Terah died in Haran in the same year (11:32). According to Y. Zakovitch (“The Exodus from Ur of the Chaldeans: A Chapter in Literary Archaeology,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. R. Chazan et al. [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999], 429–39 [p. 431]), the chronology of the SP is preferable. According to this scholar, the MT changed the chronology, wishing to create the impression that Terah was not yet ready to go to Canaan.

50

Emanuel Tov Table 4.  Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Relations between the MT, LXX, and SP Name

MT

LXX

Shem fathered

100

same

remainder

500

same

total years

[600]

same

adjustment

+2

Arpachshad fathered

35

135

remainder

403

430

total years

[438]

[585]

“Kenan II”a

Summary same same

same

SP same same same

+2

+2

p 100

135

p 27

303

p 127

438

p 130

—

Summary same

same same

p 100

m 100 same —

fathered

—

130

remainder

—

330

total years

—

[460]

p 460

—

—

30

130

p 100

130

p 100

Shelah fathered

p 330

m 73

—

m 100

remainder

403

330

total years

[433]

[460]

p 27

433

same

34

134

p 100

134

p 100

Eber fathered remainder

430

370

total years

[464]

[504]

Peleg

m 40

p 60

303

—

270

m 60

p 100

fathered

30

130 [2903] p 100

130

remainder

209

same

109

total years

[239]

[339]

Reu

same

p 100 p 100

m 160

404

m 100

239

same

132

p 100

fathered

32

132

remainder

207

7

total years

[239]

[339]

p 100

239

same

30

130

p 100

130

p 100

p 100

230

Serug fathered remainder

200

same

total years

[230]

[330]

m 200

same

107

100

m 100

m 100 same

51

The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 Table 4.  Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Relations between the MT, LXX, and SP Name

MT

LXX

Nahor fathered

29

79

remainder

119

129

total years

[148]

[208]

Terah

Summary p 50

p 10

SP 79 69

Summary p 50

m 50

p 60

148

same

same

same

same

fathered

70

same

remainder

[135]

—

total years

205

same

same

145

m 60

80, 100

80, 100

same

85, 100

p 5, same

Abraham fathered remainder

—

same

total years

175

same

—

same

same

same

same same

same

same

same

a. Gen 11:13 LXX.

The common features of the SP and the LXX in the two lists illustrate the development of the texts: 1.  Delaying of central events (flood, Abram’s lifetime) by postponing the date of the fathering of the individual patriarchs 2.  Use of the exact same technique in the LXX in ch. 5 and the SP in ch. 11 of adding years to the fathering, especially round numbers (100), while diminishing the date of the total number of years by the same amount, thus maintaining the same figures for the total life span 3.  Combination of rounded and unrounded numbers 4.  Harmonizing textual features (see above) Conclusions and Parallels The differences between the three versions are recensional and not scribal. Possible tendencies are recognizable, but there is no firm evidence. In my terminology, recensional or editorial differences reflect a systematic change in a text in a certain direction. It seems that the MT is not recensional in ch. 11, but may be so in ch. 5. 13 On the other hand, the Vorlage of the LXX and SP probably revised the MT or a similar text in both chapters in a certain direction. I 13.  Our point of departure is that the LXX and the SP, two versions that share elements, revised a text such as the MT, not that the MT revised a text such as the LXX or SP. The latter two texts reflect harmonizing elements, and furthermore, the MT is problematic in ch. 11 because several patriarchs were still alive during Abraham’s lifetime.

52

Emanuel Tov

thus posit two recensions (SP, LXX) and one text (MT) in ch. 11, and possibly three recensions in ch. 5. These conclusions have major implications for the textual history of Genesis. Most differences between the textual witnesses of Genesis are textual, but in chs. 5 and 11 they are recensional. For my personal research, this is a novelty. I had not yet recognized recensional traits in the texts of Genesis. By way of appendix, I should also mention that, elsewhere, learned scribes were preoccupied with detailed exegetical-chronological calculations. Such changes were inserted under similar circumstances in textual witnesses and in postbiblical compositions. Thus the LXX changed the chronology of the flood of the MT, adapting it to the solar calendar. 14 Beyond the biblical manuscripts, 4Q252 and Jubilees likewise adhered to the solar calendar in the flood story in a different way, while filling in some chronological details not mentioned in the MT. 15 Likewise, 4QpapBibChronology ar (4Q559), ascribed to the 3rd century b.c.e. at the latest by its editor, Puech (who ascribes the Qumran copy to the 1st century b.c.e. [“4Q559,” 266–67]), reconstructs the biblical chronology from at least the period of Jacob until that of the Judges. It interprets extant biblical dates and calculates additional events. Beyond the biblical realm, in the 2nd century b.c.e., “an immense intellectual effort was expended during the Hellenistic period by both Jews and pagans to date creation, the flood, Exodus, building of the Temple.” 16 For example, in the beginning of the 3rd century b.c.e., the Hellenistic Jewish author Demetrius was much involved with the intricacies of the biblical chronology of, among other things, the flood. 17 14.  In the MT and the SP, the flood lasts 1 year and 10 days, from the 17th day of the 2nd month (Gen 7:11) until the 27th day of the 2nd month of the next year (8:14). On the other hand, in the LXX the flood lasts exactly 1 year, from 27th II to 27th II in the 2nd year, the difference being between the luni-solar calendar of the MT (354 days) and the solar calendar of the other sources (364 days). 15.  4Q252 I 4 and Jub. 5:23 calculate the flood as beginning and ending on 17 II. See the analyses of T. H. Lim, “The Chronology of the Flood Story in a Qumran Text (4Q252),” JJS 43 (1992): 288–98; R. Hendel, “4Q252 and the Flood Chronology of Genesis 7–8: A TextCritical Solution,” DSD 2 (1995): 72–79; M. A. Zipor, “The Flood Chronology: Too Many an Accident?” DSD 3 (1997): 1–4; R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis (London: Black, 1902; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972), 48–49; J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, CSCO 511 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 36. 16.  The quotation is from the important study of B. Z. Walcholder, “Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronologies,” HTR 61 (1968): 451–81 (esp. p. 451). 17.  For details, see ibid., 454. For the calculations of Berossus, see Wacholder, “Biblical Chronology”; and the earlier studies of A. H. Sayce, “The Antediluvian Patriarchs,” ExpTim 10 (1899): 352–53; J.  Oppert, “Chronology,” Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1903), 4.66–67.

An Identical Scribal Mistake in 1 Kings 9 and 2 Chronicles 7 Consequences for the Textual History of Kings and Chronicles Adrian Schenker Universität Freiburg/Schweiz The variant under discussion in this essay is found in two parallel verses in the books of Kings and Chronicles: 1 Kgs 9:8 ‫ָׂשה יְהוָה ָּככָה‬ ָ ‫ָמרּו עַל מֶה ע‬ ְ ‫ׁשרָק ְוא‬ ָ ‫ֶליֹון ּכָל עֹבֵר ָעלָיו יִּׁשֹם ְו‬ ְ ‫ִהיֶה ע‬ ְ ‫ְו ַה ַּביִת ַהּזֶה י‬ ‫ָל ָארֶץ הַּזֹאת ְו ַל ַּביִת ַהּזֶה‬ And this house will be sublime. Everyone who passes by it will be astonished, ‫ישם‬, and will hiss and say, “Why hasYhwh been so hard on this country and this house?” 1 2 Chr 7:21 ‫ָׂשה יְהוָה ָּככָה‬ ָ ‫ֶליֹון ְלכָל עֹבֵר ָעלָיו יִּׁשֹם ְו ָאמַר ַּבּמֶה ע‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ָהיָה ע‬ ֶ ‫ְו ַה ַּביִת ַהּזֶה א‬ ‫ָל ָארֶץ הַּזֹאת ְו ַל ַּביִת ַהּזֶה‬ And this house, which has been sublime for everyone who passes in front of it, will be devastated, ‫ישם‬, and people will say, “Why has Yhwh been so hard on this country and this house?” A Mistake Due to Inattention or a Literary Modification? 1 Kgs 9:8 is difficult to understand. This is a recognized fact. In the middle of menacing threats, a promise from Yhwh appears regarding the temple of Solomon: “And this house will be sublime, ‫יהיה עליון‬. Everyone who passes by Author’s note:  I hope that these modest reflections will honor Professor Zipora Talshir, who made so many important contributions to the history of the biblical text. This essay was previously published in French in a different form in Une bible archétype? ed. M. Langlois (Paris: Cerf, 2013). 1.  This is a verbatim translation; the modern translations, in an attempt to make sense of the verse, offer renderings that do not represent the text as it is.

53

54

Adrian Schenker

it will be appalled,  2‫ישם‬, and will hiss and say, ‘Why has Yhwh been so hard on this country and this house?’” 3 The same terminology is used in the parallel text of 2 Chr 7:21 with slightly different wording: “And this house, which has been sublime ‫ אשר היה עליון‬for everyone who passes in front of it, will be devastated, ‫ישם‬, and people will say, ‘Why has Yhwh been so hard on this country and this house?’” It is admittedly possible to make sense out of 1 Kgs 9:8. One could paraphrase the verse as follows: “And this house will be sublime, (but next) everyone who passes in front of it will be terrified. He will hiss. . . .” However, this interpretation of the verse is neither simple nor natural. This is the reason why most commentators suppose that a copyist must have made an error that generated the awkward reading ‫עליון‬. 4 He must have mistakenly changed the read2.  One might think that the prepositional expression ‫ עליו‬refers to the following verb, ‫שמם‬, since the object of this verb is construed with the preposition ‫על‬, “be appalled at something”; e.g., Isa 52:14, Ezek 27:35. However, ‫עבר על‬, “to pass in front of somebody or something,” is attested as well, for example, in Gen 18:5; Jer 18:16, 19:8, 49:17; Zeph 2:15. Therefore, in the context of 1 Kgs 9:8 = 2 Chr 7:21, the preposition ‫ על‬instead collocates with the verb ‫עבר‬. 3.  Interestingly, the tannaitic Midrash Mekilta, Jethro II cites the words ‫והבית הזה יהיה‬ ‫ עליון‬as expressing the horrible fate of the temple: ‫ ארץ ישראל ובית‬:‫שלשה דברים נתנו על תנאי‬ ,‫ ואם לאו‬. . . ‫ אם תלך בחקתי‬. . . ‫ ובית המקדש מנין? שנ' והבית הזה‬. . . ‫המקדש ומלכות בית דוד‬ ‫“ והבית הזה יהיה עליון‬Three things were given conditionally: the land of Israel, the temple, and the House of David. . . . How do we know about the temple? It is said: as for this house . . . if you will walk in My statutes . . . and if not: and this house which is so high [shall become desolate]” (ed. Lauterbach, 2.188). This interpretation would then be adopted by the medieval Jewish exegetes and by many modern interpreters; cf. n. 4. 4.  The following authors consider the text to be erroneous and consequently propose various emendations: J.  A. Dathe, Libri historici V.T. (Halae: Orphanotrophium, 1784), 448; O. Thenius, Die Bücher der Könige, KHAT (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1849), 144; A. Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, ed. H. Strack and O. Zöckler (Nördlingen: Beck, 1887), 326; I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, KHC 9 (Freiburg i.Br.: Mohr, 1899), 66; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, HAT 1/5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 82; C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 132; B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Book of Kings, SBOT 9 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904), 110; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, vol. 1, EHAT 9 (Münster i.W.: Aschendorff, 1911), 250; J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, The Book of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1941), 213; R. de Vaux, Les livres des Rois, BJ (Paris: Cerf, 1949), 63; M. Noth, Könige 1, BKAT 9/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 195; J. Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary, 3rd ed. (London: SCM, 1977), 236; M. Rehm, Das erste Buch der Könige: Ein Kommentar (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1979), 101; E. Würthwein, Das erste Buch der Könige Kapitel 1–16, ATD 11/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 104; S.  J. De Vries, 1 Kings, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 119; V. Fritz, Das erste Buch der Könige, Zürcher Bibelkommentar (Zurich: Theol. Verl., 1996), 99; P.  Buis, Le livre des Rois, SB (Paris: Gabalda, 1997), 90 (his note says that he is translating the MT of Kings; in reality, he is presenting the text of 2 Chr 7:21); M. J. Mulder, 1 Kings, Historical Commentary on the O.T. (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 468–69; C.-L. Seow, “The First and Second Book of Kings,” NIB 3.79; M. Cogan, 1 Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 296.

An Identical Scribal Mistake in 1 Kings 9 and 2 Chronicles 7

55

ing ‫“ לעיין‬in ruins” to the corrupt form ‫“ עליון‬most high, sublime, exalted.” 5 Thus, the verse in the original text would have read: “And this house will fall into ruin. Everyone who passes in front of it will be appalled and will hiss.” This explanation seems likely. In light of these data, how can one understand the relationship between 1 Kgs 9:8 and 2 Chr 7:21? Dominique Barthélemy explains it thus: The author of the book of Chronicles had indeed read the original text ‫ יהיה לעיין‬in 1 Kgs 9:8 but found it inappropriate for the temple and replaced it with ‫אשר היה עליון‬, referring to the impressive height of the temple, which he repeatedly bothered to stress. 6 The Chronicler substituted the straightforward threat regarding the destruction of the temple that Yhwh would bring about in the future in case of apostasy by Israel with a contrast between the striking height of the temple in the time of its initial glory and its future fate, after the divine judgment reduced it to ruins. The Chronicler further introduced a subtle syntactical change by turning ‫ כל עבר עליו‬into ‫לכל עבר עליו‬, linking the phrase to the preceding relative clause—namely, “the house that was elevated for everyone who passed in front of it.” In this way, the verb ‫ ישם‬lost its subject and must therefore refer to the house: ‫ ישם‬. . . ‫“ והבית הזה‬and this house . . . will be destroyed” (and this is why he had to omit the following ‫)ושרק‬. 7 Thus, in Barthélemy’s view, it was the Chronicler who first reworded the text and introduced the epithet “high” ‫ עליון‬as a predicate in a relative phrase, in place of the noun ‫לעיין‬, which was the original expression used in the book of Kings. Later tradents of the book of Kings who opted to obliterate the Only C.  F. Keil (Commentar über die Bücher der Könige [Moskow: Severin, 1846], 137; idem, Die Bücher der Könige, 2nd ed., Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament 2/3 [Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1876], 111), K.  Bähr (Die Bücher der Könige, Theol.-homilet. Bibelwerk 7 [Bielefeld-Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing, 1868], 91), and A. B. Ehrlich (Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel [Hildesheim: Olms, 1968], 7.234; idem, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô [Berlin: Poppelauer, 1900], 2.284) interpret the MT with the meaning of an exalted punishment or malediction of the temple. This seems to be unlikely because the epithet “exalted, most high” is always used as an expression of positive admiration, while punishments or curses are not an object of admiration but of devastation. The old exegetes Rashi, Radak, Joseph Kara, Wattebled (Vatablus), and Sixtus Amama interpreted the expression in light of 2 Chr 7:21: first exalted and then appalling. The list of interpreters is not complete. It may, however, be representative of the history of interpretation which shows two things: first, the text of 1 Kgs 9:8 is not in order, and second, 2 Chr 7:21 already presupposes the corruption in Kings. 5.  The textual situation is presented in a detailed way in D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1: Josué–Esther, OBO 51/1 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1982), 355–57 (ET translation mine). 6.  In Chronicles, the height of the porch exceeded its height in the book of Kings (2 Chr 3:4; cf. 1 Kgs 6:2); the same goes for the two columns in front of the temple (2 Chr 3:15; cf. 1 Kgs 7:15). 7.  He translates the verse: “Et cette maison qui était très haute par rapport à quiconque passait à côté d’elle sera désolée et celui-là dira” (Barthélemy, CTAT 1.357).

56

Adrian Schenker

prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple were inspired by the reading ‫ עליון‬in 2 Chr 7:21 and imported it into 1 Kgs 9:8 instead of ‫לעיין‬. One could imagine another scenario of textual history, however: The word ‫ עליון‬was part of the text that the Chronicler found in his source, 1 Kgs 9:8. The copyist error was introduced before the Chronicles were compiled. The Chronicler, in good faith, kept the corrupt text, taking it as authentic and organizing it in such a way that it became meaningful despite the textual corruption. He managed to make do with the problem inherent in his source primarily by turning the meaningless future formulation ‫ יהיה עליון‬into the past ‫אשר היה‬ ‫עליון‬. The temple of Solomon was majestic before it was destroyed by the judgment that Yhwh had threatened. The Chronicler, then, did not create the reading ‫ עליון‬but took it from his source and adapted it to the context, replacing the awkward, unintelligible version of 1 Kgs 9:8. Is it possible to recognize the most plausible of these two hypotheses about the history of this text? Does the Term ‫ עליון‬Mean “High”? The argument that Barthélemy uses to support his theory of a literary reorganization by the Chronicler is the physical, structural height of the House of Yhwh. But does ‫ עליון‬really mean “high,” and does it designate the vertical height of the temple in 2 Chr 7:21? The term ‫ עליון‬is used in three ways: (1) It occurs most frequently as an epithet for Yhwh: “Most High.” (2) Its other common use is for what is higher in opposition to what is lower, as in toponyms: ‫“ בית חורון עליון‬Higher BetHorôn” or “Upper Bet-Horôn” in contrast to ‫“ בית חורון תחתון‬Lower BetHorôn” (Josh 16:5; 2 Chr 8:5; etc.); ‫“ שער עליון‬upper gate” (2 Kgs 15:35; Jer 20:2; etc.); ‫“ סל עליון‬the uppermost basket” (Gen 40:17); / ‫לשכות עליונות‬ ‫“ תחתונות‬higher” versus “lower chambers” (Ezek 42:5). (3) The term has a third meaning: “eminent,” “standing out, standing higher than.” It is applied to objects and people and is used as an attributive or predicative. The object of the comparison is always mentioned, generally with the preposition ‫ ;על‬thus, ‫“ עליון על כל הגוים‬high above all the nations” (Deut 26:19; similarly, 28:1; Ps 83:18[19]; 97:9). It appears once with a genitive lamed: ‫“ עליון למלכי ארץ‬highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps 89:27[28]). Only 1 Kgs 9:8 apparently suggests an absolute use—that is to say, without any indication of the object of comparison. In 2 Chr 7:21, we admittedly find the preposition ‫ל‬, but here it does not refer to the compared object. How, in effect, could the sublime temple be compared with the passers-by? In Ps 89:27[28], David is said to be the most outstanding king of the world. Here there is a comparison between two comparables, for David is a king, as are the other kings. But the temple is not of the same rank or kind as the passers-by. The Chronicler does not compare the temple with the passers-by but refers to those who witness the magnificence of the temple.

An Identical Scribal Mistake in 1 Kings 9 and 2 Chronicles 7

57

Thus, we see that ‫ עליון‬does not mean the dimension of height compared with the other dimensions. The word means the superior position in comparison with an inferior position. The term refers to the highest point, the situs at the top of the vertical dimension, but does not mean the length of the vertical spread, the quantum of the height. This observation corresponds to Hebrew semantics, according to which “high, height” is expressed by the root ‫גבה‬. In fact, a form derived from this ְ ‫אֹר‬ root is employed in 2 Chr 3:4, ‫גֹבַּה‬. In 2 Chr 3:15, the Chronicler uses ‫ֶך‬ “length” for the height of the columns. 2 Chr 7:21 designates the temple, not as a tall building, but in the sense of incomparable sublimity. In the view of an ideal classification according to rank, the temple comes first. This is why it is unlikely that the Chronicler chose the word ‫ עליון‬due to the temple’s height. For what other reason would he have used it in the difficult context of the destruction of the temple? The easiest answer seems to be that he found it in his source, 1 Kgs 9:8! What Is the Meaning of ‫ עליון‬in 1 Kings 9:8a? 2 Chr 7:21a is, according to what has just been said, the first exegesis of the corrupt text of 1 Kgs 9:8a. The Chronicler formulates his interpretation in a phrase that is composed of a subject followed by a relative phrase and a verbal predicate: (1) And this house (2) which has been sublime for every passer-by (3) will be destroyed. The future perfect is used in this translation because the temple had just been built and would not be destroyed until much later, after the Israelites abandoned Yhwh. During the coming time, before the possible future abandonment, all those who pass in front of the temple will be awed by its sublime majesty. The apostasy and destruction will come in the future; however, in contrast to those events, the passers-by admire the house in the time before its destruction. This is indeed a complex idea but an intelligible one. In this light, one can give a plausible interpretation of 1 Kgs 9:8a. The verse is divided into two asyndetic phrases that feature two different subjects: 1.  And this house will be sublime. 2.  Everyone who passes by will be appalled and will hiss. The two phrases are thus placed side by side without any syntactic or linguistic link. Neither are they logically joined to one another. Between the two, an ellipse is implied, which might be expressed as follows: effectively, Yhwh’s House will be sublime, but it will nevertheless be an object of dismay to the passers-by. The Chronicler has established a temporal link between the two phrases: after the house is sublime for a certain time, it will be destroyed. Thus the Chronicler has constructed a paraphrase of 1 Kgs 9:8a and has given an interpretation with an acceptable sense. However, and despite everything, the wording of this verse is not natural. It is hard, elliptical, and in the end, quite difficult to understand.

58

Adrian Schenker

The Ancient Textual Witnesses The ancient Greek version (GBA) translates MT 1 Kgs 9:8a to the letter: καὶ ὁ οἶκος οὗτος ὁ ὑψηλός, πᾶς ὁ διαπορευόμενος αὐτὀν ἐκστήσεται καὶ συριεῖ. Many witnesses, among which are Theodoret of Cyrus and the Syro-Hexapla, attest the same textual form in Kings as that of 2 Chr 7:21a, which reads: καὶ ὁ οἶκος οὗτος ὁ ὑψηλός, πᾶς ὁ διαπορευόμενος αὐτὸν ἐκστήσεται, and in translation: “And as for this lofty house, everyone who passes it by will be startled.” Because this wording may represent the Hebrew phraseology precisely, it is probably a faithful reproduction of a Hebrew Vorlage in Greek. This literal style of translation suits the Greek translator of the book of Chronicles. He belongs with the literal translators who reproduce the syntactic architecture of the Hebrew phrases in their translation. He must have read in his Hebrew Vorlage roughly the following text: ‫והבית הזה העליון כל עבר עליו ישם‬. The phrase begins with a casus pendens (in the nominative), followed by a verbal phrase. Unlike 1 Kgs 9:8 and 2 Chr 7:21 in the MT, the epithet ‫עליון‬ does not function as a predicative but instead as an attributive. In this, the Greek translation of 2 Chronicles is as far removed from the MT as it is from the Greek translation of 1 Kgs 9:8. It is not harmonized, and one can presume that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek translation must have been the original form of the Chronicler’s text. Only a few Lucianic (or Antiochean) manuscripts read, as does the MT, a relative clause. It is clearly a secondary reading. Some of these witnesses—the cursives 19 and 108 (= b), 56 (= i), 121 (= y), 93 (= e2)—add still another element: (ὁ οἶκος οὗτος ὁ ὑψηλὸς ἐρημωθήσεται). It is a variant that renders the sense more understandable by explaining why the passers-by were appalled upon viewing the sublime house. This reading is also found in the Vetus Latina as quoted by Lactantius. It follows that the copyist’s faulty ‫ עליון‬already existed in the original Greek form of 2 Chr 7:21! The MT has, in place of the attributive epithet, a relative phrase in which ‫ עליון‬functions as a predicative. Thus MT 2 Chronicles is close to 1 Kgs 9:8a MT (and its Greek) in phrase construction and meaning. At the same time, its reading clearly is less difficult in comparison with that of the OG and therefore seems likely to be secondary. In conclusion, the reading implied in the Hebrew Vorlage of the OG in 2 Chr 7:21a is independent and unparalleled. This is why it may be original there. The targum of 1 Kgs 9:8a features a doublet: it begins with ‫ דהוה עלאי‬corresponding to the parallel text of 2 Chr 7:21, but then it makes certain that it highlights the coming destruction explicitly: ‫יהי חרוב‬, in translation: “and this house which was sublime will be destroyed. Everyone who passes by it will cry out and shake his head.” Targum Chronicles is identical. 8 The double reading 8. R. Le Déaut and J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques 1–2 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), ad loc. (the Aramaic verb ‫ וינוד‬in 1 Kings is missing in 2 Chronicles).

An Identical Scribal Mistake in 1 Kings 9 and 2 Chronicles 7

59

of the targums (“sublime” and “ruined”) is easy to understand: the paradoxical devastation of the passers-by in front of the sublime house needed to be explained. The Peshiṭta does not reflect ‫ עליון‬in either 1 Kgs 9:8a or 2 Chr 7:21. Instead, it reads ‫“ חרב‬ruined” on both occasions. It thus assimilates the verses in Kings and Chronicles beyond the MT. It cannot be excluded that the Peshiṭta may have contained the original ‫ לעיין‬in its Hebrew Vorlage, as Barthélemy asserts. 9 However, it could also be that it is a facilitating reading. In support of this possibility, one may invoke the fact that in all three occurrences of /‫עיים‬ ‫ עיין‬plural (Jer 26:18; Mic 3:12; Ps 79:1), the Peshiṭta repeatedly uses the plural “ruins” ‫חרבתא‬, while ‫( עי‬attested five times) and ‫( מעי‬Isa 17:1) are never translated ‫חרב‬. This suggests that perhaps the translator of the Peshiṭta chose to eliminate the difficult expression in the Hebrew Vorlage of 1 Kgs 9:8 and 2 Chr 7:21. The paradoxical devastation of the passers-by has thus disappeared in the Peshiṭta. The Vulgate precisely follows the texts of 1 Kgs 9:8a and 2 Chr 7:21 as far the syntax is concerned; however, it varies the choice of terms: 1 Kgs 9:8, “et domus haec erit in exemplum, omnis qui transierit per eam stupebit”; 2 Chr 7:21, “et domus ista erit in proverbium universis transeuntibus . . . stupentes.” The expressions exemplum (Kings) and proverbium (Chronicles) originate in two parallel terms that occur in the preceding verse: ‫( למשל ולשנינה‬in both 1 Kgs 9:7 and 2 Chr 7:20), rendered by Jerome “in proverbium et in fabulam” (Kings) and “in parabolam et in exemplum” (Chronicles). 10 Jerome seems to have solved the problematic, secondary reading ‫ עליון‬by introducing a more suitable expression, influenced by the preceding verse (1 Kgs 9:7). Jerome translates 2 Chr 7:21a and 1 Kgs 9:8a similarly, forgoing the differences in the Vorlage. The Vulgate, then, does not offer evidence regarding its underlying Hebrew text. Barthélemy cites Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones 4.18, 11 where a paraphrase of 1 Kgs 9:6–9 is given. It is based on the text of the Vetus Latina. The same passage also appears in the epitome of the Divinae Institutiones. 12 These are thus not two independent quotations but one, which is partially repeated in the résumé. The aim of the quotation is to announce the destruction of Jerusalem. In such a context, one cannot be completely confident in the expression “et domus haec erit deserta, et omnis qui transiet per illam admirabitur,” 9.  Barthélemy, CTAT 1.357. 10.  Barthélemy (ibid., 1.356) suggests that Jerome read a term such as ‫“ ְל ִעיּון‬for reflection,” “in order to reflect” in 1 Kgs 9:8 in his Hebrew Bible. However, this conjectured term is hardly sustainable because it is never attested in the Hebrew Bible or in early postiblical writings. It occurs first in the Babylonian Talmud, and its meaning hardly suits our context. 11.  CSEL 19.359–60, v. 8a; p. 360, lines 2–4. 12.  Ibid., 19.719–20, v. 8a; p. 720, lines 1–3.

60

Adrian Schenker

since it is a paraphrase rather than a literal quotation. And we must be even less confident because the Codex of León offers the following marginal reading: “et domus haec altissima.” Altissima corresponds to ὑψηλός, ‫עליון‬. Consequently, the most likely explanation is that Lactantius read, as do some witnesses in G, the two epithets “sublime” (altissima) and “ruined” (deserta), but excluded the first in the interest of his quotation. In conclusion, one can say that, in the oldest witnesses of 1 Kgs 9:8a and 2 Chr 7:21, the scribal error ‫ עליון‬already existed. No witness offers the hypothetical original reading ‫לעיין‬. Readings that seem to come close to the assumed original Hebrew expression are in reality secondary readings introduced in order to suit the context of destruction because it was necessary to explain how those who passed in front of such a sublime temple were bewildered. ‫עליון‬, the Earliest Attested Reading, Not the Original Reading From what precedes, it follows that the reading ‫ עליון‬is unusually difficult in the context. Therefore, in all likelihood, it does not represent the original reading. It is the result of a corruption of the original text. However, all textual witnesses seem to presuppose the reading ‫עליון‬. Even the witnesses that do not translate ‫עליון‬, such as the Peshiṭta and the Vulgate, probably did not find another word in their Vorlage but tried to smooth the awkward text and to make sense out of it. Thus, no witness attests the original reading. It may have been ‫לעיין‬, transformed into ‫ עליון‬through two combined scribal errors (metathesis and confusion of two letters). But this remains hypothetical since no text survives that preserves this reading. This corrupt reading, ‫עליון‬, is common to 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles both in the MT and in G. The presence of the same copyist’s error in the two biblical books strongly suggests an early origin of the corruption in Kings, from which it passed into Chronicles. The Chronicler read the erroneous expression there, but he adopted it because he considered it the authentic text. Thus, the error must have occurred prior to the composition of Chronicles in the 4th century. One might attempt another explanation. Could it be that the erroneous reading at first occurred either in Kings or in Chronicles only, and it was adopted by the other book through assimilation? Indeed, in parallel passages, differences tend to be assimilated. This explanation is not likely for two reasons, however. First, there is no trace of an earlier different text either in Kings or in Chronicles. The assimilation is merely hypothetical, with no textual support in the witnesses. Second, assimilations between two texts usually happen in order to replace a troublesome expression with an easier one. Here, the result of this hypothetical assimilation would amount to a more difficult reading. This is why the best way to explain the common error in both Kings and Chronicles is that the Chronicler made use of the corrupt text of Kings as his source text. This use implies, however, an important consequence for the tex-

An Identical Scribal Mistake in 1 Kings 9 and 2 Chronicles 7

61

tual history of the Bible. He must have used a manuscript of Kings that was a master copy of the book, because scribal corruptions occur in a certain manuscript and are then repeated in the copies made of this manuscript. The copies contain the same error. These common mistakes between the master copy or archetype and the copies are designated leading variants. They constitute a descent or family, a lineage among the manuscripts. Since Kings and Chronicles have this sort of scribal mistake in common, the Chronicler used the same master copy of Kings as the later sages who created the consonantal text at the beginning of our era, in the 1st century B.c.e. and the 1st century c.e., the socalled proto-Masoretic text. They read 1 Kgs 9:8 with the same scribal error as the Chronicler had seen three or four centuries earlier. They probably did not have the very same manuscript at their disposal as the Chronicler, but they had a copy of the same manuscript family. This observation implies another important consequence. This early master copy of the book of Kings that preceded Chronicles was still in use when the proto-Masoretic text was determined, since it was precisely this copy that was selected for it. Therefore, it must have been in high esteem through the centuries. This same archetype was also the base text for the Greek translation of Kings and Chronicles. The Hebrew Vorlage of G Chronicles was not precisely identical with the MT. However, the secondary reading ‫ עליון‬was present there as well. Thus, the Greek translators of both Kings and Chronicles knew of no other reading than that with the scribal mistake. They also had copies of the early archetype with the error in front of them. Consequences for the History of the Text of Kings: A Manuscript Archetype of Kings The reading ‫“ עליון‬sublime, standing out” appeared in 1 Kgs 9:8 and later in its parallel, 2 Chr 7:21, due to the error of a copyist. No textual witness has preserved the original reading that was corrupted by this mistake. One can assume that the original reading was ‫( לעיין‬cf. Mic 3:12; Ps 79:1). However, this is hypothetical, conjectural. The Syriac text of the Peshiṭta ‫“ נהוא חרב‬will be ruined” and the Vulgate “erit in exemplum”—that is, “shall be made an example”—do not attest a text earlier than the version preserved in the MT but reflect later attempts to make sense of the corrupt text. The book of Chronicles was already based on the textual form of 1 Kgs 9:8 MT = G, including the mistake ‫עליון‬, whereas the Greek version of 2 Chr 7:21 may afford us a glimpse of a more original Hebrew text than MT 2 Chronicles, since the latter contains a secondary assimilation to MT 1 Kgs 9:8. For the history of the text of Kings in particular and of the Old Testament in general, it is important to observe this unintentional scribal error in 1 Kgs 9:8 that

62

Adrian Schenker

then passed into 2 Chr 7:21. Unintentional errors cannot but pass from one manuscript to another. Thus the error ‫ עליון‬that is attested not only in 1 Kings and 2 Chr 7:21 but also in 1 Kgs 9:8 G, shows that the Chronicler used 1 Kings as his source in a single manuscript or archetype, which was to serve as the base text for the consonantal text at the beginning of our era. This archetypical manuscript of Kings must have enjoyed weighty authority since it was used by the Chronicler perhaps as early as the 4th century B.c.e. and by the Greek translator of Kings in the second half of the 3rd or 2nd century. This argument is even stronger if there are other scribal mistakes common to Kings and Chronicles. That this is the case will be shown elsewhere.

Text and Context: The Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods and Its Literary, Administrative, and Legal Context Alexander Rofé The Hebrew University, Jerusalem The purpose of this study is to examine the obliteration of polytheistic names in the manifold manifestations of the Bible and its milieu: textual, literary, administrative, and legal. 1 This investigation will, I hope, result in solid conclusions about the religious history of Israel in biblical times. The textual obliteration of names considered to be idolatrous has indeed been noted many times since the first half of the 19th century, 2 yet I believe that additional light can be shed on its historical circumstances by integrating the textual aspect with a study of the other fields of intellectual activity in biblical times. 1.  My thanks go to the style editor Mr. Jeffrey Green, to the reader appointed by the editors of this volume, and to my assistant Mr. Yair Segev, whose notes helped me improve the present essay. 2. O. Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels erklärt, 2nd ed., KHAT 4 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1864), 157 (the 1st ed. appeared in 1842; Thenius refers to Ewald and Böttcher); A. Geiger, “Der Baal in den hebräischen Eigennamen,” ZDMG 16 (1862): 728–32; J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871), passim; S.  R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, with an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913); F.  Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alten Testamentes dargestellt (Leipzig: Akademische Buch­ handlung, 1891), 250–54; C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr., New York: Ktav, 1966), 399–404; E. Nestle, Die israelitischen Eigennamen nach ihrer religionsgeschicht­lichen Bedeutung (Haarlem: Bohn, 1875; repr., Schaan: Sändig, 1983); I. L. Seeligmann, “Research into the Criticism of the Massoretic Text,” Tarbiz 25 (1955–56): 118–39 [Heb.]; ET “Studies in the History of the Biblical Text,” Textus 20 (2000): 1–30; C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, OBO 36 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 267–69.

63

64

Alexander Rofé

Textual Corrections The theological corrections that occurred in the book of Samuel are familiar to every critical student of the Hebrew Bible. We begin with some of the compound names containing the theophoric element Baal, as follows: 2 Sam 2:8 and passim: ‫—איש בשת‬1 Chr 8:33; 9:38: ‫אשבעל‬ 2 Sam 9:6 and passim: ‫—מפיבשת‬1 Chr 8:36; 9:40: ‫מריב בעל‬ 2 Sam 11:21: ‫—ירובשת‬Judg 9:1 and passim: ‫ירובעל‬ 2 Sam 5:16; 1 Chr 3:8: ‫—אלידע‬1 Chr 14:7 ‫בעלידע‬ 2 Sam 23:8: ‫—ישב בשבת תחכמני‬LXXB: Ιεβοσθε; LXXLuc: Ιεσβααλ;   VL: Iesbael; 1 Chr 11:11: ‫ישבעם בן חכמוני‬. 3 It is clear that in a manuscript of Samuel from which the Masoretic Text derived (henceforth pre-MT), compounded names formed with Baal were corrected in a dysphemistic way: ‫ בשת‬instead of ‫—בעל‬boshet meaning here not “shame” but “disappointment.” 4 The same procedure occurred in the book of Kings: 1 Kgs 18:19, 25, ‫ נביאי הבעל‬were represented in the LXX by προφῆται τῆς αἰσχύνης; plausibly these verses in the Vorlage read *‫*נביאי הבשת‬. In 2 Kgs 4:42, the MT reads ‫בעל שלשה‬, the LXX Βαιθσαρεισα; their Vorlage probably had *‫*בית שלשה‬. In a contrasting case, the correction was euphemistic: ‫אלידע‬ (2 Sam 5:16; 1 Chr 3:8) instead of ‫בעלידע‬. Plausibly, the same correction occurred also in Judges 9. In v. 4, the sanctuary ‫ בית בעל ברית‬is mentioned, but in v. 46 its name has been corrected to ‫בית אל ברית‬. LXXA† renders it οἴκου τοῦ Βααλ διαθήκης, thus preserving an original ‫בית בעל ברית‬. In the same direction, another correction was made: ‫( הדורם‬1 Chr 18:10) was substituted by ‫יורם‬ (2 Sam 8:10). The name of the prince from Neo-Hittite Hamath was a compound, containing either the name ‫הד‬, an alternative name for Baal in Ugarit, or the name of the Aramean god Hadad. Evidently, in the pre-MT scroll of Samuel, the prince’s name was corrected to ‫יורם‬, a good theophoric Yahwistic name, as if he were a law-abiding Israelite. 5 Another case where a Yahwistic theophoric name was substituted for a Baal compound is found in 1 Sam 14:49. The text lists the sons of King Saul: Jonathan, Ishvi, and Malchishua. This Ishvi never appears elsewhere. It stands to reason that the Hebrew letters ‫ ישוי‬resulted from a scribal metathesis of ‫ ישיו‬which again represented a eu3.  A full Greek documentation for the other passages in Samuel is supplied by McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections, 214–25. The evidence of the LXX manuscripts disposes of Avioz’s contention that the boshet-mutation was due to the author; see M. Avioz, “The Names Mephiboshet and Ishboshet Reconsidered,” JANES 32 (2011): 11–20. 4.  Many instances in the Hebrew Bible prove this point: see the case of the “young men” who went for water in the cisterns: they came back disappointed, ‫( בשו‬Jer 14:3). 5.  Gordon inverted the direction of the renaming: cf. C. H. Gordon, The World of the Old Testament (London: Phoenix, 1960), 228 and n. 20. However, one cannot discard the cumulative evidence in the Bible by relying on a random finding in the ancient Near East.

Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods

65

phemistic recasting of the name ‫אשבעל‬. 6 These euphemistic corrections stand to prove that the other name shifts, from Baal to Boshet, were not intended to introduce an alleged epithet to the deity baštu, 7 but were motivated by the intent to disparage idolatrous names extant in the biblical books. An additional correction has the same effect: in 2 Sam 5:21, the Philistine gods are called ‫“ עצביהם‬their idols,” whereas 1 Chr 14:12 uses the original reading, ‫אלהיהם‬ “their gods.” Again, a corrector of the pre-MT Samuel scroll substituted the original title with a derogatory one. The presence of theophoric Baal names in the households of Saul and David needs explanation. 8 Apparently, it is not a case of idolatry, since neither king, not even the impious Saul, was accused of this sin. As noted long ago, we are encountering here the name Baal as an ancient appellation of Yhwh. 9 This is evidenced in 2 Sam 5:20, where David says: “The Lord has broken through (‫ )פרץ‬my enemies . . . therefore, the place was named Baal-peraṣim (‫)בעל פרצים‬.” Hos 2:18 confirms this thesis: “And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call [Me] my man (‫ )אישי‬and no more will you call Me my Baal (‫)בעלי‬.” 10 The situation opposed by Hosea is also attested as ‫בעליה‬, again preserved by the Chronicler (1 Chr 12:5). 11 In my view, this phenomenon is best explained as syncretism. The Hebrew tribes who had worshiped their god Yhwh entered Canaan and found a cult of Baal there. At first, they conflated the two gods, transferring qualities from Baal to the Lord. 12 A well-known instance of this process was the appellation of Baal rkb ʿrpt, extant in the Ugaritic texts, 13 that was applied to the Lord 6.  ‫ אשבעל‬is a by-form of ‫ ;ישבעל‬compare the same mutation in the name of ‫איזבל‬: N. Avigad, “The Seal of Jezebel,” IEJ 14 (1964): 274–76; R. Hestrin and M. DayagiMendels, Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite, Phoenician and Aramaic from the Collection of the Israel Museum and the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, trans. I. Pommerantz (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1979) 48. 7. M.  Tsevat, “Ishbosheth and Congeners: The Names and Their Study,” HUCA 46 (1975): 71–87. G. J. Hamilton, “New Evidence for the Authenticity of bsht in Hebrew Personal Names and for Its Use as a Divine Epithet in Biblical Texts,” CBQ 60 (1998): 228–50. 8.  To these names, ‫( אשבל‬Gen 46:21; Num 26:38; 1 Chr 8:1), as derived from ‫אשבעל‬, has been added; cf. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuels, xiii. 9.  Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 120–21, 253–55. 10. The double entendre of this verse is exquisite: in the metaphor a more intimate relationship between the husband (Yhwh) and his wife (Israel) is announced: in real terms, the Lord will no more be identified with Baal. This address of Hosea comprises vv. 18, 21–22; vv. 19 and 20 were interpolated. Cf. A. Biram, “Hosea 2:16–25,” in Fs E. Auerbach, ed. A. Biram (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1955), 116–39, esp. pp. 118–21. [Heb.]. 11. Cf. Nestle, Die israelitischen Eigennamen, 108–32, esp. p. 124. 12.  Aliter, A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, trans. A. H. May; 3 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1882), 1.403–6. In his opinion, Baal was incipiently distinct from Yhwh. 13. Cf. H.  L. Ginsberg, The Ugaritic Texts (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1936), 24 [Heb.]; U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anat: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age, trans. I. Abrahams

66

Alexander Rofé

in Ps 68:5: ‫“ סלו לרכב בערבות‬extol Him who rides on the clouds.” The syncretistic outlook probably lasted until the mid-9th century b.c.e., when Baal worship was uprooted in Israel and Judah; yet Hosea, later in the 8th century, still protests against the identification of the Lord with Baal, as we have seen. Is it possible to determine when the corrections of the Baal-Boshet type were introduced into biblical manuscripts? A common perception would date them sometime in the course of the Second Commonwealth, in the Persian or Hellenistic period. However, it is doubtful that idolatry was much of a concern in those times. It is well known that Rabbinic Hebrew preserved expressions such as ‫“ שדה בעל‬field of Baal” for land that was not watered by humans but was rained on from heaven (m. B. Bat. 3:1). 14 Clearly, the expression was current in Hebrew throughout the Second Commonwealth, without opposition from pious circles. A good representative of these circles was the Chronicler, and we have seen that he did not hesitate to transmit idolatrous-theophoric names that he found in his sources. Actually, when he intervened in his inherited material, he did it for a different purpose: his preoccupation was nomistic—to credit righteous leaders of old with law-abiding behavior. Thus in 1 Chr 14:12, he retained ‫ אלהיהם‬for Philistine idols but insisted on saying that David did not take them as spoils (2 Sam 5:21) but had them burned! This correction was done in compliance with the law in Deut 7:5; 12:3 LXX. As pointed out by Seeligmann, there is a possible historical link to the BaalBoshet correction in Jer 3:21–4:2, 15 which is a dialogue between the repentant Israelites and their merciful God. Israel recognizes that its salvation derives from the Lord (3:23) and then admits ‫והבשת אכלה את יגיע אבותינו מנעורינו את‬ ‫“ צאנם ואת בקרם את בניהם ואת בנותיהם‬But the Boshet has consumed the possessions of our fathers ever since our youth, their flocks and herds, their sons and daughters” (3:24. This clearly refers to past sacrifices made to the Baal, animal as well as human. Now the penitents declare: ‫נשכבה בבשתנו ותכסנו כלמתנו כי‬ ‫ אלהינו חטאנו אנחנו ואבותינו‬′‫“ לה‬Let us lie down in our boshet (shame, disappointment); let our kelimah (disgrace) cover us, for we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers” (3:25). Boshet here is an epithet of Baal. But this time it was not introduced by a copyist; it was used by the author himself, most likely Jeremiah, because its authenticity is defended by the prosody of v. 25: lying in boshet is paralleled by being covered by kelimah.

(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971), 59, 122. This epithet occurs six times in the “Baal Cycle”; cf. M. S. Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker, SBLWAW 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 103–4, 111–12, 124, 132. 14. Cf. Nestle, Die israelitischen Eigennamen, 126 n. 1. He pointed out survivals of such expressions even in Arabic. 15. Cf. Seeligmann, “Studies in the History of the Biblical Text,” 6–7, esp. n. 16. As usual in his writings, Seeligmann noted this point very briefly.

Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods

67

If I see it right, the prophet’s words in Jer 3:21–4:2 show that the corrections baal-boshet in copies of the book of Samuel were introduced by scribes of Jeremiah’s milieu—either his predecessors or his disciples—in the 7th–6th century b.c.e. At first, this conclusion appears unbelievable: so early? This would mean that the text of Samuel was reworked before the book was complete! 16 However, this situation is plausible once we recognize that the same tendency, to silence idolatrous names or to substitute them with legitimate ones, occurs in other realms as well, in compositions written toward the end of the monarchic period, and in the documentation of the administrative recasting of placenames. Thus, an early dating will become probable. An additional prophet of the late 7th century b.c.e. who voiced an antiBaal polemic is Zephaniah. Zeph 1:4 reads: ‫והכרתי מן המקום הזה את שאר הבעל‬ “I will wipe out from this place every vestige of Baal.” 17 This saying, again, points to the last generations before the exile as the time when the obliteration of the Baal name took place. Literary Criticism On the literary level, one notes that the D document in Deuteronomy 1–30, in its repeated references to the Sinai event, consistently avoids the use of that place-name, employing instead the name Horeb (nine times). 18 This fact has been explained, 19 rightly in my opinion, as due to the similarity of the name Sinai to the name Sin, the Mesopotamian moon god. Once this divinity became known in Israel and Judah, with the Assyrian expansion and domination in the 8th–7th centuries b.c.e. some Hebrew scribes avoided the name Sinai and adopted the name Horeb in its place. The latter was perhaps invented, being derived from the root ‫“ חרב‬being arid, desolate.” No less significant is the story of the revelation to Moses in the burning bush (Exod 3:1–12). The bush (sĕneh) is mentioned in the pericope five times (vv. 2 [3×], 3, 4). Moreover, the burning bush functions as a sign for Moses, confirming that he is sent by the Lord (v. 12). 20 Immediately afterward comes 16.  Since the story of David and Goliath was composed late, in Persian times; see my Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible, trans. H. N. Bock and J. H. Seeligmann, Jerusalem Biblical Studies 9 (Jerusalem: Simor, 2009), 123–28. 17.  The authenticity of this passage is upheld by critics; see, for example, K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf Kleinen Propheten II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1950), ad loc. 18.  Deut 1:2, 6, 19; 4:10, 15; 5:2; 9:8; 18:16; 28:69. The only occurrence of Sinai in Deuteronomy is in 33:2, which does not belong to the D document. 19. L.  Perlitt, “Sinai und Horeb,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentliche Theologie, ed. H. Donner et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 302–22. For him, however, this explanation was just one of three possibilities; see p. 312. 20.  Rashbam, Commentary on the Torah, ed. D.  Rosin (Breslau: Schottlander, 1882; repr. New York: Om, 1949), ad loc.; S. D. Luzzatto, Il Pentateuco: Volgarizzato e Commentato, vol. 2: Esodo (Padua: Sacchetto, 1872), ad loc.; B. S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM, 1974), 74.

68

Alexander Rofé

the interpretation of the purport of the sign: “When you have freed the people from Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain” (v. 12). This is an evident pun on the words sĕneh and sinai. However, the name Sinai does not appear in this passage. The mountain is referred to here as “this mountain”; and at the beginning of the story, one reads that Moses came “to the mountain of God, to Horeb” (v. 1). 21 This discrepancy between the “leading word,” sĕneh, the expected and implied name, Sinai, and the actual name in v.  1, Horeb, suggests that the author or editor of the “Call of Moses” adhered to the view that the place-name Sinai should be discarded as being heathen. 22 The evidence from literary compositions thus strengthens the conclusion that the elimination of idolatrous names occurred in the Assyrian period, in the 8th–7th centuries b.c.e. Renaming by State Policy This conclusion is confirmed by the epigraphic material. The letters from Lachish and Arad, written shortly before the exile, show the absolute preponderance of Yhw-theophoric names, in contrast to the Samaria ostraca of the late 9th century, where Baal-theophoric names occur. 23 Tigay rightly noted that all the individuals mentioned in the late Judahite material along with their fathers could hardly have been born after 622 b.c.e. and therefore concluded: “[T]here seems to have been no appreciable change in the prevalence of Yahwistic names as a result of Josiah’s reformation.” 24 Thus, the epigraphic onomasticon confirms that the eradication of the pagan names began well before the religious revolution of Josiah; more generally, we may conclude that the latter act was merely the culmination of a long process that began in the Kingdom of Judah at the time of the Assyrian invasions. A consideration of the theophoric place-names confirms this finding. Not a few were compounded with Baal, such as Baal-tamar (Judg 20:33); Baalshalishah (2 Kgs 4:42); Baal-hazor (2 Sam 13:23); Baal-hermon (Judg 3:3; 21.  The “mountain of God” is probably an original appellative; cf. Z. Weisman, “The Mountain of God,” Tarbiz 47 (1977–78): 107–19 [Heb.]. 22.  Additional mentions of Horeb in non-Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic passages in the Pentateuch are Exod 17:6; 33:6. 1 Kgs 19:8 belongs to a story composed, in my opinion, in the 7th century b.c.e.; see my book The Prophetical Stories, trans. D. Levy (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 183–96. Other references are either Deuteronomistic (1  Kgs 8:9 ~ 2  Chr 5:10) or late (Mal 3:22; Ps 106:19). 23.  The data are available in S.  Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, trans. A. F. Rainey (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), 258–310. See also M. Ratzaby Golub, “The Distribution of Personal Names in Israel during the First Temple Period” (M.A. Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2010). In her findings, the bʿl element was extant in the Northern Kingdom from the 10th to the 8th centuries. 24. J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, HSS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 15–16.

Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods

69

1 Chr 5:23). 25 Significant for the vicissitudes of such names in late monarchic times was the fate of Baal-perazim. 26 The place-name occurs in 2 Sam 5:20 and 1 Chr 14:11 in the story of David’s victories over the Philistines. The other battle won by David was not in Geba but in Gibeon (2 Sam 5:25 LXXB; 1 Chr 14:16). 27 Isaiah ben Amoz referred to these events saying (Isa 28:21): ‫ כעמק בגבעון ירגז‬′‫“ כי כהר פרצים יקום ה‬For the Lord will arise as on the hill of Perazim, He will shake [himself] up as in the vale of Gibeon.” Here again, prosody defends the text: the two battles are mentioned in parallelism: the hill of Perazim parallels the vale of Gibeon. Hence, the change of Baalperazim into Hill of Perazim was not made by a copyist. Most plausibly, it was the prophet who pronounced these words. And since we must assume that the prophet aimed at being understood and therefore was not inventing placenames, we reach the conclusion that Baal-perazim gave way to Har-perazim before the times of Isaiah! 28 This change in name must have been initiated by administrative steps performed in compliance with royal decrees. This conclusion, though at first sight it seems hazardous, finds confirmation in an explicit statement concerning the cities of Reuben in Transjordan. We read in Num 32:38 that the Reubenites built, among other cities, “Nebo and Baal-meon (their names being changed), 29 and gave names to the cities they built” ‫ ויקראו בשמת את שמות הערים אשר בנו‬. . . ‫ואת נבו ואת בעל מעון מוסבת שם‬. The renaming of these two cities finds its explanation in the idolatrous component of their previous names—Baal, of course, and Nebo, which resembles the Mesopotamian god Nabû (cf. Isa 46:1). 30 It appears that the ancient name of the city of Nebo disturbed pious circles when they became acquainted with the Mesopotamian deity with a similar name. This process was the same as 25.  Cf. J. A. Dearman, “Baal in Israel: The Contribution of Some Place Names and Personal Names to an Understanding of Early Israelite Religion,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of J. H. Hayes, ed. M. P. Graham et al., JSOTSup 173 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 173–91. Consideration of this important study goes beyond the scope of the present essay. 26.  Mentioned above, p. 65. As far as I remember, the following important point was made by Prof. Seeligmann in one of his classes. 27.  On topographical grounds, this reading should be preferred over the MT’s Geba. 28.  Cf. A. Dillmann and R. Kittel, Der Prophet Jesaja erklärt, 6th ed., KHAT 5 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1898), 255: “er [scil. Jesaja] folgt ohnedem dem Sprachgebrauch seiner Zeit.” 29.  Following the RSV primarily; the NJPS is misleading at this point. Doubts have been expressed concerning the originality of the words ‫ ;מוסבת שם‬see O. Eissfeldt, “Renaming in the Old Testament,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to D. Winton Thomas, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 69–79, esp. p. 70. The first to challenge the text was apparently A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 2nd ed., KHAT 13 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1886), 199. However, there are not sufficient grounds for concluding that the peculiar locution ‫ מוסבֹת שם‬is “eine Glosse, und zwar eine späte.” 30.  Cf. A. R. Millard, “Nabû,” DDD 607–10.

70

Alexander Rofé

the renaming of Sinai as Horeb by the Deuteronomic circles, as we have seen above. Here, however, with Nebo and Baal-meon, the renaming was presumably not made by literates but by a state authority. A plausible date for this procedure can now be suggested. The renaming of Israelite sites in Transjordan must have occurred before 733 b.c.e., when Tiglat-pileser III exiled these settlements (cf. also 1 Chr 5:6, 26); 31 on the other hand, the displeasure about the name Nebo most likely arose when Assyrian predominance was felt in the west, after the campaign of Adad-Nirari III at the turn of the 9th and 8th centuries b.c.e. 32 About the same time, in the wake of Jehu’s coup in Israel (ca. 842 b.c.e.), Jehoiada’s revolt in Judah (ca. 835 b.c.e.), with the eradication of official Baal worship (2 Kgs 10:28; 11:18), a Yahwistic policy was established in both kingdoms. It was also expressed in the expurgation of place-names that had a heathen flavor. Thus, the probable time for this turn of events was the first half of the 8th century b.c.e. The name Baal-meon is also attested in the Samaria ostraca that date to the end of the 9th century b.c.e. or the beginning of the 8th. 33 In ostracon no. 27, the sender is ‫בעלמעני‬.‫בעלא‬., 34 probably the descendant of a refugee from Baalmeon when it was occupied by Mesha, the Moabite king (Mesha Stone, line 9). In any case, the name of the town was later turned into ‫( בית מעון‬Jer 48:23), 35 an event that probably took place with the Israelite reconquista during the reign of Joash or Jeroboam II. As for ‫נבו‬, its new name is not self-evident. However, one notes that this important place—to which the Mesha Stone ascribed a sanctuary (lines 14–18)—although it is mentioned in Numbers 32, is absent from Joshua 13. In Josh 13:20, one finds instead ‫אשדות הפסגה‬, right between two settlements in the area of Mt. Nebo—‫ בית פעור‬and ‫בית הישימות‬. Therefore, a plausible conjecture would be to regard ‫ אשדות הפסגה‬as the new censored/expurgated name for ‫נבו‬. 36 31.  This reliable information contained in the late book of Chronicles finds only an indirect reference in the Assyrian sources; see H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy, 1994), 279. 32.  The events are summarized by M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 11 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 151–52, with references to the Assyrian sources and a rich bibliography. 33.  Cf. B.  Maisler [= Mazar], “The Historical Background of the Samaria Ostraca,” JPOS 21 (1948): 117–33 = idem, The Early Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1984), 173–88. A concise discussion with a review of the various proposals has been offered by Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 258–61. 34.  Ibid., 285–86. 35.  The name ‫ בען‬in Num 32:3 (next to ‫ )!נבו‬may be an abbreviation of ‫בית מעון‬. 36. Cf. my essay “Moses’ Blessing, the Sanctuary at Nebo and the Origin of the Levites,” in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to S. E. Loewenstamm, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau (Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978), 409–24 [Heb., with Eng. abstract]. My suggestion that Nebo should be identified with Khirbet ʿUyun Musa has independently been proposed by F. M. Cross, “Reuben: First-Born of Jacob,” ZAW 100 (supplementary volume;

Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods

71

Along with ‫אשדות הפסגה‬, the list of cities in Joshua 13 includes ‫בית פעור‬ (v. 20). Its presence in an official list suggests that the place was renamed by the administration at the beginning of the 8th century. The polemical texts of Hos 9:10 and Deut 4:3 obviously reverted to the old appellation, ‫בעל פעור‬. Otherwise, late texts refer to it as ‫בית פעור‬: Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6. In this context, one can explain the double names extant in the lists of tribal portions in Joshua 15 and 18. The town of Kiriath-jearim (‫ )קרית יערים‬stands there for Baalah (‫ )בעלה‬in 15:9–10 37 and again for Kiriath-baal (‫ )קרית בעל‬in 15:60 and 18:14. The author described the place first by its old, accepted, pagan name; then he added “that is, Kiriath-jearim” (‫)היא קרית יערים‬, the official name imposed by the royal bureaucracy. 38 In these passages, there is no question of any textual interventions. The geographical descriptions merely express the appellations that were in vogue at their time. Textual Corrections vis-à-vis Administrative Renaming Nonetheless, names of some sites were corrected, or corrupted, in the course of textual transmission. This is the case with Baalah in 2 Sam 6:2, as indicated by the following variations in the textual witnesses. MT: ‫אשר אתו מבעלי יהודה להעלות משם את ארון האלהים‬ 4Q51:  39[‫[אתו בעלה היא קרי]ת יערים אשר[ ליהודה להעלו]ת משם‬ LXXB: ὁ μετ’αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων Ἰούδα ἐν ἀναβάσει, τοῦ ἀναγαγεῖν   ἐκεῖθεν τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ 40 LXXLuc: ὁ μετ’αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων Ἰούδα ἐν τῇ ἀναβάσει τοῦ βουνοῦ,   τοῦ ἀναγαγεῖν ἐκεῖθεν τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ 41 1 Chr 13:6: ‫ויעל דויד וכל ישראל בעלתה אל קרית יערים אשר ליהודה‬ ‫להעלות משם את ארון האלהים‬ 2 Sam 6:2 MT presents two problems. One is the unique expression ‫מבעלי‬ ‫יהודה‬. Usually in the historical books, we find ‫ בעלי‬followed by a city name, and the meaning is “citizens of”: ‫( בעלי ירחו‬Josh 24:11), ‫( בעלי שכם‬Judg 9:2 1988): 46–65, esp. pp. 51–52. Kaswalder still adheres to Musil’s location of Nebo in Khirbet el-Mukhayyet; cf. P. A. Kaswalder OFM, Onomastica Biblica: Fonti scritte e ricerca archeologica (Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 2002), 105. 37.  An additional Baalah, not renamed, appeared in the list of Judean sites in the Negev: Josh 15:29. 38. In my view, the cumulative evidence suggests this to be the right course, in spite of the well-argued strictures of Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel (London: Continuum, 2001), 596–97. 39. F. M. Cross et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel, DJD 17 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 123, pl. 16, frag. 68. 40.  The Old Testament in Greek, vol. 2/1: I and II Samuel, ed. A. E. Brooke et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927). 41. N. Fernández Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega, vol. 1: 1–2 Samuel (Madrid: Instituto de Filología, 1989), 105.

72

Alexander Rofé

et passim) ‫( בעלי הגבעה‬Judg 20:5), ‫( בעלי קעילה‬1 Sam 23:11, 12), ‫בעלי יבש גלעד‬ (2 Sam 21:12). We never have ‫ בעלי‬followed by an ethnic name. 42 The second problem is even harder: the text runs ‫להעלות משם‬, but no place is mentioned to which ‫ משם‬might refer. Both problems are solved by 4Q51, closely followed by 1 Chr 13:5 MT: ‫ בעלה‬or ‫ בעלתה‬instead of ‫ בעלי יהודה‬is the primary reading: “David went to Baalah to fetch the ark of God from there.” 43 The reading of 2 Sam 6:2 LXXB, ἐν ἀναβάσει = *‫( *בעליה‬cf. Late Biblical Hebrew in 2 Chr 9:4 and the Greek equivalent in Neh 3:31–32) supports these texts. 44 MT’s ‫ בעלי יהודה‬is a corrupted text. And in view of the constant onslaught on the Baal perpetrated in the MT of Samuel, there is little doubt that ‫ בעלי יהודה‬is not due to error but, rather, yet another theological correction. 45 Another textual divergence that belongs to the same category refers to the location of Joshua’s inheritance and burial. Josh 19:50 MT: ‫תמנת סרח‬ Josh 24:29 MT: ‫תמנת סרח‬ Judg 2:9 MT: ‫תמנת חרס‬ Josh 19:50 LXXB: *‫ *תמנת חרס‬Θαμαρχαρης Josh 21:42b LXXB: *‫ *תמנת סרח‬Θαμνασαραχ Josh 24:31 LXXB :*  ‫  * תמנת סחר‬Θαμναθασαχαρα Judg 2:9 LXXB: *‫ *תמנת חרס‬Θαμναθαρεας Judg 2:9 LXXA: *‫ *תמנת חרס‬Θαμναθαρεως The original name probably meant “Effigy of the Sun,” preserving the memory of the cult site dedicated to the sun god. Late scribes inverted consonants in order to read the name as “effigy of the overflowing” (cf. Exod 26:12, 13) or even “effigy of the sprawling.” In this way, they did away with the disturbing remnant of Canaanite (or old Israelite?) sun worship. 46 42.  Pace Y.  Levin, “Baal-Shalishah, Baal Perazim, Baal-Hazor and Baal-Tamar: On ‘Baal’ Toponyms in the Central Hill Country,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies 16 (2007): 17–34 [Heb., with Eng. abstract], esp. p. 29. 43.  The fact that Baalah hosted the ark of the Lord for many years is an additional argument in favor of positing an old syncretism between the Lord and Baal (private communication with Yair Segev). 44.  However, LXXB preceded this reading with *‫ ;*מבעלי יהודה‬this is a well-known phenomenon of conflation. 45.  Aliter, S. Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel, OBO 57 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 101–4. But his well-argued defense of the MT does not take into account the onslaught on Baal in the MT of the book of Samuel. 46.  The proposal for connecting ‫ תמנת סרח‬to the name of Asher’s daughter (Gen 46:17; Num 26:46; 1 Chr 7:30) is unacceptable in view of the readings in Josh 19:50 LXX and Judg 2:9. For this conjecture, see Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, trans. and ed. A. F. Rainey, 2nd ed. (London: Westminster, 1979), 244. For an alternative explanation for names referring to the sun god, see Y. Zakovitch, “‘Was It Not at His Hand the Sun Stopped?’ (Ben Sira 46:6): A Chapter in Literary Archaeology,”

Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods

73

In my view, the divergence between the MT and LXX at the opening of Solomon’s short poem in 1 Kgs 8:12–13 belongs to the same context. 47 The MT runs: ‫ אמר לשכן בערפל‬′‫ ה‬:‫אז אמר שלמה‬ ‫בנה בניתי בית זבל לך מכון לשבתך עולמים‬ The LXXB reads the poem after 1 Kgs 8:53: Τότε ἐλάλησεν Σαλωμων ὑπὲρ τοῦ οἴκου, ὡς συνετέλεσεν τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι  αὐτόν Ἥλιον ἐγνώρισεν ἐν οὐρανῷ κύριος, εἶπεν τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐν γνόφῳ Οἰκοδόμησον οἴκόν μου, οἴκον εὐπρεπῆ σαυτῷ, τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ καινότητος οὐκ ἰδοὺ αὕτη γέγραπται ἐν βιβλίῳ τῆς ᾠδῆς :‫אז אמר שלמה על הבית כאשר כלה לבנותו‬ ‫ אמר לשכן בערפל‬,′‫שמש ידע בשמים ה‬ ‫בנה ביתי בית זבל לך לשבת לחדשים‬ (?) ‫הלא היא כתובה בספר השיר‬ 1 Kgdms 8:12[53a] (NETS): Then Salomon spoke concerning the house, when he had finished   building it, A sun the Lord made manifest in the sky; he said that he should dwell in deep darkness: (8:13) Build my house, a remarkable house for yourself, to dwell in anew. And behold, is this one not written in a book of the song? The Vorlage of the Greek was corrupt or misunderstood, as is evident from line 3 of the poem. However, if we center on the first stich, this is an interesting text from which we may reconstruct the Hebrew as follows: ‫ והוא אמר לשכן בערפל‬′‫ ידע בשמים ה‬48 ‫שמש‬ A sun the Lord assigned to the sky, but He resolved to dwell in a cloud. Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. M. Cogan et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 107*–114*, esp. p. 112* [Heb.]. 47.  Cf. C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (repr., New York: Ktav, 1970), 109–12. 48. ἐγνώρισεν: the verb γνωρίζω “to inform” mainly translates the hiphil of ‫ידע‬. I suggest that here it translated ‫ ידע‬piel, which meant “to assign a place”; compare with Job 38:12: ‫ ;ידעתה שחר מקומו‬I would read the same in Ps 104:19: ‫שמש ידע מבואו‬.

74

Alexander Rofé

The verse, as reconstructed with the help of the LXX, conveys a beautiful contrast: the Lord established the sun in the sky, but for Himself chose to reside in a tenebrous cloud. This being the purport of the verse, what follows should be read according to the MT: the subject is not a house for Solomon but for the Lord. What is the reason for the omission of the first half-stich in the MT? Naturally, one cannot rule out a textual mishap. However, in view of the efforts to obliterate the mention of the sun in Josh 24:30, I opt here for a deliberate omission.  49 For an ancient Judean literate, the mention of the appointment of the sun in the heavens smacked of myth. Let us recall an additional case: the excerpts of creation poems embedded in Psalms 74 (vv. 12–17) and 89 (vv. 6–14) are manifestly mythical in character. They are extant in quotations, not as independent psalms. The accounts of creation were not cleansed of their mythical elements until late, exilic times. Deutero-Isaiah is a witness to the completion of this process. An opposite case is the persistence of the Judean place-name Beth-shemesh, the city of the sun, mentioned some 16 times in the MT and also attested by the LXX. Similar cases are Beth-horon, which preserves the name of a Canaanite deity, Beth-anat and Anathoth (Jeremiah’s birth place), named after the valiant Canaanite goddess. To the north of Anathoth lay the town of Azmaveth where, probably, the Canaanite god Death had been revered. All these names run against the trend we have detected above. In my view, some names, such as Beth-shemesh, were too well rooted in the popular diction to be changed by official imposition. In other cases, deities such as Horon and Anath were not felt as a menace to Israelite orthodoxy. It is no coincidence that these two deities, which were so prominent in the ancient Near East, are absent from the Hebrew Bible. (However, Anath appears in compound divine names at Elephantine.) Corresponding Biblical Law The endeavor to expunge polytheistic names can be found in the legal realm as well. In Exod 23:13, we read: ‫ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו לא ישמע על פיך‬. The first injunction forbids taking an oath by the names of “other gods.”  50 This becomes clear by the following passages: 49.  Cf. A. van der Born, “Zum Tempelweihespruch (1 Kgs VIII 12f),” OtSt 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 235–44. He ends by saying: “[D]er Grund des Ausfallens ein theologischer Skrupel war.” See also E.  Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige: Das erste Buch der Könige, Kapitel 1–16 übersetzt und erklärt, 2nd ed., ATD 11/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 85–89. 50.  This interpretation was already given by the rabbis: e.g., Mekilta d’Rabbi Ishmael, ed. H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1970), 332: ‫שלא תשביעו‬ ‫ ;לגוי ביראתו‬b. Sanh. 63b: ‫ הנודר בשמו והמקיים‬.‫הנודר בשמֹו והמקיים בשמו הרי זה בלא תעשה‬ ‫בשמן מנלן? דתניא ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו‬. Note also Jerome in the Vulgate: et per nomen externorum deorum non iurabitis neque audietur ex ore vestro.

Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods

75

2 Sam 14:11 ′‫ ויאמר חי ה‬. . . ‫ אלהיך‬′‫יזכר נא המלך את ה‬ Let the king swear by (the name of) the Lord your God. And he said: As the Lord lives . . . Isa 48:1 ‫ ובאלהי ישראל יזכירו‬′‫הנשבעים בשם ה‬ Those who swear by the name of the Lord And take an oath by the God of Israel . . . One more instance of this idiom appears in Amos 6:10:  51

Silence! Not to swear by the name of the Lord!

′‫ כי לא להזכיר בשם ה‬,‫הס‬

Another relevant passage is Josh 23:7b: ‫ובשם אלהיהם לא תזכירו ולא תשביעו‬ ‫ולא תעבדום‬. The phrase ‫ ולא תשביעו‬is not represented in the LXXB. It should be considered as a gloss to the preceding ‫( לא תזכירו‬which was not understood by the Greek translator). 52 The command in this verse was: “and by the name of their gods you shall not swear (‫ ;)תזכירו‬53 you shall not serve them or bow down to them.” This interpretation of ‫ לא תזכירו‬helps us to understand the sequence of the whole pericope in Exod 23:12–19. It is a short calendar containing Shabbat (v. 12) and the festivals (v. 14), Unleavened Bread (v. 15), Harvest (v. 16a), Ingathering (v. 16b), the three pilgrimages (v. 17), followed by related precepts (vv. 18–19). This sequence is interrupted by v. 13: ‫ובכל אשר אמרתי אלכם תשמרו ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו‬ The inception, “Observe all that I said to you” (Exod 23:13) refers to the precepts already given directly to the people—specifically, the Ten Commandments. Thus, it relates the preceding injunction concerning Shabbat (v. 12) to the fourth commandment (Exod 20:8–11). The following precept, not swearing by the name of “other gods,” is related in chiastic order (as usual in biblical quotations and paraphrases) 54 to the third commandment, “You shall not swear 51.  Cf. M. Greenberg, “The Hebrew Oath Particle Ḥay/Ḥê,” JBL 76 (1957): 34–39, esp. p. 35; W. Baumgartner, “‫ חי‬I,” HALAT, 3rd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 1.295. 52. In my opinion, this explanation is preferable to Holmes’s proposal: “‫ולא תשביעו‬, not in LXX, may have been omitted by accident”; see: S. Holmes, Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 77. 53.  This is also one of the meanings of zakāru in Akkadian: “zakāru A,” CAD Z 16–22. 54.  Cf. S. E. Loewenstamm, “Observations on Chiastic Structures in the Bible,” From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 1–5; Moshe Seidl, “Parallels in Isaiah and Psalms,” Bible Studies (Jerusalem: HaRav Kook, 1978), ‫ ;א–זצ‬R. Weiss, “Chiasm in the Bible,” Studies in the Text and Language of

76

Alexander Rofé

falsely by the name of the Lord our God.” Exod 23:13bα adds a related prohibition: do not swear by the names of other gods. The next half-stich, ‫“ לא ישמע על פיך‬it shall not be heard on your (2ndperson sing.) lips,” does not syntactically agree with the preceding. The Samaritan Pentateuch tried to unify the verse: ‫ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכיר ולא‬ ‫ישמעו על פיך‬. The LXX reflects an alternative tentative harmonization: οὐδὲ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν = *‫ולא ישמע מפיכם‬, and the same adaptation appears in the Vulgate: neque audietur ex ore vestro. These attempts to make the verse coherent only show how well ancient readers sensed the discrepancy inherent in it. Actually, what we have here is an ancient injunction not to swear by the names of other gods, and its expansion, not even to mention their names. 55 This secondary interdiction wholly accords with the distinct efforts to eradicate polytheistic names in the various realms of Israelite life. What is the origin of this short gloss? It cannot be very late, because it is represented by all the textual witnesses. On the other hand, the syntax ‫על פיך‬ is awkward. 56 Here one would expect to find ‫לא ישמע מפיך‬. Usually, ‫על פי‬ ‫ פלוני‬means “following the instructions of someone.” Only rarely does one find this construction with the meaning of “uttering words”: see, for example, Ps 50:16, ‫ותשא בריתי עלי פיך‬, and Qoh 5:1, ‫אל תבהל על פיך‬. Should we consider this expression late Hebrew? A date in early postexilic times would be plausible. 57 Conclusion: Early Date of Name Corrections All in all, in our attempt to date these efforts toward eliminating the names of other gods, we have reached the following tentative conclusions. The onset appears to have been at the beginning of the 8th century, in the wake of the extirpation of Baal worship, nearly coinciding with the first onslaught of the Assyrians to the west and well before the activity of Isaiah ben Amoz. At this the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981), 259–73, esp. p. 260 and 273 [Heb.]; S. Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook,” Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2010), 19–84, esp. pp. 53–60; B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 35, 219; B. M. Levinson, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 72–80, with additional references. 55.  A. B. Ehrlich commented on the latter part of the verse: ‫אין עיקרו בכתוב והוא תוספת‬ '‫ דברי מי שלא עמד על משמעו של ‘לא תזכירו‬,‫ביאור‬, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô, 3 vols. (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1899–1901), 1.184. 56.  Therefore, the medieval exegetes interpreted thus in the wake of the discussion in b. Sanh. 63b; Rashi: ‫ ;לא ישמע מן הגוי על פיך‬and Ibn Ezra: ‫לא ישמע על פיך—שתשביעו אחרים‬ ‫לא תזכירו—שתשבעו בהם‬. 57.  On the other hand, the late passages in the prophetic books, where ‫ זכר‬is connected with idols, do not seem to refer to taking an oath. These are Hos 2:19: ‫והסירותי את שמות‬ ‫ הבעלים מפיה ולא יזכרו עוד בשמם‬and Zech 13:2: ‫אכרית את שמות העצבים מן הארץ ולא יזכרו עוד‬.

Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods

77

stage, site names were changed by the royal administrations in both kingdoms, Israel and Judah. A change of personal names followed suit as attested by the epigraphic nomenclature in Judah in the 7th–6th centuries. These proceedings affected the literary realm, and thus we find that the D document avoided alleged pagan names, such as Sinai, substituting it with Horeb. Thereafter, copyists of ancient books resolved to “correct” the pagan names. A case in point was the pre-MT scroll of Samuel: baʿal became bošet, and so forth. This initiative was taken in the milieu of Jeremiah, probably by his disciples, and therefore should be assigned to the early exilic times, in the first half of the 6th century b.c.e. A final stage is represented by the gloss on the law in the Book of Covenant (Exodus 21–23): an old law prohibiting the taking of an oath in the name of “other gods” was expanded to forbid even mentioning them by name. The incoherent use of pronouns and the clumsy wording of this expansion indicate a relatively late date of composition. Later Corrections Naturally, with this legacy of detesting pagan divine names, dysphemism was not abandoned, even when, in the times of the Second Commonwealth, idolatry was not considered so dangerous. Thus one finds that names of “other gods” were defaced either in writing or in reading. In Jer 46:15, the MT reads ‫מדוע נסחף אביריך‬, “Why is your stalwart swept away?” The LXX, however, has the preferred reading (26:15): διὰ τί ἔφυγεν ὁ Ἆπις, ὁ μόσχος ὁ ἐκλεκτός σου, “Why has Apis, your choice calf, fled?” The translators apparently read: ‫מדוע נס חף אבירך‬. But the MT effaced the name of the Egyptian bull deity. The same lot befell Milkom, the Ammonite principal god. In Jer 49:1 and 3, the LXX (30:17, 19) reads Μελχομ, certainly preferable in v. 3, which goes on to mention “his priests.” The MT, however, has ‫מלכם‬, “their king.” A similar fate happened to the Queen of Heaven. She is mentioned in Jer 7:18; 44:17, 18, 19, 25, but the MT vocalized the text ‫מ ֶלכֶת השמים‬, ְ as though it derived ‫ ְמ ֶלכֶת‬from ‫מלאכה‬. In Jeremiah 44, the LXX properly rendered (51:17, 18, 19, 25) βασιλίσση, “queen.” It appears that the MT attempted to disguise the presence of this deity (probably an amalgamation of Ashera and Ishtar) 58 among the Jews of Egypt, even while describing them as sinners. The cult of ‫ מלכת שמין‬among the Aramaic-speaking population of Upper Egypt has been confirmed by one of the letters found at Hermopolis. 59 A significant textual correction obtains in Jer 50:2. The MT has: ‫הביש בל‬ ‫חת מרדך הבישו עצביה חתו גלוליה‬, “Bel is shamed, Merodach is dismayed. Her idols are shamed, her fetishes dismayed” (NJPS); the LXX (27:2) does not 58.  A full discussion has been provided by C.  Houtman, “Queen of Heaven,” DDD, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 678–80. 59. E. Bresciani and M. Kamil, Le lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli (Rome: Accademia dei Lincei, 1966), 398–403 (letter 4).

78

Alexander Rofé

represent the last stich (beginning with “Her idols”). Evidently, the latter was a secondary element aiming at either substituting the former stich or glossing it. The Babylonian gods are merely fetishes. R. Goldstein, who dealt with these passages in Jeremiah, highlighted a phenomenon in Isaiah 2 that corresponds to the one we have dealt with here, the various attempts to deny the existence of deities alongside the Lord. 60 We noticed a portion of this endeavor above, where the gods of the Philistines (‫אלהיהם‬: 1 Chr 14:12) were termed “idols” (‫עצביהם‬: 2 Sam 5:21). Seeligmann, who inspired this direction of research, pointed out the same “correction” in an additional place: ‫“ השקוצים‬detested things” in 2 Kgs 23:24 was substituted for an original ‫קדשים‬, as proved by the parallel verse in 2 Chr 35:19a LXX, which reads καρασιμ. 61 In my dissertation, I dealt with sundry manifestations of this process. 62 The decision whether to assign the disparagement cast upon foreign deities to the textual or to the literary level largely depends on the date assigned to the particular pericope. Thus, in the story of Elijah and Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:2–17), the prophet condemns the inquiry made to the oracle-god Baal Zebub of Ekron. The latter name is mentioned in this story four times (vv. 2, 3, 6, 16). It has been suggested, rightly in my opinion, that the real name of this god was Baal Zebul, Baal the prince, since zbl is the title of Baal in the Ugaritic texts, and the name Baal Zebul is still extant in the New Testament. 63 Hence, Zebub, “a fly,” would be a demeaning epithet, used in monotheistic polemics against the pagan god. In this case, however, if the arguments I adduced for a late, postexilic date for the story’s composition are sound, 64 then the debasing title “Baal, the fly” did not originate with a copyist but was coined by the author himself. 65 The resurgence of a polytheistic threat with the measures taken by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem and its temple caused a new Jewish wave of disdain for pagan deities. As indicated long ago by Nestle, the establishment of the worship of Zeus Olympus in the sanctuary of Jerusalem was defined as an installation of “an appalling abomination,” ‫שקוץ משומם‬, a dysphemism for ‫( בעל שמים‬Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). 66 There is no question whether this epithet 60. R. Goldstein, “From Gods to Idols: Changes in Attitude toward Other Gods in Biblical Literature and the Revision of Isaiah 2:18–21,” Beer-Sheva 18 (On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism; 2005) 113–53 [Heb. with Eng. abstract]. 61. Cf. Seeligmann, “Studies,” 9–10. 62. A.  Rofé, Angels in the Bible: Israelite Belief in Angels as Evidenced by Biblical Traditions, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2012) [Heb. with Eng. summary], esp. pp. 39–80. 63.  See the discussion by Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 25. 64. See my “Baal, the Prophet and the Angel (II Kings 1): A Study in the History of Literature and Religion,” Beer-Sheva 1 (1973): 222–30 [Heb.], summarized in idem, The Prophetical Stories, 33–40. 65.  In this case, the reading of Symmachus at 2 Kgs 1:2, Βεελ ζεβουλ, would be due to the late identification of this deity, as found in the New Testament. 66. E. Nestle, “Der Greuel der Verwüstung: Dan 9,27.11,31.12,11,” ZAW 4 (1884): 248.

Textual Elimination of the Names of Gods

79

was introduced by a copyist; clearly, it was the original definition coined by the apocalyptic writers. One cannot exclude the possibility that this new wave of antipaganism brought about a renewed trend to rename places that had a Baal component. This explains why evidence appears in late sources, although they might testify to actions that took place hundreds of years earlier. Thus, we find Baal-tamar of Judg 20:33 (LXX: Βααλθαμαρ) located by Eusebius in his Onomasticon at a place called Bēth Thamar (Βηθθαμαρ), 67 which may be the ‫ בית תמר‬that is mentioned in the Copper Scroll. 68 Another instance is Baal-hazor in 2 Sam 13:23 (LXX: Βαιλασωρ). The MT reads ‫ בעל חצור אשר עם אפרים‬but LXXLuc transcribes the last term γoφραιμ, 69 thus reading ‫עפרים‬. 70 From this comes the identification of Baal-hazor with the mountain called Jabal al-ʿAṣur by the Arabs and the proposal, advanced by Abel, that the Αζωτου ὄρος in 1 Macc 9:15 should be corrected to Αζωρου ὄρος, thus being identified as ‫ הר חצור‬Mount Hazor. 71 This could have been a nice analogy to the mutation of Baal-perazim into Har Perazim, but at this point it is advisable to avoid getting carried away with overly elaborate conjectures. Indeed, Abel later retracted his proposal and accepted an old conjecture by Michaelis—namely, that the Hebrew Vorlage at this point read ‫עד אשדות ההר‬, “the slopes of the hill-country.” 72 Nowadays, we know that the expurgated name of Baal-hazor was different, Ramat-hazor, as extant in the Genesis Apocryphon. 73 67. R. S. Notley and Z. Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 56; see also the editors’ note to no. 268. 68. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân, DJD 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 294 (col. IX, lines 14–15), comment on p. 267. 69. Cf. Fernández Marcos and Busto Saiz, El Texto antioqueno, 125. 70.  This is the superior reading; see Driver, Notes on . . . Samuel, 301–2. 71. F. M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, 2 vols (Paris: Gabalda, 1938), 1.63, 372; 2.259. 72.  Idem, Les livres des Maccabees, 2nd ed. (Paris: Gabalda, 1949), 162–63. See also U. Rappaport, The First Book of the Maccabees (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2004), 234 [Heb.]. Indeed the ζ in Αζωρου does not transcribe a Hebrew ‫ צ‬but a Hebrew ‫ ;ז‬see J. A. Goldstein, I Maccabees, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 373–74. 73.  Cf. N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956), XXI 8–9: ‫סלק לך לרמת חצור די על שמאל ביתאל‬. See also N. Naʾaman, “Baal Hazor,” DDD2 145.

Once Again: Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions Erhard Blum Tübingen Many conceptions and positions in the field of Old Testament research that were once taken for granted underwent significant changes in the past decades. When I began to study in Heidelberg in the early 1970s, the work of scholars such as Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth represented a broad consensus, not only in regard to the concept of Heilsgeschichte and their tradition-historical approach, but regarding a basic historical paradigm whereby ancient Israel was unique in the realm of the ancient Near East from the outset. In this paradigm, primarily the features in common with the Umwelt needed to be explained, not the so-called propria of Israel. Accordingly, the fact that a concept such as salvation history seemed to be incompatible with ancient Near Eastern mythological thinking did not surprise anyone; on the contrary, it was welcomed as a confirmation of the otherness of the biblical tradition. Thus, given the presumed existence of a Judean Yahwist in the Solomonic age and a northern Elohist in the 9th century b.c.e. who recorded the whole salvation history, it was most likely that the prophets of the 8th century b.c.e. participated in this same tradition, even if they did not mention a single element of it. Meanwhile this paradigm, which I call the “paradigm of difference” has broken down and has been replaced by a “paradigm of identicalness,” at least by the majority of European scholars. There are several reasons for this change. One is a different understanding of Israelite origins: if the later Israelites did not come from outside but were indigenous to Canaan, it is of course the peculiar, unparalleled tradition that needs an explanation, not the common Canaanite tradition. Another reason is the complete breakdown of oral Traditionsgeschichte à la Martin Noth and the rise of several alternatives to traditional source criticism, frequently combined with a rather late dating of the traditions. Moreover, there is a growing tendency to understand the biblical religion, characterized by Author’s note: The following deliberations were presented in a lecture at the SBL Annual Meeting 2011 (San Francisco) in the presence of Zipi Talshir, an esteemed friend and colleague. It is a privilege to dedicate this essay to her.

81

82

Erhard Blum

the first commandment, salvation history, prophecy of doom, and so forth as a product of postexilic Judaism, whereas preexilic “Hebraism” was allegedly not different from common ancient Near Eastern paganism. In my own view, however, neither the assumption of genuine ancient antagonism between Israel and Canaan nor the concept of Judah’s doom as a trigger for a new religion with unprecedented traditions provides historically convincing explanations. The first assumption can be taken for granted, I suppose; for the second, I am going to provide evidence from the book of Hosea. For this purpose, I will focus on two passages with explicit references or allusions to Israel’s foundational past: first, Hos 12:3–15, then Hos 9:10. Hosea 12:3–15 As Dwight R. Daniels has stated, “Hosea 12 is one of the most discussed and yet least understood passages in the entire book.” 1 Nevertheless, I am convinced that the case is not hopeless and that this chapter, if properly understood, can play a key role in our context. 2 Its interpretation, however, depends very much on how the Hebrew text is reconstructed and read. Therefore, I will begin with my translation of vv. 3–15, which form a rhetorical unit in terms of their content and form. Hosea 12 ‫ וריב ליהוה עם אפרים‬.3 ‫ ולפקד על יעקב כדרכיו‬ ‫ כמעלליו ישיב לו‬ ‫ בבטן עקב את אחיו‬.4 ‫ ובאונו שרה את אלהים‬ ‫ וישר אל מלאך ויכל‬.5 ‫ בכה ויתחנן לו‬ ‫ בית אל ימצאנו‬ ‫ ושם ידבר עמנו‬ [‫ ויהוה אלהי הצבאות יהוה זכרו‬.6] ‫ ואתה באלהיך תשוב‬.7 ‫ חסד ומשפט שמר‬ ‫ וקוה אל אלהיך תמיד‬ 1.  D. R. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History: The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy of Hosea, BZAW 191 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 39. This assessment has a long tradition; compare K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, KHC 13 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1904), 91: “Kap. 12 gehört zu den schwierigsten Abschnitten des Buches Hosea,” cited and confirmed by W. Rudolph, Hosea, KAT 13/1 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1966), 223. 2.  For an earlier treatment of this pericope, including an extended discussion of recent literature, see my “Hosea 12 und die Pentateuchüberlieferungen,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert, ed. A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer, BZAW 400 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 291–321.

Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions

83

‫ כנען בידו מאזני מרמה‬.8 ‫ לעשק אהב‬ ‫ ויאמר אפרים אך עשרתי‬.9 ‫ מצאתי און לי‬ ‫ כל יגיעי לא ימצאו לי‬ ‫ עון אשר חטא‬ ‫ ואנכי יהוה אלהיך‬.10 ‫ מארץ מצרים‬ ‫ עד אושיבך באהלים‬ ‫ כימי עד‬ ‫ ודברתי על הנביאים‬.11 ‫ ואנכי חזון הרביתי‬ ‫ וביד הנביאים אדמה‬ ‫ אם גלעד און‬.12 ‫ אך שוא היו‬ ‫ בגלגל שורים זבחו‬ ‫ גם מזבחותם כגלים‬ ‫ על תלמי שדי‬ ‫ ויברח יעקב שדה ארם‬.13 ‫ ויעבד ישראל באשה‬ ‫ ובאשה שמר‬ ‫ ובנביא העלה יהוה‬.14 ‫ את ישראל ממצרים‬ ‫ ובנביא נשמר‬ ‫ הכעיס אפרים תמרורים‬.15 ‫ ודמיו עליו יטוש‬ ‫ וחרפתו ישיב לו אדניו‬  3  Yhwh has a charge (‫ )ריב‬against “Ephraim” 3     in order to punish Jacob according to his ways;     according to his deeds he will repay (return it to) him (‫)ישיב לו‬:   4  In the womb he kicked 4 his brother, I     in his might (‫ )און‬he struggled with a god.  5   5  He “struggled” against (‫ )וישר אל‬an angel and prevailed: 3.  For this reading, see below. 4.  This might be the concrete meaning of the verb intended here (derived from ‫) ָעקֵב‬. Nevertheless, the meaning “deceit” should be heard in this context as well. Playing with subtle equivocation is typical of Hosea; see n. 5. 5.  This reading presupposes an emended vocalization of ‫( וישר‬from the root ‫ )שרה‬and ‫אֶל‬, which was used as a deliberately deviant preposition for the sake of the wordplay with yisraʾel (cf. Gen 32:29). A reasonable alternative would be to emend ‫ אֶל‬to ‫אֵל‬: “And God, an angel, showed his lordship and prevailed”; cf. H. W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton, vol. 1: Hosea, 3rd ed., BKAT 14/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976), 267–68; however,

84

Erhard Blum     He wept and begged for his favor.     In Bethel he could find him (‫)מצא‬     and there he has spoken (‫ )דבר‬with “him”: 6 [6 Yhwh, God of Hosts, Yhwh is his name.] 7  7 In truth, you can return with (the help of) your God (‫)באלהיך תשוב‬    Keep (‫ )שמר‬loyalty (‫ )חסד‬and justice (‫)משפט‬    and trust in your God always.   8  He is like 8 a merchant (‫ )כנען‬who is holding false scales; II     He loves to exploit.  9 Ephraim said: Indeed (‫)אך‬, I have become rich.    I have found (‫ )מצא‬might (‫ )און‬for me.    It is all my labor! One will not find (‫ )מצא‬in me    any guilt (‫ )עון‬which is sin. 10 “In truth, I am Yhwh your God    from the land of Egypt.    I will let you dwell again in tents (‫)אושיבך באהלים‬    ‘as in the earliest days’ [/days of festival].9 11  I have spoken (‫ )דבר‬to the prophets (‫ )נביא‬again and again,10    I have multiplied visions,    And through the prophets (‫ )נביא‬I have brought destruction    (/used similitudes).”

Wolff also omits ‫מלאך‬, as a marginal gloss. The proposal of Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman (Hosea, AB 24 [New York: Doubleday 1980], ad loc.) to read ‫ אֵל‬and ‫מלאך‬ as direct objects of ‫ וישר‬and ‫ ויכל‬, respectively, seems to be difficult with regard to the syntax of both verbs. 6.  The MT reads 1st-person pl. “with us.” But there is no “we” in the whole passage; therefore, it is preferable to postulate the preposition ‫ עם‬with -n, as evidenced in Ugaritic (cf., e.g., J. Tropper, Kleines Wörterbuch des Ugaritischen [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008], 17, s.v.), following (among others) Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 614–15. Presumably, the form was preferred for stylistic reasons (cf. ‫ ימצאנו‬in the preceding colon). 7.  Hos 12:6 is the only place in which the Jerusalemite Ṣabbaoth title appears in Hosea. There are only three other uses of the phrase ‫ )אלהי( הצבאות‬′ ‫יי‬: Amos 3:13, 6:14, and 9:5. The verse as a whole resembles the so-called hymnic texts in Amos, but it lacks their theological profile. Since the verse interrupts the “narrative” connection between 12:5 and 7, it seems that it was originally a confessional comment in the margin that was dependent on the Amos tradition. 8.  I propose a “haplology” of the kap (‫ כנען‬instead of ‫)ככנען‬. 9.  The phrase ‫ ימי מועד‬clearly means “festival days” (cf. Hos 9:5), which would be introducing an isolated promise of salvation into the prophecy of doom. A promise of this sort would be conceivable only as an addition by a later tradent. Alternatively, one might interpret the phrase as a strange use of irony (Rudolph, Hosea, 234) or posit some technical corruption, such as the fine suggestion by F. Perles (Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments [Munich: Ackermann, 1895], 44), who postulated the dittography of ‫מו‬/‫ מי‬and read ‫כימי עד‬ “wie in den Tagen der Vorzeit.” For a possible meaning of the phrase in this context, see the main text associated with n. 16 below. 10.  ‫ודברתי‬//‫ אדמה‬should be understood as expressing the frequentative Aktionsart in v. 11.

85

Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions 12  Is it the case that Gilead is “mighty” (‫ ?)און‬11—    Indeed (‫)אך‬, they have become vanity!     In Gilgal they (once) sacrificed bulls.     (Now) even their altars are like stone heaps     in the furrows of the field. 12 13  Jacob fled to the field of Aram,     Israel served for a wife (‫)באשה‬,     and for a wife (‫ )באשה‬he guarded (sheep) (‫)שמר‬. 14  But by a prophet (‫ )בנביא‬Yhwh brought up    Israel from Egypt,     and by a prophet (‫ )בנביא‬it was guarded (‫)שמר‬. 15  Ephraim has provoked (him) to anger bitterly.     So he will leave his bloodguilt on him,    his Lord (‫ )אדניו‬will return to him (‫ )ישיב לו‬his reproach.

III

The unit is framed by an introduction in v. 3 and a summary in v. 15, which declare explicitly that it is about a ‫“ ריב‬a lawsuit” of Yhwh against Northern Israel, referred to as Ephraim (vv. 9, 15). 13 The main part is structured in three strophes (4–7 / 8–11 / 12–14). Each strophe has two parts. In the first part, Israel’s behavior is critically examined. In the second part (in my translation with gray), an alternative option or position is presented. This part plays the role of a coda for each “movement,” so to speak. All of these codas are connected and intertwined with each other: the first two are divine speeches (the only speeches in the poem!), and they are linked by a subtle paronomastic play perceptible to Hebrew ears and eyes— namely, ‫ באלהיך תשוב‬and ‫אושיבך באהלים‬. In addition, ‫( חסד ומשפט‬together with ‫ )דעת אלהים‬are key words for Hosea’s own prophetic preaching. This means that God’s speech to Jacob at Bethel (v. 7) and his speaking through the prophets mentioned in v. 11 basically share the same agenda. 14 At the same time, God, acting through the prophets connects the second and the third codas together with the exodus from Egypt. Last, but not least, we find links between the first and the third codas, both through the Leitwort ‫ שמר‬in the divine 11. Since ʾaw(e)n and ʾon were not distinguished in Northern Hebrew (as opposed to the Southern idiom), either in spelling or in reading, the form given in the MT reflects a Judean interpretation, which proves to be secondary in this case (see below). 12.  The reasons for this reading of v. 12 (based on its syntactic profile) will be given below in the interpretation. 13.  “Judah” in v. 3 apparently represents a later retouching because there is no reference to Judah afterward, either in the body of the “lawsuit” or—even more telling—in its summary in v. 15. 14.  The very same key words are joined in Hos 6:5–6 with the motif of God’s judgment by means of the prophets (see 12:11b): ‫ׁשּפָטי* *כאוֹר יֵצֵא׃‬ ְ ‫ּומ‬ ִ ‬/ ‫י־פ֑י‬ ִ ֵ‫‬ הֲרַ ְג ִּתים ְּב ִא ְמר‬/ ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ְב‬ ִ ‫ עַל־ּכֵן ָחצ ְַב ִּתי ַּבּנ‬5 ‫ ְודַ עַת אֱל ִֹהים מֵעֹלֹוֹת׃‬/ ‫ ִּכי ֶחסֶד ָחפ ְַצ ִּתי ְולֹא־זָבַח‬6

86

Erhard Blum

instruction in v. 7 and in v. 14 (mediated by v. 13) and through a semantic connection between ‫ באלהיך תשוב‬and ‫בנביא העלה יהוה‬. I will come back to those elements later. The first part in each strophe reports the deeds and the attitude of the patriarch Jacob and/or of Ephraim/Israel with a clear critical Tendenz. Some colleagues have found the abrupt switch from Jacob to Ephraim and again to Jacob somewhat confusing and have attempted to reconstruct clear-cut Jacob and Ephraim layers. 15 But this would defeat the very point of the passage. The ancestor “Jacob” represents his descendants. So his presentation as an unfair trickster and the ironic and disillusioning description of his combat with God are aimed at a heroic self-image in Hosea’s Israel through identification with the ancestor. In any case, the divine promise and admonitions for Jacob in v. 7 are no less valid for present-day Ephraim: “Keep ‫חסד ומשפט‬, not strife and deceit; trust in your God, not in your own might!” Thus, ‫ואתה באלהיך תשוב‬ should be heard in its double entendre: “You may return/you may repent with your God.” The second strophe not only explicates how the ancestor’s portrait should be applied to Ephraim, pointing to his ‫ מרמה‬and to the confidence in his own might (‫)מצאתי און לי‬, it (12:9b) also underscores Israel’s incapacity to return (to repent). At the same time, these statements about Ephraim evoke the image of Jacob, who became wealthy using his breeding skill at the expense of Laban (cf. Genesis 30). Not only are Jacob and Ephraim two sides of the same coin in this text, but the coin appears to be transparent. Even in the following v. 10, the two aspects seem to be intertwined. This divine speech is obviously directed to Hosea’s readers, contesting Ephraim’s claim cited in the preceding verse: “I have found might for me. It is all my labor!” The truth, however, is that Israel has gotten everything from God “from [since] the land of Egypt,” not least the land, as the source of his wealth. Therefore, the requital will be the loss of the land and its resources: ‫עד אושיבך באהלים‬. But why is this formulated as “sitting in tents”? Again, it is apparently intended to be an allusion to the tradition of Jacob, who is called ‫ יושב האהלים‬in Gen 25:27; thus, ‫( כימי עד‬emendation) 16 points to patriarchal times. The disaster, however, is not only announced by the prophet, it has already arrived—at least for parts of Israel! Thus, the opening of the third strophe points to Gilead, which lost its “might” already. The key to the proper understanding of v. 12 is its syntactical profile. Since ‫ אם‬as a conditional conjunction makes no sense here, it must be read as an interrogative particle, with the meaning of 15.  Compare, for example, the divergent proposals by Rudolph, Hosea, ad loc.; and J. Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea, ATD 24/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 150–51. 16.  See n. 9 above.

Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions

87

Latin num: 17 “Is it the case that Gilead is mighty?” The answer follows: “No, it has become vanity!” (‫)אך שוא היו‬. Indeed, in the past, the wealthy Gileadites offered bulls (‫ )זבחו שורים‬at the sanctuary of Gilgal, but now their own altars lay scattered (‫)גם מזבחותם כגלים‬. Thus, the prophet points to Gilead’s disaster as evidence against Ephraim’s self-confidence and—as indicated by v. 11—as confirmation of the prophetic word. There is only one small “window” in the history of Israel when this constellation—that is, an Ephraim that was still (or again) self-confident though confronted with the devastation of Gilead—seems possible: the decade between Tiglath-pileser’s decimation of the Northern Kingdom, about 733/2 b.c.e., and the very last years of Samaria. As a consequence, there can be little doubt about Hosea’s being the author of our poem. But why does the prophet talk about Gilead and not about other regions devastated by Tiglath-pileser III, such as the plain of Megiddo, for instance? The reason is that he adheres to his discursive strategy, in that ‫מזבח‬, ‫זבח‬, ‫גלעד‬, and ‫ גל‬again evoke memories of the Jacob tradition—in this case, Jacob’s treaty with the Aramean Laban in Gilead (cf. Gen 31:44–54). And if the hearer did not grasp it immediately, he is told plainly in the next verse: “Jacob fled to the field of Aram.” Verse 13 itself is the most difficult in the whole poem: What is wrong with Jacob’s serving for his wife? And where is the contrast with the exodus’s being led by a prophet in v. 14? Some commentators remain silent on the subject, while others such as Wolff and Jörg Jeremias suspect that there is an allusion to sexual rites in the cult here. 18 However, I do not see any hint of this. Albert de Pury suggests, instead, that two different concepts of Israel are being contrasted: Israel as an ethnos, based on kinship, or Israel as a community of faith. 19 But this is obviously a bold anachronism, a projection of Christian concepts onto the Hebrew Bible. 20 In my view, the key word is not ‫ באשה‬but “Aram” together with ‫ עבד‬and ‫שמר‬. In the 8th century, “Aram” primarily means “Damascus” to Israelites. The coalition with Damascus against Assyria prompted the strikes of Tiglath-pileser III, with the severe consequences just mentioned in the preceding verse. In this coalition, Damascus played the dominant part. This is, inter alia, reflected in the different treatment of Aram and Israel by

17.  Cf., e.g., C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, 2nd ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004) §§54–55; David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), s.v. ‫ ִאם‬3. 18.  Wolff, Hosea, 280–81; Jeremias, Hosea, 157. 19.  A. de Pury, “Osée 12 et ses implications pour le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque,” in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches, ed. Pierre Haudebert, LD 151 (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 175–207, esp. pp. 200–207. 20. Cf. Blum, “Hosea 12,” 308–9.

88

Erhard Blum

Assur and in the formulation in Isa 7:2 (‫אפרים‬-‫)נחה ארם על‬. 21 Jacob’s way to dependence on “Aram” (Hos 12:13) , of course, has its own narrative logic, but looking at the other side of “the transparent coin,” it can be understood as a hint about the fateful political decisions in Hosea’s time and about their outcome referred to in v. 12 (for a similar critical reference to the subordination to Damascus, see Hos 5:11b). 22 When examining the contrast between vv. 13 and 14, which is quite pointedly marked by syntactical correspondences and by ‫ שמר‬as the last word in v. 13, one should, again, not focus on the opposition between ‫ באשה‬and ‫בנביא‬. Rather, one should take into account the connection with the programmatic codas in vv. 7 and 10–11 through the Leitwörter mentioned above. 23 In this perspective, the exodus with Yhwh’s leadership through the prophet Moses serves as the paradigm for true “trust” in God, which was also recommended to Jacob in Bethel, and which includes keeping ‫ חסד ומשפט‬and listening to the word of the prophets; all this is in contrast to Jacob’s/Ephraim’s confidence in his own might and to his disastrous failure. In addition, the exodus paradigm implies the promise of “being brought up” from bondage into the land of inheritance. In this poem, the prophet plays with the two foundational myths of Northern Israel: the story of the ancestor Jacob/Israel and the exodus-Moses tradition. The better known the story, the easier it is to play with it. Judged by this parameter, Hosea could take for granted his audience’s high familiarity with the Jacob story. He was able to use its different parts without regard for the narrative sequence. He could include hints about the story in the descriptions of Ephraim and Gilead in his own time. Better yet, he could recast the figure of the ancestor in the image of contemporary Ephraim, knowing, I suspect, that his audience would be aware of the critical Tendenz and the onesidedness of his presentation. At any rate, the elements of the plot to which he alludes correspond to the range of the Jacob-Esau-Laban cycle that we find in Genesis. This cycle represents a composition built on older material, with Jacob’s two corresponding divine encounters at Bethel and Penuel as narrative pillars. The narrative, which in substance stands on its own, was highly significant to the corporate identity of Northern Israel. It appears to have been an ideal candidate for the curriculum of scribal students at Bethel, Samaria, or Machanaim. Hosea 12 confirms this northern setting independently. Apart from the Jacob story, the prophet could reckon with a familiar Mosesexodus tradition. The fact that he had no need to call the nabiʾ by his name in v. 14 speaks for itself. Apparently, the exodus from Egypt and the anabasis to 21.  Note also the plan to install an Aramean (ben Tabʾel) in place of the Davidic king in Jerusalem (Isa 7:6) and Hosea’s formulation in 5:11b (!‫ ;)צו‬see the following. 22. Cf. Wolff, Hosea, 145; and Jeremias, Hosea, 82. 23.  See the main text associated with n. 14 above.

Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions

89

Canaan were regarded by Hosea and his addressees in some sense as a second beginning for Israel, because Israel was a collective entity that exceeded a man and his family only from Egypt onward. 24 The nature of the Moses story known to him, however, remains uncertain; nor does the Pentateuch offer clear literary data in this case (in contrast to the Jacob narrative). Although it seems indisputable that the Moses tradition is also of northern origin, 25 I do not think it is possible to reconstruct a literary version of the exodus narrative that is earlier than the 7th century b.c.e. 26 At any rate, an all-inclusive narrative comprising the patriarchal and Mosaic traditions is neither indicated by Hosea 12 nor necessary in terms of a logic inherent to the traditions themselves. 2.  Hosea 9:10 At first glance, there are several more-or-less direct references to the wilderness tradition in Hosea. The passages usually mentioned in this context (besides Hos 12:14) are Hos 2:16–17; 9:10 (10:11); and 13:5–6. However, any interpretation of 13:5 should be done cautiously, because the textual-critical reconstruction of v. 5a remains uncertain. 27 And if we can rely on the evidence of the “two witnesses,” Hos 9:10b and 12:14, verse 13:6 refers to Israel’s behavior in the land, not in the wilderness. For other reasons, the same applies to 10:11. 28 Hos 2:16–17 is no doubt of high interest with regard to reflection on “salvation history” in the book of Hosea. But its primary referent is the tradition of Joshua (see Joshua 7), and its main scope seems to be the promise of a new, transformed “salvation history” after doom. Moreover, it seems questionable that these verses belong to the oldest Hoseanic tradition. Only a few hints can be given in this context: Hos 2:4–17 constitutes a metaphorical Gerichtsrede against Israel as Yhwh’s adulterous wife. This speech is followed by a series of (post-)exilic words of salvation, 29 ending in 2:24–25 24.  Therefore, when Hosea speaks about Israel in Egypt (and afterward) as a child (Hos 11:1, 3, 4b) he uses metaphorical language, in contrast to Israel, which is identical with a man called “Jacob” in Hosea 12. 25. Cf. E.  Blum, “Der historische Mose und die Frühgeschichte Israels,” HeBAI 1 (2012): 37–63, esp. pp. 42–47. 26.  See, for instance, the implications of n. 38 (below) in this respect. 27.  The idea that Israel would have been chosen in the desert, apparently intended in the MT, is hard to reconcile with Yhwh’s being Israel’s God “since the land of Egypt” in Hos 13:4; 12:10, 14. Therefore, the alternative reading, ‫רעיתיך‬, based on the LXX, seems quite plausible. The transformation into ‫ ידעתיך‬might initially have been caused by mistakes of a technical nature (dittography? confusion between ‫ר‬/‫)?ד‬. 28.  No matter who is being addressed by that speech, an early Israel (cf. Jeremias, Hosea, 134–35) or the prophet’s contemporaries, the presupposition in the verse is that they live in the cultivated land. 29. A tentative proposal concerning the diachronic sequence of these extensions: (a) v. 19 (following v. 17); (b) vv. 23–25 (resuming the ‫ ענה‬of v. 17); (c) vv. 18, 21–22; (d) v. 20 (cf. Lev 26:6).

90

Erhard Blum

with the reversal of the message of doom in 1:3–8 (see also 2:1–3). The consequences of the lawsuit against the adulteress are explicated threefold (vv. 8–9, 11–15, 16–17), with each section opening with ‫לכן‬. The second ‫לכן‬-passage (vv. 11–15) presents the punishment as a conclusive talio to the accusation in vv. 4–7, 10. The first section (vv. 8–9), in contrast, explains this judgment proleptically as a measure taken by Yhwh in order to bring the people back to him. This interpretation seems to be a literary insertion (see, among other verses, 2:9b versus 10), but in terms of its conception, it is in complete agreement with a central element of Hosea’s theological thinking (cf. 5:15–6:4 and God’s strange love in 3:1–5*). 30 In contrast, vv. 16–17, opening with the third ‫לכן‬, go far beyond any other interpretation of the divine judgment in Hosea: the desert has almost lost its threatening nature; there is no longer any anticipation of repentance, only overwhelming and lasting love on God’s side and a perfect new love on Israel’s side. 31 In sum: 2:16–17(19) represents the latest element in this line and at the same time the earliest post-Hoseanic Fortschreibung in Hosea 2. We are, therefore, left with Hos 9:10—or part of it, rather. Tom Dozeman 32 has rightly pointed out that v. 10a, “is not referring to the wilderness wandering tradition . . . or to an ancient finding tradition,” for the statement ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ָאתי י‬ ִ ‫ָבים ּב ִַּמ ְדּבָר ָמצ‬ ִ ‫ַּכעֲנ‬ ‫יתי אֲבֹותֵ י ֶכ ֑ם‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫יתּה ר‬ ָ֔ ‫ֵאׁש‬ ִ ‫ְּכ ִבּכּורָה ִב ְת ֵאנָה ְּבר‬

does not locate the finding in the wilderness; but the grapes in the desert are instead part of a simile expressing the delight in God’s relationship to his people in the beginning. Nevertheless, v. 10b locates Israel’s dedication to Baal precisely at the transition point from the wilderness to the cultivated land. The very same point is made in Hos 13:5–6, and the basic idea also appears to be implied at the beginning of ch. 11. Hos 9:10, however, is of particular interest to our discussion because of the parallel Baal-peor episode in Numbers 25. Both texts apparently speak about the same sanctuary at the frontier between Israel and Moab, prob-

30. In my view, we are dealing with an extension belonging to the formation of a new overture for the words of Hosea; this composition comprised the kernels of Hosea 1*; 2*; and *3:1–5 and was probably written by the prophet himself, shortly after the fall of Samaria. 31.  The prophecy exceeds even the reversal in God’s heart as expressed in Hos 11:8–11: even in that passage, the formulation with ‫ חרד‬in v. 11 ( just as with ‫ פחד‬in 3:5!) clearly implies the awareness of guilt on the part of the Israelites returning from exile. 32. T. B. Dozeman, “Hosea and the Wilderness Wandering Tradition,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible—Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, ed. S. L. McKenzie and T. Römer, BZAW 294 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 55–70, here p. 65.

Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions

91

ably a place with plenty of water in the Wadi ʿUyun Musa. 33 Also, both texts hint at sexual components of the cultic activities which are understood as a paradigm for Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yhwh. There seem to be three options to explain this correspondence: (a) assume Hosea’s dependence on the pentateuchal tradition; (b) assume the dependence of 9:10 on such a tradition but deny the Hoseanic origin of this verse; (c) see the priority as being on the side of Hos 9:10—either as a Hoseanic tradition or as a later one. The possibility of proto-pentateuchal traditions in the time of Hosea with an exclusive monolatric conception such as we find it in Numbers 25 seems to me highly unlikely. In my understanding, this conception arose in Judah in the wake of the disaster of the Northern Kingdom—Hosea, of course, having a major impact on this development. At the same time, Hos 9:10 is part of a well-integrated literary composition that actually comprises the whole of chap. 9 (see the appendix) and entirely reflects the situation in the last years of Ephraim/Israel. 34 Verse 10 stands at the beginning of a double tripartite structure that includes a Schuldaufweis (10//15), the disastrous consequences (which had already partially occurred; 11–13//16), and an intervention by the prophet with a pitiless request for God to bring about this permanent fall for his people (14//17). The last element is the most difficult and surprising. It does not make any sense in a prophecy ex eventu. But in Hosea 9, it is contextually prepared by the echoes of a violent confrontation, probably on the occasion of Hosea’s preaching at a cultic feast; some indications hint at Gilgal. The prophet has been attacked: ‫אויל הנביא‬, ‫( משגע איש הרוח‬v. 7); and he feels threatened by the people who supposedly were the “people of the prophet’s God” in v. 8: “Ephraim, ‘the people’ of my God, is watching/lying in wait: for the prophet, a trap is laid on all his paths; hostility is in the house of his God.” Hosea finds the climax of Ephraim’s corruption here, and he utters a first request for retribution: ‫יזכור‬ ‫עונם יפקוד חטאותם‬. In conclusion: there can be little doubt that our verse forms part of an early literary work that was composed before the end of Samaria, perhaps for pupils and individuals closely connected to the prophet. 35 If so, what kind of knowledge did Hosea presuppose by saying: “They came to Baal-peor, and consecrated themselves to the loathsome and became detestable like their ‘lover’”? There are three suppositions: first, the conception mentioned above that Israel embraced false worship when it came into contact 33.  Cf. E. Axel Knauf, Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nord­ arabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v.Chr., ADPV 36 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988), 161–63. 34.  We only need to mention vv. (3,) 6: some people had already fled (‫ )הלכו‬to Egypt with their fortune in order to avoid the devastation, but their valuables will perish there as well; and v. 16: “Ephraim is (already) stricken (‫ ;) ֻהּכָה‬their root is dried up (‫)יָבֵשׁ‬.” 35.  One should reckon with the possibility that this composition comprised the primary substance of Hosea 4–11.

92

Erhard Blum

with the land; second, the assessment that at the frontier sanctuary near Shittim a “Baalistic” cult (in Hosea’s view) 36 was being practiced; finally, a tradition that Israel, “brought up from Egypt,” reached the land through Transjordan. 37 There is no need for a more specific narrative tradition behind Hos 9:10; furthermore, a specific Moses tradition seems to be excluded if Hosea’s sayings are consistent at this point. 38 Therefore, I follow the suggestion of Knauf 39 that Numbers 25 should be seen as a later explication of Hosea 9. Nevertheless, Hos 9:10 together with 12:14 shows that Hosea could quite naturally presuppose the conception that all Israel was brought up from Egypt under Mosaic guidance to the eastern ‫ערבות מואב‬. In sum: we cannot know if an extended literary narrative about the exodus including the anabasis to Canaan already existed in the Northern Kingdom. But we do have clear evidence in the literary sources that Northern Israel had relevant traditions about its origins that contained the primary ingredients of what we call “salvation history.” 40 36.  Probably with elements like those described in Hos 4:11–14. 37.  Transjordan as the last station of the exodus journey proves to be an old tradition for other reasons as well; see my “Überlegungen zur Kompositionsgeschichte des Josua­ buches,” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 137–57, here p. 134. 38.  The absolutely positive evaluation of Israel’s time under the prophetic guidance of Moses in 12:14 excludes such a sinful failure (as well as the sin of Exodus 32, etc.). 39.  Knauf, Midian, 161; according to Knauf, Numbers 25 should even be seen as “Exegese zu Hos 9,10.” 40.  In this respect, I differ (only) slightly from Tom Dozeman, who has stated clearly: “The prophet is not dependent upon, but is laying the foundation for, salvation history” (“Hosea,” 69).

Appendix: Hosea 9:7–17 . . .

. . .

‫ֻּדה‬ ָ‫  ‬ ּבָאּו ְימֵי ה ְַּפק‬7 The days of punishment have come; ‫ַׁשּלֻם‬ ִ ‫‬‬ּבָאּו ְימֵי ה‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫‬‬‬ ‬י ְֵדעּו‬ י‬ ‬

‫ָביא‬ ִ ‫ֱויל ַהּנ‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫ׁשּגָע ִאיׁש הָרּו ַח‬ ֻ ‫ְמ‬ ָ֔‫‬‬‬ עַל‬ רֹב עֲֹונְך‬ ‫טמָה׃‬ ֵ ‫ַׂש‬ ְ ‫ְ‬ורַ ּבָה מ‬ ‬‬

the days of recompense have come. Israel “has suffered(/will suffer) harm.”a “The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad!” “(It is) because of your great iniquity and (because) the hostility is great.”

a.  The LXX has καὶ κακωθήσεται; the Vorlage probably read ‫ וי ֵרעו‬or ‫י ֵרעו‬. Another possibility to be reckoned with is that the Vorlage read ‫( (ו)ירעו‬see the app. of BHS) meaning “[the Israelites] were/are shouting,” which would provide the introduction to the following speech.

93

Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions

‫ֶפרַ יִם ‬ ִעם־אֱלֹהָי‬ ְ ‫   ‬‬ צֹפֶה א‬8 Ephraim, the “people” of my God,b is lying in wait: ִ‫‬נ‬ ‫ָביא‬ ּפַח יָקֹוׁש‬ ‫ָל־ּד ָרכָיו‬ ְ ‫עַל־ּכ‬ ֹ ֵ ‫ַׂש‬ ְ ‫‬מ‬ ‫טמָה‬ ְּבבֵית אֱלהָיו׃‬

for the prophet, a trap “is” laidc on all his paths, hostility is in the house of his God.

‫יקּו־ׁשחֵתּו‬ ִ ‫ֶע ִמ‬ ְ ‫  ‬‬‬ה‬9 They have deeply corrupted themselves ‫ִּכימֵי ה ִַּג ְבעָה‬ ‫‬ ִיזְּכֹור עֲֹונָם‬ ‬

ָ ֹ ‫ִפקֹוד חַּט‬ ְ‫‬י‬ ‫אותם‬׃ ס‬

as in the days of Gibeah. May He remember their iniquity! May He punish their sins!

‫ָבים ּב ִַּמ ְדּבָר‬ ִ ‫ ‬ ַּכעֲנ‬10 Like grapes in the wilderness, ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ָאתי י‬ ִ ‫ָמצ‬ ‫יתּה‬ ָ ‫אׁש‬ ִ ֵ‫ּכּורה ִב ְת ֵאנָה ְּבר‬ ָ ‫‬ ‬ ְּכ ִב‬ ‫יתי אֲבֹותֵ יכֶם‬ ִ ‫‬ר ִא‬ ָ ‫ַל־ּפעֹור‬ ְ ‫ֵהּמָה ּבָאּו ַבע‬ ‫ ׁשת‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ַו ִּיּנָזְרּו לַּב‬ ‫הבָם׃‬ ֳ ‫ּקּוצים ְּכ ָא‬ ִ ‫ׁש‬ ִ ‫ִהיּו‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬

I found Israel.

Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your ancestors. (But) they came to Baal-Peor, and consecrated themselves to the loathsome, and became detestable like their “lover.”

‫ֶפרַ יִם ּכָעֹוף‬ ְ ‫ ‬ א‬11 Ephraim, like a bird ‫בֹודם‬ ָ ‫ִתעֹופֵף ְּכ‬ ְ‫י‬ ‫ּומ ֶּבטֶן ּו ֵמה ֵָריֹון׃‬ ִ ‫ִמּל ֵָדה‬

A

shall their glory fly away:

B

no birth, no pregnancy, no conception!

‫ֶת־ּבנֵיהֶם‬ ְ ‫ ‬ ִּכי ִאם־ ְיג ְַּדלּו א‬12 Even if they bring up children, ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ׁשּכ ְַל ִּתים ֵמא‬ ִ ‫ְו‬ ‫ִּכי־גַם־אֹוי ָלהֶם‬ ‫ׂשּורי ֵמהֶם׃‬ ִ ‫‬ּב‬ ְ

I will bereave them until no one is left. Woe even to them when I depart from them!

ְ ‫ ‬‬‬ א‬13 Ephraim when I saw him ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ר־ר ִא‬ ָ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫ֶפרַ יִם ַּכא‬ ‬

‬

‫ׁשתּולָה ְבנָוֶה‬ ְ ‫‬ ‬ ְלצֹור‬ ‬

‫הֹוציא‬ ִ ‫ֶפרַ יִם ְל‬ ְ ‫‬ ְוא‬ ‫אֶל־הֹרֵ ג ָּבנָיו׃‬ ‬

was like (?) a young palm (?) planted in a meadow, and (now) Ephraim is about to lead out his sons for slaughter.

‫ ‬‬ ּתֵ ן־ ָלהֶם יְהוָה‬14 “Give them, Yhwh, ‬

‫ַה־ּתּתֵ ן‬ ִ ‫מ‬ ‫ַׁש ִּכיל‬ ְ ‫ּתֵ ן־ ָלהֶם ֶרחֶם מ‬ ‫ׁשדַ יִם צ ֹ ְמ ִקים׃‬ ָ ‫ְו‬

—what may you give?— give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts!”

‫ָתם ּב ִַּג ְלּגָל‬ ָ ‫ָל־רע‬ ָ ‫ ‬ ּכ‬15 All their evil (has been revealed) at Gilgal. ‫ֵאתים‬ ִ ‫י־ׁשם ְׂשנ‬ ָ ‫ִּכ‬

C

Indeed, there I came to hate them.

A′

b.  The word ‫ אלהי‬in the speech of the prophet forms an inclusio with v. 17. Moreover, the fact that “God’s people” persecute the prophet of God is the reason for the curses uttered by the prophet himself in vv. 9b, 14, and 17. c. Reading ‫ִיּּקֹוׁש‬. Alternative translations (maintaining the MT) are: “they [that is, the people] are laying a trap” or “one is laying a trap.”

94

Erhard Blum

‫ַע֚ל ר ֹ ַע ַמע ְַללֵיהֶם‬ ‫ָרׁשֵם‬ ְ ‫אג‬ ֲ ‫ֵיתי‬ ִ ‫ִמּב‬ ‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫לֹא אֹוסֵף ַא‬ ֹ ‫ָל־ׂשרֵ יהֶם ס ְרִרים׃‬ ָ ‫ּכ‬

Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their leaders are rebels.

‫ֶפרַ יִם‬ ְ ‫ ֻהּכָה א‬16 Ephraim is (already) stricken, ‫ׁשם יָבֵׁש‬ ָ ‫ׁש ְר‬ ָ ‫‬ ְּפִרי ְב ִלי‬־יַעֲׂשּון‬ ‫ּגַם ִּכי יֵלֵדּון‬ ‫חמַּדֵ י ִב ְטנָם׃ ס‬ ֲ ‫ְו ֵהמ ִַּתי ַמ‬

their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Even though they give birth, I will kill the darlings of their womb.

‫ִמ ָאסֵם אֱלֹהַי‬ ְ ‫ ‬‬ י‬17 May my God reject them! ‬

‫ׁש ְמעּו לֹו‬ ָ ‫ִּכי לֹא‬ ‫ִהיּו נ ְֹד ִדים ּבַּגֹויִם׃ ס‬ ְ ‫ְוי‬

B′

For they have not listened to him.

C′

And may they become wanderers among the nations!

Ezekiel, a Singer of Erotic Songs? Some Text-Critical Remarks on Ezekiel 33:31–32 Johan Lust Leuven University The short final oracle of Ezekiel 33 (vv. 30–33) directly addresses the prophet: ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫אֹותם לֹא יַעֲׂשּו ִּכי־עֲג‬ ָ ‫ֶת־ּד ָברֶיךָ ְו‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְמעּו א‬ ָ ‫ ְויָבֹואּו ֵאלֶיךָ ִּכ ְמבֹוא־עָם ְוי ְֵׁשבּו ְל ָפנֶיךָ ע ִַּמי ְו‬31‫‏‬ ָ ‫ָבים ְיפֵה קֹול ּומ ִֵטב נַּגֵן‬ ִ ‫ׁשיר עֲג‬ ִ ‫ ְו ִהּנְך ָלהֶם ְּכ‬32 ‫חרֵי ִב ְצעָם ִלּבָם הֹל ְֵך׃‬ ֲ ‫ְּב ִפיהֶם ֵהּמָה ע ֹ ִׂשים ַא‬ :‫ָביא ָהיָה ְבתֹוכָם‬ ִ ‫ָדעּו ִּכי נ‬ ְ ‫ּובבֹאָּה ִהּנֵה ָבאָה ְוי‬ ְ 33 ‫אֹותם׃‬ ָ ‫ֶת־ּד ָברֶיךָ ְוע ֹ ִׂשים אֵינָם‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְמעּו א‬ ָ ‫ְו‬

The speaker, obviously the Lord, notes that the people enjoy listening to Ezekiel’s prophecies. They appreciate his words and acts as entertainment, but they do not intend to comply with his message. To them, he is nothing but “a singer of sensual songs, with a beautiful voice and a fine musical touch.” 1 This observation may shed some interesting light on the prophet’s recitation of his oracles. They may have been chanted, 2 but were they really sensual? The answer to this question largely depends on one’s decisions in matters of textual criticism. The underlying expression in v. 32 is: ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ׁשיר עֲג‬ ִ ‫ּכ‬, ְ which is said to mean, literally, “like an erotic song.” 3 The second word of this expression also occurs in v. 31, where Ezekiel’s audience is said to have ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ עֲג‬in their mouth. The following pages will be devoted to these phrases. Text-Critical Notes How do the ancient versions render the term ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ׁשיר עֲג‬ ִ ‫?ּכ‬ ְ In v. 31, the Septuagint reads ψεῦδος, where the Hebrew has ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫עֲג‬. According to Cornill, the Author’s note: These few lines presented in honor of Zipora Talshir on the occasion of her retirement intend to do justice to the prophet Ezekiel. May they sound like a harmonious song in the ears of the honoree. 1. D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 264. 2. J. W. Wevers, Ezekiel, NCB (London: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 181. 3. M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, AB 22A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997), 686.

95

96

Johan Lust

translator must have found ‫ כזבים‬in his Hebrew Vorlage; Masoretic ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ עֲג‬is a corruption due to the influence of ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ׁשיר( עֲג‬ ִ ‫)ּכ‬ ְ in v. 32. 4 Many commentators adopted Cornill’s proposal. 5 However, this proposal implies an unusually drastic change in the consonantal text. Apart from the Vetus Latina and the Syriac, which are based on the Septuagint, no ancient versions support this: the targum attests ‫“ תולעבא‬lasciviousness,” leaning on the Masoretic Text. Theodotion translates the phrase )‫(ּב ִפיהֶם‬ ְ ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי־עֲג‬ὅτι ἡδέως ⟨ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν⟩, which suggests that he took some liberties here or that he read a form of ‫ערב‬III (‫)?ערבים‬. The same Greek equivalent, ἡδέως, is used by the LXX in its rendition of ‫ערב‬III in Prov 3:24. If one wishes to adopt an alternative theory along the lines of Cornill’s thinking, then ‫ערב‬III may offer a more acceptable choice than ‫כזב‬. Symmachus and the Vulgate, however, present a more attractive path. For ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫עֲג‬, Symmachus has ψαλμ῀ος and the Vulgate canticum, which imply that they read, or wished to read the plural of ‫עוגב‬. We must return to this topic. For the time being, we may conclude with Schleusner that LXX ψεῦδος in v. 31 most likely manifests a free rendition of ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫עֲג‬. 6 In v. 32, the prophet is compared “with a song” (‫ׁשיר‬ ִ ‫)ּכ‬ ְ of “eroticism” (‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫)עֲג‬. The comparison of a person with a song may seem awkward. Revocalizing ‫ׁשיר‬ ִ as ‫ׁשר‬ ָ provides a smoother comparison: “You are to them as a singer of love songs.” This resolves the problem 7 but requires the elision of a yod. Another, less drastic revocalization of ‫ׁשיר‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ‬as ‫ ׁשַ יָּר‬was defended by Ewald long ago and was taken up again by Driver. 8 It does not require a consonantal change. This qatil-form does not occur anywhere else in the Old Testament but is grammatically sound. Dahood finds in ‫ׁשיר‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ‬an allusion to the Canaanite god Koshar. He reads the phrase as the adjective ‫ַׁשיר‬ ִ ‫ּכ‬, meaning “skillful.” 9 His interpretation fits the context very well, describing the prophet as being skillful with musical instruments. The ancient versions, however, all seem to have read ‫ׁשיר‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ‬and do not support a correction of the MT. Indeed, intervention is not needed. When one accepts that, in Ezekiel’s elastic style, the song may stand for the singer, the problem evaporates. 10 4. C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886), 398. 5. Herrmann, Toy, Cooke, Bertholet, and Fohrer (see W.  Zimmerli, Ezechiel [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969], 816 [who overlooks G. Jahn, Das Buch Ezechiel (Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1906), 234, where ‫ כזב‬is favored]), as well as BH3 (Bewer) and the slightly more hesitant BH4 (Elliger: frt l ‫)כזבים‬. 6. J. F. Schleusner, Novus Thesaurus philologico-criticus, sive Lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes graecos ac scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti (Glasgow, 1822), 3.478: Mihi vero paulo liberius sensum exprimere voluisse videntur. Similarly, D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, OBO 50/3 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 276. 7. See Block, Ezekiel, 25–48, 264. 8. G.  R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel,” Bib 19 (1938): 60–69, 175–87. 9. M. Dahood, “An Allusion to Koshar in Ezekiel 33, 32,” Bib 44 (1963): 531–32. 10. See CTAT 3.277.

Some Text-Critical Remarks on Ezekiel 33:31–32

97

Less attention has been given to ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ עֲג‬in this verse. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac take ‫ָבים ְיפֵה קֹול‬ ִ ‫ׁשיר עֲג‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ‬as a unit. The LXX translates, ὡς φωνὴ ψαλτηρίου ἡδυφώνου, εὐαρμόστου. Obviously ψαλτήριον, a musical instrument, is used here as the equivalent of ‫ עגבים‬read as ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫עג‬ ֻ . Something similar can be seen in the Vulgate, quasi carmen musicum quod suavi dulcique sono canitur, where the adjective musicum appears to be the equivalent of ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫עֲג‬. In Syriac, one word ‫“ ܙܡܝܪܬܐ‬song, tune,” seems to be the counterpart of two Hebrew terms: ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ׁשיר עֲג‬. ִ Closely following the word order of the MT here, the targum renders the first two words ‫“ כזמר אבובין‬as an organ tune,” clearly interpreting ‫ עגבים‬as a musical instrument. The data here unambiguously indicate that in both Ezek 33:31 and 32 ‫ עגבים‬is to be understood as something musical. With the exception of the Septuagint and the Syriac in v. 31, the ancient versions interpret it either as a musical instrument or as a song or tune. The question is whether this meaning can be attributed to the plural form of the noun ‫עגבה‬, derived from the root ‫“ עגב‬to lust,” or to the plural of ‫עוגב‬, a rare noun that is usually said to refer to a musical instrument. HALAT clearly distinguishes between ‫עגב‬/‫עגבה‬ on the one hand and ‫ עוגב‬on the other. 11 The first is related to Arabic ʿağiba and the second to Arabic ğaʿbat. Additional investigation of the phrase ‫עגבים‬ is needed. Meaning of an Enigmatic Noun The singular form of the noun ‫ עֲָגבָה‬is attested exclusively in Ezek 23:11 (‫ָתּה‬ ָ ‫)ע ְַגב‬, and the plural in 33:31, 32. The occurrences of the verb ‫עגב‬, from which the noun is said to be a derivation, are slightly more numerous. All of them are qal forms: one in Jeremiah (4:30) and six in Ezekiel, exclusively in ch. 23 (vv. 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, and 30). The meaning of the verb is usually said to be: “to desire (sensually),” “to lust.” 12 This meaning is distilled from the context in which the majority of its attestations are located: Ezekiel 23. The chapter in question undeniably exudes eroticism and lust. Nevertheless, hardly any confirmation can be extracted from the earliest translation. In Ezekiel 23, the LXX renders ‫ עגב‬ἐπιτιθέναι, and ‫ עגבה‬ἐπίθεσις. In this case, neither verb nor noun seems to pertain to the semantic field of “lust” and “eroticism.” When construed with the preposition ἐπί, the intransitive applications of the verb usually have a hostile connotation: “to be aggressive, to attack.” 13 Similarly, an aggressive sense is connected with the noun. 14 Of 11.  HALAT 740 and 751, respectively. 12.  Ibid., 740. 13.  See, e.g., Gen 43:18; Exod 18:11; 21:14; 1 Sam 23:27; 27:8, 10; 30:1, 14. 14.  See, e.g., 2 Chr 25:27; 2 Macc 4:41, 5:5; C.  Spicq, Notes de Lexicographie Néotestamentaire, OBO 22/1–3 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 268; repr., Lexique théologique du Nouveau Testament (Paris: Cerf; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1991), 549.

98

Johan Lust

course, this does not necessarily exclude a sexual connotation in a context evoking it, such as Oholah and Oholibah turning to their lovers with aggressive lust. 15 The root ‫ עגב‬rarely occurs outside Ezekiel. It is true that the participle ‫ע ְֹג ִבים‬ is attested in Jer 4:30, but its translation as ἐρασταί “lovers,” the standard rendition of ‫אהבים‬, raises the suspicion that the Septuagint translator of Jeremiah read, or preferred to read the participle of the verb ‫אהב‬. 16 Symmachus, who usually preserved the correct sense of the Hebrew, uses ἐριθεύομαι and ἐριθεία in his translation of ‫ עגב‬in Ezekiel 23. 17 The noun does not appear in the Septuagint, and the verb is attested only in Tob 2:11. When Tobit is struck with blindness and runs into all sorts of problems, his wife sets out to earn money. How she does this is described as follows: ἡ γυνή μου ῎Αννα ἠριθεύετο ἐν τοῖς γυναικείοις, which can be translated “[M]y wife Hanna earned money in women’s things.” 18 The LSJ notes that Heliodorus employs the same expression, αἱ γυναίκες ἐριθεύουσιν. 19 When applied by Symmachus to Oholah and Oholibah, this would mean that they offered their services to their lovers, perhaps including sexual services. In extrabiblical texts, LSJ finds a second interpretation of ἐριθεύομαι: “of public officers or characters, canvass, intrigue for office,” and “later, generally, compete, indulge in petty intrigues.” But this meaning does not seem to be applicable to Ezekiel 23. At any rate, nowhere does the verb or the substantive ἐριθεία seem to be directly connected with love-making or lust. It is obvious that Symmachus took offense at the use of the verb ‫ עגב‬and therefore translated it ἐριθεύομαι, giving it a more acceptable ring. Aquila, however, did not seem to have felt this sort of reluctance. He used ἐπιποθέω “desire, yearn after,” probably a perfect match for Hebrew ‫עגב‬. Two Translators? Let us now return to Ezek 33:31–32, where the MT uses ‫ עגבים‬twice—the plural of a noun supposedly derived from the root ‫עגב‬. Verse 31 reads, ‫ִּכי־‬ 15.  See K.  Hauspie, “La version de la Septante d’Ézéchiel: Traduction annotée d’Éz 1–24 et étude du Grec d’Ézéchiel par une sélection de particularités lexicales et grammati­ cales” (Dissertation, Leuven, 2002), 175. 16.  See W. I. Holladay and P. D. Hanson, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). Holladay notes that “current translations offer ‘your lovers,’ treating ‫ עגבים‬as if it were ‫ אהביך‬or ‫( ”מאהביך‬p. 170). He does do so without reference to ἐρασταί in the Septuagint. 17. Ezek 23:5, 12, 20 (ἐριθεύομαι); and 23:9 (προσεριθεύομαι); Aquila, on the other hand, has ἐπιποθέω “desire, yearn after.” 18. NETS, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/19-tobit-nets.pdf. Schleusner translates lanam tracto, operor, lanificium exerceo. The etymology of the verb seems to be known only vaguely: it may be related to ἔρα “earth,” ἔριον “wool,” or ἔρι- (in compositions, for example, ἔριθος “daily labourer, hired servant” (Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX, 1.910–11). 19.  Hld. 1.5 in G. A. Hirschig, Scriptores Erotici Graeci (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1856), 228.

Some Text-Critical Remarks on Ezekiel 33:31–32

99

‫ָבים ְּב ִפיהֶם‬ ִ ‫“ עֲג‬with their lips they show much love,” and v. 32, ‫ׁשיר‬ ִ ‫ְו ִהּנְךָ ָלהֶם ְּכ‬ ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫“ עֲג‬And lo, you are to them like one who sings love songs.” The translations are from the RSV, which notes at v. 32 that the Hebrew has “And lo you are to them like a love song.” In LXX v. 31, the rather unexpected equivalent of ‫ עגבים‬is ψεῦδος, and in v. 32 ‫ שיר עגבים‬φωνὴ ψαλτηρίου. This triggered Muraoka’s statement that, whereas in section α the Septuagint rendered ‫עגב‬ fairly accurately, in section β φωνὴ ψαλτηρίου (33:32) is nothing but a guess. 20 In his view, this is one of the decisive clues betraying the hand of a different translator in section β. At this juncture, it may be useful to call to mind that the theory of multiple translators was brought to the fore by H. St. John Thackeray in 1903. He argued that LXX Ezekiel could be divided into three sections: α = chs. 1–27; β = chs. 28–39; and γ = chs. 40–48. Sections α and γ were the work of one translator, and section β of another. 21 I have already dealt with this and similar theories in earlier contributions. 22 Here, I simply wish to suggest that the alleged anomalous behavior of the Septuagint translator in 33:32 may have been due, not to ignorance, but to a minor difference in punctuation in his Hebrew text and, thus, his interpretation. The Septuagint may have gotten it right when in v. 32 it translated ‫עגבים‬ ψαλτήριον. It probably read ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫עג‬ ֻ , the plural of the defective form of ‫עּוגָב‬. In v. 31, Symmachus probably interpreted the term in the same way, rendering it ψαλμός. It is true that ψαλμός refers to a song or hymn, whereas ‫ עוגב‬and ψαλτήριον denote a musical instrument, but both notions belong to the realm of music, and the context hardly allowed Symmachus to use ψαλτήριον in a context of putting the ‫“ עגבים‬in their mouth” (‫)על פיהם‬. In his view, ‫ עוגב‬may have referred both to an instrument and to a tune performed on that instrument, just as the English noun “play” may denote a “game” as well as “the playing of a game.” Attestations of the term ‫ עוגב‬are rather scarce. The noun is found in Gen 4:21; Job 21:12, 30:31; and Ps 150:4. In Gen 4:21 and Ps 150:4, ‫ עוגב‬is presented in parallelism with stringed instruments. 23 In the two remaining instances, the context allows both for an instrument and for a tune or song. 24 Interestingly, in Job 21:12, the LXX renders ‫ לקול עוגב‬φωνῇ ψαλμοῦ, and also in Job 30:31, ‫ עוגב‬is rendered ψαλμός, whereas in Gen 4:21 and Ps 150:4, the name of an instrument is preferred: ψαλτήριον and ὄργανον, respectively. 20. T. Muraoka, “McGregor: The Greek Text of Ezekiel,” JSS 31 (1986): 86. 21.  H. St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel,” JTS 4 (1903): 398–411. 22. See my “Multiple Translators in LXX-Ezekiel?” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, ed. M.  Karrer and W.  Kraus, WUNT 219 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008), 654–69, esp. pp. 662–65. 23.  The stringed instruments are the ‫ כנור‬and ‫מן‬. 24.  Job 21:12, “They take up the tambourine (‫ )בתף‬and the lyre (‫)כנור‬, and rejoice to the sound of a song (‫ ;”)עוגב‬Job 30:31, “My harp (‫ )כנור‬is tuned to mourning, and my song (‫ )עוגב‬to the sound of weeping.”

100

Johan Lust

Even if one prefers the Masoretic vocalization, a different translator need not be postulated. The difference in context between 33:32 and 23:11 strongly suggests to any translator that different translations are needed in these two verses. In any case, the LXX translation of v. 31 remains problematic. If one sticks to the Masorah, one expects to find the same translation, or at least a similar one, in vv. 31 and 32. This applies to any translation 25 and a priori to the Septuagint, which usually sticks very closely to the Hebrew. Do we have here then an argument in favor of a multiple-translation theory in the Septuagint? This possibility cannot be excluded. Nevertheless, other possibilities remain open. The translator may have read a different word in v. 31, such as a noun derived from the root ‫ערב‬III, as suggested above, or the context may have forced him to be inventive and exercise some liberty. Perhaps it is slightly more likely that he read ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫עג‬ ֻ in v. 32, but ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ עֲג‬in v. 31. Ezekiel, an Entertainer We have already noted that the noun ‫ עגבה‬does occur exclusively in Ezek 23:11 and 33:31, 32. Its meaning and etymology can hardly be the same in the two chapters. The contexts are largely different. Whereas ch. 23 as a whole portrays Israel and Judah as two whoring sisters, the final oracle in ch. 33 describes Ezekiel’s public’s perception of him as an entertainer who sang lovely songs. The use of the noun in 23:11 is completely in line with the verbal ‫עגב‬ forms that appear in the immediate context and refer to eroticism and lust. No such verbal ‫ עגב‬forms can be found in the context of the two occurrences of ‫עג־‬ ‫ בים‬in ch. 33. If nevertheless one wishes to uphold the argument that 33:30–33 employs erotic metaphors to show that Ezekiel’s public should be identified with Ohola and Oholiba, who are going after their lovers, and that this audience perceives the prophet as a singer of erotic songs, 26 one must be aware of the fact that the so-called erotic character of the section is entirely dependent on the interpretation of ‫עגבים‬. No other phrases point in this direction. The entire succinct oracle deals with the prophet as a messenger of the Lord’s words and with his audience’s not taking these words seriously. The prophet will be vindicated. The Lord’s word, mediated by his mouth, will come true (v. 33). The oracle forms an inclusio with the sentinel section of 33:1–9 and echoes the theme of the trustworthiness of the prophet’s message, which has been questioned by his public in 12:21–28. It also recalls the people’s response to other prophets, such as Jeremiah, who was laughed at (Jer 20:7) and seen as a lunatic (29:26–27); and Amos, who was sent away from Bethel by the priest Amaziah. Ezekiel obviously had popular support, somewhat like the prophets 25.  CTAT 3.276. 26.  See, for instance, M. S. Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 418.

Some Text-Critical Remarks on Ezekiel 33:31–32

101

who saw visions of peace when there was no peace. 27 His public enjoyed his performances, his beautiful voice (‫)קול יפה‬, and his harmonious tunes (‫שיר‬ ‫)עגבים‬. They themselves spoke nicely, as though having music in their mouths (‫)עגבים בפיהם‬, but in fact they were hard business people who were searching only for profit (Ezek 33:31–32). Conclusions 1.  In Ezek 30:31–32, neither the ancient translations nor the context fully supports the vocalization ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ עֲג‬in the Masoretic Text. 2.  The rendition of this term in the Septuagint is probably not an argument for multiple translators. 3.  The reading ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫עג‬ ֻ suits the context very well. 27.  Ezek 13:10, 16; Mic 3:5.

If You Go Down to the Woods Today: B(e)aring the Text of Proverbs MT and LXX Tova Forti Ben-Gurion University of the Negev The value that the Septuagint of Proverbs bears as a textual witness is variously assessed by scholars, many regarding it as a paraphrase or free-rendering parallel to 1 Esdras, Daniel, Esther, and Job or as a principally exegetical artifact. 1 In this essay, I follow the view that, despite departing significantly from the MT and embodying the translator’s tendencies and beliefs, the LXX seeks to render its Hebrew Vorlage as faithfully as possible in order to communicate the message intended by the original text. 2 Although many of the deviations of the LXX from the MT may be attributed to the translator’s technique or arose during the transmission of the Greek text, evaluation of LXX Proverbs must take into consideration the fact that, by its nature, the aphoristic genre is Author’s note:  I am delighted to dedicate this essay—a modest inquiry into two sayings of Proverbs in their MT and LXX versions—to my dear colleague, mentor, and friend Prof. Zipi Talshir, from whom I have learned much and whose friendship I cherish. 1.  See, for example, H. St. John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 13; D. M. d’Hamonville, Les Proverbes, La Bible d’Alexandrie 17 (Paris: Cerf, 2000), 19; J. Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish or Hellenistic Proverbs? VTSup 69 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). For the continuum from literal to free translation, see E. Tov, “The Septuagint,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 173. A. Aejmelaeus (On the Trail of Septuagint Translators [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993], 64) sharpens the distinction between “literalness” and “faithfulness.” The translator uses free renderings that are faithful to the meaning of the original. Fox opts for the term “mimetic” instead of “literal.” Mimetic translation attempts to map the maximal number of linguistic features of the source onto the receptor text and aims at consistency in correspondences between the vocabulary of the source and the target. See M. V. Fox, “Translation and Mimesis,” in Bible Translation in Context, ed. F. W. Knobloch (Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 2001), 207–21. 2.  See M. V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, AB 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 361; idem, “LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource,” Textus 22 (2005): 95–128; T. Forti and Z. Talshir, “Proverbs 7 MT and LXX: Form and Content,” Textus 22 (2005): 129–67.

103

104

Tova Forti

protean and versatile. Because proverbial sayings undergo constant transformation in the course of oral and written transmission alike, some of the alterations represent developments rather than errors. 3 The present study engages in a literary comparison of the MT and LXX texts of two sayings—Prov 17:12 and 28:15. Of the 12 times the bear is alluded to in the MT, 2 of the incidences occur in these verses of Proverbs. While the LXX employs the term ἄρκος “bear” to translate the Hebrew ‫דב‬, this noun appears in neither of these texts—the former passage failing to refer to any animal at all and the latter reading λύκος “wolf” instead. This circumstance offers an occasion to reexamine the retroversions proposed in early critical scholarship and discuss the methods suggested for recovering the Hebrew text behind the LXX. While the tendency among contemporary scholars is to treat the LXX as an independent literary work in its own right, I hope to contribute to the debate by elucidating the literary aspects of the two texts and their methodology via an analysis of the image of the bear within the sapiential context. 4 The Bear in the Hebrew Bible The noun ‫“ דֹב‬bear” occurs in all the cognate Semitic languages: dabû (Akkadian; fem. dabītu), db (Ugaritic), dubbā (Aramaic), debbā (Syriac), and dubbun (Arabic). In the Hebrew Bible, the male and female of the species are both signified by the same masculine noun, even when the context clearly refers to a female. 5 The feminine form ‫“ דוּבה‬she-bear” is only attested in postbiblical literature. 6 As depicted in the biblical texts, the bear (a carnivore indigenous to the Levant) serves as a paradigm for a dangerous animal from which there is no 3.  Tov suggests that the translator had before him a Hebrew recension of Proverbs that differed from the MT: E. Tov, “Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs,” in Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell, ed. H. W. Attridge et al. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 43–56. 4.  See, for example, A. Pietersma, “Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues,” VT 35 (1985): 296–311, esp. p. 297; Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs; idem, “The Greek of Proverbs: Evidence of a Recensionally Deviating Hebrew Text?” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S. M. Paul et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 605–18; M. Harl, “La Bible d’Alexandrie dans les débats actuels sur la Septante,” in La double transmission du texte biblique, ed. Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger, OBO 179 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 7–24. 5.  In 2 Kgs 2:24 (“two she-bears came out of the woods”), the feminine is indicated by the numerical adjective (‫)שּתַ יִם‬ ְ and a feminine-plural verb, the noun itself retaining the masculine form. The absence of a formal indicative in the feminine form is also attested in rabbinic literature: cf. y. Peʾah 1:1, 16a (‫ ;)דובא מתגריא לך‬Gen. Rab. 67 (ed. Theodor and Albeck, 766–67). 6.  Cf. Gen. Rab. 86:3.

B(e)aring the Text of Proverbs MT and LXX

105

escape. 7 Frequently mentioned in conjunction with the lion (2 Kgs 2:24; Hos 13:8; Lam 3:10), it also appears as a ferocious creature in one of Daniel’s visions (7:5) and among the wild animals in the dramatic scene of the Day of the Lord as foreseen by Amos: ‫ּופגָעֹו הַּדֹב ּובָא ַה ַּביִת ְו ָסמ ְַך‬ ְ ‫ֲרי‬ ִ‫ֲׁשר יָנּוס ִאיׁש ִמ ְּפנֵי ָהא‬ ֶ ‫ַּכא‬ ‫ְׁשכֹו ַהּנָחָׁש‬ ָ ‫“ יָדֹו עַל־ה ִַּקיר ּונ‬as if someone fled from a lion, and was met by a bear; or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall, and was bitten by a snake” (5:19, NRSV). 8 Isaiah likewise adduces a change in ursine behavior as part of the eschaton: ‫ַל־ּתבֶן‬ ֶ ‫ָקר יֹאכ‬ ָ ‫ּופָרָה וָדֹב ִּת ְרעֶינָה י ְַחָּדו י ְִר ְּבצּו י ְַלדֵ יהֶן ְוא ְַרי ֵה ַּכּב‬ “The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together” (11:7; cf. 65:25). The Bear in Proverbs Proverbs 28:15 MT: ‫ַם־ּדל‬ ָ ‫ָׁשע עַל ע‬ ָ ‫ֲרי־נֹהֵם ְודֹב ׁשֹוקֵק מֹוׁשֵל ר‬ ִ‫א‬ A roaring lion and a prowling [or: growling] bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people. Prov 28:15 reflects the book’s rhetorical style, which uses a variety of forms for its proverbs and aphorisms, frequently inverting the order of the analogical clauses and placing the vehicle of a simile or metaphor (mašal) before the tenor (nimšal). 9 The saying consists of two clauses in which concepts from divergent semantic fields are equated, although without use of the comparative kāp. The bear and lion are adduced together to describe the tyranny of a king over his subjects. 10 Facing the lion and bear together constitutes the ultimate test of human courage: “‘Your servant has killed both lion and bear; and that uncircumcised Philistine shall end up like one of them. . . . The Lord,’ David went on, ‘who saved me from lion and bear will save me from that Philistine’” 7.  The biblical portrayals have been elucidated by modern zoological observations; Tristram reports having sighted a Syrian bear (Ursus arctos syriacus) in Wadi Hammam: H. B. Tristram, The Fauna and Flora of Palestine: The Survey of Western Palestine (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1884), 7. Cf. F. S. Bodenheimer, Animal and Man in Bible Lands (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 45. This is not the northern brown bear attested in Akkadian lexical lists adduced by B. Landsberger, Die Fauna des Alten Mesopotamien (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1934), 80–83. 8.  Unless noted otherwise, English translations in this essay follow the NJPS. 9.  See, for example, Prov 25:11–14, 19–20, 23, 25–26, 28. For the various sorts of proverbial parallelism and their semantic implications, see B. K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 41–45. Berlin argues that the number of parallelisms is unlimited; infinite possibilities for activating linguistic equivalents exist: A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 127–41. ְ ‫חמַת־ ֶמל‬ 10.  The ability to pacify royal anger is thus a highly-valued faculty: ‫אכֵי־ ָמוֶת‬ ֲ ‫ֶך מ ְַל‬ ֲ ‫“ ְו ִאיׁש ָחכָם ְיכ ְַּפ ֶרּנָה‬The king’s wrath is a messenger of death, but a wise man can appease it” (Prov 16:14).

106

Tova Forti

(1 Sam 17:34–37). 11 The author of Lamentations goes so far as to say that God himself has become ‫“ ּדֹב אֹרֵב הּוא ִלי א ְַרי ֵה ְּב ִמ ְס ָּתִרים‬a lurking bear to me, a lion in hiding” (3:10; cf. Hos 13:8). The epithet attributed to the bear in the first stich of our first example, ‫ׁשוקק‬, is a hapax legomenon; Isa 59:11 uses the root ‫ המה‬to describe the bear’s threatening behavior. As the rendering of Tg. Jonathan (‫“ דובא מצריח‬a female bear who raises her voice”) indicates, the root ‫ שקק‬may be understood as referring to the sound that the bear emits as it attacks. Rashi corroborates this view, observing that “nehîmāh for a lion and šĕqîqāh for a bear are both terms for screaming.” Proverbs in fact uses the former metaphor to signify the king’s “bark” and “bite”: ‫אימת מלך‬/‫“ נהם ככפיר זעף‬The rage/terror of a king is like the roar of a lion” (19:12, 20:2). 12 The root ‫ שקק‬may also signify “charging,” as in the roar of a locust swarm (Isa 33:4), and the onomatopoeia of the hithpalpel similarly represents the clatter of a chariot’s wheels (Nah 2:5[4]). Alternatively, it may refer to thirst, as in Isa 29:8b: “[W]hen a thirsty man dreams he is drinking and awakes faint, with his thirst not quenched. . . .” The same idiom appears in Ps 107:9[106:9]: “[F]or He has satisfied the thirsty (‫)נפש ׁשֹקקה‬, filled the hungry (‫ )נפש רעבה‬with all good things.” 13 Delitzsch combines the two meanings, proposing that the verb “designates a bear as lingering about, running hither and thither, impelled by extreme hunger . . . from ‫ק‬′′‫ שק‬/ ‫ק‬′′‫‘ שו‬to drive,’ which is said of nimble running, as well as of urging impulses (cf. under Gen 3:16) viz. hunger.” 14 11.  See the praise of David in Sir 47:3 (ms B): ‫“ לכפירים שחק כגדי ולדובים כבני בשן‬He made sport of lions as though they were kids, and of bears, like bulls of Bashan.” Di Lella follows the Greek version “lambs of the flock (= ‫”) בני צאן‬: A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (Doubleday: New York, 1987), 522. 12.  My free translation of Rashi on Prov 28:15. As Fox notes, if “the king’s growl is menacing even when he is not wicked (Prov 19:12; 20:2), how much the more frightful are wicked, foolish, and oppressive rulers”: M.  V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31, AB 18B (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 827. Many of the other proverbs concerning the king presuppose a wise, righteous leader, however (cf. Prov 20:8, 26; 22:11), encouraging moral/Godly behavior by promising him a successful reign and a “throne established forever” (29:14; cf. 29:4, 12). See T. Longman III, Proverbs, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 559–61. 13.  In Mishnaic Hebrew, the hithpolel of ‫ )שוק( שקק‬signifies “to desire strongly”: see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem: Horeb, 1985), 1540, 1625. Gemser understands ‫דב שוקק‬ “thirsty bear,” from the Ethiopian “to strive for, desire” and the biblical incidences adduced above: see B. Gemser, Sprüche Salomos, HAT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1963), 114; HALOT 4.1647. 14. F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon, trans. M. G. Easton; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 2.231. Greenberg argues for a semantic link between ‫ שקק‬as “yearning” and ‫“ שקק‬noisy” on analogy with the use of ‫ ערג‬in Joel 1:20a: ‫גם בהמות‬ ‫“ שדה תערוג אליך כי יבשו אפיקי מים‬The very beasts of the field cry out to You; for the watercourses are dried up”: M. Greenberg, “Noisy and Yearning: The Semantics of ‫ שק"ק‬and Its

B(e)aring the Text of Proverbs MT and LXX

107

The equation of the wicked ruler with the “roaring lion” and “growling/ prowling bear” thus emphasizes his unrestrained appetite for power and the mauling to which he subjects the “poor” over whom he rules. 15 LXX: λέων πεινῶν καὶ λύκος διψῶν, ὃς τυραννεῖ, πτωχὸς ὤν, ἔθνους πενιχροῦ A hungry lion and a thirsty wolf is he, who, being poor, rules over a poor nation. 16 The variant λύκος “wolf” in LXX Prov 28:15 most likely reflects a misreading of the unvocalized Hebrew db (vocalized dōb) “bear” read as Aramaic ‫ד)א(ב‬ “wolf.” 17 The fact that this most likely constitutes a scribal error is evident from the fact that other Greek translators have no problem rendering ‫ דב‬literally and/or retaining the pair lion/bear. The biblical texts describe the wolf (Canis lupus) as a carnivorous animal (“Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey, and at evening dividing the spoil” [Gen 49:27]) and associate it with the leopard, lion, and poisonous snake (Isa 11:6; cf. 65:25; Jer 5:6; Zeph 3:3). The nature, pairing, and consonantal orthographical affinity appear to be responsible for the LXX text. 18 Further evidence of a similar misreading is attested in Sir 11:30 (ms A): ‫ [א]ורב ה[ר]וכל כדוב לבית לצים‬:‫“ ]כ]זאב אֺרֵב לטרף‬like a wolf in Congeners,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 339–44. 15. See my Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 64–66. 16.  The English translation follows Brenton. Cf. J. Cook, NETS, who translates “needy” rather than “poor” nation. For the assonance in the name/participle referring to each animal, see Gerleman, Studies, 12–13; d’Hamonville, Les Proverbes, 330. 17.  The word ‫“ ּדֵ ב‬wolf” and the definite form ‫ ּדֵ בָא‬appear in all the Aramaic dialects (in plene spelling (‫דיבא‬, ‫)דיב‬. The feminine is ‫)דיבא( ּדֵ בָה‬, in the definite form ‫בתא‬ ָ ֵ‫)דיבתא( ּד‬. The defective spelling frequently causes confusion about whether it refers to a wolf or bear (both spelled ‫דבא‬, ‫)דב‬: see S. Naeh, “Three Comments on the Text of the Yerushalmi,” Leš 74 (2012): 202 n. 42 [Heb.]. See also D. Talshir, The Nomenclature of the Fauna in the Samaritan Targum (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1981), 56 [Heb.]. As Joosten notes: “Cases of inadvertent confusion of Hebrew and Aramaic are numerous enough to suggest that the translator knew Aramaic better than Hebrew”: J. Joosten, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History,” BIOSCS 43 (2010): 53–72 (esp. p. 62). The Aramaic translation of ‫ דֹב‬in Isa 11:7 is ‫דובא‬. The Syriac-Aramaic rendering of the Hebrew ‫“ זאב‬wolf” resembles the Syriac-Aramaic translation of dōb “bear”; dēybîn translates zĕʾēbîm (masc. pl. of ‫ )זאב‬in Syr.-Aram. Ezek 22:27. The construct state deybey ramšaʾ “night wolves” represents the Hebrew ‫“( זאבי ערב‬wolves of the steppe”?) in Hab 1:8 and Zeph 3:3. When spelled defectively in the biblical text, ‫ דב‬was rendered “wolf” by the Sages. Cf. Gen. Rab. 99:1; Lev. Rab. 13:5. The Syriac Peshiṭta also customarily translates the defective spelling ‫ דב‬as “wolf” (Naeh, “Three Comments,” 202 n. 42). 18.  For the lion/bear pairing, see 1 Sam 17:34–37; Isa 11:7; Hos 13:8; Amos 5:19; Lam 3:10; for the lion/wolf pairing, see Isa 65:25; Jer 5:6; Zeph 3:3.

108

Tova Forti

ambush for prey and the peddler waits in ambush like a bear, for the house of scoundrels.” 19 As Skehan argues, the odd behavior attributed to the bear here (cf. Lam 3:10) may derive from a retroverted (non-Syriac) Aramaic source that originally alluded to a wolf. The source of the confusion between the two animals thus appears to derive not from the Hebrew/Greek nexus but instead from Aramaic: dōb/dubbā :: dêbāʾ. 20 The complementary clause of LXX Prov 28:15b adduces the hungry lion and thirsty wolf in order to make a different comparison: “is he, who, being poor, rules over a poor nation.” Here, the translator—or copyist—appears to have read the ‫ רשע‬as ‫“ רש‬poor,” probably through haplography of the consecutive ʿayins (the now superfluous final letter of ‫ רשע‬and the first letter of the preposition ‫)על‬, ‫ רשע‬being more appropriate to a description of a ruler’s tyranny. 21 According to the Septuagint, the ruler is not “wicked” but a poor man ruling over impoverished subjects. 22 Although Proverbs frequently warns against oppression of the poor, who are under God’s particular protection, none of the sayings regarding kings in the book of Proverbs reflect any expectation of social reform. However, individuals who are attentive to their needs by giving loans or charity are recompensed by God (14:31; 19:17; 21:13; 22:16, 22). Wisdom teachers who hold a conservative view of society that assumes its structure to be fundamentally right and proper, are astonished at the notion of a slave’s becoming king: ‫ׂשִרים‬ ָ ‫“ לֹא נָאוֶה ִל ְכ ִסיל ּתַ עֲנּוג אַף ִּכי ְל ֶעבֶד ְמׁשֹל ְּב‬Luxury is not fitting for a dullard, Much less that a servant rule over princes” (Prov 19:10; cf. 30:21–22). 19. P.  C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, VTSup 68 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 38; see the Syriac Apocryphal Psalm 152:2, where David is said to have fought the lion and wolf that took sheep from his flock (see “lion” and “bear” in 1 Sam 17:34–37): see P. W. Skehan, “Again the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms,” CBQ 38 (1976): 149–50. 20.  This may be the case in Tg. Isa. 11:6–7, where both animals appear together (dêbāʾ “wolf” [v. 6] and dubbā “bear” [v. 7]). A. Sperber (The Bible in Aramaic . . . III: The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan [Leiden: Brill, 1962]) cites the Antwerp Polyglot as giving dwbʾ for the wolf in Isa 11:6 and the first and second Rabbinic Bibles (Venice 1515–1517 and 1524/1525) as wdybʾ for the bear in Isa 11:7. See Skehan, “Again the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms,” 149 n. 22. 21.  This retroversion is attributed to Antonio Agelli by G. Mezzacasa, Il libro dei proverbi di Salomone (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1913), 187; and to J. G. Jäger by P. A. de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863), 88. See also J. Baumgartner, Du Livre des Proverbs (Leipzig, 1890), 233–34. The reverse (‫ רש‬to ‫ )רשע‬occurs in LXX Prov 28:3: see Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 1055. 22.  Interestingly, he employs two different terms to signify the “poor”: πτωχός for the king and πενιχρός for the people. Both of these nouns render the Hebrew ‫ דל‬and ‫ רש‬in the LXX: see T. Muraoka, Hebrew-Aramaic Index to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). The phrase “being poor rules over” is rare in the LXX: see d’Hamonville, Proverbes, 331.

B(e)aring the Text of Proverbs MT and LXX

109

Similar sentiments are expressed by the author of Qohelet: “Here is an evil I have seen under the sun as great as an error committed by a ruler: Folly was placed on lofty heights, while rich men sat in low estate. I have seen slaves on horseback, and nobles walking on the ground like slaves” (Qoh 10:5–7). 23 Thus the LXX reading is akin to the proverbs that envision a slave gaining power for himself at the expense of the poor. Although the textual retroversion of the Hebrew Vorlage of the second clause thus reflects a variant reading, the lesson it conveys reflects the familiar concept of the MT—namely, the suffering of people who groan under the yoke of a tyrant, as summed up in the saying: ‫ָׁשע י ֵ ָאנַח עָם‬ ָ ‫“—ּוב ְמׁשֹל ר‬but ִ when the wicked dominate the people groan” (Prov 29:2b). Proverbs 17:12 MT: ‫ַל־ּכ ִסיל ְּב ִאּו ְַלּתֹו‬ ְ ‫ּפָגֹוׁש ּדֹב ׁשַ ּכּול ְּב ִאיׁש ְוא‬ Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet a person rather than a fool in his folly. (my translation) This aphorism is related logically to the “better-than” proverb, which is a formal variant of the comparative saying. Syntactically, the infinitive absolute ‫ פגוש‬serves as a jussive, “let a person meet,” and the negative particle ‫אל‬, which often means “not,” is better translated “rather” in this context. 24 The proverb is warning against confronting/socializing with fools, and so the image of the bear is rather surprising. The sense of danger that is customarily associated with encountering a bereaved bear is applied to keeping company with a dullard. 25 The threat posed by a mother bear whose cubs have been killed is alluded to in two other places in the biblical text: Hushai the Archite describes David and his men as being “as desperate as a bear in the wild robbed of her whelps” (2 Sam 17:8), while God threatens that, in dealing severely with rebellious 23.  ‫ֲׁש ִירים‬ ִ ‫רֹומים רַ ִּבים ַוע‬ ִ ‫ׁשּיֹצָא ִמ ִּל ְפנֵי הַּׁשַ ִּליט נִּתַ ן ַה ֶּסכֶל ּב ְַּמ‬ ֶ ‫ׁשָגגָה‬ ְ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ִּכ‬ ָ ‫יתי ּתַ חַת ה‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫י ֵׁש ָרעָה ר‬ ‫ ָה ָארֶץ‬-‫ָדים עַל‬ ִ ‫ׂשִרים ה ְֹל ִכים ַּכעֲב‬ ָ ‫סּוסים ְו‬-‫ַל‬ ִ ‫ָדים ע‬ ִ ‫יתי עֲב‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫ּׁשפֶל יֵׁשֵבּו ר‬ ֵ ‫ ַּב‬. For the sapiential theme of the “world turned upside down,” see R. C. Van Leeuwen, “Proverbs 30: 21–23 and the Biblical World Upside Down,” JBL 105 (1986): 599–610. 24.  In its simplest form, the combination of the initial ‫“ טוב‬better,” which functions as a predicate, and the mêm of comparison prefixed to the second noun creates an analogical relationship between the two terms, given that the item in clause A is declared to be qualitatively superior to that in clause B (cf. Prov 15:17; 17:1, 12; 22:1; 27:5; etc.): see G. E. Bryce, “Better-Proverbs: An Historical and Structural Study,” in 1972 SBL Seminar Papers, 2 vols., SBLSP 108/2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), 343–54; G. S. Ogden, “The ‘Better’ Proverb (Tôb-spruch), Rhetorical Criticism and Qohelet,” JBL 96 (1977): 489–505. 25. See Fox’s discussion of the ‫“ כסיל‬dolt/oaf” (Proverbs 1–9, 41–42). For the fool as a sinner with whom shame is associated in LXX-Prov, see my “Conceptual Stratification in LXX Prov 26,11: Toward Identifying the Tradents behind the Aphorism,” ZAW 119 (2007): 241–58.

110

Tova Forti

Israel, ‫ָביא ַחּיַת ַהּשָׂדֶה ְּתב ְַּקעֵם‬ ִ ‫ׁשם ְּכל‬ ָ ‫ֶקרַ ע ְסגֹור ִלּבָם ְוא ְֹכלֵם‬ ְ ‫ֶפ ְּגׁשֵם ְּכדֹב ׁשַ ּכּול ְוא‬ ְ‫א‬ “like a bear robbed of her young I attack them and rip open the casing of their hearts” (Hos 13:8). In both of these passages, the bear represents rage and cruelty, danger and desperation. 26 LXX: ἐμπεσεῖται μέριμνα ἀνδρὶ νοήμονι, οἱ δὲ ἄφρονες διαλογιοῦνται κακά Care may befall a man of understanding; but fools will meditate upon evil things. 27 The vivid image of the fool’s folly in wielding havoc and destruction like a mother bear bereft of her cubs disappears in the LXX version. While the Hebrew sayings are formulated as couplets with lines that are counterpoised in synonymous—or, more frequently, antithetical—parallelism, the Greek translator constructs his text around structure and/or semantics, producing more regular and symmetrical/antithetical forms. 28 Thus, he compares the fool (‫ )כסיל‬with the wise man (‫)איש שכל‬, replacing the “better-than” paradigm of the MT with an antithesis; the two clauses do not contradicting one another logically but instead adduce two contrasting personality types. As frequently portrayed in Qohelet, the intelligent man is said to be in a state of constant anxiety: “When I set my heart to gain wisdom, and to observe the business that occurs on the earth, ⟨my⟩ eyes seeing sleep neither by day nor by night” (Qoh 8:16). 29 Like the ‫“ איש מזימות‬man of intrigues,” the fool, on the other hand, is always preoccupied with schemes and scheming. 30 The translator may have read the opening stich of the unvocalized Hebrew source text as ‫פגוש ד(א)ב באיש ׂשכל‬. 31 The rendering of the Hebrew ‫ דב‬by 26. See my Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, 88–89. 27.  The English translation follows Brenton. The targum also reads ‫בגברא חכימא‬, a skillful man. 28.  Herein, I follow the view that the translator of Proverbs exhibits a tendency to produce grammatically and/or semantically more-closely-parallel forms than those in his source text: see G. Tauberschmidt, Secondary Parallelism: A Study of Translation Technique in LXX Proverbs, Academia Biblica 15 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004); On LXX Proverbs’ predilection for antithesis, see G.  Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint, vol.  3: Proverbs (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1956), 16–21; d’Hamonville, Proverbes, 71; J.  Cook, “Contrasting as Translation Technique,” in From Tradition to Interpretation: Studies in Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 403–14. 29.  See M. V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 287. 30. The ‫ כסיל‬speaks provocative words (Prov 18:6), stumbles into quarrels (14:16), and easily slides into evildoing (10:23, 13:19). For the condemnation of scheming, see Prov 12:2, 14:17, 24:8; Ps 10:2, 21:12, 37:7; Sir 44:4. Fox distinguishes between the ‫“ כסיל‬dolt, oaf” and the ‫“ אויל‬fool, knave,” whose obtuseness is a moral deficiency (Proverbs 1–9, 40–42). 31. Following Jäger’s reconstruction of the Hebrew Vorlage cited by de Lagarde (pāgōš dĕʾābāh bĕʾîš śēkel) (Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien, 56). LEH refers to Schleusner (1820) for this retroversion.

B(e)aring the Text of Proverbs MT and LXX

111

μέριμνα “care, anxiety, worry” appears to reflect the translator’s/copyist’s understanding of either the defective MT spelling ‫ דב‬or the vocalized reading of the plene ‫דוב‬/‫ דאב‬as )‫דאב(ה‬. 32 As Barr defines it, vocalization signifies the oral pronunciation of the full form of a Hebrew word, including all the vowels not written at all and a discrimination of the various possible readings via matres lectionis or “vocalic phonographemes” (consonants serving as vowels). 33 By employing this system and reverting the Greek μέριμνα back into Hebrew, we can recover the translator’s vocalization. This appears to be a rather strained reading by this translator, in light of the fact that, while this Greek term renders various Hebrew terms in the MT, it is not used to translate the root ‫דאב‬. 34 The Greek translation of Sirach, however, systematically employs the Gk. term to render Heb. ‫“ דאגה‬care, worry, concern” with respect to physical needs and psychosomatic concepts/topics. 35 Tracing the LXX’s rendering of ‫ דאגה‬reveals that, rather than being represented by a fixed equivalent, the noun is defined by the context. 36 Thus, for example, while the Syriac translates Prov 12:25 (‫ֶב־איׁש י ְַׁש ֶחּנָה ְו ָדבָר‬ ִ ‫ְּד ָאגָה ְבל‬ ‫“ טֹוב יְׂשַ ְּמ ֶחּנָה‬Anxiety weighs down the human heart, but a good word cheers it up” [NRV]) dʾbh blb, the LXX loosely translates φοβερὸς λογός “a frightening word/message,” which is the antithesis of the “good word/message.” 37 Thus, the translator appears to have read )‫דאב(ה‬, having in mind the meaning of ‫דאגה‬ that was attested by the frequent Greek rendering μέριμνα, as in Sirach. 38 32.  Compare with the plene ‫ דוב‬in 4QIsac frg. 6 (11:7 MT [11:4 Gk.]) versus ‫ דב‬in 1QIsaa and the vocalized spelling ‫ דוב‬in Sir 11:30 (ms A), 25:17 (ms C), 28:17 (ms C), and 27:3 ‫( דובים‬ms B). 33.  See J. Barr, “Vocalization and the Analysis of Hebrew among the Ancient Translators,” in Hebraische Wortforschung: Fest. Walter Baumgartner, VTSup 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 1–11; idem, “Reading a Script without Vowels,” in Writing without Letters, ed. W. Haas (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976), 71–100. 34.  Compare the rendering of ‫ יהב‬as “burden/matter of concern” in LXX Ps 54:23 [MT 55:23]. Less feasible retroversions are those of Job 11:18; LXX Dan 11:26: see LEH 393. The verb μεριμνάω “to care for, to be anxious about” renders different meanings; see, e.g.: ‫“ עצב‬pain, toil” (Prov 14:23), ‫“ שעה‬pay attention” (Exod 5:9), and ‫“ כעס‬be angry” (Ezek 16:42). 35.  Compare “Jealousy and anger shorten life, and anxiety brings on premature old age” (Sir 30:24, NRSV) (ms B: ‫ ;)דאגה‬see also 31:1, 2 (cf. ms B: ‫)דאגה‬, 38:29, 42:9 (cf. ms B: ‫ ;)דאגה‬1 Macc 6:10. See Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. 36.  Cf. Josh 22:24; Jer 49:23; Ezek 4:16; 12:18, 19. 37.  The Greek translation uses the antithesis of “a good word/message” to clarify the obscure elliptical phrase ‫ דאגה בלב איש ישחנה‬as follows: “A frightening word disturbs the heart of a just man, but a good report makes him happy” (Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 558, 996). 38. For ‫ דאבה‬and its contextual/exegetical renderings in the LXX, see Lev 26:16; Deut 28:65; Jer 31:12 [LXX 38:12], 31:25 [LXX 28:25]; Ps 88:10(9) [LXX 87:10]; Job 41:14. Even the similar phrases ‫“ דאבון נפש‬anguished heart” (Deut 28:65) and ‫“ נפש דאבה‬despondent spirit” (Jer 31:25) are rendered contextually.

112

Tova Forti

The infinitive absolute ‫“ פגוש‬meet, encounter” is represented by the Greek verb ἐμπίπτω “fall into, be entrapped by,” which is frequently followed by the expression “into evil” (MT: ‫ ;יפול ברעה‬LXX: εἰς κακά) (cf. Prov 13:17) or a metonymic synonym—snare, pit (‫ פח‬/ ‫ פחת‬/ ‫( )שחת‬cf. Prov 26:27). 39 The exegetical reading of the translator introduces the ideational sphere of recompense by adducing moral qualities. Although the “care/concern/worry” that befalls the wise man is not exactly what we might expect his reward to be, the term may connote altruism rather than preoccupation with personal woes.” 40 The translator’s reading of ‫ דב‬as ‫ דאב‬appears to have led him to reverse the Hebrew word order from ‫ פגוש דב שכל באיש‬to ‫פגוש ד(א)ב באיש שכל‬. The LXX turns the MT’s “better than” analogy between meeting a dangerous bear and a fool in his folly into an antithetical comparison that contrasts the wise and the fool. The first half relates to the existential theme of the intelligent person’s being constantly consumed by worry and the second half to the typological behavior of the fool, who is perpetually preoccupied with scheming intrigue / meditating on evil. Conclusion This study provides a textual analysis and reconstruction of LXX Prov 28:15 and 17:12. In neither instance are we faced with a textual corruption in the MT, the meaning of which is clear and straightforward. Although a comparison of the MT and LXX shows deviations, both the MT and the recovered forms are plausible readings. Following the scholarly thesis that the translator endeavored to render the Hebrew Vorlage as faithfully as possible, we attempted to explain why both sayings have variants. While the LXX text suggests that the translator read the unvocalized ‫ דב‬differently, his rendering does not significantly depart from the ideational world view of the Hebrew author(s) of Proverbs. In addition, proverbs by their very nature are given to change and alteration in both oral and written transmission (the MT and LXX alike). This literary evaluation makes it difficult to ascertain who is to “blame” for the variation—the Hebrew version underlying the Greek text or a translator who misunderstood the Hebrew or understood it differently from the Masoretes. Each of these alternatives considers the translation to represent the beginning of a hermeneutical process that must be assessed according to its intrinsic value, taking into consideration the “context” in its wider sense by means of exegesis, language, and literary criticism. 41 39.  For the former, see Prov 17:20 [LXX: 17:16a], 28:14. For the latter, see Prov 26:27; Isa 24:18; Jer 48:44 [LXX 31:44]; Ps 7:16[15]; Qoh 10:8; Sir 27:26. 40.  The additional κακός may reflect the translator’s moralizing tendency: see M.  B. Dick, “The Ethics of the Old Greek Book of Proverbs,” in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 2 (1990): 22–23. 41.  Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 281.

Numbers 36:13: The Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy and the Redaction of the Pentateuch Itamar Kislev University of Haifa In recent decades, scholars have evinced a growing tendency to ascribe parts of the Pentateuch to a later date than was previously proposed, with extensive segments being attributed to the Persian period. Some scholars even ascribe some parts to the end of this era, and others suggest quite specific dates within it. 1 While the precise dating of these passages is of course significant, both for identifying the background against which they were composed and for determining the historical context of the redaction of the Pentateuch as a whole, the attempt to establish the relative chronology of the various units is no less important and directly contributes to a better understanding of the process and of the various stages in which the Pentateuch was formed. Although some scholars have argued and presented evidence for an earlier provenance, P has generally been dated to the exilic or Persian period; this issue Author’s note:  This essay is written in honor of Professor Zipi Talshir, whose careful and prudent scholarly methodology, embodied in her numerous and varied studies, illuminates the path of biblical scholars. 1.  Cf. A. Rofé, “An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. E.  Blum, C.  Macholz, and E.  W. Stegemann (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990) 27–39; T. C. Römer, “Nombres 11–12 et la question d’une rédaction deutéronomique dans le Pentateuque,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, ed. M.  Vervenne and J.  Lust, BETL 133 (Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1997), 481–98; W.  Johnstone, “The Revision of Festivals in Exodus 1–24 in the Persian Period and the Preservation of Jewish Identity in the Diaspora,” in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. B. Becking and R. Albertz, Studies in Theology and Religion 5 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 99–114; R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZABR 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003); Y. Amit, “Narrative Analysis: Meaning, Context and Origins of Genesis 38,” in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Peterson, ed. J. M. LeMon and K. H. Richards, SBLRBS 56 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 271–91.

113

114

Itamar Kislev

continues to be debated. 2 In recent years, discussion regarding the nature of the Priestly writings has also been revived, with some scholars viewing them as an editorial reworking of earlier, non-Priestly texts rather than an independent source, while others maintain that a continuous, originally independent source can be found in the Priestly writings. 3 Some of the latter argue that the original P narrative was more limited in scope than previously assumed, and a few of them propose that P ends at some point in Exodus or Leviticus, rather than in Joshua, as was once thought. 4 In the eyes of these scholars, the P-like sections in the remainder of the Pentateuch are very late redactional strata and are not part of Pg—the core of the Priestly source. 5 In this debate, much attention has been devoted to the book of Numbers and its role in the formation of the Pentateuch. The general tendency today is to view the book as having been composed primarily at a very late stage as part and parcel of the redaction of the Pentateuch in its final form, and to assign the P-like passages it contains to the Persian period—frequently to its final days. 6 While determining the relative chronology of these units and ascertaining more precisely at which stage they were compiled is not always a simple task, it remains an important one. The pericope on which I focus in this essay is the very last verse of Numbers: ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְּבע ְַרבֹת מֹואָב עַל‬ ְ ‫ׁשה אֶל ְּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ְּבי ַד מ‬′‫ֲׁשר ִצּוָה ה‬ ֶ ‫ָטים א‬ ִ ‫ׁשּפ‬ ְ ‫ֵאּלֶה ה ִַּמ ְצו‍ֹת ְוה ִַּמ‬ 2.  For the dating of the Priestly writings, see E. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 218–21; D. M. Carr, “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 3/1: The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, ed. M. Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming). 3.  For reviews of this contemporary tendency, see Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, 197–218; Carr, “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism.” For a detailed argument in light of the Sinai P pericope, see B. J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103–34; cf. also my “P: Source or Redaction—The Evidence of Numbers 25,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 387–99. 4. Cf. T.  Römer, “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfrangen zur ‘Quellenscheidung’ im vierten Buch der Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuchin in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. J. C. Gertz, K. Schmidt, and M. Witte; BZAW 315 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 216–18; R. G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. J. Bowden (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 100–114; C.  Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT 2nd series 25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 20–68; Carr, “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism.” 5. Cf. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, 113–14; Carr, “Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism.” 6. Cf. Römer, “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten,” 315–31; Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora.

Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy

115

‫י ְַרּדֵ ן יְרֵחֹו‬. It exhibits indisputable Priestly characteristics, such as the phrases ‫“ ביד משה‬through Moses” and ‫“ בערבות מואב על ירדן ירחו‬on the plains of Moab at the Jordan near Jericho,” both of which frequently appear in Priestly or P-like texts. 7 Because my purpose is to examine the relative chronology of this verse, let me first distinguish between two historical stages relating to the Priestly and Deuteronomic writings. The first relates to the period before these two corpora had become part of a single composition, and the second to the phase after they were included in a single work, the work that eventually came to be known as the Pentateuch. The question I wish to address here is whether we can determine to which of these compositional stages the passages displaying Priestly characteristics, such as Num 36:13 (which may very well date to the Persian period, from its beginning to its end) belong. In other words, did the larger composition in which such Priestly passages were first incorporated include D or not? Examining the final chapters of Numbers in light of Num 36:13, I propose that certain passages within these chapters can be ascribed to the first stage. Martin Noth attached great importance to identifying the literary stage of which the concluding chapters of Numbers form a part. By arguing that Deuteronomy through Kings constitutes a single composition—the Deuteronomistic History—and Genesis to Numbers a separate work, the Tetrateuch, he challenged the classical theory, according to which the original composition—the Hexateuch—extended from Genesis to Joshua. 8 Positing that the older narrative sources reflected in the Tetrateuch were “cut short” and did not continue to the entry into Canaan, he maintained that the Priestly source concluded with the death of Moses, saying nothing about the entry into Canaan or the conquest, division, or settlement of the land. These topics lay beyond the sphere of interest of the Tetrateuch’s compilers. 9 Despite its influence on research, this theory is not without difficulties. The final, essentially Priestly chapters of Numbers (i.e., the end of the Tetrateuch according to Noth) in fact do deal at length with the preparations for 7. For ‫ביד משה‬, see Exod 35:29; Lev 8:36, 10:11, 26:46; Num 4:37, 45, 49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 17:5; 27:23; 33:1; 36:13; Josh 14:2 (but compare the LXX, the text of which appears to be the original); 20:2; 21:2, 8; 22:9—all of which reflect Priestly style. Other texts (cf. 1 Kgs 8:53, 56; Ps 77:21; Neh 8:14, 9:14, 10:30; 2 Chr 33:8, 34:14, 35:6), however, are probably late and were formulated under Priestly influence. In Exod 34:29 (attributed to P), the phrase occurs in its literal sense. The phrase ‫ בערבות מואב על ירדן ירחו‬appears in Num 26:3, 63; 33:48, 50; 35:1; 36:13; similar expressions appear in Num 22:1, 31:12, and Josh 13:32. The phrase ‫ ערבות מואב‬also occurs in Num 33:49; Deut 34:1, 8; for ‫ירדן יר(י)חו‬, see also Num 34:15; Josh 16:1, 20:8; 1 Chr 6:63. 8. M. Noth, The Chronicler’s History, trans. H. G. M. Williamson; JSOTSup 50 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 107–48. 9.  Ibid., 135–41.

116

Itamar Kislev

the entrance into Canaan. This concern may indicate that the topic was indeed in the minds of the Priestly authors and may also closely link Joshua with the Tetrateuch. A similar problem is found in the Priestly sections of Joshua (chs. 13–22), which are Priestly in style and address the division of the land among the tribes. With regard to this issue, Noth endeavored to demonstrate that neither the Priestly segments of Joshua nor the final chapters of Numbers formed part of the continuous Priestly document; instead, they constitute a Priestly redaction of earlier, non-Priestly material. His claim of an originally independent Tetrateuch drove him to view all of the Priestly material at the end of Numbers pertaining to the conquest and the entrance into Canaan as a secondary work of a late editorial hand. Thus he contended that the latter texts were composed after or as part of the combination of the Deuteronomistic History and the Tetrateuch by redactors who wished to set the stage for the subsequent account of the entrance into Canaan and the settlement. The concluding chapters of Numbers thus constitute, in his view, the product of the final phase of the creation of the Pentateuch and were written from the point of view of both compositions—the Deuteronomistic History and the Tetrateuch—alike. 10 I suggest that the final verse of Numbers may prove decisive in evaluating Noth’s theory and similar proposals that regard the concluding pericopes in Numbers (that treat the entrance into the land of Canaan) as “pentateuchal” passages—that is, as belonging to a composition that included D. Thomas Römer has pointed out that the beginning and end of Leviticus (whether originally 26:46 or 27:34) closely parallel the opening and conclusion of Numbers. My focus here lies solely on the concluding verses. The final verse of Numbers (36:13) states: ‫ ְּבי ַד‬′‫ֲׁשר ִצּוָה ה‬ ֶ ‫ָטים א‬ ִ ‫ׁשּפ‬ ְ ‫ֵאּלֶה ה ִַּמ ְצו‍ֹת ְוה ִַּמ‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְּבע ְַרבֹת מֹואָב עַל י ְַרּדֵ ן יְרֵחֹו‬ ְ ‫ׁשה אֶל ְּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“ מ‬These are the commandments and regulations that the Lord enjoined upon the Israelites, through Moses, on the plains of Moab, at the Jordan near Jericho.” The end of Leviticus contains two very similar verses: ‫ ּבֵינֹו ּובֵין ְּבנֵי‬′‫ֲׁשר נָתַ ן ה‬ ֶ ‫ָטים ְוהַּתֹורֹת א‬ ִ ‫ׁשּפ‬ ְ ‫ֻּקים ְוה ִַּמ‬ ִ ‫ֵאּלֶה ַהח‬ ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְּבהַר ִסינַי ְּבי ַד מ‬ ְ ‫“ י‬These are the laws, rules, and instructions that the Lord established, through Moses at Mount Sinai, between Himself and the Israelite people” (Lev 26:46); ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְּבהַר‬ ְ ‫ׁשה אֶל ְּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ֲׁשר ִצּוָה ה' אֶת מ‬ ֶ ‫ֵאּלֶה ה ִַּמ ְצו‍ֹת א‬ ‫“ ִסינָי‬These are the commandments that the Lord gave Moses for the Israelite people at Mount Sinai” (Lev 27:34). 11 These affinities led Römer to conclude that the final verse of Numbers was formulated in line with and in imitation of the concluding verse of Leviticus by very late redactors who were seeking to divide the Torah into five books, 10.  Noth, The Chronicler’s History, 111–33. 11.  On the two subscripts of Leviticus, see, for example, J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, AB 3B (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2401–2; B. M. Levinson, “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 35

Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy

117

after Deuteronomy had already become part of the full composition. 12 One can concur with Römer’s thesis that Num 36:13 emulates the conclusion of Leviticus. However, although this verse seals the canonical book of Numbers, it does not form a concluding subscript to the whole book. Rather, it pertains exclusively to the “commandments and regulations that the Lord enjoined upon the Israelites, through Moses, on the plains of Moab, at the Jordan near Jericho.” The Israelites only reached the plains of Moab at the termination of their journey, as recorded in Num 22:1: ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ַוּיַחֲנּו ְּבע ְַרבֹות מֹואָב‬ ְ ‫ִסעּו ְּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫“ ֵמ ֵעבֶר ְלי ְַרּדֵ ן יְרֵחֹו‬The Israelites then marched on and encamped on the plains of Moab, across the Jordan from Jericho.” Therefore the last verse of Numbers is a subscript, not to the entire book, but solely to its final third. Following that, it stands to reason that Num 36:13 was not composed by those who divided the Torah into five books. Instead, the compilers of the Torah probably made use of this already-existing verse when they placed the division between Numbers and Deuteronomy where they did. 13 Furthermore, 36:13 states that the laws to which it is a subscript were given to the Israelites “on the plains of Moab.” A unique feature of the Priestly literature is that it alone contains various accounts of lawgiving, ascribing portions of it to divergent locations: Leviticus and the opening chapters of Numbers place the imparting of the main body of the legislation at Sinai, while our verse states that “the commandments and regulations that the Lord enjoined upon the Israelites” were delivered on the plains of Moab. 14 In between these two texts, some laws are said to have been given as the circumstances required, or allowed, along the way. 15 This uniqueness of the Priestly material is explicitly indicated: ָ‫ְונֹוע ְַד ִּתי ְלך‬ ‫א ַצּוֶה‬ ֲ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר עַל אֲרֹון ָה ֵעדֻת אֵת ּכָל א‬ ֶ ‫ֻבים א‬ ִ ‫ׁשנֵי ה ְַּכר‬ ְ ‫ׁשם ְו ִדּב ְַר ִּתי ִא ְּתךָ ֵמעַל ַהּכַּפֹרֶת ִמּבֵין‬ ָ 12. T.  Römer, “Nombres,” in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament, ed. T.  Römer, J.-D. Macchi, and C. Nihan (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2005), 198. Cf. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora, 600–601; K. Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans J. D. Nogalski, Siphrut 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 26. 13.  For the process and date of the dividing of the Torah into five books, see ibid., 23–29. 14. See Schwartz, “The Priestly Account,” 115–20; S. Chavel, “Biblical Law,” in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies, ed. Z. Talshir (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), 1.249–50 [Heb.]. Note that, while Leviticus states that the ordinances were given at Mount Sinai (Lev 7:38, 26:46, 27:34), the first part of Numbers (1:1–10:28) states that the law-giving takes place in the Wilderness of Sinai. Only in Num 10:12 do the Israelites leave ‫מדבר סיני‬. 15.  On the Priestly laws that were given before the lawgiving at Sinai, see J. S. Baden, “Identifying the Original Stratum of P: Theoretical and Practical Considerations,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. S. Shectman and J. S. Baden, ATANT 95 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 20–21. Baden differentiates between the laws of P, H, and other late P-like passages. He concludes that, for P, the laws were given only at Sinai (pp. 21–23.), but he does not take into consideration the laws at the end of Numbers (33:50–36:13), as discussed below.

118

Itamar Kislev

‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫אֹותךָ אֶל ְּבנֵי י‬ ְ “There I will meet with you, and I will impart to you—from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the  16‫—עדות‬all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people” (Exod 25:22). According to this verse, the delivery of the statutes was, from the beginning, to be a process. Even more significant in this regard is the Priestly pericope in Exod 34:29– 35, which describes the commencement of the giving of the divine laws to the Israelites by Moses (vv. 29–33), followed by a description of the protocol of this legislative act (vv. 34–35): ‫ָסיר אֶת ַהּמ ְַסוֶה עַד‬ ִ ‫ ְלדַ ּבֵר ִאּתֹו י‬′‫ׁשה ִל ְפנֵי ה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ּובבֹא מ‬ ְ ‫ׁשה ִּכי ָקרַ ן‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל אֶת ְּפנֵי מ‬ ְ ‫צּוֶה ְורָאּו ְבנֵי י‬ ֻ ‫ֲׁשר ְי‬ ֶ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל אֵת א‬ ְ ‫צֵאתֹו ְויָצָא ְו ִדּבֶר אֶל ְּבנֵי י‬ ‫ׁשה אֶת ַהּמ ְַסוֶה עַל ָּפנָיו עַד ּבֹאֹו ְלדַ ּבֵר ִאּתֹו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ֵׁשיב מ‬ ִ ‫ׁשה ְוה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“ עֹור ְּפנֵי מ‬Whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would leave the veil off until he came out; and when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, the Israelites would see how radiant the skin of Moses’ face was. Moses would then put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with Him.” 17 As these verses indicate, P appears to regard the lawgiving process as having occurred in stages, Moses transmitting the words of the Lord to the Israelites after each meeting with the Lord in the tabernacle. 18 P therefore establishes a procedure that enables a process of lawgiving in the tabernacle during the wandering in the wilderness. Indeed, only in P do we find explicit statements showing that the lawgiving was a process. In contrast, other pentateuchal schools and authors speak of the phenomenon of lawgiving as taking place on a single occasion. Deuteronomy asserts, for example, that in the 40th year of the journey Moses conveyed to the Israelites—for the first and only time—all the laws that he received at Horeb

16.  On the ‫עדות‬, see Schwartz, “The Priestly Account,” 126–27. 17.  Although not all scholars accept the attribution of Exod 34:29–35 to P (see M. Noth, Exodus, trans. J.  S. Bowden, OTL [London: SCM, 1962], 267), the prevalent opinion regards the passage as forming part of the Priestly writings: see H. Holzinger, Exodus, KHAT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900), 116; G. Beer and K. Galling, Exodus, HAT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1939), 163; Schwartz, “The Priestly Account,” 114–16. For the unity of the passage and its interpretation, see M. Haran, “The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography,” in In the Shelter of Elyon; Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature, in Honor of G. W. Ahlström, ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 160–63. 18.  Although the tabernacle has not yet been built at this stage of the story and it is not referred to explicitly in these verses, the expression ′‫ לפני ה‬in v. 34 clearly points to the tabernacle: cf. Exod 29:42–43; Num 7:89. See Holzinger, Exodus, 116; Schwartz (“The Priestly Account,” 115–16), who correctly stresses the important function of Exod 34:29–35 in P’s perception of the lawgiving process. This Priestly understanding of the protracted giving of laws helps to explain the unique formulation of the Priestly injunctions, which contain numerous prefaces, such as ‫ אל משה לאמר‬′‫“ וידבר ה‬the Lord spoke to Moses, saying . . . ,” the repetition of which indicates that Moses received the statutes on diverse occasions.

Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy

119

40 years earlier, except the Ten Commandments, which Israel heard at Horeb directly from God. 19 The Priestly account very rarely states explicitly that Moses delivered the laws he received from God to the people. 20 However, there are several Priestly texts in which this is intimated and (together with Exod 34:34–35) that imply that he did so on every occasion, immediately after receiving laws from God. In some instances, the Israelites are said to have observed an injunction as God commanded Moses, without any explicit reference to Moses’ having delivered it. This is the case in Exod 12:43–50. Verses 43–49 contain details spoken by God to Moses and Aaron regarding the Passover offering, with v. 50 summing up the Israelites’ obedience: “The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the law of the Passover offering: No foreigner shall eat of it. . . . And all the Israelites did so; as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.” The text does not explicitly indicate how the Israelites knew what they were meant to do; the reader is left to assume that Moses and Aaron delivered the relevant instructions immediately upon receiving them from God. 21 Upon reading the last verse of Numbers, therefore, the reader must similarly assume that Moses immediately communicated to the Israelites the laws he received at the plains of Moab. Making one’s way through the books of the Torah in sequence, one cannot but sense the tension between the end of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is difficult to understand why Moses waited until the 40th year to convey the laws he received at Horeb after having delivered all the other ordinances to the people immediately. One is also likely to be bewildered by the abundance of laws in Deuteronomy after the concluding sentence in Num 36:13. Making the quite reasonable assumption that Moses immediately conveyed the laws he received to the people, one is surprised to find more laws being given at the very same time and location. The most natural reading of the words “these are the commandments and regulations . . . on the plains of Moab, at the Jordan near Jericho” in Num 36:13 is that these were the only laws given on the plains

19.  Deut 5:18–6:1. Cf. M. Haran, The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Magnes, 2003), 2.154–62 [Heb.]; Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 256. According to the context of the law code in Exod 20:19–23:33, the laws communicated on this occasion to Moses on Mount Horeb evidence no recognition of any other code. For the set of ordinances in Exod 34:10–26, see, for example, S. Bar-On, “The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–26,” VT 48 (1998): 161–95. 20.  Cf. Exod 35:4; Lev 8:5, 21:24, 23:44, 24:23; Num 9:4, 30:1, 34:13. 21.  See also Num 5:4, 15:36, 31:4; cf. Lev 16:34; Num 8:3, 20; 17:4. Comparison of Num 36:5 and Num 27:6–7 (36:5 is in some ways an imitation of 27:6–7) suggests that an instruction given directly by the Lord is perceived as equivalent to its being imparted via Moses.

120

Itamar Kislev

of Moab. The subsequent delivery of additional laws in that location hardly makes sense. This tension between the end of Numbers and Deuteronomy was apparently responsible for the late, midrashic understanding of the delivery of the laws in Deuteronomy, according to which the injunctions conveyed by Moses in Deuteronomy are not new laws that the people receive for the first time but, rather, an interpretation of earlier statutes. This midrashic understanding is already manifested in LXX Deut 1:5, where the rendering of the verb ‫ באר‬as διασαφῆσαι reflects the idea of “expounding”—a meaning also suggested by some of the Aramaic versions. 22 This understanding, however, is only a late, harmonizing solution to the problem of the relationship between Deuteronomy and the laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The original meaning of the verb ‫ באר‬was most likely “to write” in some form, as indicated by its association with the verb ‫ כתב‬in its two other occurrences. In Deut 27:8, the expression ‫ באר היטב‬modifies the verb ‫כתב‬, while in Hab 2:2 the verb ‫ באר‬parallels the verb ‫כתב‬. These passages clearly connect ‫ באר‬with the act of writing, and it is in this sense that the verb should be understood in Deut 1:5 as well. 23 The word ‫ לאמר‬at the end of the verse contributes nothing further to elucidating how ‫ התורה הזאת‬was transmitted, since various types of verbal dissemination are denoted by this term. 24 The understanding of the verb ‫ באר‬in Deut 1:5 in 22.  Cf. Tg. Onqelos and Tg. Neofiti, ad loc. 23.  See D. Hoffmann, Deuteronomium (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1913), 12; Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, “Observations on the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon from the Samaritan Tradition,” in Hebräische Wortforschung, ed. B. Hartmann et al.; VTSup 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 23–24; S. Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1:1–6:3: Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich Untersucht, BZAW 139 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), 14–15; M. Haran, “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times,” JJS 33 (1982): 167 n. 13. Joachim Schaper follows David T. Tsumura, Georg Braulik, and Norbert Lohfink (D. T. Tsumura, “Hab 2:2 in the Light of Akkadian Legal Practice,” ZAW 94 [1982]: 294–95; G. Braulik and N. Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 1:5, ‫באר את התורה הזאת‬: ‘Er verlieh dieser Tora Rechtskraft,’” in Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israel: Festschrift für Peter Weimar zum Vollendung seines 60. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülen und Kollegen, ed. K. Kiesow and T. Meurer, AOAT 294 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003], 34–51) and interprets ‫ באר‬differently. While he understands the verb in the meaning of “put in force,” he insists that Deut 1:5 relates to the laws of Deuteronomy and not the Tetrateuch. See J. Schaper, “The ‘Publication’ of Legal Texts in Ancient Judah,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 225–36. I thank Bernard M. Levinson for bringing this paper to my attention. 24. Eckart Otto argues that the use of ‫ לאמר‬here serves as proof that ‫התורה הזאת‬, which is referred to in this verse, was transmitted by Moses orally (“Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte: Deuteronomium 1:5 in der Fabel des Pentateuch,” in L’Ecrit et l’Esprit: Etudes d’historie du texte et de Théologie biblique en homage à Adrian Schenker, ed. D. Böhler, I. Himbaza, and P. Hugo, OBO 214 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005], 279); however, the numerous occasions on which the word occurs in relation to written communications refute this claim: cf. 2 Sam 11:15; 1 Kgs 21:9; 2 Kgs 10:1, 6; Jer 36:29; 2 Chr 21:12; in and of itself, therefore, the word ‫ לאמר‬here is inconclusive. On ‫ לאמר‬here and the complicated sta-

Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy

121

the sense of “clarification” can thus represent only a late harmonistic attempt to solve the problem of the relationship between Deuteronomy and the laws in the previous books. 25 By creating the impression that, shortly before his death, Moses explained to the Israelites the injunctions he had already received and delivered, this nonliteral exegesis attempted to relieve the tension and to smooth the difficult transition between the end of Numbers and the beginning of Deuteronomy. 26 The original notion according to Deuteronomy is thus that Moses delivered the laws to Israel for the first and only time at the end of his life. In light of this, it is quite implausible that a redactor (who was aware of the fact that the laws given on the plains of Moab according to the concluding chapters of Numbers were immediately followed by Moses’ orations in Deuteronomy and the laws included in them) would summarize the ordinances given on the plains of Moab in this manner at the end of Numbers and thus wittingly create the tension described above. We must thus conclude that Num 36:13 was penned in a composition that did not include Deuteronomy. 27 The tension is far more likely tus of the verse in its context see, for instance, the discussion of Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1:1–6:3, 13–15. 25.  The attempts to adduce an Akkadian parallel (compare the survey in Otto, “Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte,” 276–79; and the brief discussion in H. Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew [Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2009], 43) are likewise both unconvincing and weak in light of the innerbiblical semantic evidence. 26.  Otto regards the original meaning of ‫ באר‬in Deut 1:5 as “to explain/interpret,” opining that the Septuagint and Aramaic versions attest this purported original meaning and consequently understanding Deut 1:5 as part of the unfolding plot (der Fabel) of the Pentateuch (“Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte,” 273–84, and his extensive survey of scholarship). BenḤayyim has convincingly demonstrated that Samaritan Aramaic has preserved the original sense of ‫ באר‬as “to write,” arguing that this meaning constitutes a semantic development from the noun ‫“ באר‬well,” to the activity of “digging” and thence through “engraving” to “writing” (“Observations on the Hebrew, Aramaic Lexicon,” 23–24; cf. Hoffmann, Deuteronomium, 12). See Schaper (“The ‘Publication’ of Legal Texts in Ancient Judah,” 225–36) and Nihan (From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 553–554 n. 614), who challenge Otto’s argument. I thank Bernard M. Levinson, who drew my attention to Nihan’s detailed note. We must therefore view the versions merely as an exegetical move toward solving a textual conundrum. 27.  According to Levin, Deuteronomy 1–3 was composed in order to incorporate “the Deuteronomic law into the sequence of historical events.” The recapitulation in these chapters was solely of the events recounted in Numbers 11–32, and the end of Numbers therefore contained “the latest additions in the Torah”: C. Levin, “On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch,” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 152. This argument must be rejected on several grounds. First, the fact that Numbers 33–36 is not primarily narrative in form makes the expectation of its repetition at the beginning of Deuteronomy unlikely. Second, the tension between the final verse of Numbers and the historical account of Deuteronomy makes the theory that Numbers 33–36 was added so late in the process of the Torah’s development very difficult to maintain.

122

Itamar Kislev

to have been generated by the compilers’ attempt to avoid making any changes in the texts before them, of which the concluding verse already formed a part. 28 Num 36:13 is not an isolated verse. Its content indicates that it was preceded by a collection of laws that were given on the plains of Moab. It follows that this collection as a whole, and not just its summary verse, was written as part of a work that did not include Deuteronomy. What did this set of ordinances originally include? To answer this question, we must clarify why, according to the narrative of which Num 36:13 is a part, a collection of laws was given on the plains of Moab at all. As we have seen, D clearly held that Moses did not deliver any laws prior to the orations in Deuteronomy themselves, and thus their transmission at this juncture constituted the final opportunity for their impartation prior to his death. Although according to P’s view the lawgiving was a process, enabling it to relate the lawgiving at several stations during the wandering, the main body of the laws was actually given at Sinai. One can ask, therefore, why P described an act of lawgiving specifically at the Israelites’ final station in the wilderness. The solution to this question, I suggest, lies in the fact that the laws that P assigns to this occasion are closely related to the entrance into Canaan; as the context intimates, this event is expected to occur in the near future. In two instances—the commandment to dispossess the inhabitants of Canaan (Num 33:50–56) and the laws regarding the Levitical towns (Num 35:1–8)—the legal section opens with an explicit statement that the law it contains was given on the plains of Moab. Both of these are headed by the formula ‫ אֶל‬′‫ַויְדַ ּבֵר ה‬ ‫ׁשה ְּבע ְַרבֹת מֹואָב עַל י ְַרּדֵ ן יְרֵחֹו לֵאמֹר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“ מ‬The Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab at the Jordan near Jericho, saying . . .” (Num 33:50, 35:1). The first of the two also directly adduces the imminent entrance into Canaan in its opening words: ‫ַּתם ע ְֹבִרים אֶת ַהּי ְַרּדֵ ן אֶל ֶארֶץ ְּכנָעַן‬ ֶ ‫א ֵלהֶם ִּכי א‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫ּדַ ּבֵר אֶל ְּבנֵי י‬ “Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When you cross the Jordan 28.  Otto maintains that the final verse of Numbers was written under the influence of the verses at the beginning of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:1–5): E. Otto, “Das Ende der Toraoffenbarung: Die Funktion der Kolophone Lev 26:46 und 27:34 sowie Num 36:13 in der Rechts­ hermeneutik des Pentateuch,” in Auf der weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum, ed. M. Beck and U. Schorn, BZAW 370 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 194–95. Apart from the tension caused by Num 36:13, however, which makes the claim of dependence implausible, the two passages share very few terms in common. The location is identified as ‫ארץ מואב‬ “the land of Moab” at the beginning of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:5; cf. 28:69; 32:49; 34:5, 6) rather than ‫“ ערבות מואב‬the steppes of Moab” in Num 36:13 (see also 22:1; 26:3, 63; 31:12; 33:48, 49, 50; 35:1). Likewise, the expression ‫“ עבר הירדן‬the other side of the Jordan,” which appears twice at the beginning of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:1, 5), does not occur either in the last verse of Numbers or anywhere else in the book. Num 22:1 and 33:48–49—on the basis of which Num 36:13 was formulated (cf. Otto, “Das Ende der Toraoffenbarung,” 195)—contain the phrases ‫“ מעבר לירדן ירחו‬across the Jordan from Jericho” and ‫“ על ירדן ירחו‬at the Jordan near Jericho.” They do not, however, employ ‫“ עבר הירדן‬the other side of the Jordan.” These data indicate the independence of the two passages. Were the texts interdependent, they could surely be expected to exhibit a greater degree of correspondence.

Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy

123

into the land of Canaan . . .” (Num 33:51). Similar formulations also occur at the beginning of the pericope dealing with the boundaries of Canaan in Num 34:1–2 and the law establishing the cities of refuge in Num 35:9–10. All four of these laws thus commence with an explicit reference to the overarching narrative context. 29 These ordinances all relate to the immediate and specific task of conquering and apportioning the land, a task requiring implementation once and only once, in the very near future. This circumstance very likely accounts for their delivery on the plains of Moab, because no such laws occur in any of the other Priestly texts in the Pentateuch—neither in texts that are considered early nor in those regarded as late. The occasional Priestly injunctions that include the phrase ‫“ כי תבואו אל הארץ‬when you enter the land” (or a minor variation of this formula) are different in nature: while they are to be performed following the Israelites’ entrance into the land of Canaan, they are not to be implemented on a single occasion but are to be in force perpetually. 30 The distinction becomes clearer in light of the difference between the formulation of phrases such as ‫ כי תבואו אל הארץ‬that appear elsewhere in P and the opening clauses of the laws at the end of Numbers. Although the former are verbal clauses, formulated in P’s customary manner in the imperfect, the latter are participial clauses: ‫עוברים‬/‫באים‬. 31 The use of the participial form in the laws appearing at the end of Numbers indicates that the entry of the Israelites into Canaan is viewed as being imminent, 32 while the verbs in the imperfect relate to the distant future, after the Israelites have settled there. All the Priestly laws relating specifically to the imminent settlement are placed at what is now the end of Numbers—that is, at the precise juncture in the Priestly narrative just preceding the entry into Canaan, in the 40th year of the Israelites’ journey, on the plains of Moab. When we realize that not a single commandment of this sort appears in any other Priestly passage, it becomes quite apparent that the Priestly laws have been arranged quite deliberately: those directly related to the entrance into Canaan and the tasks incumbent on the Israelites immediately 29.  Num 34:1–2: ‫ָאים אֶל‬ ִ ‫ַּתם ּב‬ ֶ ‫א ֵלהֶם ִּכי א‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫ׁשה ּלֵאמֹר צַו אֶת ְּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ַויְדַ ּבֵר ה' אֶל מ‬ ‫“ ָה ָארֶץ ְּכנָעַן‬The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Instruct the Israelite people and say to them: When you enter the land of Canaan . . .”; Num 35:9–10: ‫ׁשה ּלֵאמֹר ּדַ ּבֵר אֶל ְּבנֵי‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ַויְדַ ּבֵר ה' אֶל מ‬ ‫ַּתם ע ְֹבִרים אֶת ַהּי ְַרּדֵ ן א ְַרצָה ְּכנָעַן‬ ֶ ‫א ֵלהֶם ִּכי א‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫“ י‬The Lord spoke further to Moses: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan. . . .” 30.  Cf. Lev 14:34, 19:23, 23:10; Num 15:2, 18. 31.  Num 15:18 employs the form ‫בבֹאכם‬, which is apparently constructed on analogy with ‫ באכלכם‬in the following verse. In any case, this unique usage does not affect the present argument. 32. Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 283; B.  A. Levine, Numbers 21–36, AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 522–23; and see P. S. J. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, SubBi 14/1 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), §121h: “From the temporal point of view, the participle more properly expresses the present or the near future” (my italics).

124

Itamar Kislev

following the crossing of the Jordan (namely, all of the commands pertaining to the conquest and apportionment of the land of Canaan) have been placed at the conclusion of the journey in the wilderness, and they are said to have been communicated to Moses when Israel was encamped on the plains of Moab. I therefore suggest that the Priestly laws found at the end of Numbers that do not specifically deal with the settlement of Canaan (the calendar of public sacrifices in Numbers 28–29 and the law of vows in Numbers 30) did not originally form a part of this collection. The entire Priestly conception of laws given on the plains of Moab in the 40th year apparently was designed for the sole purpose of providing a suitable context into which the laws linked to approaching the entrance into Canaan could be inserted. The laws that lack any association with the conquest and allocation of the territory are very likely secondary insertions. 33 Furthermore, once it is recognized that the collection of laws at the end of Numbers was part of a literary work that did not include Deuteronomy but did attach importance to the theme of entering Canaan, it is reasonable to seek the sequel to this narrative in the book of Joshua. While this issue is of great significance, it lies beyond the scope of this paper. 34 In any case, the account of the preparations for entering, conquering, and apportioning Canaan among the Israelite tribes that we find in Numbers was clearly not created as a result of the process of combining the Deuteronomistic History and the Tetrateuch; this conclusion in turn militates strongly against the claim that a Tetrateuch ever existed. 33.  The assertion that the laws in Numbers 28–30 are secondary is commonplace. See A.  Kuenen (An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch, trans. P. H. Wicksteed [London: Macmillan 1886], 97–99), who wrote: “We reckon [Num.] xxvii. 1–11; xxxiii 50–xxxvi amongst the original components of P2, while the other passages are later additions. . . . All these laws share the obvious characteristic of fitting into a historical context” (pp. 97–98). Cf. G. B. Gray, Numbers, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903), 413; Levine, Numbers 21–36, 394–95; Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora, 602–14; Baden, “Identifing the Original Stratum of P,” 22. The Priestly notion of lawgiving on the steppes of Moab may indeed be embedded in Deuteronomy (cf. Haran, The Biblical Collection, 161–62 n. 80; Levin, “Cohesion and Separation,” 152). The emphasis on the circumstances of the imminent entrance into the land of Canaan in the headings to some of the injunctions related to issues linked to the entrance into Canaan, together with the existence of Priestly accounts of the giving of ordinances without any specification of the location at which the event took place suggest, however that, according to the Priestly perception, the delivery of commandments on the steppes of Moab was closely associated with their content. 34. For this issue, see, for example, J.  Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” CBQ 38 (1976): 287–91; J. E. Petersen, “Priestly Materials in Joshua 13–22: A Return to the Hexateuch?” HAR 4 (1980): 131–46; N. Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, trans. L. M. Maloney (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 145–48.

Bel and the Dragon: The Relationship between Theodotion and the Old Greek Dalia Amara Ben-Gurion University of the Negev The book of Daniel has always been a challenge for scholars, 1 consisting as it does of two different literary genres, narrative (chs. 1–6) and apocalyptic (chs. 7–12). In addition, the lack of correlation between the two literary genres and the languages increases the complexity. 2 To complicate the matter further, the book has reached us in two different Greek translations: (1) an older translation known as the Old Greek (OG-Dan), which is distinct from MTDan and was rejected for church usage; 3 and (2) a later translation (attributed to Theodotion [Th-Dan] but, in fact, it cannot be his 4) that is closer but not 1.  For discussions on the book of Daniel, see: P. Riessler, Das Buch Daniel, KHAT 3/3.2 (Stuttgart: Roth, 1899); G. Jahn, Das Buch Daniel nach der Septuaginta hergestellt (Leipzig: Pheiffer, 1904); J. A. Montgomery, Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926); J. J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 2. Chapters 1:1–2:4 and 8:1–12:13 are written in Hebrew, and chs. 2:5–7:28 are in Aramaic. 3.  At an early point in the transmission of the Septuagint, probably during the 3rd century c.e., OG-Dan was rejected, and for reasons no longer known, it was replaced in church usage by Th-Dan, as is witnessed by Jerome in the prologue to his Daniel translation. From that point on, Th-Dan was transmitted as the authorized Septuagint version of Daniel in all known Septuagint manuscripts, while the transmission of OG-Dan essentially ceased. Consequently, there remain today only three extant witnesses to OG-Daniel, and only two of these are in Greek: The Hexaplaric Codex Chisianus (the “Chigi” Manuscript, or ms 88 [87]), a cursive manuscript dating between the 9th and 11th centuries; The Syro-Hexaplar (SyH) version and Papyrus 967, a pre-Hexaplaric text that was discovered in Egypt in 1931 and has been dated to the 2nd or 3rd century c.e. 4.  A well-known fact is that many citations of the book of Daniel in the New Testament are closer to the Th-Dan than to the OG-Dan. However, since it is generally held that Theodotion lived during the days of Emperor Commodus (that is, not earlier than 180 c.e.), Theodotion cannot be responsible for the Th-Dan version. For discussions of this riddle, see J. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, ed. W. Smith and H. Wace

125

126

Dalia Amara

identical to MT-Dan. While the differences between the two Greek translations are numerous, 5 both translations are in agreement with each other against MTDan in that they contain the three additions: Susanna, the story of Bel and the Dragon, and The Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Men. 6 In this essay, I will discuss one of the three additions to the book of Daniel in its two distinct Greek forms (OG and Th): the story of Bel and the Dragon. In comparison with the story of Susanna and Daniel 4–6, the differences between Th and the OG in the story of Bel and the Dragon are not very numerous; they share a similar plot and many of the details. According to both versions, the Babylonians and their king have worshiped an idol named Bel and have presented it with significant amounts of food and drink daily. 7 When the (London: Murray, 1897), 4.970–79; A. Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannte θ′-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? MSU 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck-Ruprecht, 1966); idem, “Die griechischen Danieltexte («θ» und o′) und das Theodotionproblem,” BZ n.s. 36 (1992): 1–29; A. A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, VTSup 83/2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 586–607. 5.  Both translations are relatively close to each other in chs. 1–3 and 7–12, and many of the differences can be explained as stemming from a different translation philosophy but a similar Vorlage. As for chs. 4–6, the distance between the two versions is enormous, and it is impossible to attribute them to different methods of translation. Scholars have speculated that these chapters existed as an independent corpus that was transmitted separately and at some point evolved into two different editions, one of which found its way into the MT/Th, while the other was adopted by the OG. A few scholars are of the opinion that these chapters were translated into Greek before the rest of the book of Daniel and incorporated, by a redactor, into the OG-Dan. On these topics, see A. Bludau, Die Alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältniss zum massorethischen Text, BibS(F) 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau; Herder, 1897); Montgomery, Daniel; R. Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuch­ ungen zu Daniel 4–6 in der Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches, SBS 131 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988); T. McLay, The OG and TH Versions of Daniel, SBLSCS 43 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996); idem, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel IV–VI and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55 (2005): 304–23. 6.  The place of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon in the book varies in the different manuscripts, while the Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Men is always placed between what would correspond to vv. 23 and 24 of ch. 3 in the canonical book. On the additions to Daniel, see W. H. Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel (Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1906); W. O. E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (New York: Macmillan, 1935); C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: the Additions, AB 44 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977). 7.  According to Th: καὶ οἴνου μετρηταὶ ἕξ “and fifty gallons of wine,” while in the OG the reading is “oil” (ἐλαίου) instead of wine (but the SyH agrees with Th); the OG is probably secondary since further on (v. 11), we are told that the priests consumed the food and the wine. It is possible that this variant occurred as the result of a scribal error (Hebrew: ‫שמן‬/‫ ;יין‬Aramaic: ‫משח‬/‫)חמר‬, or, as the result of a nomistic intention: next to “fine flour” (σεμιδάλεως), usually we find “oil” (ἐλαίος). See, for example, Leviticus 2 and many other passages.

Bel and the Dragon

127

king inquires of Daniel why he avoids participating in Bel’s worship, Daniel declares that he reveres only the Lord (OG)/the Living God (Th) and that Bel is nothing but an inanimate object. The king points to the huge number of supplies presented to Bel as proof that Bel is also a (living) god. Daniel denies the possibility that Bel is the one who eats his own offerings. The king then summons the Babylonian priests; a trial is conducted, and ultimately, Daniel proves that the Babylonian priests are stealing Bel’s offerings. Bel is therefore destroyed and his priests executed. The Babylonians also worshiped a dragon, and the king challenges Daniel to deny that the dragon is a living god, for it is clear that it eats and drinks. Daniel accepts the challenge and kills the dragon by feeding it a poisonous mixture. The Babylonians are infuriated by the elimination of their gods. The king hands Daniel over to the angry mob, and they throw him into a den with seven hungry lions. On the sixth day, an angel leads the prophet Habakkuk to bring Daniel sustenance. On the seventh day, the king comes to the den, finds Daniel alive, recognizes the superiority of Daniel’s God, takes Daniel out, and throws his enemies in. Although the plot is similar, and the length of the story is more or less equal, there are many differences in details and narration that call for a careful examination of the relationship between the two versions. 8 In this current paper, following introductory remarks, I will reconstruct the way that the two Greek versions of Bel and the Dragon received their present form. 1.  Words of Introduction Since the time of Origen, topics such as provenance, date of composition, original language, genre, purpose, canonicity, the relationship to the rest of the book of Daniel, and the relations between the two Greek versions have troubled commentators and scholars who studied the additions to Daniel. 9 To a few of these topics, an answer can be given; on others, more-precise questions need to be asked.

8.  The Greek versions are quoted according to: J. Ziegler and O. Munnich, Susanna – Daniel – Bel et Draco, Vetus Testamentum Graecum 16/2 (Göttingen: Academia Scientiarum Göttingensis, 1999). 9.  For more on the Additions to Daniel, see J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1795); O. F. Fritzsche, Zusätze zu dem Buche Daniel, ed. O. F. Fritzsche and C. Grim; KHAAT 1 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1851); O. Zökler, Die Erzählenden Zusätze zu Daniel, Die Apokryphen des Alten Testaments (Munich: Beck, 1891); B. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957); O. Plöger, Historische und legendarische Erzählungen Zusätze zu Daniel, JSHRZ 1 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973); K. Koch, Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch: Entstehung und Textgeschichte, vol. 1: Forschungsstand, Programm, Polyglottensynopse; vol. 2: Exegetische Erläuterungen, AOAT 38/1–2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987).

128

Dalia Amara

While there is no external evidence that the story of Bel and the Dragon had a Semitic Vorlage, 10 the significant number of Semitisms found in both versions influenced most scholars to posit a Semitic original; the question is only whether it was Hebrew or Aramaic. 11 In addition to obvious Semitisms—such as καὶ ἐγένετο (Th v. 13); ἀναστὰς φάγε (OG v. 37); καὶ ἀναστὰς Δανιηλ ἔφαγεν (Th v. 39); καὶ ἐγένετο τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἕκτῃ (OG v. 33)—there are a number of abnormalities in the Greek that must be viewed as the misunderstandings of the translators. Here, two examples suffice: (1) ψευδοθυρίδων, τὰ ψεθδοθύρια (OG vv. 16, 21= “false doors”) should be explained as a misunderstanding of ‫פתיחן‬ ‫ מסתרתא‬or ‫“( דלתות סתרים‬hidden/secret doors”); 12 (2) the grammatical oddity of Σῷοι αἱ σφραγῖδες (“Are the seals unbroken?”; Th v. 17), where the noun αἱ σφραγῖδες is feminine plural while the verb σῷοι is masculine plural should be explained as a mistake of the translator under the influence of his Semitic Vorlage, in which the noun and the verb were both masculine. 13 Most scholars consider Bel and the Dragon to be a complex composition, made of at least two independent units: Bel (vv. 2–22) and the Dragon (vv. 23– 42). 14 Some claim further that the Dragon story contains three separate units: 10.  The question of the original language of the addition has been discussed since the days of Origen in the 3rd century c.e. (see H. Engel, Die Susanna-Erzählung, OBO 61 [Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985], 17–24). For overviews on this matter, see Bludau, Die Alexandrinische Übersetzung, 157; and Moore, Daniel, 35–38. Until the 20th century, most scholars advocated for a Greek original; for example, J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung; Fritzsche, Zusätze zu dem Buche Daniel; Zökler, Die Erzählenden Zusätze zu Daniel. Today, however, the opposite tendency is predominant, and most scholars believe that the additions were translated from a Semitic Vorlage, either Hebrew or Aramaic. In 1894, M. Gaster suggested that the Aramaic Vorlage of the Th Dragon section (vv. 23ff.) was the “Chronicles of Jerahmeel”: M. Gaster, “The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion’s Additions to the Book of Daniel,” PSBA 16 (1894): 280–90, 312; PSBA 17 (1895): 75–94. His claims were rightly rejected by scholars; see, e.g., Bludau, Die Alexandrinische Übersetzung, 158; W. T. Davies, “Bel and the Dragon,” in APOT 1.652–64; Moore, Daniel, 119. 11.  See, for example, F. Zimmermann, “Bel and the Dragon,” VT 8 (1958): 438–40, who thinks that the story had an Aramaic Vorlage; Moore, Daniel, 119–20, who believes that the story was written originally in Aramaic, but the Th version was based on a Hebrew translation; Davies, “Bel and the Dragon,” who holds that Hebrew was the original language. For a full discussion, see my Bel and the Dragon: The Original Language, the Translations and the Relations between the Versions (M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University, 1996), 8–28, where I pointed out evidence in favor of the Aramaic, but I could not exclude the Hebrew completely (pp. 24–28). 12.  The later translator rendered correctly: κεκρυμμένην εἴσοδον “a hidden entrance” (Th v. 12), τὰς κρυπτὰς θύρας “the secret doors” (Th v. 21). This example was brought to my attention by Zipi Talshir. 13. Hebrew: ‫( חותם‬e.g. 1 Kgs 21:8, Song 8:6, Hag 2:23). In Biblical Aramaic, the equivalent noun is not documented, only the verb ‫( חתם‬Dan 6:18). 14. See, e.g., Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel, 198–99; N. Brüll, “Die Geschichte von Bel und dem Drache,” JJGL 8 (1887): 28–29: and C. J. Ball, “The Additions to

Bel and the Dragon

129

the Dragon (vv. 23–28), Daniel in the Lion’s Den (vv. 29–32, 40–42) and Habakkuk’s Episode (vv. 33–39). 15 Indeed, there cannot be much doubt that the episode of Habakkuk is a later interpolation 16 and, if this is correct, we can state at this point that Bel and the Dragon was written in a Semitic language, continued to develop by receiving later interpolations, and at some point was divided into two versions. Our effort to track the process that brought the OG and the Th to their current form will begin at this point. Several possibilities can be suggested in the effort to understand the current situation of two Greek translations that are close but different: (1) the two Greek versions constitute separate, distinct translations of a common Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) Vorlage; 17 (2) both translations are based on different, independent Semitic Vorlages, while (a) the OG represents the original form, and Th represents a reworked form; (b) vice versa, the older translation (OG) reflects a secondary form of the story, while the later work is closer to the original form; 18 and finally, (3) neither the OG nor the Th preserves the original work. Rather, they are both secondary forms, the result of stages of expansions 19 and adaptations, either before the translation or in the Greek form. The last possibility—Bel and the Dragon as one story that turned into two versions, each of which continued to change in the course of transmission, both before and after its translation into Greek—seems to me to be the right choice. It needs additional clarification, however. Scholarly discussions tend to overlook the distinction between the development of the story during its transmission in the original language and its subsequent development, after its translation. This tendency is either the result of assuming that the translators were responsible for the differences or, vice versa, of believing that the translators faithfully represented their Vorlage. It may also be the result of presuming that a text had developed both before and after its translation, but the distinction is impossible to determine if the Vorlage is not available. I disagree with this view. I believe that, despite our inability to consult a Vorlage, we are able Daniel,” in H. Wace, The Speaker’s Commentary (London: Murray, 1988), 2.323–43. Brüll and Ball believe that the two stories are the midrashic developments of Jer 51:44 (Bel) and 34–35 (the Dragon). Oesterley, An Introduction, 289, thinks that the story of Bel is a variant of Daniel 3, and the Dragon—of Daniel 6. 15. See Moore, Daniel, 23, 121–22; J. W. Rothstein, Die Zusätze zu Daniel, APAT  1 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1900), 1.172, 178; C. C. Torrey, The Apocryphal Literature: A Brief Introduction (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1945), 56. 16.  See discussion by Moore, Daniel, 125ff., 147ff.; Amara, Bel and the Dragon, 48–56. 17.  See T. McLay, “Bel and the Dragon,” NETS, who also thinks that the OG is secondary to Th in the sense that elements from Th found their way into the OG text during the transmission of both translations side by side. 18. E.g., Koch, Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch, 2.202. 19.  Collins, Daniel, 410.

130

Dalia Amara

by a careful examination of the differences between the two versions to retrieve and reconstruct their development before, during, and after their translation. In the following, I intend to track a few steps in the evolution of the OG and Th. I intend to show below (§2), that the division of Bel and the Dragon into two versions should be understood as an outcome of an adaptation made during the transmission of the story in the original Semitic language by the redactor(s), not by the translator(s). 20 In other words, I will show how the Vorlage turned into an earlier version of what we know now as Bel and the Dragon, as found in Th. I will then (§3) point to a later revision of the Vorlage in its original Semitic language, which turned it into what we know now as Bel and the Dragon, as found in the OG. At the same time, I will take into account the possibility that certain elements migrated from one version to the other during their transmission side by side in the original language as well as in the target language: I will show (§4) that some problems in the Greek text (mainly that of the OG) can best be explained as the work of Greek scribes during the transmission of both versions in Greek. 2.  The Hand of the Redactor: Secondary Features of Theodotion In this section, I will present verses and paragraphs in which the Th reflects the adaptation of a source close to the OG. As will become obvious, many of these cases are the outcome of the clear intention to bridge the story of Bel and the Dragon with the book of Daniel. The Heading The OG version has the superscription Ἐκ προφητείας Αμβακουμ υἱοῦ Ιησοῦ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευι (“From the Prophecy of Habakkuk, Son of Joshua, of the Tribe of Levi”), according to which this story does not belong to the Daniel cycle. Furthermore, at the beginning of the story as found in the OG version, Daniel is introduced as a yet-unknown person and as a priest, son of an unknown father, who is a companion of the king: ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν ἱερεύς ᾧ ὄνομα Δανιηλ υἱὸς Αβαλ συμβιωτὴς τοῦ βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος (“There was a certain person, a priest, whose name was Daniel son of Abal, a companion of the king of Babylon”). The king is also anonymous and is introduced simply as “the king of Babylon.” The above wordings are inconsistent with the information drawn from the canonical Daniel stories and indicate that the OG version of Bel and the Dragon reflects the period in which the story cir20.  The OG translator of the book of Daniel is considered to be a relatively free translator along with others, such as 1 Esdras (see Z. Talshir, 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation, SBLSCS 47 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999]). In my Ph.D. dissertation (D. Amara, The Old Greek Version of the Book of Daniel: The Translation, the Vorlage and the Redaction [Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2006] Heb.), I noted some characteristics of the OG translator’s “free” approach to his Vorlage.

Bel and the Dragon

131

culated independently. The opening of the story in Th, on the other hand, is Καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Αστυαγης προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ καὶ παρέλαβε Κῦρος ὁ Πέρσης τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἦν Δανιηλ συμβιωτὴς τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἔνδοξος ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς φίλους αὐτοῦ (“King Astyages was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom, and Daniel was a companion of the king and was honored beyond all his friends”) and should be considered an adaptation by a redactor. This redactor later removed the heading that ascribes the story to Habakkuk’s prophecy, omitted the introduction of Daniel, and identified the king as Cyrus the Persian. 21 The adaptation was likely based on information taken from the Vorlage of OG-Dan 6:29: καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαρεῖος προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ, καὶ Κῦρος ὁ Πέρσης παρέλαβε τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ 22 (“King Darius was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom”). Since the events described in ch. 6 occurred in the reign of Darius the Mede, the events in our story are naturally situated in the time of Cyrus the Persian. 23 Daniel’s superiority over all of the king’s companions, which is mentioned in Th but not in the OG, is similarly based on information drawn from OG-Dan 6:4: καὶ Δανιηλ . . . ὑπὲρ πάντας ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ. καὶ Δανιηλ ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος πορφύραν καὶ μέγας καὶ ἔνδοξος ἔναντι Δαρείου τοῦ βασιλέως (“Daniel . . . had authority over all in the kingdom; and Daniel was clad in purple and was great and illustrious before the king, Darius”). 24 By reworking the opening, this redactor was aiming to incorporate Bel and the Dragon into the book of Daniel and create a literary sequence with ch. 6. 25 Description of the Lion’s Den Another secondary element in Th is the description of the lion’s den. In vv. 31–32 of the OG, after reporting that Daniel was handed over to the angry crowd, the writer comments about the existence of a den in which seven lions were nurtured and which served as a punishment device for the king’s enemies who were sentenced to death. It is into this den that Daniel was thrown by the mob. The den is described in the OG as something new and unfamiliar to the reader until now: ἦν δὲ λάκκος ἐν ᾧ ἐτρέφοντο λέοντες ἑπτά, οἷς παρεδίδοντο 21.  According to most scholars; see, e.g., L. M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King, HDR 26 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 130; Collins, Daniel, 409–10. 22.  So papyrus 967. The 88-SyH reads: καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαρεῖος προσετέθη πρὸς τὸ γένος αὐτοῦ, καὶ Δανιηλ κατεστάθη ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας Δαρείου· καὶ Κῦρος ὁ Πέρσης παρέλαβε τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ (“King Darius was gathered to his race, and Daniel was set over the kingdom of Darius; and Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom”) 23.  It may be that the secondary author was aware of the problematic “Darius the Mede” and replaced the name with Astyages, an actual Median king. See Wills, The Jew in the Court, 130. 24.  Th-Dan 6:4 has simply: καὶ ἦν Δανιηλ ὑπὲρ αὐτούς (“Daniel was over them”). 25.  Wills, The Jew in the Court, 130; Collins, Daniel, 409–10.

132

Dalia Amara

οἱ ἐπίβουλοι τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ ἐχορηγεῖτο αὐτοῖς καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν τῶν ἐπιθανατίων σώματα δύο. καὶ ἐνεβάλοσαν τὸν Δανιηλ οἱ ὄχλοι εἰς ἐκεῖνον τὸν λάκκον, ἵνα καταβρωθῇ (“there was a den in which seven lions were kept. Those who plotted against the king were given over to them. Each day two bodies of condemned people were provided for them. The crowds threw Daniel into that den so he would be eaten”). In the Th, on the other hand, the mob is said to have thrown Daniel into the (known) den: οἱ δὲ ἐνέβαλον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν λάκκον τῶν λεόντων καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἡμέρας ἕξ (“They threw him into the lion’s den and he was there for six days”) and parenthetically, in the next verse, additional information is given concerning the number of the lions and their feeding: ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῷ λάκκῳ ἑπτὰ λέοντες, καὶ ἐδίδετο αὐτοῖς τὴν ἡμέραν δύο σώματα καὶ δύο πρόβατα· τότε δὲ οὐκ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς, ἵνα καταφάγωσιν τὸν Δανιηλ (“There were seven lions in the den, and every day they had been given two human bodies and two sheep; but these were not given to them now, so that they might devour Daniel”). All the details in the OG version that are essential to the story when transmitted independently were removed in the Th version to connect the lion’s den in our story to the same den known from Daniel 6. Several other differences between the two versions of the lion’s den scenes also indicate the priority of the OG over the Th. Secondary Nature of the Scene While describing the everyday treatment of the lions in the den, the Thversion states that on this particular day the lions were not fed at all, so that they would be hungry enough to devour Daniel rapidly. This statement demonstrates the secondary nature of the scene in Th, since starving the lions in advance indicates a premeditated plan. This may be appropriate for ch. 6, in which Daniel’s rivals conspired against him in advance. In our story, however, the incident of throwing Daniel to the lions by the angry mob is presented as a spontaneous occurrence. Apparently, this element was borrowed from ch. 3, where the Babylonians are said to have increased the fire in the furnace beyond (sevenfold, according to the OG) the usual temperature (Dan 3:22). Differences between the Two Versions In both versions, the inhabitants of Babylon became furious due to the destruction of Bel and of the Dragon, and in both versions the king handed Daniel over to the angry mob. However, there are significant differences. The OG offers a surprising account: the mob turned its rage on Daniel and expressed its frustration with the words: Πάλαι Ιουδαῖος γέγονεν ὁ βασιλεύς (“the king has just now become a Jew”). As the king became aware of the mob’s anger, he consulted his companions and decided voluntarily to condemn Daniel to death. The accusation against the king of becoming a Jew is not ap-

Bel and the Dragon

133

propriate in this context: first, the rage is directed against Daniel, not the king; second, the charges τὸν Βηλ κατέσπασεν καὶ τὸν δράκοντα ἀπέκτεινεν (“He has destroyed Bel and slain the dragon”) refer to the actions of Daniel; 26 third, according to Collins, 27 the accusation that the king became a Jew should be regarded as an “exaggeration and anticipation” of the historical period in which the story was written; 28 this accusation goes far beyond the recognition of the supremacy of the God of Israel by the foreign kings, as expressed in Daniel 2 and 4, and is closer to 2 Macc 9:17, were the dying Antiochus IV promises to become a Jew: Ιουδαῖον ἔσεσθαι. 29 Given the dynamic of the OG account, it seems more reasonable to read Πάλαι Ιουδαῖος γέγονεν βασιλεύς without the article ὁ, a reading that completely changes the meaning of the clause: a Jew has become king. 30 This reading better suits the king’s actions later on, when he supports the mob’s protest by handing Daniel over without any explicit demand made by the people. In Th, on the other hand, the mob’s wrath is directed against the king himself, accusing him of becoming a Jew: καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσαν οἱ Βαβυλώνιοι, ἠγανάκτησαν λίαν καὶ συνεστράφησαν ἐπὶ τὸν βασιλέα καὶ εἶπαν Ιουδαῖος γέγονεν ὁ βασιλεύς τὸν Βηλ κατέσπασεν καὶ τὸν δράκοντα ἀπέκτεινεν καὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς κατέσφαξεν (“When the Babylonians heard it, they were very indignant and conspired against the king, saying, ‘The king has become a Jew; he has destroyed Bel, slain the dragon, and slaughtered the priests’”). The mob then goes to the king and, while threatening his life, demands that he hand Daniel over: καὶ εἶπαν ἐλθόντες πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Παράδος ἡμῖν τὸν Δανιηλ· εἰ δὲ μή, ἀποκτενοῦμέν σε καὶ τὸν οἶκόν σου (“They said, ‘Hand Daniel over to us, or 26.  In v. 22 of the OG, the king removes the priests of Bel from the temple, delivers them to Daniel, and grants him the temple’s provision, but Bel is destroyed by the king himself. According to Th, on the other hand, the king executes the priests and gives Bel to Daniel, who destroys it. It is likely that Th preserves the original regarding Bel’s fortune, while in the OG some textual corruption has occurred. 27.  Daniel, 415–16. 28.  Contemporary scholars agree that the story of Bel and the Dragon was composed no later than the beginning of the 2nd century b.c.e.; see Collins, Daniel, 418–19. Some even set it in the 3rd century b.c.e. or earlier: e.g., Y. M. Grintz, “Bel and the Dragon,” EncJud 4 (1972), 412; Koch, Deuterokanonische Zusätze, 2.152 29.  On this matter and the affinity between 2 Macc 9:17 and Bel v. 28, see J. J. Collins, “The King Has Become a Jew: The Perspective on the Gentile World in Bel and the Snake,” Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism, JSJSup 54 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 167–77. See also Collins’s discussion in Daniel, 415–16, where he expresses hesitation regarding the statement “The king has become a Jew.” 30.  This was first suggested by Grotius and rejected by most scholars without satisfactory explanation; see, for example, the discussion by Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel, 216. If my conjecture is correct, we should consider the article ὁ in the OG as one of the elements that were borrowed from Th into the OG by a Greek scribe (for more examples, see below).

134

Dalia Amara

else we will kill you and your household’”). Consequently, the threatened king reluctantly hands Daniel over: ἀναγκασθεὶς παρέδωκεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Δανιηλ (“under compulsion, he handed Daniel over to them”). This description in Th calls to mind the equivalent scene in Dan 6:14–15[15–16], where Daniel’s rivals exerted severe pressure on King Darius and he was forced, reluctantly, to have Daniel cast into the lion’s den. 31 Here too, then, Th seems to be secondary when compared with the OG. The redactor modified text similar to the OG in order to increase the correspondence between our story and ch. 6. The accusation that the king became a Jew should be regarded as a far-reaching interpretation of the OG-Dan 6:28, where the king promises to serve the God of Daniel: ἐγὼ Δαρεῖος ἔσομαι αὐτῷ προσκυνῶν καὶ δουλεύων πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας μου (“I, Darius, will adore and serve Him all my days”), a statement that is not found in Th/MT-Dan. Theodotion Corresponds More Closely to Daniel 6 The end of the narrative presents a minor, almost negligible, difference between the two versions, in which Th exhibits a closer correspondence to ch. 6. After reporting that the king took Daniel out of the den, the OG reads: καὶ τοὺς αἰτίους τῆς ἀπωλείας αὐτοῦ ἐνέβαλεν εἰς τὸν λάκκον ἐνώπιον τοῦ Δανιηλ, καὶ κατεβρώθησαν (“In front of Daniel, [the king] threw the men who had attempted his destruction into the den, and they were devoured”). Theodotion has almost the identical reading: τοὺς δὲ αἰτίους τῆς ἀπωλείας αὐτοῦ ἐνέβαλεν εἰς τὸν λάκκον, καὶ κατεβρώθησαν παραχρῆμα ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, except for the additional word παραχρῆμα (“immediately”). Παραχρῆμα might be considered an addition influenced by Dan 6:25, where Daniel’s rivals were thrown into the den and consumed by the lions before they could reach the bottom of the den: MT-Dan 6:25: ‫ָתא ְוכָל‬ ָ ‫ׁש ִלטּו ְבהֹון א ְַריָו‬ ְ ‫ עַד ִּדי‬,‫מטֹו ְלא ְַר ִעית ּגֻ ָּבא‬-‫ָא‬ ְ ‫ְול‬ ‫ = ּג ְַרמֵיהֹון ה ִַּדקּו‬Th-Dan: καὶ οὐκ ἔφθασαν εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος τοῦ λάκκου ἕως οὗ ἐκυρίευσαν αὐτῶν οἱ λέοντες καὶ πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν ἐλέπτυναν (“Before they reached the bottom of the den, the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces”).This entire description is summarized well by the word Παραχρῆμα.

31.  It is possible that in this case, too, the Th version of Bel reflects dependence on OGDan, in which Daniel is referred to as Δανιηλ τὸν φίλον σου (14) συμβιωτὴς τοῦ βασιλέως. OG-Dan 6 reads: (15) καὶ λυπούμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπεν ῥιφῆναι τὸν Δανιηλ εἰς τὸν λάκκον τῶν λεόντων . . . τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς σφόδρα ἐλυπήθη ἐπὶ τῷ Δανιηλ . . . (“Grieving, the king ordered that Daniel be thrown into the lion’s den . . . then the king grieved greatly over Daniel . . .”). In the MT and Th-Dan, the king also grieved over Daniel ‫אֱדַ יִן מ ְַלּכָא ְּכ ִדי ִמ ְּל ָתא‬ ‫ֲלֹוהי‬ ִ ‫ ׂשַ ִּגיא ְּבאֵׁש ע‬,‫ׁשמַע‬ ְ = τότε ὁ βασιλεύς, ὡς τὸ ῥῆμα ἤκουσεν, πολὺ ἐλυπήθη ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, but the king’s sorrow is more prominent in the OG-Dan. However, the affinity between Th-Bel and the OG-Dan must go back to the Semitic level since Th-Bel uses different Greek equivalents.

Bel and the Dragon

135

Daniel and the Priests of Bel Verses 9–22 present the confrontation between Daniel and the priests of Bel. The differences between the two versions are so great that one might conclude that the two versions represent separate accounts of the same event that developed from a common source. 32 According to the OG version, Daniel is the active figure in the confrontation, while Bel’s priests are relatively passive. After being challenged by Daniel, the king summons the priests and, threatening their lives, demands to be told who ate Bel’s offering. The priests assure him that none other than Bel ate the offering. Then Daniel, at the risk of his own life and the lives of all his relatives, volunteers to prove that the priests are lying to the king; he suggests that the king lock the temple after the offering has been presented to Bel and seal its doors with his ring. The king agrees. Daniel and his associates order everyone out of the temple, secretly spread ashes on the temple floor, and seal the doors with the king’s ring. On the next day, they all come to the temple, Daniel directing the king’s attention to the intact seals. When the doors are opened, the king is happy to notice the absence of the offering and praises Bel, but Daniel shows him the footprints in the ashes. The footprints lead to the priests’ quarters, where Bel’s offering is found, clearly stolen during the night by the priests, who entered the temple through hidden doors. The Th version reflects a different account. Here the priests, not Daniel, are running the show. As in the OG, the king summons the priests. The king does not ask questions, however. He lays down a challenge: if the priests cannot prove that Bel is eating his offering, they will be executed. If they can prove it, Daniel will be put to death. The challenge is accepted by the priests, and the entourage heads to the temple. The priests suggest that they remain outside, and the king himself will set out the offering and then will close and seal the doors with his ring. If the next morning the offering is still there, they will be put to death but, if not, Daniel will die. At this point, the author remarks that the priests have hidden doors under the table through which they enter the temple every night and take away Bel’s offerings. The priests’ suggestion is accepted, and the king places the offering. At this point, Daniel spreads ashes on the floor in front of the king only. The next morning, the king comes with Daniel to the temple, shows him the untouched seals, and opens the doors. At the sight of the empty table, the king is about to run in gleefully, but Daniel stops him and directs his attention to the footprints left on the floor. The king furiously summons the priests, who plead guilty and show him the secret doors leading to their residence, where Bel’s offerings are found. At first glance, Th seems to make more sense: the king casts the burden of proof on the priests, and they accept the challenge. The food’s disappearance 32.  See T. McClay, “Bel and the Dragon,” in NETS (Oxford, 2009), 1024.

136

Dalia Amara

while the doors are locked and sealed with the king’s own seal is the best evidence to support their claim; Daniel tricks them by setting a trap that will expose their deception. Nevertheless, Th is not free of difficulties, and it seems that these were caused by the reworking of a text similar to what is reflected in the OG. First, Daniel’s response at the beginning of v. 9, Γινέσθω κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου (“Let it be according to your words”), is not in place, since the priests are the ones challenged by the king, not Daniel. It seems that Daniel’s response here is taken from the OG, where the words Γινέσθω οὕτως (“let it be so”) are suitable as a response to the priests’ explicit lie and as a proem to Daniel’s declaration that he will take it upon himself to prove them cheaters. Second, in v.  12 the priests are complaining that Daniel has spoken lies about them: ψευδόμενος καθ᾽ ἡμῶν. This accusation is inappropriate in the Th version, where Daniel says nothing about the priests, but it fits the OG version, where Daniel practically accuses the priests of a lie. In this case too, it appears that the priests’ complaint is based on the description reflected in the OG. Third, the remark in v. 13 that the priests came every night and carried the offering away with them, εἰσεπορεύοντο διόλου καὶ ἀνήλουν αὐτά (“they would regularly enter and get it all”), is also unsuitable to Th, according to which the priests and their families ate and drank it all (in the temple; v. 15); but it is instead appropriate to the OG version, in which the offering was located in the priests’ quarters. Fourth, v. 14 emphasizes that the ashes were scattered in front of the king, but in v. 19 it seems that the king has forgotten this fact and is about to run into the temple, a move that could obliterate the evidence: καὶ ἐγέλασεν Δανιηλ καὶ ἐκράτησεν τὸν βασιλέα τοῦ μὴ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτὸν ἔσω (“Then Daniel laughed and restrained the king from going in”). Here, too, the king’s conduct befits the OG version, in which he knows nothing about the ashes. Fifth, the role of the ashes is dramatically reduced in Th compared with its important role in the OG, where it serves as a device to expose the whole deception, beyond reasonable doubt, by directing the king and Daniel to the priests’ quarters. In Th, it is used only to reveal the fact that certain entities have walked around in the sealed temple and to put pressure on the priests so that they confess their guilt. It cannot prove the priests’ fault beyond doubt; after all, they could deny any knowledge of the footprints and refuse to confess. All these inconsistencies in Th involve details that seem more natural in the OG version. We are thus right in concluding that vv. 9–21 of Th contain features that are an adaptation of a source closer to the OG. It is difficult to establish with certainty the purpose of the reworking of the OG in these verses. I believe the redactor intended to paint Daniel’s figure within a martyrological framework. While in the OG, Daniel is accusing the priests, planning and executing a scheme to prove their guilt and lead to their death, in Th he

137

Bel and the Dragon

turns from being the prosecutor to being the persecuted. The priests are the ones plotting a scheme that will validate their deception and lead to Daniel’s death, just as in ch. 6, the chapter that served as a basis for the redactor’s entire rework, as we saw above. 3. The Secondary Features in the Old Greek The fact that the Th reflects an adaptation of a source close to the OG does not mean that the OG preserves the original form of our story, nor does it mean that the OG, as it stands today, is earlier than Th in every single detail. It seems to me that there can be no doubt that the absence of the expression “Living God” in the OG version should be considered an outcome of a modification. This expression appears on four occasions in the story, exclusively in Th, as can be seen in the following table:  33 Old Greek 5 Οὐδένα σέβομαι ἐγὼ

Theodotion ῞Οτι οὐ σέβομαι εἴδωλα χειροποίητα

εἰ μὴ κύριον τὸν θεὸν

ἀλλὰ τὸν ζῶντα θεὸν

τὸν κτίσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν

τὸν κτίσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν

καὶ τὴν γῆν

καὶ τὴν γῆν

6 Οὗτος οὖν οὐκ ἔσθι θεός 24 Μὴ καὶ τοῦτον ἐρεῖς ὅτι χαλκοῦς ἐστι, ἰδοὺ ζῇ 25 — —-

Οὐ δοκεῖ σοι Βηλ εἶναι ζῶν θεός Οὐ δύνασαι εἰπεῖν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν οὗτος θεὸς ζῶν Κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ μου προσκυνήσω ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν θεὸς ζῶν

It is unlikely that the OG preserves the original version in these cases, since the expression ζῶν θεός is essential to this story. The story in its entirety is polemical; it focuses on the question of who can be considered a “living god.” The Babylonians and the king believe that Bel is a living god because they are sure he is eating and drinking the large amount of supplies served to him every day. There is no other reason to draw attention to the amount of food that is allegedly eaten by Bel if not to prove him a “living god.” It is obvious that by pointing out the significant amounts of food, the king’s intention is not to prove to Daniel that Bel is a θεός but that he is a ζῶν θεός, not an inanimate object made of clay and bronze, as suggested by Daniel. It is inconceivable that the ability to eat and drink would indicate the divinity of any entity; rather, it simply proves its vitality. Verse 24 of the OG preserves a trace of the original 33.  Schüpphaus, “Das Verhältnis,” who treats the story as it was originally written in Greek, advocates for the priority of the OG even in this matter. Collins, Daniel, 405, believes that the reading in the OG was caused by a scribal error.

138

Dalia Amara

version by referring to the Dragon as ζῇ, and as in the case of Bel, the king attempts to prove its vitality by its undeniable capacity to eat and drink: ἰδοὺ ζῇ καὶ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει (“Look, he’s alive and eats and drinks”). Note that the same evidence is presented both for Bel and for the Dragon to prove them “living gods.” However, as was shown by Daniel, Bel is a “god” who is not alive, because as it turns out, he does not eat; and the Dragon is a living (creature) who is not a “god,” since he has been killed by his meal. The story of Bel and the Dragon is not the only literary unit to reflect this polemic. A. Rofé 34 has pointed to a series of biblical passages that have the same end. 35 According to Rofé, these passages reflect a confrontation between Judeans/Jews and Gentiles during the end of the Persian period or the beginning of the Hellenistic period. Apparently the Jews in these times had suffered abuse and derision from Gentiles because of their devotion to the invisible God. Ps 42:11[10], ָ‫“( ֶּבאֱמֹר ֵאלַי ּכָל־הַּיֹום ַאּיֵה אֱלֹהֶיך‬as my foes taunt me, saying to me all day long, ‘Where is your God?’”), is an echo of this confrontation. The Judeans/Jews responded by creating literary compositions such as Bel and the Dragon and David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17), which, according to Rofé, are associated with this type of polemic. These stories emphasize the ability of the God of Israel, the Living God, to deliver his believers, as opposed to the gods of the nations that are man-made, wood and stone, and cannot protect even themselves. Indeed, like our story, in most of these passages the God of Israel, the one and only “Living God,” is confronted with the gods of the Gentiles, which are nothing but man-made artifacts. Moreover, in a significant number of these passages, we find polemical phrases that are similar to those that appear in our story. For example, in Hezekiah’s prayer (2 Kgs 19:15–19), which is obviously a later addition, 36 the author puts in Hezekiah’s mouth the confidence that the “Living God” is able to protect himself and his people from the king of Assyria, as opposed to the gods of the other nations, who cannot defend their countries, for they are nothing but wood and stone: ‫ַּׁש ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ית אֶת־ה‬ ָ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫ַּתה ע‬ ָ ‫ א‬. . . ָ‫ַּתה־הּוא ָהאֱל ִֹהים ְלב ְַּדך‬ ְ ‫יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי י‬15 ָ ‫ א‬. . . ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ‫ֲׁשר ְׁשלָחֹו ְלחָרֵף אֱל ִֹהים‬ ֶ ‫ּוׁשמַע אֵת ִּד ְברֵ י ַס ְנחִֵריב א‬ ְ . . . ָ‫הַּטֵ ה יְהוָה ָא ְזנְך‬16 ‫ארֶץ׃‬ ָ ‫ְואֶת־ ָה‬ 18 ‫ָתנּו אֶת־אֱלֹהֵיהֶם ָּבאֵׁש‬ ְ ‫ֱריבּו מ ְַלכֵי אַּׁשּור אֶת־הַּגֹויִם ְואֶת־א ְַרצָם׃ ְונ‬ ִ‫ָמנָם יְהוָה ֶהח‬ ְ ‫א‬17 ‫חָי׃‬ 19 ‫אבֶן ַו ְיא ְַּבדּום׃ ְוע ַָּתה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינּו‬ ֶ ‫ָדם עֵץ ָו‬ ָ ‫ִּכי לֹא אֱל ִֹהים ֵהּמָה ִּכי ִאם־ ַמעֲׂשֵ ה יְדֵ י־א‬ ‫ֱל ִֹהים ְלבֶַּדך׃‬ ‫ַּתה יְהוָה א‬ ָ ‫הֹוׁשיעֵנּו נָא ִמּיָדֹו ְוי ְֵדעּו ּכָל־מ ְַמ ְלכֹות ָה ָארֶץ ִּכי א‬ ִ

34. A. Rofé, “The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, Theology, Eschatology,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. J. Neusner, A. B. Levine, and E. Frerichs (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 117–51. 35. Yhwh is referred to as ‫אלהים חיים‬/‫ אל חי‬in: Deut 5:22; Josh 3:5; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:15–19; Jer 10:1–16; 23:36; Hos 2:1; Ps 42:3; 84:3. 36.  See A. Rofé, Angels in the Bible: Israelite Belief in Angels as Evidenced by Biblical Traditions (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2012), 165–76 [Heb.].

Bel and the Dragon

139

(15) Κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ . . . σὺ εἶ ὁ θεὸς μόνος . . . σὺ ἐποίησας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (16) . . . κύριε . . . ἄκουσον τοὺς λόγους Σενναχηριμ, οὓς ἀπέστειλεν ὀνειδίζειν θεὸν ζῶντα (17) ὅτι ἀληθείᾳ, κύριε, ἠρήμωσαν βασιλεῖς ᾿Ασσυρίων τὰ ἔθνη (18) καὶ ἔδωκαν τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πῦρ, ὅτι οὐ θεοί εἰσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἔργα χειρῶν ἀνθρώπων, ξύλα καὶ λίθοι . . . (19) καὶ νῦν, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, σῶσον ἡμᾶς ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ γνώσονται πᾶσαι αἱ βασιλεῖαι τῆς γῆς ὅτι σὺ κύριος ὁ θεὸς μόνος (15) O Lord the God of Israel . . . you are God, you alone . . . ; have made heaven and earth. (16) O Lord, . . . hear the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to mock the Living God. (17) Truly, O Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands, (18) and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods, but the work of human hands—wood and stone. . . . (19) So now, O Lord our God, save us, I beseech you, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Lord, are God alone. Similarly, in Jer 10:1–16, a passage reminiscent of Deutero-Isaiah, the gods of the Gentiles are referred to as ‫ ְּב ֶכסֶף‬. . . ‫ עֵץ ִמּיַעַר ְּכרָתֹו ַמעֲׂשֵ ה יְדֵ י־חָרָׁש‬. . . ‫ֶהבֶל‬ ‫ִצעָדּו‬ ְ ‫ לֹא יְדַ ּבֵרּו נָׂשֹוא ִיּנָׂשּוא ִּכי לֹא י‬. . . ‫ּובזָהָב ְייַּפֵהו‬ ְ (“false . . . , a tree from the forest that is cut down, made by the hands of a craftsman . . . , beaten silver, idols that cannot speak and must be carried because they cannot walk,” vv. 3–5). In ְ ‫אמֶת הּוא־אֱל ִֹהים ַחּיִים ּו ֶמל‬ contrast: ‫ֶך עֹולָם‬ ֱ ‫“( וַיהוָה אֱל ִֹהים‬But the Lord is the true God; he is the Living God and the everlasting king”—MT-Jer 10:10; the verse is absent in the Septuagint and 4QJerb); 37 ‫ּוב־‬ ִ ‫ָכמָתֹו‬ ְ ‫עֹׂשֵ ה ֶארֶץ ְּבכֹחֹו מ ִֵכין ּתֵ בֵל ְּבח‬ ‫ׁש ָמיִם‬ ָ ‫“( ְתבּונָתֹו נָטָה‬It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom,” v. 12). On several occasions in the canonical sections of Daniel, we find the phrase ζῶν θεός as an expression of this same polemic, and surprisingly enough, sometimes it is found only in the OG, with no parallel in the MT/Th, sometimes it appears only in the MT/Th but not in the OG and sometimes in all three, without any noticeable consistency, as demonstrated in the following juxtaposition: Dan 4:22 MT — Th — OG καθότι ἐξερήμωσας τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος Dan 4:27 MT — Th — OG κύριος ζῇ ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ γῇ

37.  See below.

140

Dalia Amara

Dan 4:31 [OG 34] MT  ‫ ולעליא‬,‫ ּו ַמנ ְְּד ִעי עֲלַי יְתּוב‬,‫ִטלֵת‬ ְ ‫ׁש ַמּיָא נ‬ ְ ‫אנָה נְבּוכ ְַדנֶּצַר ַע ְינַי ִל‬ ֲ ‫ְו ִל ְקצָת יֹו ַמּיָא‬ ‫  ׁשַ ְּבחֵת ְוה ְַּדרֵת‬3 ‫ָלמָא‬ ְ ‫ּולחַי ע‬ ְ ,‫ָרכֵת‬ ְ ‫(ּול ִע ָּלאָה) ּב‬ ְ Th καὶ μετὰ τὸ τέλος τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐγὼ Ναβουχοδονοσορ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνέλαβον, καὶ αἱ φρένες μου ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἐπεστράφησαν, καὶ τῷ ὑψίστῳ εὐλόγησα καὶ τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ᾔνεσα OG καὶ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν ὁ χρόνος μου τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἦλθε, καὶ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου καὶ αἱ ἄγνοιαί μου ἐπληρώθησαν ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· καὶ ἐδεήθην περὶ τῶν ἀγνοιῶν μου τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ μεγάλου. Dan 5:23

ְ ‫(ק ָדמ‬ MT ‫ ואנתה‬,)‫ָך‬ ָ ‫ְתיו קדמיך‬ ִ ‫ ַביְתֵ ּה ַהי‬-‫ּולמָאנַּיָא ִדי‬ ְ ‫ׁש ַמּיָא ִה ְתרֹומ ְַמ ָּת‬-‫ָרֵא‬ ְ ‫ְועַל מ‬ ְ ‫(ורַ ְב ְר ָבנ‬ -‫ ְולֵא ָלהֵי כ ְַסּפָא‬,‫ׁשתַ יִן ְּבהֹון‬ ָ ‫ָת ְך ח ְַמרָא‬ ָ ‫ּול ֵחנ‬ ְ ‫ָת ְך‬ ָ ‫ָך) ׁש ְֵגל‬ ְ ‫ְּת) ורברבניך‬ ְ ‫(ו ַאנ‬ ְ ;‫ ׁשַ ּב ְַח ָּת‬,‫ָד ִעין‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְמ ִעין ְולָא י‬-‫ָא‬ ָ ‫ ָחזַיִן ְול‬-‫ָׁשא פ ְַר ְזלָא ָאעָא ְוא ְַבנָא ִּדי לָא‬ ָ ‫הבָא ְנח‬ ֲ ַ‫ְוד‬ ‫ָת ְך לֵּה—לָא הַּדַ ְר ָּת‬ ָ ‫א ְֹרח‬-‫ ְוכָל‬,‫ִׁש ְמ ָת ְך ִּבידֵ ּה‬ ְ ‫נ‬-‫ְולֵא ָלהָא ִּדי‬

Th καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὑψώθης, καὶ τὰ σκεύη τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἤνεγκαν ἐνώπιόν σου, καὶ σὺ καὶ οἱ μεγιστᾶνές σου καὶ αἱ παλλακαί σου καὶ αἱ παράκοιτοί σου οἶνον ἐπίνετε ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς χρυσοῦς καὶ ἀργυροῦς καὶ χαλκοῦς καὶ σιδηροῦς καὶ ξυλίνους καὶ λιθίνους, οἳ οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ οὐκ ἀκούουσιν καὶ οὐ γινώσκουσιν, ᾔνεσας καὶ τὸν θεόν, οὗ ἡ πνοή σου ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοί σου, αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐδόξασας OG βασιλεῦ, σὺ ἐποιήσω ἑστιατορίαν τοῖς φίλοις σου καὶ ἔπινες οἶνον, καὶ τὰ σκεύη τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἠνέχθη σοι, καὶ ἐπίνετε ἐν αὐτοῖς σὺ καὶ οἱ μεγιστᾶνές σου καὶ ᾐνέσατε πάντα τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ χειροποίητα τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ζῶντι οὐκ εὐλογήσατε, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά σου ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ βασίλειόν σου αὐτὸς ἔδωκέ σοι, καὶ οὐκ εὐλόγησας αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ᾔνεσας αὐτῷ. Dan 6:21

ְ ‫א ָלה‬ MT  ‫לֵּה‬-‫ְּת ָּפלַח‬ ְ ‫ָך ִּדי ַאנ‬ ֱ —‫א ָלהָא ַחּיָא‬ ֱ ‫ ָּד ִנּיֵאל עֲבֵד‬,‫ָענֵה מ ְַלּכָא ְו ָאמַר ְל ָד ִנּיֵאל‬ ‫ָתא‬ ָ ‫א ְַריָו‬-‫ָבּות ְך ִמן‬ ָ ‫ְכל ְלׁשֵיז‬ ִ ‫ ַהי‬,‫ִּב ְת ִדירָא‬

Th ἐβόησεν φωνῇ ἰσχυρᾷ Δανιηλ ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, ὁ θεός σου, ᾧ σὺ λατρεύεις ἐνδελεχῶς, εἰ ἠδυνήθη ἐξελέσθαι σε ἐκ στόματος τῶν λεόντων. 38.  The Aramaic phrase ‫ חי עלמא‬and the Hebrew phrase ‫( חי העולם‬12:7) are translated the same way in Th: καὶ τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα; the OG of 12:7 translates τὸν ζῶντα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα θεὸν.

Bel and the Dragon

141

OG τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκάλεσε τὸν Δανιηλ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ λέγων ῏Ω Δανιηλ, εἰ ἄρα ζῇς, καὶ ὁ θεός σου, ᾧ λατρεύεις ἐνδελεχῶς, σέσωκέ σε ἀπὸ τῶν λεόντων, καὶ οὐκ ἠχρείωκάν σε. Dan 6:27 MT ‫ָל ִמין‬ ְ ‫ ְוקַ ּיָם ְלע‬,‫א ָלהָא ַחּיָא‬ ֱ ‫הּוא‬-‫ ִּדי‬:‫ד ִנּיֵאל‬-‫י‬ ָ ‫א ָלהֵּה ִּד‬ ֱ Th τοῦ θεοῦ Δανιηλ, ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν θεὸς ζῶν καὶ μένων εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας OG (27–28) τῷ θεῷ τοῦ Δανιηλ, αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστι θεὸς μένων καὶ ζῶν εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος . . . τὰ γὰρ εἴδωλα τὰ χειροποίητα οὐ δύνανται σῶσαι For our evaluation of the OG-Bel, the important fact is that, in cases where the phrase appears in the OG-Dan while absent from the MT/Th, its presence seems to be secondary. The OG-Dan 4:22 aims to identify Nebuchadnezzar’s sin as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, ἐξερήμωσας τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, but is most likely a later addition to the Vorlage of the OG 39 since, in general, and particularly in Daniel 4, the temple’s destruction is not perceived as a sin of Nebuchadnezzar but as the will of the God of Israel carried out by the Babylonian king. By interpolating this verse, a redactor had also created a stronger link between chs. 4 and 5: King Nebuchadnezzar has destroyed the temple of the Lord and taken His vessels, and his son, Belshazzar, has defiled these same vessels. Although the polemic is natural to the OG-Dan 5, 40 where Belshazzar is accused of defiling τὰ σκεύη τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, v. 23 seems to be a later addition made by the hand we discerned in the OG-Dan 4:22: Note that v. 23 interrupts the sequence between 5:22, τότε Δανιηλ ἔστη κατέναντι τῆς γραφῆς καὶ ἀνέγνω καὶ οὕτως ἀπεκρίθη τῷ βασιλεῖ Αὕτη ἡ γραφή ᾿Ηρίθμηται, κατελογίσθη, ἐξῆρται· καὶ ἔστη ἡ γράψασα χείρ. καὶ αὕτη ἡ σύγκρισις αὐτῶν, and 5:24, τοῦτο τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς γραφῆς· ἠρίθμηται ὁ χρόνος σου τῆς βασιλείας, ἀπολήγει ἡ βασιλεία σου, συντέτμηται καὶ συντετέλεσται ἡ βασιλεία σου, τοῖς Μήδοις καὶ τοῖς Πέρσαις δίδοται. The Wiederaufnahme (τοῦτο τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς γραφῆς [“this is the interpretation of the writing”]) discloses the secondary

39.  A different view on this verse is presented by Wills in his analysis of ch. 4. See Wills, The Jew in the Court, 98–120. 40.  Especially in the OG version, given the fact that in v. 4 the God of Israel is contrasted to the gods of the nations: καὶ ηὐλόγουν τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ χειροποίητα αὐτῶν, καὶ τὸν θεὸν τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ εὐλόγησαν (“and they praised their hand-made idols, and they did not praise the eternal God”), a contrast that does not exist in MT/Th.

142

Dalia Amara

nature of the verse in between, leading the readers back to the sequence of the preceding verse (καὶ αὕτη ἡ σύγκρισις αὐτῶν [“and this is their interpretation”]). 41 In one case, Dan 6:27, all three versions are in agreement in the first half of the verse. However, while in MT/Th the declaration of the greatness of the Lord continues to the end of the verse and to the next verse, 42 the OG has a different version in which the king contrasts the gods of the nations with the God of Daniel: τὰ γὰρ εἴδωλα τὰ χειροποίητα οὐ δύνανται σῶσαι (“for the idols made by hand are not able to save”). This contrast is probably a secondary layer of the Vorlage of the OG and apparently was added by the redactor to the phrase that describes the God of Daniel as a “Living God.” This was in order to associate the narrative of ch. 6 with the above polemic. 43 In light of the above discussion, it is tempting to assume that the phrase is also secondary in the cases where it appears in the MT/Th while absent from the OG—that is, Dan 4:31; 6:21. To these, I should add Jer 10:10 and 23:36, in which the phrase is absent in the Septuagint. Nevertheless, it seems to me that one should not judge all of these cases alike. In Dan 6:21, the phrase is probably secondary in the MT/Th, since the king had no way of knowing whether Daniel was still alive after spending the night 41.  The original sequence would be as follows: τότε Δανιηλ ἔστη κατέναντι τῆς γραφῆς καὶ ἀνέγνω, καὶ οὕτως ἀπεκρίθη τῷ βασιλεῖ: Αὕτη ἡ γραφή ᾿Ηρίθμηται, κατελογίσθη, ἐξῆρται· καὶ ἔστη ἡ γράψασα χείρ. καὶ αὕτη ἡ σύγκρισις αὐτῶν: ἠρίθμηται ὁ χρόνος σου τῆς βασιλείας, ἀπολήγει ἡ βασιλεία σου, συντέτμηται καὶ συντετέλεσται ἡ βασιλεία σου, τοῖς Μήδοις καὶ τοῖς Πέρσαις δίδοται Then Daniel stood before the writing and read it, and thus he answered the king: “This is the writing: it is numbered, it is reckoned, it is done away with”; and the hand that wrote stopped, and this is their interpretation: “The time of your kingdom is numbered, your kingdom is coming to an end, it is cut off and finished; your kingdom is given to the Medes and the Persians.”

42.  ‫ ְמׁשֵיזִב ּומ ִַּצל‬28 ‫ׁש ְל ָטנֵּה עַד־סֹופָא׃‬ ָ ‫ָל ִמין ּומ ְַלכּותֵ ּה ִּדי־לָא ִת ְת ַחּבַל ְו‬ ְ ‫א ָלהָא ַחּיָא ְוקַ ּיָם ְלע‬ ֱ ‫ִּדי־הּוא‬ ‫ּובא ְַרעָא‬ ְ ‫ׁש ַמּיָא‬ ְ ‫ָתין ְו ִת ְמ ִהין ִּב‬ ִ ‫ = ְו ָעבֵד א‬Th: ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν θεὸς ζῶν καὶ μένων εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται, καὶ ἡ κυριεία αὐτοῦ ἕως τέλους· ἀντιλαμβάνεται καὶ ῥύεται καὶ ποιεῖ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (“For he is the living and eternal God; his kingdom shall not be destroyed and his dominion is forever. He helps and delivers and works signs and wonders in the heaven and on the earth”). 43.  In LXX Esth 6:13, the phrase appears in a secondary expansion. The MT reads: ‫ְהּודים‬ ִ ‫ׁשּתֹו ִאם ִמּזֶרַ ע ַהּי‬ ְ ‫ח ָכמָיו ְוזֶרֶׁש ִא‬ ֲ ‫אמרּו לֹו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ֲׁשר ָקרָהּו וַּי‬ ֶ ‫הבָיו אֵת ּכָל־א‬ ֲֹ ‫ּולכָל־א‬ ְ ‫ׁשּתֹו‬ ְ ‫ַו ְי ַסּפֵר ָהמָן ְלזֶרֶׁש ִא‬ ‫ּלֹות ִלנְּפֹל ְל ָפנָיו לֹא־תּוכַל לֹו ִּכי־נָפֹול ִּתּפֹול ְל ָפנָיו‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר ה ִַח‬ ֶ ‫ָרּדֳכַי א‬ ְ ‫מ‬. The LXX runs parallel except for this expansion: καὶ διηγήσατο Αμαν τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐτῷ Ζωσαρα τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς φίλοις, καὶ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ φίλοι καὶ ἡ γυνή Εἰ ἐκ γένους Ιουδαίων Μαρδοχαῖος, ἦρξαι ταπεινοῦσθαι ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, πεσὼν πεσῇ· οὐ μὴ δύνῃ αὐτὸν ἀμύνασθαι, ὅτι θεὸς ζῶν μετ’ αὐτοῦ (“Haman related the events that had befallen him to Zosara, his wife, and to [his] friends: and his friends and his wife said to him, ‘If Mardochaeus [be] of the race of the Jews [and] you have begun to be humbled before him, you will assuredly fall, because a Living God is with him’”).

Bel and the Dragon

143

in the lion’s den. Therefore the OG: Ω Δανιηλ, εἰ ἄρα ζῇς (“O Daniel, are you alive?”) makes more sense than the MT/Th: ‫א ָלהָא ַחּיָא‬ ֱ ‫ = ָּד ִנּיֵאל עֲבֵד‬Δανιηλ ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος (“Daniel, servant of the Living God”). Presumably, a secondary writer has bothered to introduce this polemical phrase into the context, where a question about God’s ability to save his believer has been raised. Dan 4:31 is a different matter. Here, the Hebrew phrase is ‫ָלמָא‬ ְ ‫חַי ע‬, which means “the God that lives forever.” 44 This phrase does not exclude the possible existence of other gods of a different kind. 45 There is a good reason for replacing it with other expressions that emphasize God’s supremacy, such as τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ or τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ μεγάλου (“the God of heaven, the great God of gods”), that are found elsewhere in the book of Daniel. 46 As for Jer 10:10 and 23:36, it is obvious that in both cases the phrase was included in the text, and therefore its absence in the Septuagint is due to the intervention of a later redactor. In the case of Jer 10:10, the whole verse is absent from the Septuagint and, for this reason, it may well be the result of a textual accident; Jer 10:10 + 12 makes a coherent unit in which the author contrasts the God of Israel with the gods of the nations that are mentioned in the previous verses; however, while v. 12, the direct continuation of v. 10, is preserved in the Septuagint, v. 10 is omitted. This omission may have been unintentional due to the addition of the Aramaic verse (v. 11). 47 One cannot apply the same explanation to Jer 23:36. In this case, the only phrases that are absent in the Septuagint are ‫ אֱל ִֹהים ַחּיִים‬and ‫יְהוָה ְצבָאֹות‬, and their absence should be considered an intentional omission due to theological considerations. 48 To sum up, the phrase “Living God” is essential in the story of Bel and the Dragon and cannot be removed without damage to the logic of the story. In this case, the original form was preserved in Th. The adaptation of the OG version must have occurred in the Vorlage since the phrase is preserved in other places in the OG-Dan, as we have seen above. In my view, theological considerations may have played part in deleting the term “Living God” from the OG version of Bel and the Dragon. In the original 44.  Th is too literal and translates τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα here and in Dan 12:7, where the OG translates: τὸν ζῶντα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα θεὸν. 45. Not ‫א ָלהָא ַחּיָא‬ ֱ “the Living God,” which means in the context of this particular polemic: the one and the only true God. 46.  E.g., Dan 2:18, 19, 47; 4:34. 47.  For a different view on Jer 10:1–16, see J. Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem and Its Form-Critical Solution: Jeremiah 10:1–16,” Textus 20 (2000): 97–128. Ben-Dov takes vv. 6–8 (which are also absent in the LXX) together with v. 10 as a doxology inserted into the MT. 48.  For the absence of ‫יְהוָה ְצבָאֹות‬, see: A. Rofé, “The Name Yhwh Sebaʾot and the Shorter Recension of Jeremiah,” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel, ed. S. Herrmann, R. Liwak, and S. Wagner (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991), 307–15.

144

Dalia Amara

form of the story, the issue at stake was the question “Who should be considered a ‘Living God’?” The adaptation transfers the polemic from this particular question to a broader level: “Who should be considered a ‘god’ at all or, in other words, is there any god besides the God of Israel?” It is also possible that the reluctance to use the title “Living God” as an epithet for the God of Israel was caused by the practice of the Ptolemaic kings, who considered themselves to be “living gods.” Ptolemy II Philadelphos, after becoming the sole king, proclaimed his father (Ptolemy I Soter) a god and later made himself and his sister-wife “living gods.” This was the first time that a living monarch was proclaimed a god—a proclamation that was continued by Pto­lemy II Philadelphos’s successors. 49 It is not inconceivable that a Jewish redactor who lived in the 2nd century b.c.e. under a Ptolemaic regime showed a reluctance to use of the same title for the God of Israel. If so, we may describe the literary development as follows: the epithet “Living God” for the God of Israel emerged in the late Persian or beginning of the Hellenistic period as a Jewish reaction to the mockery of Gentiles concerning Jewish devotion to an invisible God, as expressed in Psalm 42. Literary compositions expressing this polemic, such as Bel and the Dragon and possibly 1  Samuel 17, were composed during the 3rd century to demonstrate the supremacy and omnipotence of the God of Israel over and against the impotence of foreign gods. Furthermore, in this period, secondary authors inserted polemical passages into earlier texts (such as 2 Kgs 19:15ff.; Jer 10:1–16; Esth 6:13; and the Vorlage of OG-Dan 4–6). 50 At a certain point, during the 2nd century b.c.e., this phrase was rejected as an epithet for the God of Israel and was removed by scribes and redactors (in the OG version of Bel and the Dragon and possibly LXX-Jer 10:10 and 23:36). Apparently the redactor(s) made a few more changes as part of the same adaptation in OG-Bel: a.  In Th, Yhwh is mentioned as κύριε ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Δανιηλ (“Lord, God of Daniel”) (v. 41); Δανιηλ δὲ προσεκύνει τῷ θεῷ αὐτοῦ (“But Daniel worshiped his God”) (v. 4); Κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ μου προσκυνήσω (“I will worship the Lord my God”). This particularism does not appear in the OG version; instead, Yhwh is referred to as κύριος ὁ θεὸς (41); Δανιηλ δὲ προσηύχετο πρὸς κύριον (4). 51 b.  Another difference between Th and the OG, which probably belongs to the same line of thinking, appears in v. 9, where Th reads 49.  See G. Shipley, The Greek World after Alexander 323–30 bc (New York: Routledge, 2000), 159–60; D. Golan, A History of the Hellenistic World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987), 184–85, 227–30 [Heb.]. 50.  The fact that these secondary additions appear only in Daniel 4–6 may serve as evidence for the theory that these chapter were circulated as a separate corpus. 51. Verse 25 was omitted from the OG as part of the adaptation.

Bel and the Dragon

145

ἀποθανεῖται Δανιηλ, ὅτι ἐβλασφήμησεν εἰς τὸν Βηλ (“Daniel shall die, because he has spoken blasphemy against Bel”), while the OG reads: ἢ Δανιηλ ὁ φάσκων μὴ ἐσθίεσθαι αὐτὰ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ (“. . . or Daniel, who says they are not being eaten by him”). This whole sentence is probably secondary in the OG and was borrowed from Th (see below). The redactor however, has paraphrased Th to avoid using the term “blasphemy” in connection with Bel. This is likely because the equivalent Semitic terms ‫ חרף‬in Hebrew and ‫ אמר שלו‬in Aramaic (Dan 3:29[96]) usually appear in contexts in which pagans speak blasphemy against the God of Israel, where he is referred to as “The Living God” (2 Kgs 19:4, 6, 22; 1 Sam 17:26, 36, 45). It seems to me that this redactor was not ready to compare Bel with Yhwh in any manner whatsoever; although he borrowed the sentence from the Th version, he omitted the term and instead put into the king’s mouth a quotation from the words of Daniel in v. 7. 4.  Contamination of the Two Versions One should expect that, during the separate transmission process of both versions, certain elements moved from one version to the other, either by redactors and scribes on the Semitic level, or by translators and Greek scribes on the translational level. I will demonstrate this phenomenon in the following paragraphs. Note that the examples in §4.1 probably occurred during transmission on the Vorlage level, and those in §4.2 apparently occurred at the Greek level. 4.1.  The Old Greek Borrows from Theodotion We will begin with elements borrowed by the OG from Th. In vv. 8–22 of the OG version, there are some difficulties that can best be explained as the influence of Th over the OG. Old Greek v. 8 In the OG v. 8, the king addresses the priests in fury: παραδείξατε τὸν ἔσθοντα τὰ παρασκευαζόμενα τῷ Βηλ, εἰ δὲ μή γε, ἀποθανεῖσθε! (“Reveal who eats the things prepared for Bel, and if not, you will die”). His words indicate that he believed Daniel. If this is true, his threat to Daniel in the next verse, ἢ Δανιηλ ὁ φάσκων .  .  . (“or Daniel, who says .  .  .”), is unexpected and not in order. Moreover, any threat to Daniel’s life is premature at this point, because it is only after the priests’ response to the king that Daniel takes upon himself the burden of proof, and he is the one who bets his life on the consequences. The conditional clause is also improper and incomplete; it misses a step and needs supplements such as παραδείξατε τὸν ἔσθοντα τὰ παρασκευαζόμενα τῷ Βηλ, εἰ δὲ μή γε, ἀποθανεῖσθε (“but if you show that Bel eats it”) ἢ Δανιηλ ὁ φάσκων . . . (“will die”). I suggest that the redactors may have borrowed this literary element from Th in order to create a balanced account of the scene.

146

Dalia Amara

Old Greek vv. 11–14 In vv.  11–14 of the OG, Daniel suggests that the king himself seal the temple doors with his ring: καὶ εἶπε Δανιηλ: Σὺ αὐτὸς ὁρᾷς βασιλεῦ ὃτι κεῖται ταῦτα, σὺ οὖν ἐπισφράγισον τὰς κλεῖδας τοῦ ναοῦ ἐπὰν κλεισθῇ, ἢρεσε δὲ ὁ λόγος τῷ βασιλεῖ (“Daniel said: ‘You yourself see, O King, that these things are laid out; you then seal the bolts of the temple when it is closed.’ The word pleased the king”). At the same time, according to the OG version, after the offering was placed before Bel, Daniel ordered his men to get everyone out of the temple, including the king, and to scatter ashes all over the floor secretly. After all this was done, he closed the doors and sealed them with the rings of the king and the leading priests. In this course of events, there is no role for the king, and there is no room for Daniel’s suggestion that the king take action. Moreover, the OG’s description in this passage strengthens the impression that the king had so much confidence in Daniel that he enabled him to perform secret activities with his men in the temple, the nature of which was unknown even to the king himself. It is reasonable, therefore, to think that Daniel’s suggestion to the king is not original to the OG version. It was probably taken from Th, where the priests presented this offer to the king: σὺ δέ, βασιλεῦ, παράθες τὰ βρώματα καὶ τὸν οἶνον κεράσας θὲς καὶ ἀπόκλεισον τὴν θύραν καὶ σφράγισον τῷ δακτυλίῳ σου· (“You yourself, O King, shall set forth the food and mix and place the wine, and shut the door and seal it with your signet”). Old Greek v. 15 In v. 15 of the OG, the author informs the reader that during the night the priests have entered through secret doors, consumed Bel’s offering, and drunk the wine: καὶ ἐγένετο τῇ ἐπαύριον παρεγένοντο ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον οἱ δὲ ἱερεῖς τοῦ Βηλ διὰ ψεθδοθυρίδων εἰσελθόντες κατεφάγοσαν πάντα τὰ παρακείμενα τῷ Βηλ καὶ ἐξέπιον τὸν οἶνον. But in v. 21, the food and wine are located in the priests’ quarters. Moreover, the statement in v. 15 interrupts the sequence 52 between the beginning of the verse, καὶ ἐγένετο τῇ ἐπαύριον παρεγένοντο ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον (“and it happened on the next day that they went to the place”), and its end: καὶ εἶπε Δανιηλ . . . (“and Daniel said . . .”). It is most likely that the parenthetical sentence from Th was inserted into the OG, 53 where it is completely illogical and out of order. 52.  McLay, “Bel,” puts it in brackets; Collins (Daniel, 406) is aware that it is problematic but retains it, because it is attested in both versions. 53.  In this case, it is most likely that the borrowing from Th occurred on the Vorlage level, since the Greek is quite different in the two versions (Th: οἱ δὲ ἱερεῖς ἦλθον τὴν νύκτα κατὰ τὸ ἔθος αὐτῶν καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν καὶ κατέφαγον πάντα καὶ ἐξέπιον), and, as we have seen above, the OG translator misunderstood his Vorlage in rendering ψεθδοθυρίδων as “hidden doors.”

Bel and the Dragon

147

4.2. Theodotion’s Influence on the Old Greek at the Greek-Transmission Level Recently, Tim McLay, in his studies of the Greek versions of Daniel 54 has emphasized the influence of Th on the OG version during their transmission into the Greek form. I wish to add here a few examples from Bel and the Dragon that I included in my 1996 M.A. thesis. The examples were chosen from papyrus 967, which is considered pre-Hexaplaric and the readings of which are usually preferred by scholars. a.  In v. 6, papyrus 967 reads: εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ βασιλεύς, in accordance with Th: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ βασιλεύς, while 88-SyrH reads: εἶπε δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς αὐτῷ. 55 b.  In v. 27, papyrus 967 reads: καὶ ἥψησεν with Th and against 88-SyrH: ἥψησεν. c.  In v. 28, papyrus 967 reads: κατέσπασε with Th and against 88-SyrH: κατέστρεψε. 56 d.  In v. 37, papyrus 967 reads with Th: ὁ θεός, against 88-SyrH: κύριος ὁ θεός. It should be noted that the title κύριος ὁ θεός is maintained throughout the story in the OG version, while Th reads either κύριος or θεός. 57 We can now summarize and describe the evolution of the two versions as follows: the OG version reflects a text much closer to the original form of the story. One copy underwent an adaptation under the influence of the canonical section of the book of Daniel, in order to connect the story with the book of Daniel. This reworking is reflected in Th version. Another copy was reworked for theological reasons and is reflected in the OG version. During the transmission of both versions, side by side, certain elements from Th found their way into the OG during the two versions’ transmission in both their originallanguage forms and their translated forms. 54.  Especially T. McLay, “The Relationship between the Greek Translations of Daniel 1–3,” BIOSCS 37 (2004): 29–54. See also my OG Daniel, 22–23, 243–77. 55.  As preferred also by Munnich. 56.  In this case, Munnich prefers 967’s reading. 57.  For this reason, I cannot accept Munnich’s preference for 967 in this case.

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6: The Septuagint Version as Witness Olivier Munnich Université Paris–Sorbonne (UMR 81 67) Introduction With its diverse chapters, the book of Daniel reminds one of the beautiful images that Zipora Talshir evokes: a mosaic that one can re-create using the stones from a previous mosaic. 1 Indeed, the Daniel narratives are quite independent of each other; and, between the Semitic collection and the various Greek versions we know of, the book received supplements (songs in ch. 3; expansion of ch. 4; “satellites,” such as Bel and the Dragon and Susanna) or had the order of the chapters inverted or the supplements. Finally, Daniel is preserved in various literary forms: the Septuagint, 2 the Masoretic Text, and the version of Theodotion, which mirrors it except for the passages—always significant ones—where it agrees with the Septuagint or presents a third textual variant. Despite the overwhelming agreement between the Qumran fragments and the MT, there are passages, few but significant, where Q agrees with one of the other forms. The Peshiṭta is one of these that presents significant variants, but it must be used with caution. What we observe, then, is a certain mobility of the text, both on a quantitative level (the supplements) and on a qualitative level (differences in content or narration). Taken together, these elements raise questions, not so much about which form is the oldest, but primarily about the reasons why a book of the Bible should have been the object of this sort of continuous creativity. 1. Z. Talshir, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom: 3 Kingdoms 12:24 a–z (Jerusalem: Simor, 1993), 282. 2.  Although the term Septuagint must be confined to the Greek Pentateuch, I shall use it as a synonym for “Dan-o′,” following the designation introduced by Origen himself in his Letter to Africanus, Sources chrétiennes 301, p. 526, lines 24–27; and in the 9th book of his Stromates (according to Jerome, In Danielem, CCSL 75A [Turnhout: Brepols, 1964], 811).

149

150

Olivier Munnich

In chs. 4 and 5 as elsewhere, there is no doubt that Theodotion’s version is a revision of the LXX and not an independent translation. 3 As proof, I will only mention here the fact that in 4:17[20], Theodotion translates ‫ חֲזֹות‬as τὸ κύτος, a very rare Greek word that was already used in the LXX in vv. 8[11] and 19[22] to describe the tree. There is also no doubt that this Greek revision is based on a Semitic text that is later than (or, at any rate, different from) the source text of the LXX. In fact, for the books of the Greek Bible, there are no known examples of a revision made from a model older than that of the first translation. Theodotion’s source text is essentially the same as the MT, but it differs in certain details. Unaware of this mobility of the biblical text, critics have often questioned the quality of the text of LXX Daniel 4–6. Even the eminent specialist J. Ziegler made the following observation: “In den Kap. 4, 5, und 6 ist gegenüber der aramäischen Vorlage der griechische Text oft erweitert; häufig lässt sich nicht eindeutig feststellen, ob nur freie, erweiternde und umschreibende Wiedergaben des Übersetzers oder Glossen und Dubletten eines Späteren vorliegen.” 4 In fact, the only doublets in these chapters are in Daniel 6; and the evidence from both the Hexaplaric and pre-Hexaplaric witnesses (88-Syh and pap. 967, respectively) make the existence of glosses unlikely. It is not reasonable to suppose that the situation in these chapters of Dan-o′ is different from that of the other sections of the book, where the translation is accurate (despite attempts to be elegant). We may thus suppose that, in chs. 4–6, the translation reflects a model that was different from the MT. 5 Ziegler’s judgment should then be reformulated in the following way: in ch. 4 (but also in chs. 5 and 6), the LXX reflects an “alternative story,” to borrow the title of Zipora Talshir’s book: 6 an alternative Vorlage as compared with the Masoretic Text. 3.  According to T. McLay, the two versions were first independent but later contaminated each other (The OG and Th Versions of Daniel, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996]). I do not share this opinion. 4. Septuagint, Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academias Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, vol. 16/2: Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 15. This was already the view of A. Bludau: “Ohne rechten Grund scheint der Uebersetzer sich bald in der Rolle eines Interpreten, bald in der eines Paraphrasten, bald in der eines Epitomators gefallen zu haben,” in Die Alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältniss zum massorethischen Text (Freiburg: Herder, 1897), 31. The same judgment can be found in J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1927). 5.  Compare the position held by J. J. Collins: “It is now clear that the Old Greek of these chapters was not simply an errant translation of the text preserved by the Masoretes. It was based on a different Aramaic Vorlage, and the relationship of that Vorlage to the text now found in the MT is disputed” (“Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 1.3). 6.  Talshir, Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom.

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

151

If we look beyond the linguistic differences between the two texts, we will find that an analysis of the Greek versions allows us to study the evolution of the Aramaic text itself, the dynamics of its composition, its redaction, and its transmission, to borrow the title of our book. 7 In my view, all the elements point to the fact that the MT is a re-elaboration of the source text of the LXX. I attempted to demonstrate this at the IOSCS conference in Basel in 2001. 8 Here I will briefly recall some of the conclusions I reached in that work and then develop them further, concentrating on chs. 4 and 5, and dealing with ch. 6 in less detail. The Role of Daniel in the Narratives In LXX ch. 4, Daniel is given less importance than in the MT: •  He is first mentioned by Dan-o′ in 4:15[18], while the MT introduces him already in v. 5[8]. •  His qualities are less emphasized in the LXX than in the MT. For example, in 4:15[18], he is “the master of the sophists and the leader of those who interpret dreams,” τὸν ἄρχοντα τῶν σοφιστῶν καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον τῶν κρινόντων τὰ ἐνύπνια. However, in the formulation of the MT, he possesses “the spirit of the holy God” (‫יׁשין‬ ִ ‫ָהין קַ ִּד‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֱ ‫רּוחַ־‬ ְ ‫)ּב‬. This motif is mentioned twice in the introduction of the story ‫ָך‬ (4:5[8] and 6[9]), together with the hero’s ability to “penetrate all ְ ‫וכָל־רָז לָא־ ָאנֵס ל‬,ְ v. 6[9]). The LXX attributes to Daniel mysteries” (‫ָך‬ a relative superiority over the other wise men; the situation is entirely different in the MT, where Daniel’s power is credited to God’s influence. We would find the same situation if we extended our study to ch. 5. It is easy to understand why the gathering of a group of originally autonomous or loosely linked narratives into a single collection might have brought about a progressively greater emphasis on the figure of the hero. On the other hand, it is more difficult to imagine an evolution in the opposite direction, or a literary re-elaboration aiming to diminish the figure of the hero, whether by reducing the frequency with which he is mentioned or by offering a less generous view of his merits. As far as I know, there is no development of this sort, in biblical or any other literature. 7.  One could apply to the Greek versions of this biblical book what J. J. Collins says of the Pseudo-Daniel fragments from Qumran: “Their relevance, then, is not strictly to the textual history of Daniel, but to the history of the composition of Daniel” (“Current Issues,” 5). 8. O. Munnich, “Texte massorétique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. A. Schenker (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 93–120.

152

Olivier Munnich

A Second Preface: Daniel 2:13–24 At the IOSCS conference held in Paris in 1992, I attempted to show, following L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, 9 that 2:13–24 constitutes a secondary addition in the MT, which refocuses the narrative on Daniel (at the price of a slight incoherence). He is presented with the features that will characterize him in the following chapters: man of prayer in 2:19–23 (cf. ch. 9), man of vision and of understanding of mysteries in 2:19 (cf. chs. 7–12), and possessing an understanding of the succession of empires in 2:21 (cf. chs. 4, 7, 8, 11). 10 It thus appears that the redactional activity aimed at organizing a collection of stories and anecdotes of diverse origin around the unifying figure of Daniel. In these verses of Daniel 2, but also at several junctures in chs. 4, 5, 6, and even 7, it seemed to me that the LXX version and sometimes even Theodotion reflect segments that were originally written in Hebrew and secondarily harmonized in Aramaic, in view of the Masoretic recension. Today, I do not hold this position, because many of the formulations that I thought were reflecting a Hebrew model may actually be retroverted into Aramaic. Nevertheless, I still attempt to use the Greek versions to find clues to various interventions in a proto-Masoretic state of the Aramaic text, and thus, I think of myself as addressing not only the Septuagint scholar Zipora Talshir but also David Talshir, the Aramaic specialist. Literary Reworking in Daniel 4 Simplification in the MT of the Dream and Its Interpretation In Dan 4:7[10]–9[12] and 17[20]–19[22], the Masoretic rewriting leads to a notable attenuation of the dream recounted by the king and of its interpretation by Daniel. Contrary to a common opinion, the narrative of this dream does not involve a double description. 11 And, while Origen does indeed obelize the 9. L. F. Hartman, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1978), 139. 10. L. J. Greenspoon and O. Munnich, “Les versions grecques de Daniel et leurs substrats sémitiques,” in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris 1992, ed. L. J. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 291–308. A very similar view is found in M. Segal, “From Joseph to Daniel: The Literary Development of the Narrative in Daniel 2,” VT 59 (2009): 123–49. 11.  According to P. Grelot, “Le grec contient une redite (‘son aspect était grand’) et la taille de l’arbre est décrite par deux fois. On peut émettre l’hypothèse de deux recensions qui exploitaient sous deux formes différentes le thème de l’arbre cosmique; la seconde aurait passé de la marge dans le texte à la suite du v. 12” (“La Septante de Daniel IV et son substrat sémitique,” RB 81 [1974]: 14). R.  Albertz holds the opposite point of view: “Die Vision ist somit—i.e., with the echoing elements in v. 9(12) and 8(11)—ausgesprochen kunstvoll gebaut” (Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4–6 in der Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel­werk, 1988], 24).

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

153

greater part of v. 8 [11], which is not represented in the MT, this does not mean that Dan-o′ has a doublet: rather, the description unfolds in two phases, marked by the repetition of the expression καὶ ἡ ὅρασις αὐτοῦ μεγάλη in vv.  7[10], 8[11]. The first phase, v. 9[12], is devoted to the place of the tree in relation to the earth; it is a shelter for livestock and birds, just as it meets the needs of all humans. The second phase, v. 8[11], defines the place of the tree in the universe: its summit approaches the sky, and its trunk reaches the clouds and occupies the entire area situated under the heaven, including the sun and the moon. In sum, the description clearly distinguishes between a human and a cosmic perspective. This bipartition of the narrative gives structure to the interpretation: all the peoples of the earth are subservient to the king—ἡ ἰσχὺς τῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ τῶν γλωσσῶν πασῶν ἕως τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ χῶραι σοὶ δουλεύουσι, 4:18[21]: his power on earth is absolute. The following section of the interpretation, v. 19[22], begins by expressing a reservation (δέ): reaching the sky and touching the clouds means not respecting one’s own place in the universe. The tree “has elevated itself,” and this element of the dream (τὸ δὲ ἀνυψωθῆναι τὸ δένδρον ἐκεῖνο), 4:19[22], is of a moral nature: the king has shown himself to be haughty toward men (ὑψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ προσώπου πάσης τῆς γῆς) and toward the holy One and his angels (ὑψώθη σου ἡ καρδία ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ καὶ ἰσχύι τὰ πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ. Now this literary elaboration that we observe in the LXX is considerably weakened in the MT: in 4:7[10]–9[12]; the original bipartition is replaced with a fairly commonplace opposition between the earthly and the heavenly spheres; the exceptional element represented by the presence, in the tree itself, of the heavenly bodies, making the tree itself a source of light, is eliminated. More importantly, the interpretation, which could no longer refer to a progression in the narrative of the dream itself, is content to affirm that the great tree is a metaphor for the king, whose power reaches heaven and the ends of the earth (4:17[20]–20[23]). This literary weakening results from the fact that the Masoretic revision reorganizes the story of ch. 4 on the narrative pattern of ch. 2. In 4:6 of the MT, the king asks Daniel to tell him his dream and to interpret it: ‫אמַר‬ ֱ ‫ׁשרֵּה‬ ְ ‫ּופ‬ ִ ‫חז ֵית‬ ֲ ‫ֶל ִמי ִדי־‬ ְ ‫“ ֶח ְזוֵי ח‬the visions which I saw in my dream and its interpretation, tell them.” As a result, the “interpretation” provided by Daniel in 4:17[20]–19[22] is almost reduced, in the MT, to a repetition of the description, and its explicative contribution is quite weak. The Place of the Royal Proclamation The results of rewriting can be observed in the reorganization of elements, especially of the royal proclamation made by Nebuchadnezzar; study of

154

Olivier Munnich

Daniel 4 must also take into account the end of ch. 3. In the MT, we find the following elements: •  a royal edict against all adversaries of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: MT 3:29[96], ‫ּׁשן‬ ָ ‫ּומּנִי ִׂשים ְטעֵם ִּדי כָל־עַם ֻאּמָה ְו ִל‬: ִ cf. θ′: καὶ ἐγὼ ἐκτίθεμαι δόγμα Πᾶς λαός, φυλή, γλῶσσα. •  a royal proclamation to the king’s subjects: ‫נְבּוכ ְַדנֶּצַר מ ְַלּכָא ְלכָל־ע ְַמ ַמּיָא ֻא ַמּיָא‬ ‫ּׁשנַּיָא‬ ָ ‫ו ִל‬,ְ MT 3:31[98] = θ′: Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ βασιλεὺς πᾶσι τοῖς λαοῖς, φυλαῖς καὶ γλώσσαις. This proclamation includes the contents of ch. 4 with the story of the king’s dream (the immense tree, 4:2[5]–14[17]), its interpretation by Daniel (4:15[18]–24[27]), the physical transformation of the king (4:25[28]–33[36]), and the mention of a brief prayer of thanks (4:34[37]).

In the LXX, on the other hand, the pattern is as follows: •  The royal edict against all adversaries of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego: 3:29[96] καὶ νῦν ἐγὼ κρίνω ἵνα πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ πᾶσαι φυλαὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι (cf. MT). •  The recounting by the king (Ναβουχοδονοσορ εἶπεν, 4:1[4]) of his dream (4:2[5]–14a[17]), its interpretation by Daniel (4:15[18]–24[27]), the king’s physical transformation (4:26[29]–33[36]), followed by a long prayer (4:34[37]–34a[37]). •  A new death threat against the adversaries of the God of heaven: end of 4:34a, καὶ ὅσοι ἐλάλησαν εἰς τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ὅσοι ἐὰν καταλημφθῶσι λαλοῦντές τι, τούτους κατακρινῶ θανάτῳ. •  A proclamation addressed by the king to his subjects: 4:34b–c ἔγραψε δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἐπιστολὴν ἐγκύκλιον πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τόπον ἔθνεσι καὶ χώραις καὶ γλώσσαις ταῖς οἰκούσαις ἐν πάσαις ταῖς χώραις γενεαῖς καὶ γενεαῖς.

The essential difference between these two forms is the place occupied by the proclamation. In the LXX, it occupies a natural place in the development of the story: when the king regains his humanity and his kingdom, he recites something in 4:34[37] that is in fact a hymn:  1 τῷ ὑψίστῳ ἀνθομολογοῦμαι καὶ αἰνῶ (The Most High I acknowledge and I    praise)   2  τῷ κτίσαντι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (who created the heaven and the earth)   3  καὶ τὰς θαλάσσας καὶ τοὺς ποταμοὺς (The one who created the seas and the rivers)   4  καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς (and everything that is in them)   5  ἐξομολογοῦμαι καὶ αἰνῶ (I acknowledge and I praise)  6 ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς τῶν θεῶν (because he is God of gods)   7  καὶ κύριος τῶν κυρίων καὶ κύριος τῶν βασιλέων (and Lord of lords and Lord    of Kings)  8 ὅτι αὐτὸς ποιεῖ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα (because he does signs and wonders)   9  καὶ ἀλλοιοῖ καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους (and changes seasons and times)

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

155

10  ἀφαιρῶν βασιλείαν βασιλέων (removing the reign of kings) 11  καὶ καθιστῶν ἑτέρους ἀντ᾽ αὐτῶν (and setting others in their places). 12

Since the θ′-text of J. Ziegler had to remain unchanged, I could not adopt such a material arrangement in the critical edition of the θ′-text. 13 The association of the verbs ἐξομολογεῖσθαι and αἰνεῖν (1) is found in Ps 34:18, 99:4, and 108:30; lines 3–4 remind one of Ps 145:6, τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς; line 8 brings to mind Ps 134:9, ἐξαπέστειλεν σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα. On the other hand, the last elements (lines 9–11) recall the contents of the prayer of Daniel in 2:21. Nebuchadnezzar then makes a declaration of religious allegiance to the “God of Heaven,” the “Most High One,” the “Lord,” whom he decides to worship, binding all of his subjects to it (v. 34a). The mention of a proclamation in which he communicates his decision to them and offers them his experience by way of explanation for his decision makes for a natural closing of the text (v. 34b–c). This is not the case with the Masoretic form of the text. In ch.  3, three young Judeans refuse to accept the royal cult. The king, witnessing the salvation that their god provides them, pays homage to their god (v. 95[28]), forbids saying anything against him (v. 96[29]), and gives them an important position in his kingdom (MT) and at the head of their community (θ′). While such a reaction is commensurate with the events, it in no way calls for a proclamation by the king such as the one we find in MT 3:31–33 (θ′ 3:98–100). In addition, the juncture between the proclamation and the beginning of ch. 4 appears very awkward from a literary point of view: we pass from a proclamation of the eternal royalty of God to a simple story (“I, Nebuchadnezzar, was prosperous in my house”). Poorly suited to what precedes and to what follows, the proclamation appears, in the Masoretic Text, in a position where it did not originally belong. 14 On this point, I therefore reach (on the basis of different arguments) the same conclusions as R. H. Charles. 15 12.  Translation: R. T. McLay, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. A. Pie­ tersma and B. G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1006. 13. O.  Munnich, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco iuxta LXX Interpretes et iuxta “Theodotionem” edidit J. Ziegler: Editio secunda partim nova partim aucta Versionis iuxta LXX interpretes textum plane novum constituit in Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 5/16/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). 14. P. Grelot gives an opposing point of view, arguing that the transfer of the proclamation to the end of Daniel 4 led the reviser of the source text of Dan-o′ to begin with “une formule d’une banalité déconcertante” (“La Septante de Daniel IV,” 15). 15.  “In this chapter as in chaps 3 and 6 the king issues his prescript as a result of his spiritual and psychical experiences. Thus the same order of thought is observed by the LXX in chaps 3, 4, and 6” (R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1929], 80).

156

Olivier Munnich

The redactor who gave us the Masoretic form selected elements that were at the end of ch. 4 of the source text of Dan-o′: •  3:31[98], ‫ָמכֹון‬ ְ ‫ׁשל‬ ְ ‫ֲרין ְּבכָל־א ְַרעָא‬ ִ‫י־דא‬ ָ ‫ּׁשנַּיָא ִּד‬ ָ ‫נְבּוכ ְַדנֶּצַר מ ְַלּכָא ְלכָל־ע ְַמ ַמּיָא ֻא ַמּיָא ְו ִל‬ ‫ִׂשּגֵא‬ ְ ‫י‬, θ′: Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ βασιλεὺς πᾶσι τοῖς λαοῖς, φυλαῖς καὶ γλώσσαις τοῖς οἰκοῦσιν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη. Cf. o′ 4:34c, Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι καὶ πάσαις ταῖς χώραις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν αὐταῖς· εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ. •  3:32[99], ‫חָויָה‬ ֲ ‫ׁשפַר ָק ָדמַי ְל ַה‬ ְ ‫א ָלהָא ִע ָּליָא‬ ֱ ‫אָתַ ּיָא ְו ִת ְמ ַהּיָא ִּדי עֲבַד ִע ִּמי‬, θ′: τὰ σημεῖα καὶ τὰ τέρατα, ἃ ἐποίησεν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος, ἤρεσεν ἐναντίον ἐμοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν. Cf. o′ 4:34c, καὶ νῦν ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τὰς πράξεις, ἃς ἐποίησε μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας. •  3:33[100], ‫ׁש ְל ָטנֵּה‬ ָ ‫יפין מ ְַלכּותֵ ּה מ ְַלכּות ָעלַם ְו‬ ִ ‫והי ְּכמָה תַ ִּק‬ ִ ֹ ‫והי ְּכמָה רַ ְב ְר ִבין ְו ִת ְמה‬ ִ ֹ ‫אָת‬ ‫ם־ּדר ְו ָדר‬ ָ ‫;ע‬ ִ cf. θ′: ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ βασιλεία αἰώνιος, καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν. Cf. o′ 4:34c, ἔδοξε δέ μοι ἀποδεῖξαι ὑμῖν . . . τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ μεγάλα, τὸ βασίλειον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ γενεῶν εἰς γενεάς.

The proclamation that we find in MT 3:31[98]–33[100] is therefore a rewritten form of LXX Dan 4:34c; and this proves that the LXX ending in Daniel 4 is based on a Semitic source text. The Masoretic revision reduced the contents of the proclamation in order to make it into a transition between chs. 3 and 4 but was not successful in creating a satisfactory literary transition or in removing all traces of the original arrangement: Dan 4:31[34], ‫ׁש ְלטָן ָעלַם ּומ ְַלכּותֵ ּה‬ ָ ‫ׁש ְל ָטנֵּה‬ ָ ‫ם־ּדר ְו ָדר‬ ָ ‫ע‬, ִ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν, θ′ thus constitutes a doublet with 3:33[100], cited above. The Perspective of the Narrative: The Coherence of Dan-o′ Whether the story told by Nebuchadnezzar is a letter (MT) or a narrative (o′), it is in any case presented in first person. However, in one case, the MT slips into third person: Dan 4:16[19], ‫ׁשרֵ א‬ ְ ‫ּופ‬ ִ ‫ֶלמָא‬ ְ ‫ָענֵה מ ְַלּכָא ְו ָאמַר ּב ְֵל ְטׁשַ אּצַר ח‬ ְ ‫הל‬ ‫ָך ָענֵה ב ְֵל ְטׁשַ אּצַר ְו ָאמַר‬ ֲ ‫אַל־ ְי ַב‬, θ′: καὶ ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ εἶπεν Βαλτασαρ, τὸ ἐνύπνιον καὶ ἡ σύγκρισις μὴ κατασπευσάτω σε. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Βαλτασαρ καὶ εἶπεν. In this passage, Dan-o′ remains true to the literary framework of the story: μεγάλως δὲ θαυμάσας ὁ Δανιηλ . . . ἀπεκρίθη μοι φωνῇ πραείᾳ. On the other hand, in vv. 25[28]–28[31], both narratives give up the first person: •  Dan-o′, 25καὶ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν λόγων Ναβουχοδονοσορ, ὡς ἤκουσε τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ ὁράματος, τοὺς λόγους ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ συνετήρησε. 26καὶ μετὰ δώδεκα μῆνας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπὶ τῶν τειχῶν τῆς πόλεως μετὰ πάσης τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

157

περιεπάτει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πύργων αὐτῆς διεπορεύετο 27καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Αὕτη ἐστὶ Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, ἣν ἐγὼ ᾠκοδόμησα ἐν ἰσχύι κράτους μου, καὶ οἶκος βασιλείας μου κληθήσεται. 28καὶ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἤκουσε Σοὶ λέγεται . . . •  Dan.-θ′ (= MT), 25ταῦτα πάντα ἔφθασεν ἐπὶ Ναβουχοδονοσορ τὸν βασιλέα. 26 μετὰ δωδεκάμηνον ἐπὶ τῷ ναῷ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι περιπατῶν 27 ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ εἶπεν Οὐχ αὕτη ἐστὶν Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, ἣν ἐγὼ ᾠκοδόμησα εἰς οἶκον βασιλείας ἐν τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος μου εἰς τιμὴν τῆς δόξης μου; 28ἔτι τοῦ λόγου ἐν στόματι τοῦ βασιλέως ὄντος φωνὴ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἐγένετο Σοὶ λέγουσιν . . .

In Dan-o′, the intervention of a narrator may be explained by the need to analyze the moral attitude of the character: Nebuchadnezzar keeps in his heart the words of Daniel; but 12 months later, he is walking about pompously on his ramparts and is filled with pride over the city he has built. Following this model, the MT and Dan.-θ′ also slip into third person but take no further interest in the psychological inconstancy of the character, which is what had rendered the use of the third person necessary in Dan-o′. Additionally, in what follows, the narration of the MT continues in 3rd person (4:30[33]), while Dan-o′ reverts to first person (4:30a). In sum, the revision we find in the MT is dependent on certain features of its source, but it does not retain its literary necessity. In the rest of the story, the narration of Dan-o′ remains focused on the personality of the king and the details of his punishment and repentance. At this point, the revision of the MT diverges in two respects, but we must examine the entire text of Dan-o′ in order to understand why (see text 1). After the general remark “I was chained for seven years,” the text details the conditions of his detention and bestialization. Certain elements are maintained in the MT: the pasture where the king grazes like an ox (MT 4:30[33]  = o′ 4:30a), his hair which resembled the wings of an eagle (of a “lion” in θ′), his nails like the claws of a lion (“of birds” in θ′), 4:30. However, the description in Dan-o′ goes further: the king experiences a metamorphosis of his flesh and his heart, a nudity like that of the animals; the end of v. 30b contains events that are not preserved in the MT: the king dreams a dream, is disturbed by his thoughts, is seized for a long time by a deep sleep, and a heavy torpor falls upon him. In sum, the text, before the dénouement, pushes the crisis to a dramatic climax. The MT eliminates all of these elements and instead details the physical and dynastic restoration of the king (4:33[36]), a detail to which the LXX devotes less attention. In the verses mentioned above, the LXX is problematic: the mention of the prayer of Nabuchadnezzar (καὶ μετὰ ἔτη ἑπτὰ—ἐδεήθην) is placed in the middle of the physical description (4:30a, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χλόης τῆς γῆς ἤσθιον / 4:30b, καὶ αἱ τρίχες μου ἐγένοντο ὡς πτέρυγες ἀετοῦ). Interrupting the description of the metamorphosis of the king, the motif of the prayer seems inserted at the wrong point. In addition, the elements of this prayer seem to repeat 4:30c,

158

Olivier Munnich Text 1.  Daniel 4:30a–c, Dan-o′

ἐγὼ Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος ἑπτὰ ἔτη ἐδέθην· χόρτον ὡς βοῦν ἐψώμισάν με, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χλόης τῆς γῆς ἤσθιον. καὶ μετὰ ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἐπέδωκα τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς δέησιν καὶ ἠξίωσα περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου κατὰ πρόσωπον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀγνοιῶν μου τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ μεγάλου ἐδεήθην. 30bκαὶ αἱ τρίχες μου ἐγένοντο ὡς πτέρυγες ἀετοῦ, οἱ ὄνυχές μου ὡσεὶ λέοντος· ἠλλοιώθη ἡ σάρξ μου καὶ ἡ καρδία μου, γυμνὸς περιεπάτουν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς. ἐνύπνιον εἶδον, καὶ ὑπόνοιαί με εἰλήφασι, καὶ διὰ χρόνου ὕπνος με ἔλαβε πολὺς καὶ νυσταγμὸς ἐπέπεσέ μοι. 30cκαὶ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν ὁ χρόνος μου τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἦλθε, καὶ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου καὶ αἱ ἄγνοιαί μου ἐπληρώθησαν ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· καὶ ἐδεήθην περὶ τῶν ἀγνοιῶν μου τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ μεγάλου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος εἷς ἐκάλεσέ με ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Ναβουχοδονοσορ, δούλευσον τῷ θεῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ δὸς δόξαν τῷ ὑψίστῳ· τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ ἔθνους σού σοι ἀποδίδοται. 30a

I, Nabouchodonosor, king of Babylon, was bound seven years. They fed me grass like an ox, and I would eat the tender grass of the earth. And after seven years, I gave my soul to supplication, and I petitioned before the Lord, the God of heaven, concerning my sins, and I entreated the great God of gods concerning my ignorance. 30bAnd my hair became like wings of an eagle, my nails like those of a lion. My flesh and my heart were changed. I would walk about naked with the animals of the field. I saw a dream and forebodings gripped me, and after a while a great sleep overtook me, and drowsiness fell upon me. 30cAnd at the completion of seven years my time of redemption came, and my sins and my ignorances were fulfilled before the God of heaven, and I entreated the great God of gods concerning my ignorances, and lo, one angel called me from heaven: “Nabouchodonosor, be subject to the holy God of heaven, and give glory to the Most High. The domination of your nation is [being] given back to you.” 30a

where we find again the words ἁμαρτίαι, ἀγνοίαι, the expression τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; as for the segment καὶ ἐδεήθην περὶ τῶν ἀγνοιῶν μου τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ μεγάλου (4:30c), it repeats (apart from the order of the words) the end of 4:30a. Although these different elements might lead one to consider one or the other of these segments a doublet, they have both been considered authentic: they evidence a vocabulary that is typical of Dan-o′, with the exception of the word ἀπολύτρωσις, which is represented only here in the Greek Bible but which is coherent with the expression καὶ πάσας τὰς ἀδικίας σου ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι, which is spoken by Daniel in 4:24[27]. A textual accident happened here, which may be explained by the presence of the paronyms ἐδέθην, ἐδεήθην (4:30a): the segment χόρτον through ἤσθιον originally followed ἐδεήθην, but the scribe wrote it following ἐδέθην due to parablepsis. One may suppose that he realized his mistake and subsequently wrote the segment καὶ μετὰ ἔτη ἑπτὰ through ἐδεήθην with a sign indicating the inversion. As often happens, at a later time this sign was no longer under-

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6 Text 2.  Daniel 4:30a–c, Dan-o′, Reconstructed

ἐγὼ Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος ἑπτὰ ἔτη ἐδέθην· καὶ μετὰ ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἐπέδωκα τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς δέησιν καὶ ἠξίωσα περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου κατὰ πρόσωπον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀγνοιῶν μου τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ μεγάλου ἐδεήθην. 30bχόρτον ὡς βοῦν ἐψώμισάν με, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χλόης τῆς γῆς ἤσθιον. καὶ αἱ τρίχες μου ἐγένοντο ὡς πτέρυγες ἀετοῦ, οἱ ὄνυχές μου ὡσεὶ λέοντος· ἠλλοιώθη ἡ σάρξ μου καὶ ἡ καρδία μου, γυμνὸς περιεπάτουν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς. ἐνύπνιον εἶδον, καὶ ὑπόνοιαί με εἰλήφασι, καὶ διὰ χρόνου ὕπνος με ἔλαβε πολὺς καὶ νυσταγμὸς ἐπέπεσέ μοι. 30cκαὶ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν ὁ χρόνος μου τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἦλθε, καὶ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου καὶ αἱ ἄγνοιαί μου ἐπληρώθησαν ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· [καὶ ἐδεήθην περὶ τῶν ἀγνοιῶν μου τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ μεγάλου,] καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος εἷς ἐκάλεσέ με ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ . . . 30a

159

I, Nabouchodonosor, king of Baby­lon, was bound seven years. And after seven years, I gave my soul to supplication, and I petitioned before the Lord, the God of heaven, concerning my sins, and I entreated the great God of gods concerning my ignorance. 30bThey fed me grass like an ox, and I would eat the tender grass of the earth. And my hair became like wings of an eagle, my nails like those of a lion. My flesh and my heart were changed. I would walk about naked with the animals of the field. I saw a dream and forebodings gripped me, and after a while a great sleep overtook me, and drowsiness fell upon me. 30cAnd at the completion of seven years my time of redemption came, and my sins and my ignorances were fulfilled before the God of heaven, and I entreated the great God of gods concerning my ignorances, and lo, one angel called me from heaven. . . . 30a

stood and disappeared. In the end, it is not the words καὶ μετὰ ἔτη ἑπτὰ through ἐδεήθην that are in the wrong place but, rather, the segment χόρτον through ἤσθιον. Thus, the LXX narrates first the overall story of the king’s chaining and his repentance after seven years; then follows, in asyndeton, the detailed description of his metamorphosis and, at the end of the seven years, of his redemption. In 4:30c, the elements of the prayer found in 4:30a are repeated in a shorter form. In this regard, it is plausible that the last phrase—καὶ ἐδεήθην περὶ τῶν ἀγνοιῶν μου τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν θεῶν τοῦ μεγάλου—constitutes a doublet. Text 2 above is what the authentic text of Dan-o′ looked like in vv. 30a–c (although I did not dare to print such a reconstruction in my Göttingen edition). The double form of expression—first, the general formulation, then the detail of the outcome—gives to this finale a dramatic force which culminates in the angelic apparition (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος εἷς, 4:30c). The reformulation of the MT represents, in these respects, a significant weakening and in fact changes the very meaning of the royal prayer: In Dan-o′, the prayer has penitential value and seems to condition the redemption of the king, while in the MT, the king addresses blessing and praise to God after having recovered his senses, even though he had previously “lifted up his eyes to heaven” (4:31[34]). Ultimately,

160

Olivier Munnich

the breadth of the narration and the order of its elements in the LXX serve to emphasize the importance of the king’s penitence, which seems to lead all the way to conversion. The rewriting of the MT diminishes the scope of this motif. More generally, it involves a change of perspective: while, in Dan-o′, everything is focused on the character of Nebuchadnezzar, in the MT he is instead presented as an object of reflection. Thus, in the course of the dream (4:14[17]), the angel condemns the king to seven years of animal life, until the time he acknowledges divine sovereignty (ἕως ἂν γνῷ τὸν κύριον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν θέλῃ, ποιεῖν αὐτοῖς). The reformulation in MT-θ′ is remarkable: ‫ִּדי ִינ ְְּדעּון ַחּיַּיָא‬ ‫ִּת ִנּנַּה‬ ְ ‫ִצּבֵא י‬ ְ ‫ַן־ּדי י‬ ִ ‫ּולמ‬ ְ ‫ֱנֹוׁשא‬ ָ ‫ּדי־ׁשַ ִּליט ִע ָּליָא ְּבמ ְַלכּות א‬,ִ ἵνα γνῶσιν οἱ ζῶντες ὅτι κύριός ἐστιν ὁ ὕψιστος τῆς βασιλείας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν δόξῃ, δώσει αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξουδένημα ἀνθρώπων ἀναστήσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν. Here, the king’s destiny is not of interest in itself but instead takes on paradigmatic value. The Link between Chapters 4 and 5 If we examine the elements in Dan-o′ that were eliminated in the MT during the course of its reformulation, we see that a number of them are concerned with the dynastic succession of the king. Thus, in 4:28[31], the heavenly voice announces to Nebuchadnezzar that his kingship is being taken from him and will be administered instead by a despicable creature (καὶ ἑτέρῳ δίδοται ἐξουθενημένῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου): before the sun rises, this creature will enjoy all of his wealth. Now the MT preserves the first element (‫כּותה‬ ָ ‫מ ְַל‬ ְ ‫ֲדת ִמּנ‬ ‫ָך‬ ָ ‫ע‬, ἡ βασιλεία παρῆλθεν ἀπὸ σοῦ θ′) but omits the following elements. Already in his dream, the king sees the branches of the tree dispersed with the winds (4:14a, καὶ οἱ κλάδοι αὐτοῦ ἐδόθησαν εἰς πάντα ἄνεμον): details like this one, which could designate metaphorically the posterity of the king, are absent from the Masoretic Text. On the other hand, at the end of the story, the Masoretic Text indicates that the king’s courtiers seek him out and that he receives greater power than before (cf. 4:33[36] ‫כּותי‬ ִ ‫ְו ִלי הַָּד ְברַ י ְורַ ְב ְר ָבנַי ְיבַעֹון ְועַל־מ ְַל‬ ‫הּוספַת ִלי‬ ְ ‫ירה‬ ָ ‫ּורבּו י ִַּת‬ ְ ‫ָת ְקנַת‬ ְ ‫ה‬, θ′ καὶ οἱ τύραννοί μου καὶ οἱ μεγιστᾶνές μου ἐζήτουν με, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν μου ἐκραταιώθην, καὶ μεγαλωσύνη περισσοτέρα προσετέθη μοι); there is no parallel detail in the Dan-o′ version. In ch. 4, the original story insisted on the end of the dynasty and mentioned the provisional restoration of Nebuchadnezzar as a reward for his repentance. The rewriting of the MT eliminated everything that concerned the end of the dynasty: in ch. 5, Daniel reminds Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar’s successor, of his father’s fault. A reminder of this sort is entirely absent in the LXX version of Daniel 5 and was also undoubtedly absent in its source text. The insistence on the theme of the end of the dynasty in Daniel 4, no less than the unimportant place occupied by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5, show that LXX chs. 4–5 were not closely linked. Conversely, the relative silence about the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty in ch. 4 and the insistent reminders of his history in ch. 5 show the intention of the Masoretic reviser to create a link between the two chapters.

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

161

This same effort to ensure a fluid literary connection between chs. 4–5 led the reviser to move the long finale (which, in the LXX, is made up of the royal proclamation and is clearly intended as a definitive conclusion) from the end of ch. 4, where it was originally found, to the end of ch. 3, which is where we find it in the MT. In terms of the sequence of the narratives, the change in the position of the proclamation had two advantages: (a) creating a literary link between chs. 3 and 4, which in the LXX are simply juxtaposed; (b) the transfer of chs. 5–6 from their original position (following ch. 8) to the place where we find them in the MT necessitated a reworking of the end of ch. 4, which had now become a transition point. Once again, from a literary point of view, the oldest form of the text is that in which the stories are simply juxtaposed rather than being connected to one another and where each narrative still maintains a certain autonomy. In terms of these two criteria, the LXX form seems likely to be a witness to the first state of the text, while the MT appears to be the result of a literary revision. As a result, we will not follow P. Grelot when he proposes that the longer formulation of v. 19[22] in Dan-o′ comes from an “allégorisation secondaire, car l’application donnée est presque textuellement empruntée à Dan, V, 20.” 16 The movement occurred in the opposite direction, since the Masoretic form of ch. 5 borrowed an element that was already present in ch. 4 in the source text of Dan-o′. Grelot notes, correctly, that the final prayer in the formulation of Dan-o′ includes elements that are found in the other chapters of the book. 17 However, I cannot follow the conclusion that he has drawn from this fact: “on a donc jusqu’ici l’impression d’un texte secondaire, composé par un auteur qui connaît les ch. II à VI du livre.” 18 In general, my conclusion is the opposite of Grelot’s, that “il n’est pas douteux que la recension grecque de Dan. IV a un caractère secondaire par rapport à sa recension araméenne.” 19 The Genetics of the Biblical Text: The Example of Daniel 5 For the question raised in this study, ch. 5 is of particular interest in that we have at least three different states of the same story: a short version that is improperly called the “preface” or “summary” and is preserved only in the LXX; the Septuagint narrative, which follows it; and the Masoretic form, from which Theodotion’s recension departs in certain significant passages. In the paper that I presented at the Basel conference, I proposed the hypothesis that Dan-θ′ is based on a source text that still included, in vv. 10–17, a rewritten 16.  Grelot, “La Septante de Daniel IV,” 15. 17.  Ibid., 17. 18.  As with the parallels between the LXX form of Daniel 4 and the MT form of Daniel 5, the influence probably ran from ch. 4 to the prayer of Daniel in ch. 2, which, as I have attempted to show, is without doubt a late addition: Munnich, “Les versions grecques de Daniel,” 291–308. 19.  Grelot, “La Septante de Daniel IV,” 22.

162

Olivier Munnich

Hebrew version (the intervention of the queen and the reminder of the story of Nebuchadnezzar). 20 Here also, I am not taking a position on the original language of the expanded text that we find in the MT, but in my view the MT here as in the preceding chapter bears witness to the last step in a literary process. 21 At this point, I am going to lay aside textual criticism and argue in terms of literary criticism, which I had hardly envisaged until now. If we consider the three forms of the text, we note that one of them is not even connected to the character of Daniel: he is not mentioned in the “short version” (this is the name I prefer instead of “preface”); another shows the integration of the story with the figure and the book of Daniel; and the third completes the integration into the book of Daniel by strengthening the links between Daniel 5 and 4 (the long reminder of the story of Nebuchadnezzar, 5:18–22) 22 and, above all, by introducing into the story the succession of empires (chs. 2, 7, 8, 10, 11). There are not many places in the history of the biblical text where one has a better opportunity to observe a “book in progress,” in the sense of a “work in progress,” and where one can see so clearly the close link between composition and redaction—the latter not being a later development in relation to the first, because the story is recomposed with each new redaction. As a result, I examine here the details about the way the story has been rewritten. The Short Version I will quote the short version and propose a retroversion of it (see text 3). The short version includes elements that are present in Dan-o′: praise of the gods of the nations by Belshazzar rather than the Most High (o′ 5:4); mention of a hand “like that of a man” that writes on the wall (o′ 5:5 = MT); tripartition of the inscription (o′ 5:17, MT 5:25–28); interpretation of the terms (o′ vv. 26–28 = MT). In addition, the short version includes themes that are found in the MT but not in Dan-o′: the number of guests (2,000 in the short version, 1,000 in v. 1); the mention of foreign terms (Μανη φαρες θεκελ, ‫ְמנֵא ְמנֵא ְּתקֵל‬ ‫ּופ ְַר ִסין‬, v. 25); the principle of a word-by-word translation (vv. 26–28). Therefore, the short version is neither the source of one of the two forms (its contents influenced both of them) nor an actual summary, since, apart from the contents of the inscription and its translation, it includes elements 20.  Munnich, “Texte massorétique et Septante,” 112–14. 21. M. Segal holds the opposite point of view: “Throughout this study, MT serves as the basis for discussion, reflecting in my estimation an earlier form of the text of Dan 5 with respect to numerous details, as will be claimed below” (“Rereading the Writing on the Wall [Daniel 5],” ZAW 125 [2013]: 162 n. 5). 22.  Cf. J. J. Collins, “5:18–22 may very well have been added to the Aramaic Vorlage of the MT text but not to that of the OG, which may preserve the more original text in this regard”; see A Commentary of the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 242. According to Montgomery, “the omission of both these passages (i.e. v. 13 and 18–22) is evidently due to economy” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 267). This position does not take into consideration the literary evolution of the narration.

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

163

Text 3.  Daniel 5: The Short Version

Βαλτασαρ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐποίησε δοχὴν μεγάλην ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐγκαινισμοῦ τῶν βασιλείων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μεγιστάνων αὐτοῦ ἐκάλεσεν ἄνδρας δισχιλίους. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ Βαλτασαρ ἀνυψούμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴνου καὶ καυχώμενος ἐπῄνεσε πάντας τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν τοὺς χωνευτοὺς καὶ γλυπτοὺς ἐν τῷ πότῳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ οὐκ ἔδωκεν αἴνεσιν. ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ νυκτὶ ἐξήλθοσαν δάκτυλοι ὡσεὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ἐπέγραψαν ἐπὶ τοῦ τοίχου οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ κονιάματος κατέναντι τοῦ λύχνου Μανη φαρες θεκελ. ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἑρμηνεία αὐτῶν· μανη ἠρίθμηται, φαρες ἐξῆρται, θεκελ ἕσταται,

  King Baltasar gave a great reception on the day of the dedication of his palace, and he invited two thousand men of his nobles. On that day, Baltasar, in high spirits from the wine and boasting in his drink, praised all the molten and carved gods of the nations, and he did not give praise to the Most High God.   On the same night, fingers, as though of a human, came forth and inscribed on the wall of his house, on the plaster, opposite to the light: MANE PHARES THEKEL.  Their translation is: “MANE, it has been numbered; PHARES, it has been taken away; THEKEL, it has been weighed.”a

‫בלשאצר מלכא עבד‬ ‫לחם רב ביום חנוכת‬ ‫היכלה ומן רברבנוהי‬ .‫אנעל גברין תרין אלפין‬ ‫בה ביומא‬ (?) ‫בלשאצר רם לבבה‬ (?) ‫מן חמרא ואתרברב‬ ‫ושבח לכל אלהי עממיא‬ )?( ‫מתכתא וצלמא‬ ‫במשתותה ולאלהא‬ ‫עליא (עלאה?) לא יהב‬ ‫ בה בליליא‬.‫אודאה‬ ‫נפקו אצבען כדי אנשא‬ ‫וכתבן על כתל ביתה‬ ‫על גירא לקבל נברשתא‬ ‫מנא פרס תקל‬ ‫ופשרהון מנא מנה פרס‬ b .‫פריסת תקל תקילתא‬

a. From McLay (A New Translation, 1007) except for the last verb, which McLay surprisingly renders “it has been established.” b.  Zipi and Dodik Talshir helped me to make this retroversion. Afterward, I discovered that D. Amara already offered a retroversion of the short version. I differ from her at some points, but I corrected my text according to hers (“The Third Version of the Story of Belshazzar’s Banquet [Daniel 5],” Textus 23 [2007]: 21–23 [Hebrew]).

that correspond only to vv. 1–4 of the story; in addition, it includes an element that is absent from both narratives—namely, the framework of the story: a banquet for the inauguration of the king’s new palace. The inclusion of this short version in both branches of the meager textual tradition of the LXX shows that it is not a late addition but, rather, a very ancient element, older than the separation of the pre-Hexaplaric and Hexaplaric branches of the text. All of this suggests that there was once a Semitic source text of which this notice is a translation. This literary version presents the essence of the story, rather like the “hypothesis” of a play, or like the title. Despite its concision, the text already contains the proper names and the theme of their translation/interpretation (ἑρμηνεία). The real question that arises is: why was it preserved by the source text of the LXX?

164

Olivier Munnich

Daniel-o′ One Fault or Two? It may be that studying the LXX form will allow us to answer the question. The LXX adds a motif that is absent in the short version: in the exaltation of his heart (ἀνυψώθη ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ, 5:2), Belshazzar had goblets brought from the temple of Jerusalem for his banquet. While the short version mentions only one reproach—praise for the gods of the nations rather than for the Most High—Dan-o′ mentions two of them: the use of the sacred utensils (5:2 and 23) and “forgetting” the Most High in the praises made by the king (vv. 3 and 23). It is remarkable that the second motif, which is rather awkward from a literary standpoint, is eliminated by MT in v. 3 but, in an apparent lack of consistency, makes a rather odd appearance in v. 23. Ultimately, the short version accents one fault, while Dan-o′ modifies the flow of the narrative by emphasizing a different fault. This is perhaps why the first narrative was maintained in the source text of the LXX, just as, in the deuterocanonical section, the story of Bel and the story of the Dragon coexist, despite the fact that they both make a similar point. Another parallel is the case of 1 Esdras which, in the Greek Bible, is maintained next to the canonical book of Ezra, because, as Zipora Talshir demonstrated, it includes a unique element, the story of the three youths. 23 While we see only the repetition of the same story, the scribes were attentive to the story’s central direction, which differs in the short version and in Dan-o′. The Royal Reward The LXX introduces another motif as compared with the short version: the king offers to the person who explains the inscription clothing of purple, a gold necklace, and rule over a third of his kingdom (5:7 and 29). Three things indicate that this should be considered an addition to the narrative core, the original of which is the short version: •  The MT attests this element but, rather inconsistently (once again), it expresses a reservation in 5:17 about a detail that it mentions without comment in v. 29. In the first case, Daniel firmly refuses the offer of a reward as being ְ ‫ָת ְך ל‬ unworthy of a prophet (‫ֳרן הַב‬ ָ ‫ָת ְך ְל ָאח‬ ָ ‫ְּבי‬ ְ ‫ֶויָן ּו ְנ ָבז‬ ְ‫ָך ֶלה‬ ָ ‫‏מ ְַּתנ‬, Τὰ δόματά σου σοὶ ἔστω, καὶ τὴν δωρέαν τῆς οἰκίας σου ἑτέρῳ δός), while in the second case he simply accepts the triple reward. •  If one considers it carefully, it appears that the king consecrates an interpreter who has announced the loss of his title and the end of his kingdom. So generous a reward seems perfectly appropriate in chs. 2 and 3 but is not logical in this narrative. 24 23. Z. Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 47; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 58–109. 24.  Segal suggests that “v. 17 (MT) was also most likely a secondary addition, since Daniel’s refusal in 5,17 to accept any of the reward for his services promised in v. 16, is then

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

165

•  According to Dan-o′, the king’s edict follows a procession of unsuccessful sages attempting to interpret the inscription (5:7) and is followed by a second procession of sages, the interpretation of whom is no better (v. 8). This textual situation can have only one explanation: in a first stage of the story, the king called the soothsayers with shouts immediately after his vision (5:7 of Dan-o′ reflects this first draft). The official proclamation, with the offer of a reward (Πᾶς ὃς ἐὰν ὑποδείξῃ τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς γραφῆς, στολιεῖ αὐτὸν πορφύραν καὶ μανιάκην χρυσοῦν περιθήσει αὐτῷ καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ ἐξουσία τοῦ τρίτου μέρους τῆς βασιλείας, v. 7b) was introduced later into the source text of Dan-o′, adding to the first proclamation (καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐφώνησε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καλέσαι τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς καὶ φαρμακοὺς καὶ Χαλδαίους καὶ γαζαρηνοὺς ἀπαγγεῖλαι τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς γραφῆς, v. 7a) in the source text of Dan-o′, so that a doublet was created (the two processions in vv. 7–8). The MT repairs the mistake by replacing the first proclamation with the second. The testimony of Josephus (Ant. 10.11. 234–36), who mentions a twofold consultation of the inscription by the soothsayers, documents the error of the LXX form in the Aramaic (Josephus was unlikely to have used the Greek version if he had access to an Aramaic text that conformed to the MT).

Although it seems inappropriate in the context of a story about divine punishment, the addition of the reward motif does correspond to the need to strengthen the literary connection between chs. 5 and 6. In Dan-o′ 6:3[4], Daniel is indeed clothed in purple (καὶ Δανιηλ ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος πορφύραν) and rules over a third of Darius’s realm; the MT retains the second element but eliminates the first. In ch. 5, the expansion of the story with the addition of the reward motif is intended to create connections between narratives that no doubt were originally independent of one another. Ultimately, if we remove the motifs of the temple utensils and the royal reward from Dan-o′, what we find is the narrative core of the short version. MT Daniel: The Changing Function of the Inscription In the short version, the inscription has a strange character and requires a translation (ἑρμηνεία): μανη ἠρίθμηται, φαρες ἐξῆρται, θεκελ ἕσταται. This is not so in Dan-o′, where nothing indicates that the inscription is written in a foreign or encrypted language: in 5:17, Daniel reads (ἀνέγνω) the inscription, which was apparently made up of the verbs that he read aloud (αὕτη ἡ γραφή Ἠρίθμηται, κατελογίσθη, ἐξῆρται). Thus, in Dan-o′ we have a reading – explanation sequence that corresponds neither to the sequence in the short version (reading – translation) nor to that of the MT (reading – translation – interpretation); this last sequence shows that it has been adapted to the narrative framework of Daniel where, in ch. 2, the Judean must tell the king what his dream was before interpreting it. contradicted by v. 29” (“Rereading the Writing on the Wall [Daniel 5],” 164 n. 6). However, it is v. 29 that is secondary and intended to strengthen the link with ch. 6.

166

Olivier Munnich

The LXX and MT have their own, individual connections to the “short version.” The LXX takes up the three Greek verbs that are found there (ἠρίθμηται, ἐξῆρται, and ἕσταται), although the third verb is not actually part of the interpretation, θεκελ ἕσταται, but is here used instead with reference to the hand that “stopped” after it had written the words on the wall (αὕτη ἡ γραφή ἠρίθμηται κατελογίσθη ἐξῆρται· καὶ ἔστη ἡ γράψασα χείρ, v. 17). In addition, the LXX form evokes only Belshazzar’s punishment: in v.  17, the three verbs of the inscription refer, in three different ways, to the condemnation of the kingship of Belshazzar; the same is true of the σύγκριμα (v. 26–27), where the same idea is reformulated in binary form. 25 The mention of the transfer of power to the Medes and Persians (ἡ βασιλεία σου τοῖς Μήδοις καὶ τοῖς Πέρσαις δίδοται, v.  28 and 30) seems to be simply the concrete manifestation of this loss of power. The perspective of the short version is the same: Medes and Persians are not even mentioned, and the inscription seems to refer only to Belshazzar, who alone is mentioned in this short narrative. In sum, in both forms, a kingdom comes to an end without any historical or dynastic perspective, in exactly the same way that, in the first story of Daniel 4, the end of Nebuchadnezzar does not show any future way forward. As in ch. 4, the Masoretic rereading reinserts an isolated story into a perspective that is no longer monarchic (Belshazzar succeeds his father) but instead dynastic (the power of Babylon passes to the Medes and the Persians). To this end, the revision returns to the proper names used in the short version, giving them a new meaning: φαρες, which is in second position in the short version’s list, conspicuously occupies last position in the MT. It mentions ‫ְּפרֵס‬ in the interpretation (v. 28) and ‫ פ ְַר ִסין‬in the inscription (v. 25), because the same word now suggests, by its meaning, the division of the kingdom into two dynasties and, by its form, the Persians. Dan-θ′ reflects a less-developed state of the Aramaic text: with Μανη θεκελ φαρες, it attests in v. 25 the order of the MT (‫;)מנֵא ְמנֵא ְּתקֵל ּופ ְַר ִסין‬ ְ but the singular of the last word and the asyndeton reflect the form of the short version (Μανη φαρες θεκελ). The Masoretic rereading is thus dependent on both older forms: it borrows from the short version the theme of proper names with hidden meanings that need to be translated. It takes from the LXX the integration of this story into the “Daniel cycle” and into the book of Daniel: as in the LXX (v. 23), the interpretation is preceded, in the MT, by a reminder of the facts. This is in conformity with the pattern in ch. 2, where Daniel tells the king both his dream and its interpretation. 26 This reminder occupies a much greater amount of space 25.  Ἠρίθμηται ὁ χρόνος σου τῆς βασιλείας, ἡ βασιλεία σου ἀπολήγει, 27συντέτμηται καὶ συντετέλεσται. 26.  In 5:12, a detail deserves special attention because it shows the secondary nature of the MT text: the queen mother summons the king and commands him to have Daniel brought to him, adding: ‫חוֵה‬ ֲ ‫ׁשרָה‏ ְי ַה‬ ְ ‫ּופ‬ ִ “and let him explain the interpretation.” Such a formulation

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

167

(vv. 18–23), because the Masoretic revision modifies the arrangement of the chapters that were present in the early Hebrew-Aramaic collection; papyrus 967, which is the only pre-Hexaplaric witness to the LXX, is the only one to preserve the older arrangement, where chs. 5–6 follow ch. 8. A collection that was earlier than the MT arranged the chapters as follows: 1–4, 7–8, 5–6, and 9–12. I will not repeat here the literary arguments that convince me that this is the authentic arrangement, 27 which is contrary to the opinion of my friend P. Bogaert, who considers the order found in the papyrus to be the result of a “refonte historicisante.” 28 However, I note that this new link that I see between chs. 4 and 5 inspires, in the Masoretic rereading, a rapprochement between the fault of the son and that of the father: the motif of the sacred utensils, which is absent from the short version and remains peripheral in the LXX form, here takes on a central and highly symbolic meaning: 29 by drinking from the goblets stolen from the temple by his father, Belshazzar has repeated the fault of his father and persevered in his error, although he knows the price his father paid for it. The Masoretic rereading eliminates (albeit imperfectly) the reproach that is does not fit the MT logic, according to which the wise men must read the inscription and interpret it. Segal (“Rereading the Writing on the Wall,” 171) does not avoid the problem but argues that two different scrolls of Daniel from Qumran Cave 4 present a reading of v. 12 that is different from that of the MT: “[He will be cal]led and [read the] wri[ting] (and explain the interpretation).” Hence, instead of being secondary, as E. Ulrich thinks (Qumran Cave 4. XI: Psalms to Chronicles, DJD 16 [Oxford: Clarendon, 2000], 251, 258), Segal suggests that “the words ‫ וכתבא יקרא‬were omitted in MT due to homoioteleuton with ‫יתקרא‬.” This clever hypothesis is matched by a parallel: in what M. Segal considers, as I do, a secondary expansion in ch. 2, Daniel is said to ask the king for time before he tells him the interpretation of his dream (2:16, ‫חָויָה ְלמ ְַלּכָא‬ ֲ ‫ׁשרָא ְל ַה‬ ְ ‫‏ּופ‬ ִ ‎; see also 2:24b–25, which, as well as 2:16 belong to the secondary addition), whereas the main pattern of this chapter consists in telling the dream itself and its interpretation. Because this inconsistency reveals the secondary character of 2:15–25, the contrast between 5:12 and the rest of that chapter shows that the discourses of the queen mother and the king have been rewritten in the MT by a reviser who was still aware of the Vorlage of the Dan-o′ text, where the main concern is to interpret the inscription, not to read it. I think that, in 5:12, the MT reading is original and, like E. Ulrich, I take the additional phrase of the two 4Q manuscripts as a secondary harmonization to 5:7. 27. O. Munnich,“Le cadrage dynastique et l’ordre des chapitres dans le livre de Daniel,” in L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité, ed. J. Joosten and P. Le Moigne (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 161–96. 28. P. Bogaert, “Relecture et refonte historicisantes du livre de Daniel attestées par la première version grecque (Papyrus 967),” in Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique, ed. R. Kunzmann and J. Schlosser (Paris: Cerf, 1984), 197–224. 29.  In what I consider to be the evolution of the narration, this motif takes on increasing importance; however, according to D.  Amara, it is original and its suppression in the abridged version is secondary, due to the desire to preserve the honor of the sacred utensils, while they were exiled in Babylonia (“The Third Version,” 38). If that were the case, why in an old stage of the narration (that is, the Aramaic substratum of Dan-o′) was the motif of the vessels peripheral and not central, as in the MT?

168

Olivier Munnich

addressed to the king for having “forgotten” the living god in his praises (short version), but it introduces a “Chaldaean axis” and emphasizes, more than the LXX does, the idea (absent from the short version) of a political and historical offense against the Most High that resulted from the theft of the temple utensils. The transfer of chs. 5–6 to the position following ch. 4 together with the “dynastic” reading of the inscription in Daniel 5 bear witness to a single interpretation, which sees in these originally independent stories the elements of a historical epic: the four kingdoms that are to precede an eschatological battle. What is the place of the LXX in this rereading, which transforms these stories into stages of history? This is the most important question. In Daniel 5, the LXX narrative maintains a largely anecdotal dimension (when the king “forgets” to include the living god in his praises), and it still forms an autonomous unit (the inscription and its explanation both concern Belshazzar alone). However, the historical rereading is already present in the motif of the temple goblets (v. 2), and also in that of the Medes and the Persians (vv. 28 and 30). 30 Their position is peripheral, as I have noted; but the last verse of the chapter together with the first verse of ch. 6 (5:31, καὶ Ξέρξης ὁ τῶν Μήδων βασιλεὺς παρέλαβε τὴν βασιλείαν. 6:1, καὶ Δαρεῖος πλήρης τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ ἔνδοξος ἐν γήρει) marks the effective transfer of power to a Median king—whatever may have been the historical reality of the king—and mentions another king, a Persian. Ultimately, the LXX form is the literary moment—which is marked by maximum hesitation—between the short version and the MT. The source text of the Dan-o′ version, however, was preceded by a short version in Hebrew or Aramaic. The fact that the short version represents the narrative core out of which the LXX passage developed still does not explain why, at the level of the Semitic source text, the short version and the LXX have been juxtaposed. In my view, the decision to set them alongside each other results from the fact that one of them contains the proper names without the theme of the succession of empires, while the other sketches this succession without the proper names. The MT results from the combination of both of these traditions and reads the proper names as indications of this succession of empires: this is the final stage of an evolution of which we still possess several preliminary stages—a unique circumstance—namely, the short version, the LXX form, the source text that links one to the other, and even Theodotion, which is based on a source text that does not yet distinguish between ‫ ְּפרֵ ס‬and ‫פ ְַר ִסין‬. 30.  In 5:17, the LXX mentions in the inscription—Ἠρίθμηται κατελογίσθη ἐξῆρται—a verb, καταλογίζειν, “to impute, attribute,” which, unlike the other two (ἠρίθμηται ὁ χρόνος σου τῆς βασιλείας, v. 26; τὸ βασίλειον ἐξήρτη, v. 30) is not taken up in the interpretation. However, on a semantic level, this verb is very close to ἀριθμεῖσθαι, and in this way the LXX is here the equivalent of the MT (‫מנֵא ְמנֵא ְּתקֵל ּופ ְַר ִסין‏‬, ְ v. 25). Thus, the formulation of the LXX is remarkably close to the most surprising part of the Aramaic inscription.

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

169

The Secondary Insertion of Chapters 5–6 In my view, chs. 5–6 have been integrated into the Daniel collection at a very late stage: like the deuterocanonical additions, they are not preceded by dates, which differentiates them from the canonical chapters; in addition, the link between the end of ch. 6 in Dan-o′ and Theodotion’s form of Bel and the Dragon is very close: Dan-o′ 6:28, καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαρεῖος προσετέθη πρὸς τoὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ· καὶ Κῦρος ὁ Πέρσης παρέλαβε τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ. Bel θ′, 1καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀστυάγης προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ, καὶ παρέλαβε Κῦρος ὁ Πέρσης τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ. 2καὶ ἦν Δανιηλ συμβιωτὴς τοῦ βασιλέως. . . .

The LXX formulation of Bel and the Dragon attests the ancient state of the narrative, when it was associated only with the figure of Daniel: Ἐκ προφητείας Αμβακουμ υἱοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευι. 2Ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν ἱερεύς, ᾧ ὄνομα Δανιηλ υἱὸς Αβαλ, συμβιωτὴς τοῦ βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος. Theodotion’s revision integrates this narrative “satellite” more successfully and attaches it to the book of Daniel. The juncture seems to be found at the end of ch. 6, which strongly suggests that Daniel 5–6—chapters that are solidly linked to each other—did at one time constitute supplements. But if so, how are we to understand the fact that they were later moved to a position following ch. 8 (i.e., their place in Papyrus 967). It seems to me that the short version plus the LXX form of Daniel 5 already contained within itself, even before the Masoretic reformulation, a historical “horizon,” the embryo of a historical epic, serving as a preface to chs. 9–12. Chapters 9–12 are much more precise than the preceding chapters in their historical allusions, mentioning the desecration of the temple by Antiochus with the “abomination of desolation” (end of ch. 9), the struggle of the angelic messenger with the princes of Persia and Greece (end of ch. 10), the allusion to the Diadochi and to the struggle between the kings of the north and of the south (11). I suggest that the transposition of chs. 5–6 was contemporary with the introduction of chs. 9–12 in a collection that did not yet contain them. This hypothesis encounters two difficulties: it is clear that chs. 2 (the statue with the feet of clay) and 7 (the vision of the four beasts) evoke the succession of empires in a symbolic way, which contrasts with the more precise presentation in the later chapters. However, in the arrangement of Papyrus 967, the “historical” transition of ch. 5, with its short version, follows ch. 8, which already evokes, through the struggle between the ram and the goat, the confrontation between the king of the Medes and Persians and the king of the Greeks, and the arrival of a “wicked king,” the figure of Antiochus. One would thus expect the “transition” provided by ch. 5 to be situated before ch. 8 and not after it. For my part, I do not see any solution to this problem; I only wish to note that this literary difficulty encounters another problem, of a linguistic nature:

170

Olivier Munnich

in the Semitic collection (as I posit, based on Papyrus 967), this ch. 8 written in Hebrew is isolated between five chapters in Aramaic that precede it (chs. 1–4, and 7) and two more that follow (chs. 5–6). In addition, although ch. 5, with its short version, seems to serve as an introduction to chs. 9–12, the same is not true of ch. 6 (Daniel in the lions’ den), and it is difficult to understand why it was inserted after ch. 5 in the source text of the LXX. In my view, the redactor who inserted ch. 6 here had in mind the sort of rereading that would later be accomplished in the MT: a story of court intrigue that opposes Daniel and two jealous colleagues is replaced in the Masoretic rereading with the opposition of all the notables to Daniel. It also “territorializes” the conflict: while Daniel’s adversaries designate him as the “friend” of the king in Dan-o′ (Δανιηλ τὸν φίλον σου 6:13[14]), the MT has them refer to his ethnic origin (‫ָלּותא ִּדי יְהּוד‬ ָ ‫ן־ּבנֵי ג‬ ְ ‫)ד ִנּיֵאל ִּדי ִמ‬. ָ In addition, the reference to the Medes and Persians, which in Dan-o′ occurs only in 6:12a, is emphasized in the MT (Media and Persia are mentioned in 6:8[9], 12[13], and 15[16]): in this way, the rewriting emphasizes the opposition between the Judean on the one hand and the Medes and Persians on the other. Finally, it deepens the opposition between the law (‫)דת‬ ָ of Daniel and the law (‫)דת‬ ָ of the Medes and Persians: the latter, found in Dan-o′ in v. 12a, is emphasized in MT 6:8[9], 12[13] and 15[16]. Just as at the stage of the Semitic source text the combination of the short version with the LXX form of ch. 5 prepared the way for the Masoretic rereading, so in Dan-o′ the insertion of the source text of Daniel 6 after that of Daniel 5 seems to have been a first step toward the Masoretic reformulation that would change the direction of the narrative, making it into the illustration of a radical conflict between the pious Judean and his enemies—in other words, a story that was appropriate to the context of Maccabean and eschatological conflict in the closing chapters. Having explained our hypothesis of chs. 5–6 as having been removed from their original place in the Aramaic source text (together with supplements such as Bel and the Dragon) and inserted into the position where we find them in Papyrus 967, we may now mention, in closing, the second displacement that these chapters experienced. In the MT, they are not found after ch. 8 but following ch. 4. When the Masoretic revision brought to the fore the theme of the succession of empires, it reordered the stories and grouped those that concerned the Kingdom of Babylon together, creating close links—as we have seen—between chs. 4 and 5. In this new arrangement, the history of Belshazzar (Daniel 5) finds itself disconnected from chs. 7–8, which also mention Belshazzar; but this is not particularly problematic, since the first case is the actual story of Belshazzar, while the later ones are visions that occurred under him but in which he plays no role. The same may be said for ch. 6, where Darius intervenes in the action, and ch. 9, where Daniel’s prayer and the apparition of the angel occur under Darius. In the parts of the book that we have studied here,

The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 4–6

171

the Masoretic form is the final result of the literary process, while the LXX represents the oldest state of the text, not only in terms of the order of the chapters, but also in terms of their contents. Conclusion This analysis has brought out some converging points: (1) The rereading/rewriting of the text always consists of linking together previously autonomous elements: we have seen this for Daniel 4, where the LXX form marked the definitive end of Nebuchadnezzar, and for Daniel 5, where the accent was placed on the fall of Belshazzar. The Masoretic rereading creates a juncture between chs. 3 and 4, moving the proclamation, which the LXX maintains in its original position, just as it (the Masoretic rereading) modifies the original text of chs. 4 and 5 in order to establish continuity between them—both in the order and in the contents of the stories—a continuity that did not exist in the original form, represented here again by the LXX. It brings to mind the midrashic play on words between ‫“ פתר‬to interpret ” and ‫“ תפר‬to stitch.” 31 If interpreting is “stitching” elements together, rereading itself proceeds in the same way. The text is not only interpreted but is itself composed by a process of stitching: the text’s revisers are its first interpreters. In this process, old introductions, which go back to a time when the stories were relatively autonomous, are eliminated. We have shown this for the Masoretic reconstruction of 6:1 and for Theodotion’s rewriting of the beginning of Bel and the Dragon. One could say the same for 3:1, where the royal notice, which is parallel to the formulation in 1 Esd 3:2 or Esth 1:1 (recension L) is shortened because Nebuchadnezzar has already been mentioned in Daniel 2. 32 In such a passage, Theodotion’s form is based on an intermediate state of the text that was still influenced by the source text of the LXX. 33 Ultimately, not only for the addition of junctures but also for the elimination of the previously existing introductions, the MT represents the last stage in a process, the previous stages of which are documented in the LXX and sometimes even in Theodotion. (2) Everything we have said so far indicates that the LXX, far from being an unfaithful version of the MT or having many secondary interpolations is the faithful witness of a non-Masoretic source text. Scholars have often made wrong judgments about this translation because they were uncomfortable with the idea of mobility in the Semitic substratum; but this mobility is undeniable, 31.  In Gen 40:8, the baker and the cupbearer say to Joseph: ‫“ חֲלֹום ָחל ְַמנּו ּופֹתֵ ר אֵין אֹתֹו‬We had a dream, but there is no one to interpret it,” which Genesis Rabbah glosses as follows: ‫“ ותפר אין אתו‬there is no one to stitch it.” 32.  Ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου Ναβουχοδονοσορ διοικῶν πόλεις καὶ χώρας καὶ πάντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἀπὸ Ινδικῆς ἕως Αἰθιοπίας, Dan-o′; ‫נְבּוכ ְַדנֶּצַר מ ְַלּכָא‬, MT. 33.  Ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ βασιλεύς, Dan-θ′.

172

Olivier Munnich

and it explains the fact—which is unusual—that the need was felt, early on, to make a new translation of this book. Daniel thus offers, thanks to the nature of its Greek versions, a unique observatory for studying the “genetics” of the biblical text, which is the fruit of continuous creation.  (3) It is not possible to consider the source text of the LXX an “Alternative Story,” to borrow Z. Talshir’s terminology, in relation to the MT. 34 Here, the alternative story is not at all a reworking of the MT: I believe that I have shown that the source text of the first Greek version reflected a stage that was earlier than the MT. The divergences between MT Daniel and Theodotion’s Daniel show that the Semitic text evolved before reaching its Masoretic form. What about the states of the Semitic text that were earlier than the LXX? It is impossible to say, but the study of Daniel 5 shows that distinct traditions overlapped and intersected. (4) This being so, I am not at all convinced by the very common idea that the differences between the Semitic text and the Greek in chs. 4–6 (or even in chs. 3–6) may be explained by the fact that these chapters constituted an independent work. If we want to deconstruct the text, then we need to go further: Daniel 4 looks like an autonomous unit; chs. 5–6 seem to be “supplements” imported from the “outside” (forming a block with Bel and the Dragon) to the “inside,” and the hesitation regarding their position in the book is a clue to their late arrival; LXX Daniel 3 itself shows some traces of an autonomous existence. As for the language question, this is even more difficult: one ought not to use the Greek to reconstruct an Aramaic original, as R. H. Charles did, or to reconstruct a Hebrew text, as P. Grelot did, which would be a revision of the MT. Nonetheless, with the limited means at my disposal, I have attempted to find, in certain Hebraisms that are still perceptible in the LXX and Theodotion texts, the clues to redactional interventions aiming to introduce revisions into the story, such as the long reminder of the story of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4) in the story told by the queen to Belshazzar (Daniel 5). Such additions, made entirely or partially in Hebrew, would later have been Aramaized in the MT. (5) In what precedes, the main point is the material preserved in Daniel 5: by juxtaposing the short version and the LXX form, the text seems to be, as it were, searching for the Masoretic form. Since the source text of these Greek versions is lost, the short version and the LXX form are the ones that, paradoxically, “stutter” the original text—or, more precisely, they stutter in order to get to the last state of the “original” form, which is the MT. 34.  Talshir describes the alternative story formed by 3 Kgdms 12:24 a–z as “the creation of a new mosaic from the pieces of an older one. He (the author of the story) retains the framework of the earlier mosaic, and adds new pieces; yet he handles the extant pieces freely, following his own artistic inclinations” (The Alternative Story, 282): the situation is entirely different from the one that we see in the LXX in relation to the MT.

Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi (Text and Versions) Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari University of Haifa For scholars of biblical literature, language and theology are dramatically intertwined. The fact that we can only access the religious experience of past authors through the mediation of texts entails advanced reflection on this mediation. The attempt to represent the divine in language is particularly problematic, since languages often have fixed rules of conduct, dictating what should and should not be said, and religion tends to be restrictive about the modes of expression that are permitted with regard to the Divine. In biblical religion in particular, modes of expression that had been conceived as legitimate at one stage became problematic at a later stage or at some stage of the transmission of biblical literature. Zipora Talshir has illuminated this problem in an important essay on the epithet ‫ צבאות‬in the LXX. 1 Here, we aim to present a joint linguistic and theological analysis of speech about God that defines the problems and challenges of this discourse in a coherent way. In the present essay, we follow an advanced linguistic theory of the dynamics of meaning, thereby hoping to enrich the toolbox available to biblical scholars in this field. 2 Why Malachi? Because in this little book we identify an exceptional linguistic focus on the immediacy of the Divine. As part of the discourse on the food presented to the Divine—a rather unorthodox, somewhat offensive discourse—the author has created all sorts of linguistic constructs, metaphors, idioms, and other modes of speech that challenge the normal discourse on the 1. Z. Talshir, “The Representation of the Epithet ‫ צבאות‬in the Septuagint,” JQR 78 (1987): 57–75. 2.  For the state of the art in this field, see E. Bons, “Parlare di Dio in greco: Traduzione, inculturazione, revisioni teologiche nella versione dei LXX,” Richerche Storico Bibliche 22 (2008): 113–24; idem, “Die Rede von Gott in den PsalmenLXX,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta, vol. 3: Studien zur Theologie, Anthropoligie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der griechischen Bibel, ed. D. Böhler and H. J. Fabry, BWANT 174 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007), 182–202.

173

174

Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari

Divine in the Hebrew Bible. These special features indicate that the problem of the immediacy of the Divine was a central concern to the author and his audience. The linguistic peculiarities observed fall into two groups. On the one hand, the MT of Malachi speaks of the defilement of God using a variety of verbs (‫גאל‬, ‫חלל‬, ‫)בזה‬, 3 making God the direct object of these verbs (as in Mal 1:7). While defilement is a frequent theme in the prophets and the Pentateuch, it is almost never applied directly to God but rather to mediating entities: the defilement of the offering, or the defilement of the name of God (e.g., Ezekiel 36), and so on. The syntactic structures observed in Malachi turn out to be exceptional. These idioms, in turn, generated a great amount of secondary activity by copyists, translators, and correctors. On the other hand, other tokens discussed below represent the exact opposite: verbs and prepositional constructions that are usually employed in direct reference to the Divine are in Malachi attributed to a hypostasis in the form of the Divine ‫שם‬. The linguistic data thus suggest two opposing trends in terms of theology. While the book often indulges unorthodox modes of speech about God, it also employs elsewhere far-reaching linguistic usages that aim to “protect” the Divine and distance it from offending speech. Linguistically speaking, this multiformity can be aligned on one continuum, taking into proper account the dialogical texture of the book. The same linguistic mechanism continued operating among secondary authors who rewrote the book of Malachi. Earlier scholarship on Malachi did not consider the picture emerging from all these features taken together. Rather, commentaries address each expression separately, offering to reconstruct the “better” reading but without addressing the overall complex view of the deity and its representation in Malachi. Two early scholars however, who did address this context are Abraham Geiger and Arnold Ehrlich. 4 We cannot analyze here all of the examples in Malachi, but we do offer an analysis of four of the central passages in chs. 1–2. We shall analyze linguistic features of the phrases in Malachi as compared with the usage elsewhere in the Bible, alongside an analysis of exceptional linguistic usages within the immediate context of the prophetic dialogue. We proceed to survey the representation of the Divine in the textual witnesses: Septuagint, Aramaic targum, and the tradition of Tikkune Sopherim. 5 The lat3.  For the distribution of these verbs, see K. W. Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi, BZAW 288 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 122–24. 4. A.  Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inner Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Hinauer, 1857), 259–308; specifically in Malachi, see A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912), 5.355. 5.  No significant variants are preserved for these verses in the biblical scrolls from Qumran. The Tiqqune Sopherim will be discussed here according to the lists in C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the

Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi

175

ter traditions are especially sensitive to speech about God and will thus gain prominent place here. By this, we mean to show that problems in addressing the Divine, while attested quite often in translations, are not an essentially targumic issue but existed already in early stages of the composition of biblical texts. 6 Just like the translators after them, biblical writers faced the same sorts of problems and sensed the same linguistic anomalies. In terms of linguistic mechanisms, all the various sources take positions on the same continuum. Let us now clarify some underlying linguistic theories and describe our mode of operation. Our main contribution is the attempt to analyze the prophetic discourse not only in terms of its theology (which has been done in the past) but also in terms of the linguistic devices that characterize it in particular, focusing on semantic and pragmatic theory—namely, on discourse-functional analysis. This method can serve as a new conceptual tool for the assessment of religious discourse. It is especially helpful in evaluating the notion of euphemism, which is often employed in this respect. The method suggested here addresses the participant deixis in some phrases referring to God and His agency. The identity of participants (i.e., the categories of speakers, hearers, and audiences) is a central function in the analysis of any discourse. People constantly create and renegotiate their relationship with each other via discourse adjustments that make claims to equality, inequality, solidarity, or detachment. The prophetic discourse can be considered within the framework of such communicative situations in which the roles of participants (in the present case: prophet, priests, and community) are quite fixed in advance and in which people are expected to use and interpret discourse in relatively predetermined ways. Thus, personal deixis (Levinson) or, more precisely, participant deixis (Diessel) promises to be a meaningful locus from which to start when analyzing prophetic discourse. 7 For example, one Old Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); and the renewed discussion in M. A. Zipor, Tradition and Transmission: Studies in Ancient Biblical Translation and Interpretation (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001), 79–165 [Heb.]; see also W. McKane, “Observations on the Tikkûnê Sôperim,” in On Language, Culture and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida, ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 53–77. 6.  See R. Fuller, “Early Emendation of the Scribes: The Tiqqun Sopherim in Zechariah 2:12,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins presented to J. Strugnell, ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. H. Tobin (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 21–28; A. Rofé, “Biblical Antecedents of the Targumic Solution of Metaphors (Ps 89:41–42; Ezek 22:25–28; Gen 49:8–9, 14–15),” in Interpretation of the Bible, ed. J. Krašovec (Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija, 1998), 333–40. 7. S. C. Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); H. Diessel, “Deixis and Demonstratives,” in Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, ed. C. Maienborn et al., Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 33/3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). For an extensive discussion on personal deixis as language function and its status within linguistic theory, see K. Bühler, Sprachtheorie:

176

Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari

may expect to find different linguistic structures in the mouth of the prophet, the priest, or the Judean audience. For each of the passages chosen, we shall assess the different strategies of encoding God as referent or participant and the pragmatic effects achieved. In the prophetic discourse tradition, specifically in the texts discussed here, hypostases are employed for evoking God indirectly as a speech-participant. In this specific usage, such expressions justifiably can be accounted for as deictic devices. In fact, the domain of deixis exceeds the bounds of concrete expressions linguistically available to fulfill this task (e.g., pronouns or demonstratives) and includes any expression that requires relevant ad hoc factors picked up in the resource situation to be completely and successfully interpreted. 8 On another level, we offer linguistic terms to define the situations when Tiqqune sopherim or other “theological” corrections are required. These situations are in fact semantic anomalies arising from the process of word-meaning combination. A syntagmatic interaction is a kind of discourse interaction that obtains between items that are part of the same construction, such as an adjective and the noun it modifies, a verb and its direct object, or a verb phrase and its subject. 9 Each component in this interaction allows for several possibilities of construction that are normative. A syntagmatic interaction is to be conceived as abnormal when a clash of some kind between the supplements available for each component compromises its well-formedness from a stylistic or semantic point of view. When the clash occurs on a stylistic level, the interaction turns out to be inappropriate; in this case, the combination does not match the collocational preferences of the items involved. When the clash occurs on the semantic level, it is more severe and thus turns out to be paradoxical; in this case, the combination does not match the selectional preferences of the items. 10 Both types of clash trigger a transformation of some kind, which Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache (Jena: Fischer, 1934); J. Lyons, Semantics, vols. 1–2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); idem, “Deixis and Anaphora,” in The Development of Conversation and Discourse, ed. T. Myers (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1979), 88–103; C. J. Fillmore, “Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis,” in Speech, Place, and Action, ed. R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (Chichester: John Wiley, 1982), 31–59; idem, Lectures on Deixis (Stanford, CA: CSLI, 1997). 8.  See S. C. Levinson, “Deixis and Pragmatic,” in The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. L. R. Horn and G. Ward (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 97–121. 9.  See A. Cruse, Meaning in Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 10.  Following the argumentation by Jackendoff, a Preference Rule System governs the selectional preferences of a verb. In other words, thanks to this pattern of selectional preferences it is possible to distinguish stereotypical (prototypical) instances of use from marginal instances. The mechanism of selectional preferences is an element of conceptual structure which creates a continuum between stereotypical and marginal instances, and each can create fuzziness or vagueness at category

Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi

177

produces a reading that does satisfy the stylistic and semantic conditions of well-formedness. Malachi 1:6–7, 11–12 Mal 1:6–14 conveys a debate between the prophet and the priests about their disgraceful conducting of the sacrifices in the temple. 11 Both sides of the debate are represented by direct speech—that is, not only does the prophet speak in first person but also the priests are quoted as speaking in the first person about themselves. This is a rather strange dialogue, because the prophet does not purport to quote the actual words of the priests; rather, one may claim that he is quoting their thoughts or the outcome of what they think but have never actually expressed. 12 Rather than reporting a real dialogue, the literary dialogue in Malachi may be a rhetorical device aimed to shock the priests by presenting to them the true essence of their conduct. Interestingly, this understanding of the dialogue is endorsed in both the targum and the Peshiṭta, where the indicative verb ‫“ ואמרתם‬and you say” is converted to the conditional ‫( ואם תימרון‬Tg.) or ‫( ואן אמרין אנתון‬Pesh.). 13 The construction of the fictive dramatic dialogue is one of the reasons why the most extreme or abnormal interactions in Malachi are placed in the mouths of the priests and not in the speech of God or the prophet. This is meaningful for understanding the pragmatic aspect of the language employed in the dialogue: the author caricatures the priests’ speech in order to enhance the dissonance created by the dramatic dialogue. The presence of a semantic clash with regard to the Divine in the words of the priests creates an anomaly, which intensifies the drama. Ultimately, it is meant to provoke the priests to repentance or, more profoundly, to alienate them from their routine conduct and have them examine it through critical eyes. As Vandelanotte points out, in direct speech and thought the shift from direct to reported speech is first and foremost a deictic shift: whereas the reposting clause describing the speech act is construed from the speaker’s deictic center (I/you, here/now coordinates), the reported clause giving the content of boundaries. (R. Jackendoff, Semantic Structures, Current Studies in Linguistics 18 [Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990], 37)

11.  While some of the admonition is certainly addressed to the people as well, since they are the ones who presented the foul sacrifices, we hold that the force of the dialogue is aimed at the priests. 12.  On the use of ‫ אמר‬to represent thoughts rather than actual speech, see HALOT 66. 13.  See R. P. Gordon, “Dialogue and Disputation in the Targum to the Prophets,” JSS 39 (1974): 7–17, esp. pp. 10–11. Ehrlich (Randglossen, 5.354) suggests that the conditional was the original mode of ‫ ואמרתם‬in the original Hebrew text throughout the entire book. Curiously, he does not mention the Aramaic versions.

178

Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari

the speech act is construed relative to the original speaker’s deictic center. 14 In Mal 1:6–7, both projected speeches are marked by the verb ‫אמר‬. The MT reads: :ָ‫ֶת־ׁשמֶך‬ ְ ‫אמ ְַר ֶּתם ַּבּמֶה ָבזִינּו א‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ִמי ַו‬ ְ ‫הנִים ּבֹוז ֵי‬ ֲֹ ‫( ָאמַר יְהוָה ְצבָאֹות ָלכֶם הַּכ‬. . .) 6 :‫ִבזֶה הּוא‬ ְ ‫ֻלחַן יְהוָה נ‬ ְ ‫ָרכֶם ׁש‬ ְ ‫אמ‬ ֱ ‫אמ ְַר ֶּתם ַּבּמֶה ֵגא ְַלנּוךָ ֶּב‬ ֲ ‫ְּב ִחי ֶלחֶם ְמגֹאָל ַו‬ ְ ‫מז‬-‫ַל‬ ִ ‫יׁשים ע‬ ִ ‫ מ ִַּג‬7

Within the divine speech in 1:6, the contempt toward God is not applied to the deity himself but, rather, to mediating entities of sorts. Thus we find ‫בוזי‬ ‫“ שמי‬those who scorn my name”; this accusation is duly answered by the same verbal construction ‫במה בזינו את שמך‬. Next we read the allegation ‫מגישים על‬ ‫“ מזבחי לחם מגאל‬You serve defiled bread on my altar” and later, ‫שלחן יהוה‬ ‫“ נבזה הוא‬the table of the Lord can be treated with contempt.” 15 The allegation is answered with a meaningful shift: not “How have we defiled your altar?” but ‫“ במה גאלנוך‬How have we defiled you?” The direct object of defilement is God, not the altar—a truly exceptional linguistic usage! 16 Distributional analysis does not offer a suitable basis for determining the preference for selecting the verb ‫גאל‬, since the stem occurs in piel solely in Mal 1:7 within the biblical corpus. In other late writings, the verb can be found in niphal, “to be defiled” (Isa 59:3; Lam 4:14); pual, “to be defiled” (Mal 1:7, 12; Ezra 2:62; Neh 7:64); in hithpael, “to defile oneself” (Dan 1:8); and in hiphil, “to pollute” (Isa 63:3); but never with the Deity as the direct object. With regard to the related verb ‫ חלל‬piel and its distribution in cultic language, 17 it turns out that, when it refers to the Godhead as the direct object, the construc14. L. Vandelanotte, “From Representational to Scopal ‘Distancing Indirect Speech or Thought’: A Cline of Subjectification,” Text 24 (2004): 547–85, esp. p. 548. 15.  Ehrlich (Randglossen, 5.355) points to another potential semantic clash in this verse, the term ′‫שלחן ה‬. Priestly literature is usually careful to distance God from the table, as for example, in the phrase ′‫“ זה השלחן אשר לפני ה‬this table is before Yhwh” (Ezek 41:22; cf. Lev 24:6). The table is not “the table of Yhwh” but the table that is set before him. The use of ′‫ שלחן ה‬in the mouth of the priests adds a further dimension to their foul relation to the cult. Note that in Ezekiel the table is twice called “my table” ‫ שלחני‬in Divine speeches (39:20, 44:16), while when mentioned by Ezekiel’s angelic interpreter, a less-direct mode of speech is conveyed. On further connections between Mal 1:6–2:9 and Ezek 44:6–16, see H. Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der ‘Scriftprophetie’ auf Grund von Maleachi 1,6–2,9, BEATAJ 19 (Frankfurt a/M: Peter Lang, 1989), 45ff.; Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, 126. 16.  In the book of Ezekiel, one finds a defilement of God’s name (43:7–8) alongside desecration (‫ )חלל‬of the Divine himself (22:6), the latter with regard to acts of contempt by the priests; see T. Ganzel, “Defilement of God’s Name in Ezekiel,” in Zer Rimonim: Studies in Biblical Literature and Jewish Exegesis Presented to Professor Rimon Kasher, ed. M. Avioz et al. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 206–19. 17.  The field of “cultic language” is defined here according to the notion of functional language, as developed by I.  Zatelli, “Functional Languages and Their Importance to the Semantics of Ancient Hebrew,” in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, ed. T. Muraoka; Abr-Nahrain Supplement (Louvain: Peeters, 1995), 55–64; eadem, “The Study of Ancient Hebrew Lexicon: Application of the Concepts of Lexical Field and Functional Language,”

Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi

179

tion almost exclusively uses a hypostatic expression. Exceptions are found only in two polemical formulations in Ezek 13:19 and 22:26. 18 Noting the problem, Tg. Ezek. 13:19 reads, ‫“ ואחילתון רעותי בעמי‬you (pl.) profaned my affection for my people,” employing ‫“( רעו‬affection”) as a hypostasis to soften the harsh verbal proclamation in the MT. 19 The dialogue in Mal 1:6–7, as represented in the MT, is difficult: the priests respond as though they were blamed with defiling the Lord himself, while in fact they were only accused of serving defiled bread on his altar. The difficulty may be deliberate, or it could be the result of textual corruption. Thus, BHS suggests amending ‫ גאלנוך‬to ‫“ גאלנוהו‬we defiled it (= your name).” Traditional Jewish commentators solve the crux by stating that, “if you defile the blood on my altar, you hereby defile me” (Qimḥi). Thus also Hill in the Anchor Bible: “The reported speech of the priest (in the form of a question) is recursive, harking back to the prophet’s charge against the priests for ‘despising’ Yahweh’s name.” 20 Acknowledging the special rhetorical effect of the dialogue, we prefer this possibility, rather than viewing the MT reading as mistaken. Consider the practice of relating to the Divine in vv. 11–12: Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 5 (2004): 129–59. 18.  See D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 416 and n. 37. For the phrase ‫ שמי מנאץ‬and, in light of this, a suggested correction in Isa 52:5, see S. H. Blank, “Isaiah 52:5 and the Profanation of the Name,” HUCA 25 (1954): 1–8. 19.  Another seemingly related case is Lev 21:9, ‫את אביה היא מחללת‬, where the direct object refers to the priest, the father of the sinning daughter, rather than to God. Both Tg. Onqelos and the LXX introduce mediation into the phrase, by which the girl does not directly profane her father. Onqelos has ‫“ מקדושת אבוהא היא מתחלא‬she has become degraded [away] from the holiness of her father,” introducing “holiness” as mediation (for the interpretation of the targumic reading, see B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and Numbers [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988], 46–47). The LXX introduces the name as mediation: τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς αὐτὴ βεβηλοῖ “the name of her father she profanes.” However, as noted by M. L. Klein (“The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim,” in VTSup 32 [Leiden: Brill, 1981], 162–77), LXX Lev 21:9 probably reflects an idiomatic paraphrase rather than an attempt to distance the object of the defilement. The expression βεβηλοῦν τὸ ὄνομα can be treated as a lexicalization of the meaning of “to dishonor/to shame”; it is the Greek equivalent of ‫ חלל‬combined with “person” as the direct object, in opposition to ‫ חלל‬combined with “artifact” as a direct object. 20. A. E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25D (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 178; thus also W. Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8 – Sacharja 9–14 – Maleachi, KAT (Gütersloh: Güterslöher Verlag, 1976), 259; B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, SBLDS 98 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 50; L. S. Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood, FAT 2/19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 211. Weyde (Prophecy and Teaching, 124) explains in a detailed way how the serving of polluted food conveys impurity to the deity itself, and accounts for this doctrine by means of various priestly traditions.

180

Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari :‫( ִּכי־גָדֹול ְש ִמי ּבַּגֹויִם ָאמַר יְהוָה ְצבָאֹות‬. . .) 11 :‫ָכלֹו‬ ְ ‫ִבזֶה א‬ ְ ‫ֻלחַן אֲדֹנָי ְמגֹאָל הּוא ְונִיבֹו נ‬ ְ ‫ָרכֶם ׁש‬ ְ ‫אמ‬ ֱ ‫ַּתם ְמח ְַּל ִלים אֹותֹו ֶּב‬ ֶ ‫ ְוא‬12

Here again, the Divine is represented by the ‫שם‬, as in v. 11: ‫גדול שמי‬. The ensuing allegation in v. 12 MT also refers to the name: ‫“ ואתם מחללים אותו‬but you defile it (i.e., the name),” using a proleptic pronoun. The verse then quotes the priests again as saying that the table of the Lord is defiled and that his food is contemptible ‫נבזה אכלו‬. 21 In the MT, it is only in v. 7 that a semantic clash occurs with regard to the defilement of God. The LXX solves the problem of the clash in 1:7 by shifting the anaphoric reference of the pronoun. This is an attempt to avoid the disgrace of the Lord by the original wording. What is profane is the bread, not the Deity. 22 προσάγοντες πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριόν μου ἄρτους ἠλισγημένους. καὶ εἴπατε ἐν τίνι ἠλισγήσαμεν αὐτούς . . . by bringing defiled loaves to my altar. And you say: “How have we defiled them?” (i.e., the loaves) A different mechanism is employed in the Aramaic targum. The sensitivity appeared early on, historically, in phrases that were considered unproblematic by other tradents of the verse. Thus, the phrase ‫ בוזי שמי‬is translated ‫מבסרין‬ ‫על שמי‬: even the shift from the Godhead to his name does not suffice for the Aramaic translator, who adds the pronoun ‫על‬. Thus the Divine Name is shifted from the direct object of contempt to the indirect object. The targum renders the problematic phrase ‫ במה גאלנוך‬with ‫“ במה מרחק‬How is it abominable?” Although the verb lacks an explicit reference, the ellipsis of the direct object required by ‫ רחק‬allows the language to establish an anaphoric relationship to 21.  The text and meaning of ‫ וניבו נבזה אכלו‬are not easy to account for. Earlier proposals, mostly for emendations, have been collected by Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 62. While many modern commentators take ‫ וניבו‬as a duplication of ‫( נבזה‬Ehrlich, Randglossen, 5.356; Rudolph, Haggai, 259), traditional commentators prefer connecting it with ‫ ניב שפתים‬in Isa 57:19. Ibn Ezra construes ‫ ניבו‬as food (‫)אכלו‬, related to the word ‫תנובה‬. Qimḥi, in contrast, sees ‫ ניב‬as an appellation of the speech of the priests, in keeping with the rhetorical line of the rest of the chapter, as if to say, “The speech of the priests makes the food on the altar contemptible.” This proposal, which is quite attractive in terms of the context, does not comply well with the grammatical forms (Why ‫ ניבו‬and not ‫ ?ניבכם‬And why ‫נבזה‬, in the passive voice instead of active voice?). The Karaite commentator Daniel al-Qumsi (ca. 9th century c.e.; Pitron Šneim ʿAsar, ed. I. D. Markon [Jerusalem: Meqitze Nirdamim, 1958], 78) construes ‫ ניבו‬as the word of God: “You say that the word that He commanded us with regard to the sacrifices . . . is light and contemptible in His eyes (hence you disrespect the rituals).” Finally, note that the phrase ‫ וניבו נבזה אכלו‬is duplicated in the LXX at the end of v. 7. This is a so-called harmonization, aiming to smooth the textual flow after the identical statements ‫ מגאל הוא‬′‫ שלחן ה‬at the end of vv. 7 and 12. 22.  See L. Vianès, Malachie, La Bible d’Alexandrie 23/12 (Paris: Cerf, 2011), 108.

Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi

181

the sacrifice (‫ קרבן‬rendering ‫ )לחם‬rather than to God. 23 A gloss in the targum according to Codex Reuchlinianus gives the reading ‫והויתון אמרין במה רחקנא‬ ‫“ יתך‬You said: by what have we defiled you?” 24 This reading is the result of a secondary alignment with the MT by a later editor, who preferred this alignment to the extra caution practiced by earlier targumists. Malachi 1:13 Another abnormal syntagmatic interaction occurs in ‫( והפחתם אותו‬v. 13), “you degrade(?) it.” 25 The meaning of the Hebrew is not easy to sort out. The original meaning probably was that the crowd would snort at the blemished animal and regard the entire business as insignificant. However, at some stage, some readers understood the pronoun ‫ אותו‬in the MT as referring to the hypostatic expression “my name” mentioned in v. 11 above, and reading the phrase as indicating that the audience was profaning the name of Yhwh. Thus, according to the tradition of the Tiqqune Sopherim, the original reading was ‫והפחתם אותי‬, while the pronoun was shifted to the third person in order to avoid contempt toward the Divine. 26 What is interesting here is not so much understanding the change in diachronic terms but, rather, tracing the shifting vectors among the available texts. In the MT (as understood by the compilers of tiqqunim lists), the clash occurs when the root ‫ נפח‬is projected toward the Divine Name. In the “original” reading, as reconstructed by the tiqqunim 23.  The lexical choice to represent the Hebrew ‫ מגאל‬with Aramaic ‫ מרחק‬is an attempt to soften somewhat the disgrace to the divine food. This lexical choice is not limited to Targum Malachi, however, but is a fixed equivalent of the entire targumic literature. While the root ‫ רחק‬in Aramaic usually connotes “distance,” it is used only in targumic literature in the sense of “abomination” (according to the CAL database). 24.  The gloss is preserved in the apparatus of A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 3.500. Note that according to this gloss the fixed formula “if you say” is also replaced by the indicative “you were saying.” 25. The verb ‫ והפחתם‬and its object here are exceptionally difficult. The NJPS and HALOT see it as referring to the sacrifice, carrying the meaning “degrade.” This use of the verb would be similar to its use in Hag 1:9, ‫“ ונפחתי בו‬I snorted at it.” Abravanel, however, suggests that the priests were “blowing” (‫ )נפח‬the impoverished animal to make it seem bigger. For a summary of opinions, see Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, 152–53. 26. See the remarks by A.  Gelston in BHQ: The Twelve Minor Prophets (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 150*. Note that this “original” reading is not attested in any ancient version. As Moshe Zipor has recently concluded, not all of the items in the tiqqunim tradition record an actual variant reading available to them; rather, after several such variants had initiated the list of tiqqunim, the list was expanded to include other cases where the authors felt that a minor scribal change would have significant implications for contempt of the Divine. In the absence of any convincing textual evidence in favor of the rabbinic reading, it seems best to include Mal 1:13 among the corrections that belong to the sphere of homiletic exposition rather than to consider it as reflecting a genuine tiqqun; see McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim, 115; and Zipor, Tradition and Transmission, 142–65.

182

Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari

tradition, the use of the pronoun ‫ אותי‬was not anaphoric but personal, referring to God as speaker in the speech act projected, the direct object of the contempt. Two main readings are preserved in the tradition of LXX Mal 1:13. Rahlfs, following the majority of the witnesses, reads ἐξεφύσησα αὐτὰ “I blew at them,” ‫נפחתי בהם‬/‫( וה‬cf. Hag 1:9, ‫ונפחתי בו‬, where the same Greek phrase is used in the LXX). 27 Ziegler, in contrast, accepts the reading of Codex Sinaiticus and several other uncial mss: ἐξεφυσήσατε αὐτά “You (pl.) blew at them” ‫והפחתם אותם‬. 28 Both translations use the verb ἐκφυσᾶν “to blow,” with the neuter plural pronoun. According to the majority reading, the subject of the action is God himself, and the referents of the pronoun are anaphorically τράπεζα and τὰ ἐπιτιθέμενα βρώματα (v. 12). As in Hag 1:9, God scorns the blemished sacrifice brought to him. Tracing the deixis of the pronoun in GS turns out to be more difficult; the subject of the action is the priests (2nd-person pl.), but what exactly do they treat with contempt? The pronoun αὐτά must be co-referential with the demonstrative ταῦτα, which is located in the priests’ earlier speech projection: ‫הנה מתלאה‬, translated as ταῦτα ἐκ κακοπαθείας “these are toilsome” (NETS). The value of the pronoun ταῦτα is resumptive: the priests are guilty of treating with contempt all prescriptions concerning the sacrifice (θυσία, vv. 10, 13). Both readings in the LXX thus shift the focus (that is, the object of the verb ἐκφυσᾶν) from the hypostatic expression “the name of God” to the sacrifice itself as a ritual event—or, metonymically, to the artifact offered (βρῶμα v. 7). Thus we encounter an additional process of distancing the Divine from the disreputable action of treating with contempt. Malachi 2:5 The Levite in 2:5 is depicted as a reliable figure who fears the Lord. 29 Two verbal expressions of this fear are supplied in a sort of parallelism: ‫ׁש ִמי ִנחַת הּוא‬ ְ ‫ּומ ְּפנֵי‬ ִ / ‫ִיר ֵאנִי‬ ָ ‫ַוּי‬ He feared me / and is shattered 30 before my name. 27.  Thus the French translation by Vianès: “Et vous avez dit: c’est le fruit d’un effort; et je l’ai dispersé d’un souffle.” 28.  NETS: “And you said, ‘These are toilsome,’ and you snorted at them.” Rudolph (Haggai, 259) prefers the reading in GS and sees the majority reading as a scribal mistake, due to omission of the last two letters, -τε. In contrast, it seems to us that the majority reading represents the original, while S and the uncial mss represent a revision toward the MT. 29.  The personality of ‫ לוי‬in 2:4 is often debated, also with relation to the form ‫ הלוי‬in 2:8, but we do not aim to dwell on this problem here. 30.  We take the verb ‫ נחת‬as the niphal of ‫“ חתת‬shatter” and with a transitive meaning “frighten” (see M. Z. Kadari, A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew [Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006] 368; HALOT 365). This is also the view of Qimḥi and Ibn Ezra, who equate this word with the adjectives ‫( נשבר ונדכה‬Ps 51:19), which seem to have gone through a similar semantic shift.

Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi

183

This parallelistic construction juxtaposes the terseness of hemistich A with the expansive wordiness of hemistich B. While A constitutes a single word, ‫ויראני‬, combining subject, verb, and direct object together, in B the author makes a deliberate effort to present each and every syntactic component in a separate lexeme. As Adele Berlin demonstrated, syntactic relations in the parallelism carry a heavy load of meaning. 31 The present juxtaposition thus marks interest and reflection on the level of immediacy of the Godhead in its relation to the human worshiper. The representation in B of an oblique relation between the worshiper and God is achieved by manipulating the direct personal deixis. The distancing of the Divine in this couplet was usually considered sufficient by later transmitters, who did not feel the need to manipulate it further. We do encounter some modifications of hemistich A, however. The linguistic devices used to distance the Divine in hemistich B are as follows: 32 a.  While A points directly at God, making the Deity a direct object, thus also hinting at the Deity’s personality, the Divine presence in B is carried out by means of a hypostasis: “my name.” b.  Additional distancing is achieved in B by means of the preposition ‫—מפני‬that is, not that “he fears my name” but, rather, that “he is shattered before my name.” The combination of the two latter devices in the form of ‫ מפני שמי‬is an overly deliberate device that is not attested elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew. c.  The verb in B is associated with a passive human subject. 33 The passive voice of the verb ‫ נחת‬loosens the disturbing link of the human agent and the Divine. The distancing of this agent from God must also be the reason for the awkward word order in B, with the pronoun ‫—הוא‬which serves both as subject and as copula—standing in the final position. 34 Let us ponder the mechanisms described above a bit and see how they function in the present linguistic, literary context. While some of these mechanisms are often applied in the targums and other ancient versions, they are also attested in older Hebrew witnesses to the text. 31. A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 53–63. 32.  Compare the list of grammatical and stylistic features in R. B. Pozen, The Consistency of Targum Onkelos’ Translation (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004), 132 [Heb.]. 33.  It is difficult to determine whether this form represents a qal passive participle of the root ‫“ נחת‬low, subdue” or a niphal participle of the geminate root ‫חתת‬. For the latter, see Qimḥi, Ibn Ezra, and Rudolph. On the distinction between the qal-passive and niphal participles, see Joüon-Muraoka 418. Morphologically, the verb behaves like a prima nun even if it is the geminate ‫( חתת‬Kadari, Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, 368). The historical context in Malachi possibly supports seeing the Aramaic root ‫ נחת‬as the background of the verb. 34.  See T.  Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 75–76.

184

Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari

Using the Divine Name as a substitute, as a parallel term, or as a corollary to the Divine is a common device in biblical poetry, as well as of course in the famous name-theology of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic writings. 35 As shown before, the alternation between God and his name is a frequent device earlier in Malachi, as for example, in 1:6–7, 11 (see above). In 2:5, God and his name are juxtaposed in the two hemistichs of a parallelistic construction. A similar phenomenon occurs for example in Ps 92:2, ‫טוב‬ ‫ ולזמר לשמך עליון‬/ ‫“ להודות ליהוה‬It is good to praise the Lord / to sing to Your name, O Most High” (cf. Ps 7:18, 138:1–2), or later, in Mal 3:16, /‫ליראי יהוה‬ ‫“ ולחשבי שמו‬concerning those who revere Yhwh / and those who esteem(?) his name” (NJPS with slight modification). While some late poetic couplets tend to leave out the deity from the verbal statement altogether and focus instead on the name as hypostasis (thus, e.g., Ps 113:1–3), 36 the parallelism in Mal 2:5 retains both sides of the equation: Yhwh and his name. As we see it, the reason is that the verse—as elsewhere in Malachi—takes the relation to the Divine as its implicit object of reflection. Adjacent to “my name,” one finds in 2:5 another common distancing mechanism, the preposition ‫מפני‬. As Jan Joosten and others have noticed, this word reflects the usage of the Aramaic ‫קדם‬, which in turn originated in the court language of the Achaemenid Empire. 37 This construction often replaces the more direct deixis to the emperor or the god and is a more oblique way of interacting between the two. Quite often, this preposition involves a shift to the passive voice: it is not that the king acted but, rather, that “an action took place before him” (e.g., Dan 5:24, ‫“ מן קדמוהי שליח פסא די ידא‬he made the hand appear,” literally, “from before him, a hand was sent”). In Mal 2:5, the Levite does not 35.  T.  N. D.  Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, ConBOT 18 (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1982); cf. B. D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 62–68. 36.  In MT Ps 113:1 (‫ הללו את שם יהוה‬/ ‫)הללו עבדי יהוה‬, the words ‫שם יהוה‬ / ‫ יהוה‬are not precisely parallel. Rather, the first hemistich employs the Divine Name as part of the construct ‫עבדי יהוה‬: the slaves of Yhwh are being summoned to praise the Lord. However, in the LXX Psalter, only the word ‫ עבדים‬παῖδες appears in the vocative case as part of the summons, while the following word, κύριον, is in the accusative, yielding the meaning “O slaves! Praise the Lord!” It appears therefore that this poetic line in the LXX maintains the parallelism of ‫ שם יהוה‬/ ‫יהוה‬. This was definitely not the case in the original Hebrew verse. 37. J. Joosten, “L’Araméen de Qumran entre l’Araméen d’empire et les Targumim: L’emploi de la preposition ‘devant’ pour exprimer le respect dû au roi et à Dieu,” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence, 30 June–2 July 2008, ed. K. Bertholet and D. Stökl Ben Ezra, STDJ 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 83–100; Michael L. Klein, “The Preposition ‫‘( קדם‬Before’): A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums,” JTS 30 (1979): 502–7. For the idea that ‫ קדם‬was used as part of the Aramaic of the royal court, see already Samuel D. Luzzatto, Ohev Ger, 2nd ed. (Krakow: Greber, 1895), 12 [Heb.].

Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi

185

simply fear the Lord but fears “before” him—or, to be precise, “is shattered before him.” Elsewhere in biblical literature, the LXX applies this distancing mechanism even where it does not appear in the Hebrew text. Thus the phrase ‫חטא ליהוה‬ is often translated ἁμαρτήσομαι ἐναντίον κυρίου “sin before the Lord.” Joosten interprets this usage as a sign of the predominantly Aramaic background of the Egyptian translators of the LXX. 38 This usage occurs mostly in the Greek Pentateuch and in Job and occasionally elsewhere, but never in the LXX of the Twelve Prophets. In Mal 2:5, no further distancing mechanism is employed either in hemistich A or in hemistich B. Instead, the Greek translator represents the verb ‫ חתת‬with the medial στέλλεσθαι, which is hard to account for in the present context. It is certainly not the usual equivalent of ‫—חתת‬not in the LXX in general or in the Twelve (see the verb πτοέομαι in Obad 9, Hab 2:17). Rather, the verb carries the meaning “set out on a journey, to be sent, prepare to go” (cf. ἀποστέλλω, ἐκαποστέλλω). It should perhaps be understood here as “stand away from; stand aloof from.” 39 The unusual Greek translation possibly resulted from the awkwardness of the phrase ‫מפני שמי‬, which requires a combination of ἀπὸ πρόσωπον with τοῦ ὀνόματος. This combination reflects hypersensitivity in distancing the Deity. In normal Hebrew usage, one would expect ‫ומפני נחת הוא‬. Although the Hebrew phrase is awkward, it is acceptable; the resulting Greek is unintelligible and thus we find the rendering of ‫ נחת‬as the verb στέλλω, which eases a bit of the lexical awkwardness. A curious case appears in the Aramaic Tg. Mal. 2:5. The targum is known for transforming the appearances of God as a syntactic object into ‫קדם‬-phrases. 40 While the targumist does not change hemistich B, which is apparently orthodox enough, he does change hemistich A: ‫ ומן קדם שמי דחיל הוא‬/ ‫ודחיל מן קדמי‬. In addition, the targum uses the same Aramaic root, ‫דחל‬, to translate both ‫ירא‬ and ‫חתת‬. The result is a bewildering parallelism: “he fears in front of me / and 38. J. Joosten, “L’agir humain devant Dieu: Remarques sur une tournure remarquable de la Septante,” RB 113 (2006): 5–17. 39. Thus GELS 437; and the translation in NETS: “and that he avoid the presence of my name.” Similarly Rudolph, Haggai, 260: “sich zusammenziehen” (contra TWNT ’s explanation quoted there: “sich bereitstellen”). The French translation by Vianès, Malachie, is ambiguous, with two different translations given on pp. 47 and 122. Vianès prefers to connect this verb with ἀποστέλλω and understand it as denoting “nominating an envoy.” She suggests (p. 47) that the Greek translator followed the meaning of Aramaic ‫ נחת‬rather than Hebrew ‫חתת‬. The verb corresponds to the nomination of the angel in Dan 4:13 and 23 and thus supports the angelological explanation pursued by Vianès. We do not see how this meaning is tenable in the present context, however. 40.  Klein, “The Preposition ‫ ;”קדם‬Pozen, The Consistency, 132. Note that, while not all occurrences of ‫ קדם‬should be seen as anti-anthropomorphisms (we agree with Klein in this regard), in the present case we are justified in seeing the targum as a distancing of God.

186

Jonathan Ben-Dov and Romina Vergari

in front of my name he fears.” The sense of the text is compromised in order to smooth out the theological difficulties that it raises. Notes on Euphemism and Conclusion A euphemistic expression replaces a direct reference to the Divine when he is involved in a process, action, or state that is perceived to be inappropriate for the transcendent nature of the Divine. At the semantic level, this involvement can be expressed in several ways: a process or action can be attributed to its direct actor as a separate entity, agent, or source (subject function); a state, process, or action may involve God as patient (direct/indirect object function); a process or action may involve God as the entity who gains or loses from it (beneficiary function). On a pragmatic level—that is, at the level of the contextual meaning of a given linguistic expression or function—the reference to the Divine assumes various understandings: a speech act can directly involve God as the speaker or hearer; it can assume God as a referent, existing in the spatial location relevant to the utterance; or it can understand God to be present in the knowledge shared by the participants. Language provides a set of grammatical and lexical means suitable to express a greater or lesser degree of involvement of the Divine in the event described; these means are available at all linguistics levels. 41 The use of hypostatic expressions (the Glory, the Word, the Name) is one of several lexical devices that perform the function of distancing in a specific biblical discourse tradition. Other devices have been listed and exemplified above. Distancing is conceived here as a pragmatic-referential notion that can be put to work on a scale of intensity—in other words, as a continuum. Since prophetic discourse consists of a complex interaction of speech-act projections made by different participants or, in literary terms, by different literary characters, then the analysis of participant deixis becomes crucial. Each expression is the function of the participant who utters it and can be placed on a scale that expresses the degree of distancing employed by the speaker from the other participants present in the context. In literary terms, the degree of the distancing of God in prophetic speech varies according to the identity of the speaker uttering it. This variety becomes manifest when the prophetic speech exceeds the framework of a monologue and is fashioned instead as a dialogue or a more complicated scene of speakers. An example of this variety has been given above in the designations of ‫ שלחן‬in the temple vision of Ezekiel (41:26 and 44:16); it reaches 41.  That is, the universal level of speech activity; the historical level in the form of a particular historical language; the historical level in the form of a discourse tradition; the individual and actual level in the form of a discourse. See P. Koch, “Metonymy between Pragmatics, Reference, and Diachrony,” metaphorik.de 7 (2004), http://metaphorik.de/07/ koch.pdf, esp. pp. 10–11; and E. Coseriu, Lecciones de linguística general (Madrid: Gredos, 1981), 269–73.

Speaking about God: Person Deixis in Malachi

187

its peak in the dramatic dialogue in the book of Malachi. This is the reason why the offensive speech about God is concentrated only in the reported speech (or thought) of the priests rather than in the words of God himself. The distancing continuum was active already at the stage of the text’s composition and constituted an inherent part of the formal characteristics intended by the author for the speech of each of the characters. The author/editor of Malachi was as sensitive to this mechanism as its later tradents were aware of it. When the text became the object of further creative processes by later tradents, the presence of expressions perceived as inappropriate in reference to the Divine gave rise to alterations in the Hebrew transmission, translation, or later interpretations. However, we claim that the basic mechanism was not the product of corruptions of the Hebrew text but, instead, a genuine concern by the original authors. Even within one and the same text unit, strategies are not uniform and may result in being opposite and contradictory. As famously noted by Klein about the Aramaic targum, one cannot seek consistency in the ways chosen by translators to represent the Divine in theological terms. In a similar way, consistency should not be sought within the book of Malachi itself.

Echoes of Solomon and Nehemiah: Hezekiah’s Cultic Reforms in the Book of Chronicles David A. Glatt-Gilad Ben-Gurion University of the Negev King Hezekiah is one of the most admired figures in the book of Chronicles, with whom the author (hereafter the Chronicler) connects more nonsynoptic material than any other king who reigned after David and Solomon. This unique material is concentrated in three chapters, 2 Chronicles 29–31, which spans 84 verses all told—a comfortable margin over Jehoshaphat, to whom the Chronicler attaches 60 nonsynoptic verses. However, Hezekiah’s uniqueness for the Chronicler is not merely a matter of quantity but also of quality, in the sense that the additional material is almost completely focused on Hezekiah’s efforts to renew the temple cult and make new arrangements for its ongoing maintenance. Since these are precisely the topics of concern that the Chronicler attributes to David and Solomon, it is no wonder that many commentators have noted the parallels between Hezekiah and his two great ancestors—to the point of labeling Hezekiah a second David or a second Solomon. 1 Before examining these parallels and their meaning, I must comment briefly on the literary technique of creating parallels or analogies between two characters. M. Garsiel, in the introduction to his monograph on analogies in the book of 1 Samuel, emphasizes the difficulties inherent in locating analogies if they are not self-evident due to literary proximity. In his words: The contiguity of distance of the elements designed for comparison affects the linkage and guidance technique in a number of ways. If the items are contiguous to one another in the text continuum, the comparison may arise of itself. . . . But the more scattered they are . . . the harder it will be for the reader to grasp the link between them. 2 1.  See M. J. Boda, “Identity and Empire, Reality and Hope in the Chronicler’s Perspective,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 264 n. 52. 2. M. Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies, and Parallels (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1985), 17.

189

190

David A. Glatt-Gilad

Garsiel continues, “Such direct and explicit references to established comparative connections are rare in biblical narrative, whose authors generally preferred indirect methods.” 3 This means that, in addition to the contextual distance that may exist between two comparative foci, the reader is in danger of ignoring the covert way in which the comparison is effected. Moreover, even when the reader succeeds in noticing the various literary links, he or she still must properly define the correct rhetorical purpose of the analogy—for example, whether the analogy was intended to serve in a supplementary fashion (thus Joshua, who faithfully followed in the footsteps of his master Moses) 4 or in a contrastive fashion (thus Elijah at Horeb, who failed to reach the level of concerned leadership that Moses had). 5 Returning now to the book of Chronicles, in general, the phenomenon of literary analogy has not been sufficiently investigated in scholarship, whether one is speaking of analogies within the book of Chronicles itself or of analogies between Chronicles and other biblical texts. 6 Happily, a ubiquitous exception to this state of affairs is found in the specific example of Hezekiah, due in no small part to the unusual presence of an explicit analogy that the Chronicler draws between Hezekiah and Solomon in 2 Chr 30:26: ‫גדֹולָה‬-‫ָה‬ ְ ‫ו ְַּת ִהי ִׂש ְמח‬ ְ ‫ּדִויד ֶמל‬-‫ֶן‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ָ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל לֹא כָזֹאת ִּב‬ ְ ‫ֶך י‬ ָ ‫ׁשלֹמֹה ב‬ ְ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם ִּכי ִמימֵי‬ ָ ‫“( ִּב‬There was great rejoicing in Jerusalem, for since the time of King Solomon, son of David of Israel, nothing like it had happened in Jerusalem”). 7 In so writing, the Chronicler invites us to contemplate the greatness of Hezekiah that enabled him to bring about a spiritual renewal, the likes of which had not been seen since the golden age of Solomon. This specific link serves as a springboard for the 3.  Ibid., 22. 4.  For the Joshua-Moses analogies, see E. Assis, From Moses to Joshua and from the Miraculous to the Ordinary: A Literary Analysis of the Conquest Narrative in the Book of Joshua (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005) [Heb.]. 5.  For the Elijah-Moses analogies see, among many others, G. Fohrer, Elia, ATANT 31 (Zurich: Zwingli, 1957), 48–51. 6.  There are, of course, a few exceptions. For example, see G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB12/2 (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 786–87, on the David-Solomon succession being modeled after that of Moses-Joshua and on the internal parallels in Chronicles between the reigns of David and Solomon. For the former phenomenon, see already H. G. M. Williamson, “The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” VT 26 (1976): 351–61. For the latter phenomenon, see S. Zalewski, “Now Rise Up, O Lord, and Go to Your Resting Place”: A Literary Study of the Ark Narrative in the Book of Chronicles (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press, 2008), passim [Heb.]. See De Vries’s insight on the analogical significance of 1 Chr 28:19: S. J. De Vries, “Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles,” JBL 107 (1988): 626. 7.  Rejoicing in the context of worship is a recurring theme in Chronicles; see J.  C. Endres, “The Spiritual Vision of Chronicles: Wholehearted, Joy-Filled Worship of God,” CBQ 69 (2007): 1–21. Nevertheless, 2 Chr 30:26 remains the only description of joy that is specifically linked to a previous occasion.

Hezekiah’s Cultic Reforms in the Book of Chronicles

191

search for additional links between Hezekiah and Solomon as well as between Hezekiah and David. Throntveit surveys the main positions regarding the shaping of Hezekiah’s character in Chronicles. 8 According to Mosis, the Chronicler’s aim was to compare Hezekiah with David, whereas according to Williamson, the Chronicler was interested primarily in presenting Hezekiah in terms reminiscent of Solomon. Throntveit himself stakes out a middle position, arguing that there are common elements between Hezekiah and both of his distinguished predecessors. Throntveit also advances the methodological discussion by offering useful criteria for determining which of the proposed analogies between Hezekiah, David, and Solomon are indeed valid and convincing. Put simply, Throntveit correctly insists that any specific proposed analogy must be unique to Chronicles and also unique to the Chronicler’s descriptions of Hezekiah, David, and/or Solomon. 9 Despite Throntveit’s methodological care, however, occasionally he also accepts analogies that are not sufficiently salient or meaningful to be considered intentional on the part of the author. I shall suffice with two short examples. 2 Chr 31:7–8 states: ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ְב‬ ִ ׁ‫ׁשי ֵהחֵּלּו ָהעֲרֵמֹות ְליִּסֹוד ּובַחֹדֶׁש ַהּש‬ ִ ‫ְל‬ ִ ׁ‫ּבַחֹדֶׁש ַהּש‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫יְהוָה ְואֵת עַּמֹו י‬-‫ָרכּו אֶת‬ ְ ‫ ָהעֲרֵמֹות ַו ְיב‬-‫ָרים ַוּי ְִראּו אֶת‬ ִׂ‫ְקּיָהּו ְו ַהּש‬ ִ ‫ְחז‬ ִ ‫ ַוּיָבֹאּו י‬:‫“( ִּכּלּו‬In the third month the heaps began to accumulate, and were finished in the seventh month. When Hezekiah and the officers came and saw the heaps, they blessed the Lord and his people Israel”). Throntveit is prepared to recognize analogies between Hezekiah’s blessing and those of David and Solomon in the ark narrative and at the temple dedication, respectively (1 Chr 16:2; 2 Chr 6:3). 10 Now, while it is true that the Chronicler wished to connect David and Solomon with each other in this matter, the case of Hezekiah differs. For what is spoken of in the latter context is neither a particular ceremony or gathering nor a special blessing of the people by the king; it is a “blessing” in the sense of words of praise directed to Yahweh and his people by Hezekiah and the officers. In similar fashion, I do not see a justification for regarding the mention of “shields” in the list of Hezekiah’s treasures (2 Chr 32:27) as an intentional analogy to Solomon’s famous gold shields, 11 since the latter are presented in some detail within an extended description of opulence (2 Chr 9:13–20), as opposed to Hezekiah’s, which are practically mentioned in passing. 8. M.  A. Throntveit, “The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein, ed. M. P. Graham et al., JSOTSup 371 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 105–21. 9.  Ibid., 107. 10.  Ibid., 117. 11.  Ibid., 116, following R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC 15 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 229.

192

David A. Glatt-Gilad

I now proceed to offer a slightly more refined literary model for the analogies between Hezekiah and David and Solomon. As is well known, 2 Chronicles 29–31 divides naturally according to content, with ch. 29 dealing with the purification of the temple, ch. 30 with the celebration of the Passover, and ch. 31 with the establishment of permanent arrangements for the ongoing management of the cult. Within these chapters, I find 7 analogies in ch.  29 and another 5 in chs. 30–31, for a total of 12 analogies, which I adduce here with supporting arguments. An appropriate starting point is Hezekiah’s first project—namely, purifying the temple. The motif of concern for the cult as a first royal act ties Hezekiah to both David and Solomon in Chronicles. 12 Hezekiah’s direct appeal to the Levites, expressed in the phrase “Listen to me, Levites” (2 Chr 29:5), evokes associations with David, who spoke directly to the entire assembly of Israel (1 Chr 13:2), and with Solomon, who turned directly to “all Israel, the officers of thousands and of hundreds,” before heading to offer sacrifices on the altar at Gibeon (2 Chr 1:2). All the verses just cited are unique to Chronicles. However, it is still necessary to refine and anchor the special analogies that exist between Hezekiah, David, and Solomon, because Asa’s reign also opens in Chronicles with steps taken to purify the cult that were accompanied by a personal appeal from the king to the people (2 Chr 14:1–3). (1) The first analogy that meets both of our methodological provisions is found in Hezekiah’s recollection of the deplorable religious situation that existed in the days of his immediate predecessor, Ahaz. Similarly, the Chronicler’s David refers to the religious situation pertaining to Saul’s days in a negative light. 13 2 Chr 29:6–7 1 Chr 13:3 ְ ַ‫לֹא ְדר‬-‫ ִּכי‬ ‫אֲרֹון אֱלֹהֵינּו ֵאלֵינּו‬-‫ ְונָ ֵסּבָה אֶת‬3 -‫ ָמעֲלּו אֲבֹתֵ ינּו ְועָׂשּו הָרַ ע ְּבעֵינֵי יְהוָה‬-‫ ִּכי‬6 ‫ׁש־‬ :‫ׁשאּול‬ ָ ‫נֻהּו ִּבימֵי‬  ‫ׁשּכַן יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫אֱלֹהֵינּו ַוּיַ ַע ְזבֻהּו ַוּיַּסֵּבּו ְפנֵיהֶם ִמ ִּמ‬ ‫ָגרּו ּדַ ְלתֹות הָאּולָם ַו ְיכַּבּו‬ ְ ‫ ּגַם ס‬7 :‫עֹרֶף‬-‫ִּתנּו‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ ֶהעֱלּו‬-‫ּוקטֹרֶת לֹא ִה ְק ִטירּו ְועֹלָה לֹא‬ ְ ‫ ַהּנֵרֹות‬-‫אֶת‬ :‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫בַּקֹדֶׁש לֵאלֹהֵי י‬ 

Although these verses do not share linguistic parallels, they nevertheless represent the only cases in Chronicles in which a king is said to refer directly to the cultic situation during the time of his immediate predecessor (for Ahaz’s closing of the temple doors, see 2 Chr 28:24). 12. See M.  Cogan, “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by NeoAssyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. J. H. Tigay (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 198–207. 13.  See M. P. Graham, “Setting the Heart to Seek God: Worship in 2 Chronicles 30.1– 31.1,” in Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis, ed. M. P. Graham et al., JSOTSup 284 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 131–32.

Hezekiah’s Cultic Reforms in the Book of Chronicles

193

(2) The second analogy is seemingly a mere stylistic issue; however, a proper appreciation reveals its ideational significance. In his address to the Levites, Hezekiah invokes the expression ‫עם לבבי‬, just as did David before him. 2 Chr 29:10 ‫ָבי ִל ְכרֹות ְּבִרית לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי‬ ִ ‫לב‬-‫ם‬ ְ ‫ ע ַָּתה ִע‬10 ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ‫י‬

1 Chr 22:7; 28:2 -‫אנִי ָהיָה ִעם‬ ֲ )‫(ּבנִי‬ ְ ‫ׁשלֹמֹה בנו‬ ְ ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר ָּדִויד ִל‬7 :‫ָבי ִל ְבנֹות ַּביִת ְלׁשֵם יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי‬ ִ ‫ְלב‬ ְ ‫ָקם ָּדִויד ַה ֶּמל‬ ‫ׁשמָעּונִי‬ ְ ‫רַ ְגלָיו וַּיֹאמֶר‬-‫ֶך עַל‬ ָ ‫ ַוּי‬2 ‫ָבי ִל ְבנֹות ּבֵית ְמנּוחָה‬ ִ ‫לב‬-‫ם‬ ְ ‫אנִי ִע‬ ֲ  ‫ַאחַי ְוע ִַּמי‬ ‫יְהוָה‬-‫ַלאֲרֹון ְּבִרית‬

The expression ‫עם לבבי‬, which does not appear in the words of any other king in Chronicles besides Hezekiah and David (with the exception of Solomon, who is quoting David, 2 Chr 6:7), underscores the special dedication of these two kings to the service of Yahweh. Both kings set themselves a lofty goal and did not desist from it. (3) The account of Hezekiah’s temple purification describes a mass ritual sanctification of the Levites, undertaken as an essential first step toward readying the temple. The only precedent in Chronicles for a ritual sanctification on this scale is the unique remark in 2 Chr 5:11 concerning the priests at Solomon’s temple dedication. 14 2 Chr 29:14–15, 34  ‫ׁש ְמ ִעי‬ ִ ‫ְחיאֵל) ְו‬ ִ ‫ּבנֵי הֵימָן יחואל (י‬-‫ן‬ ְ ‫ּומ‬ ִ 14 -‫ ַוּיַא ְַספּו אֶת‬15 :‫עּזִיאֵל‬ ֻ ‫ׁשמ ְַעיָה ְו‬ ְ ‫ּבנֵי יְדּותּון‬-‫ן‬ ְ ‫ּומ‬ ִ ְ ‫ ַה ֶּמל‬-‫ִתקַ ְּדׁשּו ַוּיָבֹאּו ְכ ִמ ְצוַת‬ ‫ֶך ְּב ִד ְברֵ י‬ ְ ‫אחֵיהֶם ַוּי‬ ֲ :‫יְהוָה ְל ַטהֵר ּבֵית יְהוָה‬ ‫ִׁשרֵ י‬ ְ ‫הנִים ִּכי ה ְַלִוּיִם י‬ ֲֹ ‫ִתקַ ְּדׁשּו הַּכ‬ ְ ‫ ְועַד י‬. . . 34 :‫הנִים‬ ֲֹ ‫ֵלבָב ְל ִה ְתקַ ּדֵ ׁש ֵמהַּכ‬

2 Chr 5:11 -‫הַּקֹדֶׁש ִּכי ּכָל‬-‫הנִים ִמן‬ ֲֹ ‫ְהי ְּבצֵאת הַּכ‬ ִ ‫ ַוי‬11 ‫ׁשמֹור‬ ְ ‫ִמ ְצ ִאים ִה ְתקַ ָּדׁשּו אֵין ִל‬ ְ ‫הנִים ַהּנ‬ ֲֹ ‫הַּכ‬ :‫ְלמ ְַח ְלקֹות‬

(4) Hezekiah is described as carrying out the cultic legacy of David. 15 He was the first king in Chronicles to do so since Solomon (2 Chr 8:14) and would be followed in this regard only by Josiah (2 Chr 35:4, 15). 16 14.  See B.  Halpern, “Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles’ Thematic Structure— Indications of an Earlier Source,” in The Creation of Sacred Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text, ed. R. E. Friedman, University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 22 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 50. 15.  A pertinent observation is made here by S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles, OTL (London: SCM, 1993), 928: “This passage places great emphasis on the role of David and the precedents he established. David is mentioned four times in vv. 25–30, the most condensed distribution of Davidic references outside his own story.” 16.  In this sense, it is perhaps more accurate to view Josiah as a second Hezekiah. Contrariwise, the seemingly similar case of Jehoiada, the high priest (2 Chr 23:18), cannot be admitted into the comparison. Although according to the Chronicler, Jehoiada was accorded

194

David A. Glatt-Gilad

2 Chr 29:25–27, 30 ‫ה ְַלִוּיִם ּבֵית יְהוָה ִּב ְמ ִצ ְלּתַ יִם‬-‫ ַוּיַעֲמֵד אֶת‬25 ‫ ַוּיַע ְַמדּו‬26 . . . ‫ּוב ִכּנֹרֹות ְּב ִמ ְצוַת ָּדִויד‬ ְ ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫ִּב ְנב‬ :‫הנִים ַּבחֲצ ֹ ְצרֹות‬ ֲֹ ‫ה ְַלִוּיִם ִּב ְכלֵי ָדִויד ְוהַּכ‬ ‫יְהוָה‬-‫ׁשיר‬ ִ ‫ּובעֵת ֵהחֵל הָעֹולָה ֵהחֵל‬ ְ . . . 27 ְ ‫יְדֵ י ְּכלֵי ָּדִויד ֶמל‬-‫ְו ַהחֲצ ֹ ְצרֹות ְועַל‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫י‬-‫ֶך‬ ְ ‫ְקּיָהּו ַה ֶּמל‬ ‫ָרים ל ְַלִוּיִם ְל ַהּלֵל‬ ִׂ‫ֶך ְו ַהּש‬ ִ ‫ְחז‬ ִ ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר י‬30 . . . ‫לַיהוָה ְּב ִד ְברֵ י ָדִויד ְו ָאסָף הַחֹזֶה‬

1 Chr 25:1 ‫ׂשרֵי ַה ָּצבָא ַלעֲב ָֹדה ִל ְבנֵי ָאסָף‬ ָ ‫ ַוּי ְַבּדֵ ל ָּדִויד ְו‬1 ‫ִּב ִאים) ְּב ִכּנֹרֹות‬ ְ ‫ְוהֵימָן ִוידּותּון הנביאים ( ַהּנ‬ . . . ‫ּוב ְמ ִצ ְל ָּתיִם‬ ִ ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫ִּב ְנב‬

(5) The scene of mass prostration as the sacrifices were being consumed and while the people were praising the Lord clearly links back to the Chronicler’s unique description of the climax of Solomon’s temple dedication and marks Hezekiah’s rededication of the temple as an event of great national significance. 17 2 Chr 29:28–30 2 Chr 7:3 ‫ּוכבֹוד‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ר ִֹאים ְּב ֶרדֶת ָהאֵׁש‬ ְ ‫ ְוכֹל ְּבנֵי י‬3 :‫ עַד ִל ְכלֹות הָעֹלָה‬. . . ‫ֲוים‬ ִ‫ׁשּתַ ח‬ ְ ‫ה ַָּקהָל ִמ‬-‫ ְוכָל‬28 ְ ‫ָרעּו ַה ֶּמל‬ ִ‫ה‬-‫ִכ ְרעּו ַא ַּפיִם א ְַרצָה עַל‬ ְ ‫ ַה ָּביִת ַוּי‬-‫יְהוָה עַל‬ ְ�‫ ַה ִּנמ‬-‫ֶך ְוכָל‬ ְ ‫ ּכ‬ ‫ּוככַּלֹות ְל ַהעֲלֹות‬ ְ 29 ‫ָר ְצפָה‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬  -‫ ַו ְיה ְַללּו עַד‬. . . 30 :‫ִׁשּתַ חֲוּו‬ ְ ‫ ְצ ִאים ִאּתֹו ַוּי‬:‫ִׁשּתַ חֲוּו ְוהֹדֹות לַיהוָה ִּכי טֹוב ִּכי ְלעֹולָם ח ְַסּדֹו‬ :‫ִׁשּתַ חֲוּו‬ ְ ‫ִּקדּו ַוּי‬ ְ ְ ‫ל ִׂש ְמחָה ַוּי‬ 

(6) Similarly, the description of the unusually large number of sacrifices that were brought by the people to Hezekiah’s rededication ceremony recalls a similar scene in Solomon’s time as sketched by the Chronicler. To be sure, the quantity of sacrifices offered at Solomon’s temple dedication remains unique. Nevertheless, in both cases, the great pressure caused by the large number of sacrifices led to an ad hoc solution. With Solomon, the extra sacrifices were offered in the temple courtyard instead of on the copper altar, and with Hezekiah, the Levites assisted the priests in stripping the many burnt offerings. 2 Chr 29:32–34 2 Chr 7:4–5, 7 ְ ‫ ְו ַה ֶּמל‬4 :‫ ָהעָם ז ְֹב ִחים זֶבַח ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬-‫ֶך ְוכָל‬ ‫ָקר‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר ה ִֵביאּו ה ַָּקהָל ּב‬ ֶ ‫ְהי ִמ ְסּפַר הָעֹלָה א‬ ִ ‫ ַוי‬32 ְ ‫ֶׂשִרים‬ ְ ‫ָקר ע‬ ָ ‫זֶבַח ַהּב‬-‫ׁשלֹמֹה אֶת‬ ְ ‫ ַו ִּי ְזּבַח ַה ֶּמלֶך‬5 ‫ָאתיִם ְלעֹלָה‬ ָ ‫ָׂשים מ‬ ִ ‫ֵילים ֵמאָה ְּכב‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְב ִעים א‬ ִ . . . ‫ֶׂשִרים ָאלֶף‬ ְ ‫ּוׁשנַיִם ֶאלֶף ְוצֹאן ֵמאָה ְוע‬ ְ ‫ָקר ׁשֵׁש מֵאֹות‬ ָ ‫ׁשים ּב‬ ִ ‫ ְוהֳַּק ָד‬33 :‫ ֵאּלֶה‬-‫לַיהוָה ּכָל‬ ְ ֶ ‫ּתֹוך ֶה ָחצֵר א‬-‫ֶת‬ ‫ׁשלֹמֹה א‬ ְ ‫ ַויְקַ ּדֵ ׁש‬7 ‫הנִים הָיּו ִל ְמעָט‬ ֲֹ ‫ רַ ק הַּכ‬34 :‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ׁשת‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ׁשל‬ ְ ‫ ְוצֹאן‬-‫ֲׁשר ִל ְפנֵי בֵית‬ ִ ‫ֶלבֵי ַהּשְׁל‬ ְ ‫ׁשם הָעֹלֹות ְואֵת ח‬ ָ ‫ָׂשה‬ ָ ‫ע‬-‫יְהוָה ִּכי‬ ‫הָעֹלֹות ַו ְי ַחּזְקּום‬-‫ּכָל‬-‫ׁשיט אֶת‬ ִ ‫ָכלּו ְלה ְַפ‬ ְ ‫ָמים ְולֹא י‬ ‫ׁשלֹמֹה לֹא יָכֹול‬ ְ ‫ָׂשה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר ע‬ ֶ ‫ׁשת א‬ ֶ ֹ ‫מ ְזּבַח ַהּנְח‬-‫י‬ ִ ‫ִּכ‬ . . . ‫אחֵיהֶם ה ְַלִוּיִם‬ ֲ :‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫חל‬ ֲ ‫ ַה‬-‫ה ִַּמ ְנחָה ְואֶת‬-‫הָעֹלָה ְואֶת‬-‫ָכיל אֶת‬ ִ ‫לה‬  ְ royal honors at his burial (2 Chr 24:16), he is still not to be regarded as a full-fledged Davidic monarch. 17.  The description of the descent of heavenly fire and the immanent presence of God’s kābôd at Solomon’s dedication links up in turn with the priestly account of the dedication of the wilderness tabernacle (Lev 9:23–24).

Hezekiah’s Cultic Reforms in the Book of Chronicles

195

(7) Williamson notes that the Chronicler emphasizes the successful conclusion of both Hezekiah’s and Solomon’s temple projects using similar language. 18 2 Chr 29:35 :‫יְהוָה‬-‫ ו ִַּתּכֹון עֲבֹודַ ת ּבֵית‬. . . 35

2 Chr 8:16 ‫הַּיֹום מּוסַד‬-‫ׁשלֹמֹה עַד‬ ְ ‫מלֶאכֶת‬-‫ָל‬ ְ ‫ ו ִַּתּכֹן ּכ‬16 :‫ׁשלֵם ּבֵית יְהוָה‬ ָ ‫ּכלֹתֹו‬-‫ַד‬ ְ ‫יְהוָה ְוע‬-‫ּבֵית‬ 

The completion phrase ′‫ ותכון כל עבודת ה‬will be used again in Chronicles only in describing Josiah’s Passover (2 Chr 35:16), where the reference is specifically to the paschal sacrifice and accompanying burnt offerings, however, rather than to the complete (re)dedication of the temple. The remaining five analogies are located in 2 Chronicles 30–31, with those in ch. 30 all being related to Solomon’s temple dedication. (8) The addition of seven days to the Passover holiday mentioned in 2 Chr 30:23 is analogous to the two weeks of joy that were celebrated at the time of Solomon’s temple dedication. 19 2 Chr 30:23 2 Chr 7:9 ‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְבעַת י‬ ִ ‫ה ַָּקהָל ַלעֲׂשֹות‬-‫ ַו ִּיָּועֲצּו ּכָל‬23 ‫ָמים ְו ֶהחָג‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְבעַת י‬ ִ ‫חנֻּכַת ה ִַּמ ְזּב ֵַח עָׂשּו‬ ֲ ‫ ִּכי‬. . . 9 :‫ָמים ִׂש ְמחָה‬ ִ ‫י‬-‫ׁש ְבעַת‬ ִ ‫אחִֵרים ַוּיַעֲׂשּו‬ ֲ  :‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְבעַת י‬ ִ

(9) 2 Chr 30:26 explicity compares the joy in the days of Hezekiah with the joy in the time of Solomon, which of course is a reference back to Solomon’s temple dedication. 2 Chr 30:26 2 Chr 7:10 ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם ִּכי ִמימֵי‬ ָ ‫גדֹולָה ִּב‬-‫ָה‬ ְ ‫ ו ְַּת ִהי ִׂש ְמח‬26 ‫ׁשּלַח‬ ִ ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ְב‬ ִ ׁ‫ׁשה לַחֹדֶׁש ַהּש‬ ָ ֹ ‫ּוׁשל‬ ְ ‫ֶׂשִרים‬ ְ ‫ּוביֹום ע‬ ְ 10 ְ ‫ּדִויד ֶמל‬-‫ֶן‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל לֹא כָזֹאת‬ ְ ‫ֶך י‬ ָ ‫ׁשלֹמֹה ב‬ ְ . . . ‫הלֵיהֶם ְׂשמ ִֵחים ְוטֹובֵי לֵב‬ ֳ ‫ ָהעָם ְל ָא‬-‫אֶת‬ :‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ָ ‫ּב‬  ִ

(10) The statement in 2 Chr 30:27 referring to the outcome of the blessing by the priests and Levites of the people shows the fulfillment of the recurring refrain in Solomon’s prayer at the time of the temple dedication. 2 Chr 30:27 ‫ ָהעָם‬-‫ָרכּו אֶת‬ ְ ‫הנִים ה ְַלִוּיִם ַו ְיב‬ ֲֹ ‫ָקמּו הַּכ‬ ֻ‫ ַוּי‬27 ‫ָתם ִל ְמעֹון ָק ְדׁשֹו‬ ָ ‫ַו ִּיּשָׁמַע ְּבקֹולָם ו ַָּתבֹוא ְת ִפּל‬ :‫ ַלּשָׁ ָמיִם‬ 

2 Chr 6:35, 39 . . . ‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫ּת ִפּל‬-‫ֶת‬ ְ ‫ ַהּשָׁ ַמיִם א‬-‫ׁשמ ְַע ָּת ִמן‬ ָ ‫ ְו‬35 -‫ׁש ְב ְּתךָ אֶת‬ ִ ‫ּשׁ ַמיִם ִמ ְּמכֹון‬ ָ ‫ ַה‬-‫ׁשמ ְַע ָּת ִמן‬ ָ ‫ ְו‬39 . . . ‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫ְּת ִפּל‬

18.  See H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (London: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 122; Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 931. 19. See idem, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 371.

196

David A. Glatt-Gilad

(11) 2 Chr 31:2–3 describes Hezekiah’s scrupulousness in fixing the rotating divisions of the priests and Levites and his personal concern for supplying the regular permanent sacrifices. This policy overlaps precisely with Solomon’s actions as described in 2 Chr 8:13–14. In addition, the list of the various sacrifices in 2 Chr 31:3 is identical to the list in Solomon’s message to Hiram, when Solomon spelled out his intentions to establish the orderly sacrificial cult in the temple that he was intending to build (2 Chr 2:3). 20 2 Chr 31:2–3 2 Chr 8:14; 2:3 ‫מ ְַח ְלקֹות‬-‫ָביו אֶת‬ ִ ‫א‬-‫ׁשּפַט ָּדִויד‬ ְ ‫ ַוּיַעֲמֵד ְּכ ִמ‬14 ‫הנִים ְוה ְַלִוּיִם‬ ֲֹ ‫מ ְַח ְלקֹות הַּכ‬-‫ְקּיָהּו אֶת‬ ִ ‫ְחז‬ ִ ‫ ַוּיַעֲמֵד י‬2 ָ ‫ׁש ְמ‬ ְ ‫מ‬-‫ַל‬ ִ ‫עֲב ָֹד ָתם ְוה ְַלִוּיִם ע‬-‫הנִים עַל‬ ֲֹ ‫הַּכ‬ ‫ּומנָת‬ ְ 3 . . . ‫קֹותם ִאיׁש ְּכ ִפי עֲב ָֹדתֹו‬ ָ ‫מ ְַח ְל‬-‫ עַל‬. . . ‫רֹותם‬ ְ ‫ַה ֶּמל‬ ‫ ְוע ֹ־‬. . . ‫ ַּביִת ְלׁשֵם יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי‬-‫אנִי בֹונֶה‬ ֲ ‫ ִהּנֵה‬3 ‫רכּוׁשֹו לָעֹלֹות ְלעֹלֹות הַּב ֶֹקר ְו ָה ֶערֶב‬-‫ן‬ ְ ‫ֶך ִמ‬ ְ ‫ׁשים‬ ִ ‫ֳד‬ ָ ‫לֹות לַּבֹקֶר ְו ָל ֶערֶב ַלּשַּׁבָתֹות ְו ֶלח‬ . . . ‫ֲדים‬ ִ ‫ׁשים ְולַּמֹע‬ ִ ‫ֳד‬ ָ ‫ּולמֹועֲדֵ י ְוהָעֹלֹות ַלּשַּׁבָתֹות ְו ֶלח‬ . . . ‫יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינו‬ 

(12) Finally, Hezekiah’s establishment of chambers in the temple for storing holy gifts and tithes as well as his appointment of gate-keeper Levites to supervise the donations (2 Chr 31:11–12, 14) create a clear analogy to David’s innovations. For example, in 1 Chr 9:22 and 26, the establishment of the class of gate-keeper Levites and of their areas of responsibility are attributed to David and Samuel. In that text as well, the motif of ‫ אמונה‬is accentuated (as in 2 Chr 31:12), expressing the idea that the Levites fulfilled their task with complete trustworthiness. This motif recurs in Chronicles only later in the story of Josiah’s temple repair (2 Chr 34:12). 2 Chr 31:11–12, 14 1 Chr 9:22, 26 ‫ֲרים ּב ִַּס ִּפים מָאתַ יִם‬ ִ‫רּורים ְלׁשֹע‬ ִ ‫ ֻּכּלָם ה ְַּב‬22 ‫ׁשכֹות ְּבבֵית יְהוָה‬ ָ ‫ָכין ְל‬ ִ ‫ְקּיָהּו ְלה‬ ִ ‫ְחז‬ ִ ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר י‬11 ָ ‫ָׂשר ֵהּמָה ְבח ְַצרֵיהֶם ִה ְתי ְַח‬ ָ ‫ּוׁשנֵים ע‬ ְ ‫ה ְַּתרּומָה ְו ַה ַּמעֲׂשֵ ר‬-‫ָביאּו אֶת‬ ִ ‫ ַוּי‬12 :‫ָכינּו‬ ִ ‫ׂשם ֵהּמָה ִיּסַד ַוּי‬ :‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫ּוׁשמּואֵל הָרֹאֶה ֶּבאֱמּונ‬ ְ ‫ָּדִויד‬ ‫ִמנָה‬ ְ ‫י‬-‫ ְוקֹורֵ א בֶן‬14 . . . ‫ׁשים ֶּבאֱמּונָה‬ ִ ‫ְוהֳַּק ָד‬ ִ‫ ִּכי ֶבאֱמּונָה ֵהּמָה א ְַר ַּבעַת ִּגּבֹרֵי ַהּשֹׁע‬26 ‫ִדבֹות ָהאֱל ִֹהים לָתֵ ת‬ ְ ‫ְרחָה עַל נ‬ ָ ‫ֲרים הֵם ַהּלִֵוי ַהּשֹׁועֵר ל ִַּמז‬ ‫ׁשכֹות ְועַל הָא ֹ ְצרֹות ּבֵית‬ ָ ‫ה ְַּל‬-‫ה ְַלִוּיִם ְוהָיּו עַל‬ :‫ׁשים‬ ִ ‫ּתרּומַת יְהוָה ְו ָק ְדׁשֵי הֳַּק ָד‬  ְ :‫ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬

The question that arises is, what message did the Chronicler wish to articulate to his contemporaries through the creation of the above analogies? How does the shaping of history in this case contribute toward furthering the goals and self-understanding of the Judean community of the 4th century b.c.e.? In this context, it is worth considering that Hezekiah’s reign took place at an extremely critical crossroads in the history of Israel—in a period when, for the first time in more than 200 years, an opportunity arose to heal the historic division of the people and to unite everyone around the temple in Jerusa20.  For both points, see ibid., 373.

Hezekiah’s Cultic Reforms in the Book of Chronicles

197

lem. It seems that the Chronicler, who championed an inclusive outlook, 21 identified with this period and related to it not only as a return to the glory days of David and Solomon but also as a model for a similar trend that appeared closer to his own time. I refer here to the description of the drawing up of the ămānâ in Nehemiah 10. The memory of that lofty occasion, connected to the activity of Nehemiah made a stark impression on the following generations, during which time the book of Chronicles was composed. In my opinion, the Chronicler was intent on making a connection between the popular rallying around the temple in the days of Hezekiah and the spirit of unity vis-à-vis the temple that he sought to inspire in his own time. In literary terms, the Chronicler expressed this connection by creating analogies between the popular response to Hezekiah’s temple-related initiatives on the one hand and the relatively recent Nehemiah covenant on the other hand. 22 In so doing, the Chronicler was hinting that the ideal of national and cultic unity need not be perceived only as a utopia belonging to the distant past but as an attainable goal in the present—as long as the community remained faithful to the spirit of the ămānâ. It is no wonder that the parallels to the ămānâ that the Chronicler wove into his presentation are concentrated in 2 Chronicles 31, since this is where the widespread participation in matters related to the upkeep of the temple reaches a climax. I already noted that the list of permanent sacrifices that appears in 2  Chr 31:3 is identical to the list found in the context of Solomon’s temple preparations (analogy 11, above). Here we may add that the same list appears once again as part of the commitments undertaken by the people in the ămānâ (Neh 10:34). 2 Chr 31:3 ְ ‫ּומנָת ַה ֶּמל‬ ‫רכּוׁשֹו לָעֹלֹות ְלעֹלֹות הַּב ֶֹקר‬-‫ן‬ ְ ‫ֶך ִמ‬ ְ 3 ‫ׁשים‬ ִ ‫ֳד‬ ָ ‫ְו ָה ֶערֶב ְוהָעֹלֹות ַלּשַּׁבָתֹות ְו ֶלח‬ . . . ‫ֲדים‬ ִ ‫ְולַּמֹע‬

Neh 10:34 ‫ּולעֹולַת‬ ְ ‫ַּת ִמיד‬ ָ ‫ּומ ְנחַת ה‬ ִ ‫ ְל ֶלחֶם ַה ַּמעֲ ֶרכֶת‬34 . . . ‫ֲדים‬ ִ ‫ׁשים לַּמֹוע‬ ִ ‫ֳד‬ ָ ‫ַּת ִמיד ַהּשַּׁבָתֹות ֶהח‬ ָ‫ה‬

The bringing of various tithes to the temple storerooms also serves as a clear parallel between the actions of Hezekiah’s generation (2 Chr 31:5–6, 11–12) and Nehemiah’s generation (Neh 10:38, 40). 21.  See R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM, 1994), 2.547–53; D. A. Glatt-Gilad, “Chronicles as Consensus Literature,” in What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? ed. E. Ben Zvi and D. Edelman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 67–75. 22.  This reconstruction presumes that a written account of the Nehemiah covenant was available to the Chronicler. For a defense of this admittedly speculative position, see the appendix at the end of this article.

198

David A. Glatt-Gilad

2 Chr 31:5–6, 11–12 Neh 10:38, 40 ‫ּופִרי‬ ְ ‫ּותרּומֹתֵ ינּו‬ ְ ‫ֲריסֹתֵ ינּו‬ ִ‫ֵאׁשית ע‬ ִ ‫ר‬-‫ ְואֶת‬38 ‫אׁשית ָּדגָן‬ ִ ֵ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ר‬ ְ ‫י‬-‫ ְו ִכ ְפר ֹץ הַָּדבָר ִה ְרּבּו ְבנֵי‬5 ְ ‫ל‬-‫ֶל‬ ִ ‫הנִים א‬ ֲֹ ‫ָביא לַּכ‬ ִ ‫ִצהָר נ‬ ְ ‫עֵץ ִּתירֹוׁש ְוי‬-‫כָל‬ ‫ׂשדֶה ּומ ְַעׂשַ ר‬ ָ ‫ּודבַׁש ְוכֹל ְּתבּואַת‬ ְ ‫ִצהָר‬ ְ ‫ׁשכֹות ִּתירֹוׁש ְוי‬ . . . ‫אֱלֹהֵינּו‬-‫ּבֵית‬ ‫יהּודה‬ ָ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ִו‬ ְ ‫ּובנֵי י‬ ְ 6 :‫הַּכֹל לָרֹב ה ִֵביאּו‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫י‬-‫ָביאּו ְבנֵי‬ ִ ‫ׁשכֹות י‬ ָ ‫ה ְַּל‬-‫ ִּכי אֶל‬40 ‫ָקר וָצֹאן‬ ָ ‫הֵם מ ְַעׂשַ ר ּב‬-‫ְהּודה ּגַם‬ ָ ‫ַּיֹוׁש ִבים ְּבעָרֵי י‬ ְ ‫ּובנֵי ַהּלִֵוי ה‬ . . . ‫ִצהָר‬ ְ ‫ּתרּומַת הַָּדגָן ה ִַּתירֹוׁש ְו ַהּי‬-‫ֶת‬ ְ ‫א‬ ‫ׁשים לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם‬ ִ ‫ֻּד‬ ָ‫ׁשים ה ְַמק‬ ִ ‫ּומ ְַעׂשַ ר ָק ָד‬ . . . ‫ה ִֵביאּו‬ ‫ׁשכֹות ְּבבֵית יְהוָה‬ ָ ‫ָכין ְל‬ ִ ‫ְקּיָהּו ְלה‬ ִ ‫ְחז‬ ִ ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר י‬11 ָ�‫ה ְַּתרּומָה ְו ַה ַּמעֲׂשֵ ר ְוהֳַּקד‬-‫ָביאּו אֶת‬ ִ ‫ ַוּי‬12 : ‫ָכינּו‬ ִ ‫ַוּי‬ . . . ‫ׁשים ֶּבאֱמּונָה‬  ִ

One could add a number of more subtle hints that point in the same direction. For example, the phrase ′‫ למען יחזקו בתורת ה‬in 2 Chr 31:4 that alludes to Hezekiah’s name may also be hinting at the dramatic description of the ămānâ’s acceptance in Neh 10:30, in which the nobles “strengthen” each other. 2 Chr 31:4 Neh 10:30 ‫ה־‬ ֲֹ ‫ְרּוׁש ִ ַלם לָתֵ ת ְמנָת הַּכ‬ ָ ‫יֹוׁשבֵי י‬ ְ ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר ָלעָם ְל‬4 ‫ָאים ְּב ָאלָה‬ ִ ‫אחֵיהֶם א ִַּדירֵיהֶם ּוב‬ ֲ -‫ִיקים עַל‬ ִ ‫חז‬ ֲ ‫ ַמ‬30 :‫נִים ְוה ְַלִוּיִם ְל ַמעַן יֶ ֶחזְקּו ְּבתֹורַ ת יְהוָה‬  ‫ִּתנָה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר נ‬ ֶ ‫ׁשבּועָה ָל ֶלכֶת ְּבתֹורַ ת ָהאֱל ִֹהים א‬ ְ ‫ּוב‬ ִ . . . ‫ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬-‫ׁשה ֶעבֶד‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ְּבי ַד מ‬

Indeed, the very motif of ‫“( אמונה‬steadfastness, trustworthiness”) in 2 Chr 31:12 that I mentioned above (analogy 12, relating to the reliability with which the temple storerooms were maintained), derives from the same root as ămānâ. 23 Finally, the verse that concludes the account of Hezekiah’s cultic reforms in Chronicles (2 Chr 31:21) serves as an apt summary of the two-pronged effect that the Chronicler was trying to achieve in portraying Hezekiah as both a worthy successor of David and Solomon in terms of his dedication to the temple, and a type of forerunner of the ămānâ generation in terms of his dedication to Torah. The verse reads, ‫ ָהאֱל ִֹהים ּובַּתֹורָה‬-‫ ֵהחֵל ַּבעֲבֹודַ ת ּבֵית‬-‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה א‬ ֶ ‫ ַמע‬-‫ּובכָל‬ ְ ‫ָׂשה ְו ִה ְצ ִלי ַח‬ ָ ‫לבָבֹו ע‬-‫ָל‬ ְ ‫“( ּוב ִַּמ ְצוָה ִל ְדרֹׁש לֵאלֹהָיו ְּבכ‬Every work he undertook in the service of the house of God or in the teaching and the commandment, to worship his God, he did with all his heart, and he prospered”). I propose that the term ‫ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬-‫ ַּבעֲבֹודַ ת ּבֵית‬alludes to Hezekiah’s imitation of David and Solomon, while the term ‫ ּובַּתֹורָה ּוב ִַּמ ְצוָה‬serves as a link to the revival represented by the ămānâ generation. Thus the Chronicler merged within the figure of Hezekiah the characteristics both of David and Solomon’s earlier period and of the generation of the ămānâ during a more-recent time, precisely in order to challenge his own contemporaries to renew their days as of old and to promote the spiritual achievements of the ămānâ generation. 24 23.  A further instance of the motif crops up in Neh 13:13; see Steins, Die Chronik, 209. 24. Actually, the ămānâ text itself reflects the combination of commitment to both temple and Torah.

Hezekiah’s Cultic Reforms in the Book of Chronicles

199

Appendix The relationship between Nehemiah 10 and the putatively authentic Nehemiah material is admittedly a complicated issue. The majority of scholars regard the ămānâ text per se (i.e., vv.  29–40, without getting into the additional issue of the origin of the list of signatories in vv. 2–28) as postdating the account of Nehemiah’s reforms as described in Nehemiah 5 and 13. For a representative sampling of this view, see U. Kellermann, Nehemiah Quellen: Überlieferung und Geschichte, BZAW 102 (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1967), 39–41; D.  J. A.  Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 199, 245; H.  G. M.  Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 330–31; L. Allen and T. Lanick, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 138–39; R. J. Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period, LHBOTS 471 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2009), 110. Nevertheless, even acceptance of this view need not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the ămānâ text is considerably later than the Nehemiah Memoir, as implied by J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 311–12; J. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8, BZAW 347 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 210; and J. L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers, BZAW 348 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 212–13. In addition, there is always the possibility that the ămānâ text is not an outgrowth of Nehemiah’s reported measures in ch.  13 but existed independently as an archival document; cf. L. L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, LSTS 47 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 1.313–15. Certainly, from an ideational point of view, the given arrangement of the ămānâ text makes a lot of sense. On the latter point, see J.  G. McConville, “Ezra–Nehemiah and the Fulfillment of Prophecy,” VT 36 (1986): 212 n. 22; T. C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra– Nehemiah, SBLMS 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 124–26; R. W. Klein, “Ezra–Nehemiah, Books of,” ABD 2.740–41; M. W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study, SBLDS 164 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 297–98. As for the dating of Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles relative to each other, the old view that the former represented a continuation of the same work as the latter has largely been abandoned. Among scholars who accept the notion of separate authorship for Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles, there is no air-tight conclusion regarding the priority of one over the other. In my opinion, the examples cited by P. L. Redditt (“The Dependence of Ezra–Nehemiah on 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. M. J. Boda and P. L. Redditt, Hebrew Bible Monograph 17

200

David A. Glatt-Gilad

[Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008], 229–33) are no more decisive than the evidence adduced by those who put Ezra–Nehemiah before Chronicles. For this latter view, see Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 27; Albertz, History of Israelite Religion, 2.545. Mention ought to be made of two intermediate positions. According to G. Steins (Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlussphänomen: Studien zur Ents­ tehung und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik, Bonner biblische Beiträge 93 [Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995]), the basic stratum of Chronicles is dependent on the basic stratum of Ezra–Nehemiah. However, each work has undergone common late cultic redactions. This model would apply as well to the specific case of the relationship between Nehemiah 10 and 2 Chronicles 31, for which see pp. 169–75, 206–10. According to Williamson (1 and 2 Chronicles, 16; idem, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxiii–xxxvi), the bulk of Chronicles (aside from a later, posited light Priestly redaction) was composed midway between the combination of the Ezra–Nehemiah material per se and the later introduction to the book of Ezra–Nehemiah—that is, Ezra 1–6.

Textual History through the Prism of Historical Linguistics: The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r Noam Mizrahi Tel-Aviv University To Zipi Talshir, ‫ָכמָה ְותֹורַ ת ֶחסֶד עַל ְלׁשֹונָּה‬ ְ ‫ָתחָה ְבח‬ ְ ‫ִּפי ָה ּפ‬

Introduction Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible is the application of a philological discipline. Text-critics acknowledge that the texts at their disposal are the end products of a long and sometimes very complicated chain of transmission that necessarily left its imprint on the final form of the received text. While the Urtext in its full extent remains beyond our reach, critical examination of the available textual witnesses and educated reconstruction of stages that are not recorded in the available evidence but should logically be deduced from it bring us closer to the early stages of the literary composition. In so doing, these textual witnesses allow us insight into the perturbed history of constant transformation that the texts have undergone since they were composed. By the same token, historical linguists of Hebrew also recognize that not only the texts but also the language system(s) they reflect are products of a long and complicated development, which can similarly be traced by critical examination of the textual evidence. The two endeavors are not identical: philologists are interested in the texts and use linguistic tools to understand given textual units better—their history and meaning for both the intended and subsequent audiences; whereas linguists are interested in the language and view the texts as specimens of linguistic utterances—that is, as carriers of linguistic information. Nevertheless, both disciplines share some fundamental features, most importantly their diachronic outlook and critical orientation, and scholars of both fields may often benefit from each other’s studies and results, especially when the combined force of 201

202

Noam Mizrahi

conclusions reached independently allows one to discern between early and late elements in the received texts. 1 Yet, even when such an exact intersection is not fully attainable, it is essential for scholars of both disciplines to be fully aware of the intricacies of the evidence in both respects and try to integrate them into the historical reconstruction of the development of the text and language of biblical literature. In the present essay, I aim at highlighting this aspect of the dialogue between the two disciplines by focusing on one case study—that is, the forms derived from the verbal roots that take the form of ‫זמר‬. As will be shown, the linguistic history of ‫ זמר‬has the potential to illuminate the complexity of the evidence and, thus, the nuanced methodology with which one should approach the evidence afforded by the biblical text. 2 Etymological Background Modern lexicons of Biblical Hebrew (BH) commonly distinguish among at least three homonymic roots represented by ‫ זמר‬according to their semantic range and etymological origin: 3   z-m-r1 “to sing, play, produce music,” a rather productive root in BH, retains the Proto-Semitic (PS) *z-m-r; cf. Arabic ‫“ َﺯ َﻣ َﺮ‬to pipe, play upon a reed.” 4 Its verbal derivative is in the D-stem (e.g., Judg 5:3; Isa 12:5; Ps 21:14), and its nominal derivatives include well-attested nouns such as ‫ִמ ָרה‬ ְ ‫“ ז‬song, singing” and ‫“ ִמזְמֹור‬psalm.”   z-m-r2 “to trim, prune,” likely developed from PS *z-b-r; cf. ‫َﺮ‬ َ ‫“ َﺯﺑ‬to trim vines” in dialects of Arabic that are spoken throughout the Levant. 5 This root coalesced 1.  See, for instance, J.  Joosten, “Textual History and Linguistic Developments: The Doublet in 2 Kgs 8:28–29 // 9:15–16 in Light of 2 Chr 22:5–6,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutensis, ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. Torijano Morales, JSJSup 157 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 133–45. 2.  The transliteration of Hebrew vowels followed in this essay departs from the common yet unfounded SBL system, which is unacceptable on both phonetic and historical grounds. The system used here aims at reflecting faithfully the seven vocalic qualities marked by the Tiberian Masoretes: /i/, /ɛ/ (ֶ), /e/, /u/, /o /, /a/, /ɔ/ (ָ). The so-called shwa mobile is transcribed, for heuristic purposes, as /ə/. Since the Tiberian vocalization system does not mark vowel length, any use of macrons (e.g., ā) refers, by definition, to an earlier, pre-Tiberian phase of the language (which is necessarily reconstructed). Consonantal aleph and ayin are transliterated by the IPA signs /ʔ/ and /ʕ/, respectively. Penultimate stress is marked by an acute accent when required; otherwise, the default ultimate stress is assumed. English translations of biblical passages are generally taken from the NRSV, often with modifications as deemed necessary. 3.  Cf., e.g., HALOT 273–74; C. Barth, “‫ זמר‬zmr,” TDOT 4.91–98, esp. p. 91. 4. E.  W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1863–93), 3.1250b. 5. R. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1881), 2.578; A. Barthélemy, Dictionnaire arabe-français: Dialectes de Syrie—Alep, Damas, Liban, Jérusalem (Paris: Geuthner, 1935–69), 307; A. Furaiḥa, A Dictionary of Non-Classical Vocables in the Spoken Arabic of Lebanon (Beirut:‎American University of Beirut,‎1947), 59 (in Ara-

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

203

into the other z-m-r roots due to a common yet inconsistent interchange between the labial consonants /b/ and /m/. The related active verb is in the G-stem (Lev 25:3–4), with its passive/reflexive counterpart in the N-stem (Isa 5:6), both referring specifically to trimming branches of vines. Its nominal derivatives include ‫“ ַמ ְזמֵרָה‬pruning knife” (Isa 18:5; cf. Isa 2:4 || Mic 4:3; Joel 4:10), and the term ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫“ ז‬pruning time” (Song 2:12). Another likely derivative is the substantive ‫ְמֹורה‬ ָ ‫“ ז‬branch” (Num 13:23; Isa 17:10; Ezek 8:17; 15:2; Nah 2:3), being the part of the vine subject to trimming.   z-m-r3 “to be powerful, protect” is probably a reflex of PS *δ-m-r; cf. Arabic ‫“ ِﺫﻣْﺮ‬courageous man.” 6 This root merged with the others due to a regular sound change that was operative in Northwest Semitic: PS *δ > Canaanite /z/. Its most famous nominal derivative is ‫ִמ ָרה‬ ְ ‫“ ז‬strength, protection” (Exod 15:2; Isa 12:2; Ps 118:14; see further below). It may also be embedded in several proper names, such as Zimri, which was the name of a few biblical individuals, one of whom was an Israelite king. 7

To be sure, the above reconstruction of three roots that presumably had distinct forms in the proto-language but all fell together in Hebrew (due to various phonological or phonetic reasons) is not without its problems. (a) The main difficulty pertains to the distinction between z-m-r1 and z-m-r3. Samuel E. Loewenstamm observed a problematic passage in a Ugaritic hymn to Il: dyšr w-yḏmr b-knr w-ṯlb b-tp w-mṣltm “who sings and plays the lyre and flute, the drum and cymbals” (CAT 1.108.3–5). 8 The musical context assures that the verb yḏmr 9—which makes its sole appearance here in Ugaritic literature—is the etymological and semantic equivalent of Hebrew yəzammer (from z-m-r1). 10 If so, both forms seem to go back to PS *δ-m-r and not to two distinct PS roots. It is far from clear, however, how this solitary usage in Ugaritic should be interpreted, especially since it contradicts so clearly the comparative evidence gleaned from other Semitic languages. Several explanations have been proposed, ranging from the dismissal of the single occurrence of ḏ-m-r as a scribal mistake on the one hand to its full embracing—thus giving up the bic; the original title is ‫ معجم االلفاظ العامية فى اللهجة اللبنانية‬،‫ ;أنيس فريحة‬I am indebted to Dr. Ingo Kottsieper, who referred my attention to this book). 6.  Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, 3:978a. 7.  See, e.g., S. M. Olyan, “2 Kings 9:31: Jehu as Zimri,” HTR 78 (1985): 203–7. 8. S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Lord Is My Strength and My Glory,” VT 19 (1969): 464– 70, esp. pp.  465–66; cf. idem, “A Ugaritic Hymn in Honour of Il,” Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures, AOAT 204 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1980), 320–33, esp. pp. 324–25. 9.  For possible vocalizations of this form, see D.  Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, HO 1/28 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 135. 10.  For the grammatical form, see Ps 30:13. A parallel for the whole poetic verse is furnished by Ps 144:9; note the parallelism between ‫ שיר‬and ‫ זמר‬as well as the explicit mention of musical instruments.

204

Noam Mizrahi

reconstruction of PS *z-m-r altogether—on the other. 11 In my opinion, it is best explained as a hypercorrection on the part of the scribe. There are clear indications that the sound change of PS *δ > Ug /z/ had already taken place by the time the texts were committed to writing, 12 but it is concealed to a large extent by the conservative orthography that dominates the literary texts (capturing an earlier phase of the language). The scribe, who was well aware that many words that he pronounced with /z/ were traditionally being written with , presumed that the old spelling should be applied for this case as well; the fact that the result is historically unjustifiable was, of course, far beyond his scope of knowledge, because he was not a comparative linguist. 13 (b) Another problem entails the ancestor of z-m-r2, reconstructed above as *z-b-r. Since the interchange of /b/ and /m/ is not a regular sound change, it is difficult to know the exact direction of the change. Theoretically, /m/ > /b/ and /b/ > /m/ are equally possible developments. However, the fact that z-b-r is attested in both Ugaritic (which is considerably older than BH) and Modern Arabic dialects (which are considerably later than BH) speaks in favor of the direction /b/ > /m/. Since these languages were never in contact, they may be considered independent witnesses, and conceivably their identical testimony points to the original form of the root in question. The change of PS *z-b-r > BH z-m-r can therefore be assumed to be a relatively late development, limited in geographical scope to Hebrew (or Canaanite) alone. It was probably motivated by assimilation of the labial /b/ to the manner of articulation of the following sonorant /r/, thus becoming /m/, which is both labial and sonorant. (c) Still other difficulties are encountered by the presumed derivatives of z-m-r2, because the semantic relation of some to the verbal derivatives is not always transparent. Most conspicuous in this regard is the sense of ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫( ז‬Song 11. J. Blau and J. C. Greenfield, “Ugaritic Glosses,” BASOR 200 (1970): 11–12; J. Blau, “‘Weak’ Phonetic Changes and the Hebrew śîn,” Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), 65–66; J. C. Greenfield, “To Praise the Might of Hadad,” ʿAl Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, ed. S. M. Paul, M.  E. Stone, and A.  Pinnick, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1.302–4. Compare with the concise summary of Sivan, Grammar of Ugaritic, 21–22. To be sure, the verb ḏ-m-r in the sense of “to defend” (which is equivalent to Hebrew z-m-r3, both being reflexes of PS *δ-m-r) is well attested in Ugaritic; see G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, 2nd ed., 2 vols.; HO 1/67 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1.287. It is also employed elsewhere in the aforementioned hymn to Il. 12.  Sivan, Grammar of Ugaritic, 20–22. Compare with the detailed treatment of J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, AOAT 273 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 115–19, §32.144.3. See also Gordon, UT 26–27, §5.3. 13.  Tropper (Ugaritische Grammatik, 117, §32.144.34) favors a phonetic explanation, noting that the verb ḏmr contains two sonorants. However, while it is widely acknowledged that historical /ḏ/ tends to be preserved in Ugaritic in the vicinity of /r/, I am unfamiliar with any other example in which /r/ causes an original /z/ to appear as /ḏ/. Hence, hypercorrection seems to me a simpler and more compelling explanation.

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

205

2:12; compare with the Gezer Calendar, line 6). As mentioned above, etymological considerations lead one to think that it originally denoted the agricultural season during which vines were being trimmed. But the trimming of vines is normally performed at the end of winter, whereas the description in the Song of Songs implies that ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫ ז‬refers to a period that falls in the spring, and the order of agricultural seasons in the Gezer Calendar suggests that the word spelled ‫ זמר‬refers to an action or a period that falls in the summer. The agricultural and calendrical aspects of this issue cannot be discussed fully in the present context, and I will limit myself to the linguistic observation that the sense of the term may have changed as time went by and from one geographical area to another (in accordance with local climatic conditions). Furthermore, the use of the term could have varied on the basis of the immediate literary and thematic context to which it was applied. Compare the term ‫קַ יִץ‬, which originally denoted the time of picking the ripe figs (Mic 7:1; cf. Isa 28:4, etc.) or referred to the picked fruit itself (2 Sam 16:1–2; Jer 40:10, 12; Amos 8:1–2), but in free usage its sense was extended so that it eventually came to denote the summer season (e.g., Gen 8:22). 14 To sum up, notwithstanding the objections that can be raised to the threefold reconstruction, it is supported by the majority of the etymological data, and it is also the most plausible on semantic grounds. 15 The ensuing discussion will therefore assume the originally distinct existence of the three roots described above, even though it should be borne in mind that this is merely a scientific hypothesis; as such, it is possible that new information will make it necessary to correct it or will even disprove it altogether. Collapse of Original Semantic Distinctions Although all z-m-r roots fell together phonetically, the contexts of their derivatives testify that their distinct semantic profiles were retained in Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH)—that is, throughout the preexilic period. By contrast, the semantic distinction between them was blurred during the Second Temple period. Thus, for instance, the meaning of z-m-r1 (the first radical of which 14.  The similarity between the two terms from the point of view of their semantic development was observed by S. E. Loewenstamm, in idem, J. Blau, and M. Z. Kadari, Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Bible Concordance Press, 1957–68), 3.44c, s.v. “‫ זמיר‬III.” Compare with M. Z. Kadari (A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew [RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006], 253b–54a, s.v. “ ‫ זמיר‬II” [Heb.]), who, however, rules out the connection to the trimming of vines. See further the detailed survey of A. Lemaire, “Zāmīr dans la tablette de Gezer et le Cantique des Cantiques,” VT 25 (1975): 15–26. 15.  The proposal of M. L. Barré (“‘My Strength and My Song’ in Exodus 15:2,” CBQ 54 [1992]: 623–37) to reconstruct no less than three homonymic *δ-m-r roots for PS, is difficult to accept, because it defies the logic of historical linguistic reconstruction. Incidentally, his (correct) conclusion concerning the original sense of the term in Exod 15:2 stands in direct contradiction to the translation of the passage in the title of his paper.

206

Noam Mizrahi

seems to derive from an original *z) took over words derived from z-m-r3 (the first radical of which is certainly the result of a sound change). The process is demonstrated by the history of interpretation of the poetic formula ‫ְהי ִלי ִליׁשּועָה‬ ִ ‫ִמרָת יָּה ַוי‬ ְ ‫ ָעּזִי ְוז‬, “my strength and /zimrɔt/ is the Lord, and He was my salvation” (Exod 15:2; Isa 12:2; 16 Ps 118:14). The collocation with ‫“ עֹז‬strength” and ‫“ יְׁשּועָה‬salvation” indicates that ‫ִמרָת‬ ְ ‫ ז‬means “power, protection,” and should therefore be derived from z-m-r3. 17 But postbiblical sources gradually came to interpret it as “a song of praise,” implying that it was understood as identical in sense to the more common noun ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫( ז‬derived from z-m-r1), even though historically there is no etymological relationship between the two. 18 The last stages of this development are reflected in the ancient versions of the Bible. The crucial word in the formula ‫ִמרָת יָּה‬ ְ ‫ ָעּזִי ְוז‬is rendered by the Septuagint as being derived from z-m-r1 in two of its three occurrences— that is, Isaiah (ἡ δόξα μου καὶ ἡ αἴνεσίς μου “my glory and my praise”) and Psalms (ἰσχύς μου καὶ ὕμνησίς μου “my strength and my celebration”)—but it was still correctly understood in Exodus (βοηθὸς καὶ σκεπαστής “helper and defender”). 19 By contrast, in the Aramaic targums the “mistaken” interpreta16.  Isa 12:2 testifies to a slight variation in the formula by mentioning the divine name twice: ‫ְהי ִלי ִליׁשּועָה‬ ִ ‫ִמרָת יָּה יְהוָה ַוי‬ ְ ‫ ָעּזִי ְוז‬. The problem of the original meaning of the element ‫ יָּה‬and its textual history (including its interchangeability with the 1st-person sing. pronominal suffix) is a matter of its own that has no direct bearing on our present concern. See S. Talmon, “A Case of Abbreviation Resulting in Double Reading,” Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 269–71. To the data collected there, one should add that the Samaritan oral tradition reads ʿazzi wzimrā̊ti in Exod 15:2; see Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of the Samaritans, 5 vols. (Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1957–77), 3.1:37; 4.418 [Heb.]. 17. E. Ben-Yehuda (Thesaurus of the Hebrew Language, 16 vols. [Jerusalem: Makor, 1980], 3.1363a–64a) accepts that ‫ִמרָת‬ ְ ‫ ז‬is derived from PS *δ-m-r but prefers viewing it as a kind of a nomen agentis, comparing further ‫ ָעּזִי‬with Arabic ‫( غازى‬Lane [Arabic-English Lexicon, 6.2257b] records only ‫از‬ ٍ ‫“ َغ‬one going, or who goes, to fight with, and plunder, the enemy”). 18. An opposing view has been expressed by Loewenstamm (“The Lord Is My Strength”), who argued that )‫( זמרת(י‬according to his reconstruction) should indeed be taken as a derivative of z-m-r1. He was followed by other scholars, such as E. M. Good, “Exodus xv 2,” VT 20 (1970): 358–59; R. Lux, “‘Musik’ eine Gottes-metaphor? Anmerkungen zu Ex 15,2; Jes 12,2; Ps 118,14,” Mitteilungen und Beiträge der Forschungsstelle Judentum Theologische Fakultät Leipzig 17 (1999): 34–44. However, Loewenstamm’s main arguments were refuted upon reexamination of the Hebrew and Ugaritic texts, leaving the reconstruction presented above as the most persuasive option. See S. B. Parker, “Exodus xv 2 Again,” VT 21 (1971): 373–79; and Loewenstamm’s response in his Comparative Studies, 340. (Despite the interesting reservation of Lux [“Musik,” 39–41] concerning one of Parker’s arguments, the rest of his discussion as well as his general approach seem to me to be forced and untenable.) Some doubts were also voiced by J. Barr (Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1968], 29–30, 182), but he too seems eventually to have embraced the consensus opinion. 19.  The English translations are taken from NETS.

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

207

tion has taken over the Song of the Sea as well: ‫“ תוקפי ותושבחתי‬my strength and my praise” (Targum Onqelos, and similarly also the Palestinian targums: Fragmentary Targum, Targum Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan). The other occurrences of the formula were translated in the same way in Targum Jonathan on Isaiah and Targum Psalms. 20 The earliest extrabiblical Hebrew source that reflects this line of interpretation is the liturgical composition Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It recomposes the components of the biblical formula in various ways that demonstrate their underlying understanding, as in Song VI: ‫“ זמר עוז לאלוהי קודש‬mighty song to the holy God” (Mas ii 17 || 4Q403 1i 6), 21 and in Song VII: ‫“ זמרו לאלוהי עז‬sing to the mighty God” (4Q403 1i 39–40). 22 Morphological Distinction in the Tiberian Vocalization? One may argue that the semantic distinction between the two nouns whose form is /zimrɔ/ is indirectly reflected in the Tiberian vocalization tradition, which seemingly maintains a formal differentiation between them. The word ‫ִמ ָרה‬ ְ ‫“ ז‬song, singing” behaves as a regular feminine noun: its absolute form ends with ‫◌ָה‬- (/ɔ/ < *-ā < *-at), whereas its construct form ends with ‫◌ַת‬(which goes back directly to the historical feminine ending *-at). 23 By contrast, a different behavior is exhibited by the homonym with the sense of “power, protection,” which occurs only within the fixed phrase ‫ִמרָת יָּה‬ ְ ‫ ָעּזִי ְוז‬. On the one hand, it ends with -t, as one would expect from a construct form. On the other hand, its vowel is /ɔ/ (rather than the expected /a/), like an absolute form. Moreover, the syntactic structure signaled by the cantillation tradition also takes this form to be in the absolute state by placing a disjunctive accent on ‫ וזמרת‬in all its occurrences. According to the Masoretic punctuation, then, the word ‫ וזמרת‬is unconnected to the following word and does not form a construct phrase with it. Rather, the expression ‫ִמרָת יָּה‬ ְ ‫ ָעּזִי ְוז‬is a nominal clause: “God is my strength and protection.” 24 20.  One can only be surprised at the insistence with which so many contemporary commentators of Exodus, Isaiah, and Psalms similarly cling to “song, singing” as the sense of ‫ זמרת‬in the aforementioned recurring formula. 21.  For the nonbiblical masculine segholate noun ‫ זֶמֶר‬see my comments in “Aspects of Poetic Stylization in Second Temple Hebrew: A Comparison of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice with Ancient Piyyut,” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, ed. M. Bar-Asher, S. Fassberg, and R. Clements, STDJ 108 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 153–55. 22. C. Newsom, “Shirot ʿOlat HaShabbat,” Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1, DJD 11 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 244, 256, 269; pls. 19–20. 23.  See Amos 5:23, ‫ֶׁשמָע‬ ְ ‫ִמרַ ת ְנ ָבלֶיךָ לֹא א‬ ְ ‫ׁשרֶיךָ ְוז‬ ִ ‫“ ָהסֵר ֵמ ָעלַי הֲמֹון‬Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps.” 24.  This was correctly perceived by the Medieval Jewish commentator and grammarian R. Samuel son of Meir (Rashbam, Rashi’s grandson), who paraphrased the expression as ‫עוז‬ ‫“ וזמרת ושבח ישראל יה‬the Lord is the strength, /zimrɔt/, and praise of Israel.”

208

Noam Mizrahi

The morpho-syntax encoded by the consonantal text thus appears, at first glance, to clash with the one encoded by the vocalization and cantillation tradition. The problem did not escape the attention of medieval Jewish exegetes, who approached it from diverse vantage points. Rashi, for instance, interprets the consonantal text alone: ‫ על דברת בני האדם‬,′‫ בעברת ה‬,′‫ כמו לעזרת ה‬,‫וזמרת דבוק הוא לתיבת השם‬ ‫ זמרת‬forms a construct phrase together with the divine name, like ′‫“ לעזרת ה‬to the help of the Lord” (Judg 5:23), ′‫“ בעברת ה‬through the wrath of the Lord” (Isa 9:18; 13:13), ‫“ על דברת בני האדם‬with regard to human beings” (Qoh 3:18). In all his examples, the construct form is vocalized with a pattɔḥ (/a/), while the vocalization of ‫ִמרָת‬ ְ ‫ ז‬with a qɔmeṣ (/ɔ/) is left unexplained. Ibn Ezra quotes the 11th-century grammarian Moses Giqatilla, who viewed this vocalization as a sign of an ellipsis of the 1st-sing. pronominal suffix: ‫ ואם אתן שנת‬.‫ כי הוא וזמרתי יה‬,‫ש וזמרת קמוץ‬′′‫ בעבור רי‬:‫ר משה הכהן‬′′‫א‬ ‫ מנת חלקי‬′‫ ה‬,‫ והנה נחלת שפרה עלי קמוץ כמו נחלתי‬,‫לעיני קמוץ כמו שנתי‬ . . . ’‫וכוסי קמוץ כמו ‘מנתי‬ R. Moses HaCohen said that the /r/ of ‫ וזמרת‬is vocalized with a qɔmeṣ because it means ‫“ וזמרתי יה‬and my song is the Lord.” (Similarly,) ‫ואם‬ ‫“ אתן שנת לעיני‬I will not give sleep to my eyes” (Ps 132:4) is vocalized with a qɔmeṣ like ‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫ׁשנ‬ ְ “my sleep”; ‫“ והנה נחלת שפרה עלי‬I have a goodly heritage” (Ps 16:6) is vocalized with a qɔmeṣ, like ‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫“ נ‬my heritage”; ‫ מנת חלקי וכוסי‬′‫“ ה‬The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup” (16:5) is vocalized with a qɔmeṣ, like ‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫“ ְמנ‬my portion.” . . . The solution, however, does not fit the first example (Ps 132:4), which is actually vocalized with a pattɔḥ as ‫ׁשנַת‬ ְ (at least according to the best Tiberian codices, such as the Aleppo Codex), and the other examples can easily be explained differently. 25 Ibn Ezra himself disagreed with Giqatilla, adducing a counterexample: ‫והנה מה יעשה במלת ומנת המלך שהוא קמוץ והוא סמוך‬ ְ ‫ּומנָת ַה ֶּמל‬ But what can he make of the form ‫ֶך‬ ְ “and the contribution of the king” (2 Chr 31:3), which is vocalized with a qɔmeṣ but is (neverthe­ less) in the construct state? And in his commentary on Psalm 118, he further elaborated his opinion that construct forms can also be vocalized with a qɔmeṣ. One wonders if this entire exegetical struggle is really necessary. Can the vocalization be legitimately assumed to convey an original semantic or 25.  For the second example (Ps 16:6), see Qimḥi, ad loc.; for the third (Ps 16:5), see Rashi, ad loc.

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

209

etymological distinction, which, in any case, was far beyond the interest or knowledge of the Masoretes? In reality, maintaining such a distinction was hardly the function of the vocalization, as proven by the fact that elsewhere in BH the construct form of the lexeme under review was vocalized as one would have expected, regardless of its origin—namely, based on whether it was derived from z-m-r1 (Amos 5:23, ‫ִמרַ ת נבליך‬ ְ ‫ )ז‬or z-m-r3 (Gen 43:11, ‫ִמרַ ת‬ ְ‫ז‬ ‫)הארץ‬. 26 The relationship between the consonantal text and the vocalization seems contradictory only when viewed synchronically. From a historical point of view, the feminine ending /-ɔt/ is a reflex of the older form of the morpheme (*-at), the consonantal component of which was retained in the archaic poetic formula, as in other archaic retentions scattered throughout biblical poetic diction. 27 Since this was the form of the word in the proto-Masoretic text that was transmitted to the Masoretes, they could no longer change the received consonantal text. They could only vocalize it to the best of the their ability and in accordance with the phonology of the Tiberian oral tradition, in which the normal shift of an original *a is to /ɔ/ in the particular environment under discussion—that is to say, in an accented closed syllable of a noun in the absolute state (with the exception of a syllable closed by a geminated consonant). 28 An exact parallel is furnished by the form ‫ ֶעזְרָת‬/ʕɛzrɔt/—a poetic counterpart of the standard form ‫ ֶעזְרָה‬/ʕɛzrɔ/ (abs., e.g., Isa 20:6; cstr. ‫ ֶעזְרַ ת‬/ʕɛzrat/, e.g., Isa 31:2)—which is similarly attested in an archaic poetic formula recurring in Ps 60:13; 108:13. 29 Thus the vocalization of ‫ִמרָת‬ ְ ‫ ז‬conforms well to the phonological rules of BH according to its Tiberian tradition and could hardly have been vocalized any differently. 30 26.  In the latter example, the word whose basic sense is “power, protection” is used figuratively to denote agricultural produce. For a comparable semantic change, see ‫ִּכי תַ עֲבֹד‬ ְ ‫ֲדמָה לֹא תֹסֵף ּתֵ ת ּכֹחָּה ל‬ ‫ָך‬ ָ ‫“ אֶת ָהא‬When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength” (Gen 4:12; cf. Job 31:38–39). See, e.g., N. M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 299; compare with the literature cited by Kadari, Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, 255a, s.v. “‫ זמרה‬III.” 27.  Outside biblical poetry, the original ending *-at was normally preserved only in medial position (i.e., in construct and suffixed forms). In final position, it changed in standard BH to *-ā (> Tiberian /ɔ/) due to loss of the final consonant and compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. 28.  The closest examples in BH are mostly proper nouns, which, as in poetry, tend to freeze linguistic forms that were rendered obsolete in the standard language: ‫ֶפרָת‬ ְ ‫( א‬Gen 48:7; 1 Chr 2:19), ‫ָליָת‬ ְ ‫( ּג‬e.g., 1 Sam 17:4), ‫ֶל ָקת‬ ְ ‫( ח‬Josh 21:31), ‫ׁש ְמעָת‬ ִ (2 Kgs 12:22; 2 Chr 24:26), ‫ׁש ְמרָת‬ ִ (1 Chr 8:21). The last syllable of all these forms was vocalized in the same way, despite their different historical origins. 29.  Note also the pleonastic form ‫ָתה‬ ָ ‫( ֶעזְר‬Ps 63:8; cf. 44:27; 94:17), which is similarly restricted to biblical poetry. This word exhibits the two feminine markers, one following the other. 30.  A less unified picture is presented by the Babylonian tradition, in which the various occurrences of both ‫ זמרת‬and ‫ עזרת‬are sometimes vocalized with /a/ and sometimes with /ɔ/. See I. Yeivin, The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization,

210

Noam Mizrahi

It is worthwhile to note, from a methodological point of view, that, while the last conclusion holds true from a synchronic point of view, it could not have been reached without a diachronic analysis. It illustrates well, therefore, that the principle for discerning the original sense and formation of BH words constantly requires the use of historical and comparative linguistics, because they enable one to penetrate through the given form of BH in its received textual garb. Form and Sense of ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ‫ז‬ We may now turn to a related issue—namely, the morphological and semantic features of the form ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫( ז‬2 Sam 23:1; Isa 24:16; Ps 95:2; 119:54; Job 35:10). Singular or Plural? One should first clarify the grammatical number of the form ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬, since its contexts do not afford unambiguous syntactical information that would allow one to decide if it is a singular or a plural form. While the /-ot/ ending is usually used as a pluralizing morpheme (especially of feminine nouns), it can also mark abstract singular nouns, as in ‫ָכמֹות‬ ְ‫ח‬ ‫ֵיתּה‬ ָ ‫ְתה ב‬ ָ ‫( ָּבנ‬Prov 9:1), which is equal in sense to ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫( ח‬note the 3rd-fem.-sing. verb ‫ְתה‬ ָ ‫) ָּבנ‬. Can such a function be assumed for ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬, thus considering it as a biform of ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫?ז‬ The answer should probably be in the negative, for two reasons. First, semantically, the singular ending /-ot/ is normally reserved for abstract nouns, but neither the substantive “song” nor the nomen actionis “singing” qualifies as abstract. Second, morphologically, while ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫ ז‬and ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬clearly differ in their underlying nominal pattern (see further below), the abstraction morpheme /-ot/ usually does not affect the nominal pattern of the base form; for instance, the base form of both ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ ח‬/ḥɔkm-ɔ/ and ‫ָכמֹות‬ ְ ‫ ח‬/ḥɔkm-ot/ is in the qutl pattern (/ḥɔkm-/ < *ḥukm-). It is simpler, therefore, to assume that the /-ot/ ending of ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬is indeed a plural marker. Masculine or Feminine Singular? But if ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬is a plural form, what is its singular? The vocalization of ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ‫ז‬ formally points to two possible candidates as its singular: the masculine ‫ָמיר‬ ִ‫ז‬ or the feminine ‫ְמירָה‬ ִ ‫ז‬. 31 The plural ending /-ot/, which is common especially

2 vols. (Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1985), 2.813–15. The fluctuation may reflect hesitancy on the part of the tradents regarding the syntactic state of the nouns in question—namely, whether they are to be taken as absolute (as demanded by the context) or construct (as suggested by the -t ending). 31.  It should be stressed that the terms “masculine” and “feminine” refer here to grammatical form alone (namely, the unmarked form vs. the form marked with reflexes of *-at,

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

211

with feminine nouns, points to the latter, 32 but the distribution of these forms in BH points to the former, because ‫ְמירָה‬ ִ ‫ ז‬does not appear in the Hebrew Bible as a common noun, whereas ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫ ז‬does exist. This is why many reference books place the plural form ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬under the entry ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫ז‬. 33 Nevertheless, what seems to be required by statistical evidence is clearly untenable on semantic and etymological grounds. The plural form ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬is obviously derived from z-m-r1, as demonstrated by the context of Isaiah 24: ‫ׁשמ ְַענּו‬ ָ ‫ְמרֹת‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ְּכנַף ָה ָארֶץ ז‬. . . ‫ִׂשאּו קֹולָם יָרֹּנּו ִּב ְגאֹון יְהוָה ָצהֲלּו ִמּיָם‬ ְ ‫ֵהּמָה י‬ They lift up their voices, they sing for joy; they shout from the west over the majesty of the Lord. . . . From the ends of the earth we hear songs. (Isa 24:14–16) The passage is replete with verbs that belong to the semantic domain of either producing sounds or hearing them, and the noun ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬itself is construed as the object of ‫“ שמע‬to hear.” The context thus points unambiguously to the sense of “songs, melodies.” By contrast, the singular form ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫ ז‬is derived from z-m-r3, as demonstrated by the context of Isaiah 25: ‫ עַל‬:‫ִּכי ׂשַ ְמ ָּת מ ִֵעיר ַלּגָל ִק ְריָה ְבצּורָה ְל ַמ ֵּפלָה א ְַרמֹון זִָרים מ ִֵעיר ְלעֹולָם לֹא ִי ָּבנֶה‬ ‫ׁשאֹון זִָרים ּתַ ְכנִי ַע‬ ְ ‫ ְּכחֹרֶב ְּבצָיֹון‬. . . :ָ‫יצים יִירָאּוך‬ ִ ‫ָר‬ ִ‫ּכֵן ְיכ ְַּבדּוךָ עַם עָז ִק ְרי ַת ּגֹויִם ע‬ ‫יצים יַעֲנֶה‬ ִ ‫ָר‬ ִ‫ְמיר ע‬ ִ ‫חֹרֶב ְּבצֵל עָב ז‬ For you have made the city a heap, the fortified city a ruin, the palace of aliens is a city no more, it will never be rebuilt. Therefore strong peoples will glorify you; cities of ruthless nations will fear you. . . . When the blast of the ruthless was like a winter rainstorm, the noise of aliens like heat in a dry place, you subdued the heat with the shade of clouds; the power of the ruthless was suppressed. (Isa 25:2–5) The phrase ‫יצים‬ ִ ‫ָר‬ ִ‫ְמיר ע‬ ִ ‫ ז‬evidently refers to the power of the ruthless (also called ‫“ עַם עָז‬a mighty people”) and their means of protection—namely, a fortified city. As such, it parallels ‫יצים‬ ִ ‫ָר‬ ִ‫אוַת ע‬ ֲ ‫“ ַג‬pride of the ruthless,” which God promises to abolish (Isa 13:11). 34 One must therefore conclude that these are two different, historically unrelated lexemes: ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫ ז‬means “power, protection,” and it occurs in BH only respectively); I do not intend to imply any “real” or “natural” gender, because all the forms analyzed herein are inanimate nouns. 32. Thus Ben-Yehuda (Thesaurus, 3.1363a), who reconstructed the singular form, ‫ְמרָה‬ ִ ‫ז‬. 33.  Thus, e.g., HALOT 273. An exception to this rule is Kadari (Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, 255a), who made it an independent entry (“‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬II”), attested only in the plural. 34.  For the semantic relation between the notions of pride and power, compare ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫עַל י‬ ‫ָקים‬ ִ ‫אוָתֹו ְועֻּזֹו ַּבּשְׁח‬ ֲ ‫(“ ַּג‬God’s) pride is over Israel, and His power is in the sky” (Ps 68:35).

212

Noam Mizrahi

in the singular, 35 while ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬means “songs, melodies,” and it occurs only in the plural. 36 Formal versus Functional Singular It is not at all surprising that ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫ז‬, which denotes the abstract notion of “power, protection,” would appear only in the singular. BH often refrains from pluralizing abstract nouns, the base form of which is singular; the noun ‫אוָה‬ ֲ ‫ַג‬ “pride,” for instance, occurs some 20 times in the Hebrew Bible, always in the singular. But it is strange that the noun ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬appears only in the plural. In this case, there is no semantic restriction that would prevent the use of a singular form, for the noun denotes a concrete referent. As a matter of fact, BH does have a singular form denoting “song, melody,” which is none other than ‫ִמ ָרה‬ ְ ‫( ז‬abs. Isa 51:3; Ps 81:3; 98:5; cstr. ‫ִמרַ ת־‬ ְ ‫ז‬, Amos 5:23). Noteworthy is the fact that this noun is indeed feminine, as one would have expected by the ending of ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬. Both the semantic identity and the morphological match thus lead to the conclusion that ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫ ז‬and ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬are members of a single nominal paradigm. The problem, of course, is that ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫ ז‬and ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬differ in their nominal pattern. The singular ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫ ז‬originates in a monosyllabic pattern (*zimr-), 37 with the addition of the feminine ending. Following the paradigm of other words that share the same nominal pattern, the plural forms of this pattern are expected to be ‫ ְזמָרֹות‬in the absolute and ‫ִמרֹות‬ ְ ‫ ז‬in the construct. 38 But these two forms 35.  Moreover, due to the limited size of the corpus, it is attested only in the construct state as ‫ְמיר־‬ ִ ‫ז‬. It should of course be distinguished from the homonym ‫ָמיר‬ ִ ‫( ז‬Song 2:12), which denotes the agricultural season in which the vines are being pruned and is to be derived from z-m-r2. 36.  The expression ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ְמרֹות י‬ ִ ‫ְעים ז‬ ִ ‫( נ‬2 Sam 23:1) is no exception to this rule, because the relation of n-ʕ-m to the semantic domain of singing and playing has parallels in Ugaritic. See U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anat: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971), 111–12. 37.  In later phases of Hebrew, we also find a masculine reflex of this form: ‫ ;זֶמֶר‬see above, n. 21. 38.  Compare the nominal paradigm provided by the substantive ‫ׂשה‬ ָ ‫“ ִּכ ְב‬sheep,” similarly belonging to the *qitl pattern:  a. sg.abs.

/kibśɔ/ < *kibś-ā (< *kibś-at)

 b. sg.cstr.  c. pl.abs.

/kibśat/ < *kibś-at /kəbɔśot/ < *kibaś-āt

 d. pl.cstr.

/kibśot/ < *kibś-āt

‫ׂשה ַאחַת‬ ָ ‫ָרׁש אֵין ּכֹל ִּכי ִאם ִּכ ְב‬ ָ ‫( ְול‬2 Sam 12:3) ‫ָראׁש‬ ָ ‫ָאיׁש ה‬ ִ ‫( ַוּיִּקַ ח אֶת ִּכ ְבׂשַ ת ה‬2 Sam 12:4) ‫ׁשבַע ְּכבָׂשֹת ָה ֵאּלֶה‬ ֶ ‫( ֵהּנָה‬Gen 21:29–30) ‫ׁשבַע ִּכ ְבׂשֹת הַּצֹאן ְלב ְַּדהֶן‬ ֶ ‫( ַוּיַּצֵב א ְַב ָרהָם אֶת‬Gen 21:28)

The diachronic development of this paradigm is a complicated issue that has been discussed in the scholarly literature time and again and need not concern us here. Suffice it to note, for our present concern, that it exhibits two plural formations, /qVtl-/ (d) and /qətɔl-/ (c). But the distribution of the two plural formations in BH is not the same in all its traditions. According to the Tiberian tradition, /qVtl-/ is found mostly in the construct and only sporadically in the

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

213

are conspicuously absent from BH as recorded in the MT. By contrast, ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ‫ז‬ looks like the plural of ‫ְמירָה‬ ִ ‫ז‬, which reflects a bisyllabic pattern (*zamīr-) plus the feminine ending. But this singular form is nowhere to be found in BH as a common noun. 39 How should one explain this perplexing mismatch? Two possible explanations come to mind: A. Suppletive Paradigm The disharmonious situation may stem from the common phenomenon of suppletive paradigm—that is, a complementary use of different nominal patterns for the singular and plural forms of the same lexeme, following the master example of ‫(י)לים‬ ִ ‫ּפ ִס‬/‫ֶל‬ ְ ‫( ֶּפס‬e.g., Isa 42:8). 40 This synchronic explanation, tempting as it is, faces a major difficulty: the pair /zimrɔ/ and /zəmirot/ is not paralleled by secure examples of this use of the feminine patterns /qitlɔ/ for the singular and /qətilɔ/ as the base form of the plural. The closest examples are all masculine forms, 41 while the only two feminine forms that may be relevant are problematic pieces of evidence, each due to its own particular reasons: (1) ‫ׁש ִחיתֹות‬ ְ (Lam 4:20; Ps 107:20) may indeed be the plural of ‫“ ׁשַ חַת‬pit” (e.g., Ezek 19:4, 8; Ps 9:16; Prov 26:27). 42 But this case is not really comparable to ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬/‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫ ז‬for two reasons: First, despite the feminine ending of ‫שחת‬, originally derived from š-w/y-ḥ, 43 its form has been tellingly conformed to the unmarked or masculine pattern (i.e., /šáḥat/ like ‫ ַּפחַת‬/páḥat/, e.g., 2 Sam 18:17), as though being derived from š-ḥ-t. Second, while the pattern /qətil-/ underlying ‫ׁש ִחיתֹות‬ ְ is unambiguously witnessed by BH (being spelled plene in both of its occurrences), the spelling ‫ זמרות‬is formally ambiguous because it always lacks the yod. absolute, but it is much more common in the absolute in transcriptions into Greek and Latin. See A.  Yuditsky, “On Origen’s Transliterations as Preserved in the Works of the Church Fathers,” Leš 69 (2007): 304–7. 39.  For its use as a proper noun in 1 Chr 7:8, see below, p. 213. 40. Thus Loewenstamm in idem, Blau, and Kadari, Thesaurus, 3.44a, s.v. “‫ זמיר‬I” (cf. Kadari, Dictionary, 255a, s.v. “‫ זמרות‬II”). For the grammatical phenomenon, see most recently S. E. Fassberg, “Suppletive Noun Patterns in Tiberian Hebrew,” Leš 70 (2008): 39– 54, esp. pp. 40–41 [Heb.]. 41.  Ibid., 40 and n. 9. Many examples were culled by M. Lambert, Traité de grammaire hébraïque, 2nd ed. (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1946), 193, §552. Cf. I. Ben-David, “qɛ́tɛl – qətilim (qətilot),” Leš 36 (1972): 312–13. Yet even the examples collected in these studies should be scrutinized critically, because they may be of mixed origin, as proposed in the following discussion. 42.  See C.  V. Wallace, “Broken and Double Plural Formations in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1988), 43–47, esp. p. 46. 43. Compare ‫( ׁשּוחָה‬Jer 2:6; 18:20, 22 Qere; Prov 22:14; 23:27) and ‫ׁשיחָה‬ ִ (Jer 18:22 Kethiv; Ps 57:7; 119:85), all with the same basic sense of “pit.”

214

Noam Mizrahi

(2) A more promising example is furnished by ‫קִרּיֹות‬, ְ the name of a Moabite town (Jer 48:24, 41; Amos 2:2). From a grammatical point of view, it is apparently the plural of ‫“ ִק ְריָה‬town,” and if so, it supplies a perfect parallel to /‫ִמרָה‬ ְ‫ז‬ ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬. Nevertheless, this case also is not as sound as it may seem at first glance. First, in this case as well, the Greek transcription in the Septuagint (Kαριωθ), 44 and the Latin transcription of the Vulgate (Carioth) may reflect a grammatical form equivalent to ‫ק ְריֹות‬. ִ  45 Thus, with this noun as well, the plural formation based on /qətil-/ is restricted to the Tiberian vocalization, whereas the tradition reflected in the transcription conceivably represents a different grammatical pattern, one that reflects the same base form as the singular. Second, regardless of which tradition one prefers to view as the older or more original one, it must be stated that the word is found in BH only as a proper noun. Since the Hebrew Bible contains no plural form of the common noun, it is difficult to know if ‫ ְקִרּיֹות‬was the regular plural or rather a specialized form that was reserved for the geographical name alone. This is all the more true if we bear in mind that this is the name of a foreign town, which need not be expected to follow the preferences of Hebrew grammar but, rather, the closely related Canaanite dialect of Moabite. The evidence thus renders the testimony of ‫ ְקִרּיֹות‬to be of limited value, because it does not necessarily represent the actual distribution of this plural formation in the general language. B.  Imposition of Late Vocalization onto the Earlier Consonantal Text An alternative solution for the grammatical anomaly can be sought in the diachronic recognition that the MT reflects a complex state of affairs that is the result of linguistic development. The original forms are revealed when one “peels” away the vocalization from the consonantal text. In all the occurrences of the plural form /zəmirot/ (< *zamīr-āt), the word is spelled defectively, without a yod, despite the fact that the /i/ vowel is historically long. 46 The yod-less spelling of ‫ זמרות‬may be defined as “defective” when applied to the

44.  This is the reading of most Greek witnesses in LXX Jer 48[31]:24. See v. 41, where LXXA reads Aκκαριωθ for MT ‫הקריות‬, a reading that has been corrupted in other witnesses (LXXB,S and related manuscripts) to Aκκαρων. The Greek translator of Amos 2:2 did not realize that the word is a proper noun and translated it “cities.” 45.  For the interchange between the /i/ vowel of the Tiberian form and the /a/ of the transcriptions (which may be related to the vicinity of /r/), compare the name of another Moabite town, ‫( ִק ְריָתַ יִם‬Gen 14:5; Num 32:37; Josh 13:19; Jer 48:1, 23; Ezek 25:9; cf. 1 Chr 6:61), the usual transcriptions of which are Kαριαθαιμ (with the exception of LXX Ezekiel) and Cariathaim. 46.  This is to be contrasted with, for instance, the similarly patterned word ‫“ נ ְִגינָה‬playing (a musical instrument),” which occurs 14 times in BH and the spelling of which is practically always plene, both in the singular (Ps 61:1; 77:7; Job 30:9; Lam 3:14; 5:14) and in the plural (Hab 3:19; Ps 4:1; 6:1; 54:1; 55:1; 67:1; 69:13; 76:1), with only one exception (Isa 38:20).

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

215

Tiberian vocalization /zəmirot/, but it fits the expected plural forms of /zimrɔ/ perfectly—namely, the forms */zəmɔrot/ and */zimrot/. 47 This assertion is not purely hypothetical, for the latter form was actually known in the first centuries c.e. It is attested in a Latin transcription contained in Jerome’s commentary on the book of Isaiah. When discussing Isa 24:16, the church father reflects on the Greek word τέρατα chosen by the Septuagint translator to render ‫ְמרֹת‬ ִ ‫ז‬: 48 Mirorque quo sensu pro psalmis et laudibus, quod in Hebraico legitur zemroth, LXX portenta interpretati sunt I wonder in what sense the Septuagint translated (as) “wonders” the (word denoting) “psalms” and “praises,” which in Hebrew reads zemroth. Although Jerome’s main concern is lexical, he nevertheless supplies us with the grammatical form of the word as pronounced by his Jewish informants. According to the oral tradition that he records, which was current in 4th-century Palestine, the form /zimrot/ may have been employed for both the absolute and the construct states. 49 That the form underlying zemroth is indeed /zimrot/ seems clear. The transcription of the final /t/ as th reflects the spirantization of the stop following a vowel, which is similarly reflected in the Tiberian vocalization. The vocalic difference between the Tiberian /i/ and Jerome’s e is part of a wider phonological development discernible in Greek and Latin transcriptions: during the Greco-Roman period, short high vowels were lowered in unstressed close syllables (namely, *i > [e], *u > [o]) in both Hebrew and Aramaic. 50 The historical assessment of Jerome’s testimony, however, is not a straightforward matter. Greek and Latin transcriptions are often colored by late linguistic development, and generally speaking they represent varieties of Hebrew that were current in the Greco-Roman period. However, in this case, it 47. This was first observed by P. Joüon, “Études de morphologie hébraïque,” Bib 1 (1920): 365–66 (he refers to the absolute form *‫ ְזמָרֹות‬alone). 48. M. Adriaen, ed., S. Hieronymi Presbyter Opera, Pars I: Opera exegetica, 2: Commentariorum in Isaiam, Libri I–XI, CCSL 73 (Turnholt: Brepols, 1963), 321. In what follows, Jerome offers a theological solution to this question that is irrelevant to our present concern. I am grateful to my former teacher, Professor David Weissert, whom I consulted regarding Jerome’s treatment of the verse. 49.  The form zemroth was recorded in the collection of C. Ziegfried, “Die Aussprache des Hebräischen bei Hieronymus,” ZAW 4 (1884): 62; and analyzed by Yuditsky, “Origen’s Transliterations,” 306–7. 50. E. Y. Kutscher, “The Realization of the i and u Vowels in Transcriptions of Biblical Hebrew, Galilean Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew,” Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 136–44, esp. p. 142 [Heb.]. Cf. T. Harviainen, On the Vocalism of Closed Unstressed Syllables in Hebrew: A Study Based on the Evidence Provided by the Transcriptions of St. Jerome and Palestinian Punctuation, StOr 48 (Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 1977), 67–76.

216

Noam Mizrahi

is difficult to ignore the match between Jerome’s testimony and the philological considerations adduced above. Moreover, recent scholarship witnesses a change of opinion regarding the popularity (within the tradition reflected in the Greek and Latin transcriptions) of the plural formation whose base form is qVtl- (rather than qVtal-): it is no longer viewed as a secondary development that took place under the influence of Aramaic but instead as an inherited trait of an old allomorph that is firmly rooted in Northwest Semitic. 51 It stands to reason, therefore, that Jerome’s transcription represents in this case a linguistic stage earlier than the one reflected in the Masoretic vocalization. We are thus allowed to reconstruct a simple and coherent nominal paradigm for “pre-Masoretic” BH: ‫ִמרַ ת‬ ְ ‫ז‬/‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫ ז‬in the singular, ‫ִמרֹות‬ ְ ‫( ז‬and possibly also ‫ ) ְזמָרֹות‬in the plural. 52 This paradigm is imperfectly encoded in the consonantal text of MT, 53 and it is partly reflected in Jerome’s transcription. The Historical-Linguistic Background of ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ‫ז‬ Surprisingly, little attention has been paid in modern scholarship to the plural form ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬, which is witnessed by the vocalization tradition of the MT, and as far as I know, no one has noted that it potentially represents a linguistic phase later than CBH. Two paths of development can be hypothesized in accordance with the two explanations adduced above for the relationship between ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫ ז‬and ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬. (1) In the first scenario, the two forms conjoin into a suppletive paradigm, following the model ‫ילים‬ ִ ‫ּפ ִס‬/‫ֶל‬ ְ ‫ ֶּפס‬. Even if one assumes such a relation, however, there are indications that it was secondarily applied to the plural form of ‫זמרה‬. This is suggested, first, by the orthographic evidence: the plural of ‫ פסל‬is

51.  See above, end of n. 38. That the fluctuation between the two plural formations goes back at least to the mid-second millennium b.c.e. has been demonstrated by D. Sivan, “Notes on the Use of the Form qatal as the Plural Base for the form qatl in Ugaritic,” IOS 12 (1992): 235–40. 52.  It should be emphasized that this conclusion does not depend only on the defective spelling but is drawn from the cumulative force of data pertaining to several linguistic aspects. Their agreement balances the speculative element that is inherent in any reconstruction of historical forms on the basis of orthographic practices, which was rightly highlighted by J. Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). On the other hand, the evidence presented here refutes Barr’s own contradictory conclusion (p. 37)—which was made on the basis of an examination of the spelling patterns alone—the defective spellings of ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬are linguistically meaningless. 53.  By contrast, one cannot draw a similar conclusion from the defective spelling used in 1QIsaa (‫ )זמרת‬for Isa 24:16, even though it is identical to the MT (‫ְמרֹת‬ ִ ‫)ז‬. It seems that in this case the scribe copied the word faithfully from his proto-Masoretic Vorlage, without converting its orthography to the plene spelling, as he did elsewhere. Cf. E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), STDJ 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 134–35 (regarding the unusual defective spelling of the plural ending).

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

217

spelled with a yod more often than without it, 54 while no such plene spelling is available at all for ‫זמרות‬. Second, while the suppletive relation between nouns of the *qVtl patterns in the singular and /qətil-/ in the plural is indeed rooted in BH, it increases significantly in postbiblical corpora. Its extension in Qumran Hebrew (= QH) and Mishnaic Hebrew (= MH) to nouns that in BH follow the expected plural of segholates (viz., /qətɔl-/) can be illustrated by the telling correction ‫נסיכהמה‬ (with a supralinear yod) found in 1QIsaa for MT ‫ִסּכֵיהֶם‬ ְ ‫( נ‬Isa 41:29). 55 The resulting form finds a parallel in LBH: ‫ְסכֵיהֶם‬ ִ ‫“ נ‬their molten images” (Dan 11:8), which at the same time hints at the reason that the Deutero-Isaianic passage has been interpreted by the scribe of 1QIsaa (for the assertion ‫רוח ותוהו נסיכהמה‬, see the equation of ‫ פסילים‬with ‫ הבלי נכר‬in Jer 8:19). Viewed against this background, the vocalization of ‫ זמרות‬arguably reflects a similar adaptation of a segholate form to the grammatical preferences of the Second Temple period. Unlike the scribe of 1QIsaa, who expressed his reading through explicit correction of the orthography of his Vorlage, the Masoretes were restricted to marking their reading tradition by diacritics only and could no longer tamper with the spelling of the transmitted text. But either way, both practices attest the same linguistic trend, which is rooted in the nominal morphology of Second Temple Hebrew. (2) Alternatively, ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬reflects a different nominal pattern (/zəmirɔ/ < *zamīr-ā), which has no suppletive relation to the one underlying the singular ‫ִמ ָרה‬ ְ ‫ז‬. The distribution of the /qətilɔ/ pattern in BH is relatively limited, while it expands enormously in postbiblical sources; according to one estimate, there are less than 60 nouns of this pattern in BH, while MH knows about 400. 56 Thus it is hardly incidental that the proper noun ‫ירה‬ ָ ‫ְמ‬ ִ ‫( ז‬1 Chr 7:8) makes its appearance in BH only in late biblical literature—namely, the book 54.  The relation between plene and defective spellings of /pəsilim/ is 3 : 6 in the construct, but 13 : 1 in the absolute. In other words, the plene spelling is more common in the construct (13 occurrences [Deut 7:5, 25; 12:3; 2 Kgs 17:41; Isa 10:10; 21:9; 30:22; 42:8; Jer 51:47, 52; Mic 1:7; 5:12; Ps 78:58] but also 3 times in the absolute [Judg 3:19, 26; 2 Chr 33:22]), whereas the defective spelling is more common in the absolute (6 occurrences [Jer 50:38; Hos 11:2; 2 Chr 33:19; 34:3, 4, 7] but also appears once in the construct [Jer 8:19]). All in all, there is a clear preference for the plene spelling, attested 23 times vis-à-vis 7 occurrences of the defective spelling. (All these data are drawn from the BHS module of the Accordance software, which is said to reflect Codex Leningradensis.) 55.  See the exhaustive treatment of Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 379, no. 45; cf. pp. 381–82, no. 52 (‫ עכיסים‬for MT ‫ָסים‬ ִ ‫ עֲכ‬in Isa 3:18). A similar trend may be discerned in the Samaritan oral tradition, but its peculiar sound changes make it difficult to trace the exact path and scope of development; see Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 250–60, esp. pp. 251–52, §4.1.3.4; 254, §4.1.3.10; 258, §4.1.3.16. 56. I. Avinery, A Thesaurus of the Hebrew Radical Nouns (Tel Aviv: Izreʿel, 1976), 253– 69, esp. p. 264 [Heb.; the original title is ‫]היכל המשקלים‬.

218

Noam Mizrahi

of Chronicles. And even this attestation again depends on the vocalization, since the Hellenized form recorded in the Septuagint, Ζαμαρια(ς), 57 reflects a form, the Tiberian reflex of which would have been ‫ ְזמ ְַריָה‬. The growing use of matres lectionis in the Second Temple period reveals that, by that time, the lexeme under review had already assumed the form /zəmirɔ/. The plene spelling for the long ī vowel is first attested in QH, in the liturgical composition of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Song I still employs the defective and hence ambiguous spelling: ‫“ זמרות קודשו‬songs of His holiness” (4Q400 IV [= frg. 3ii] 1), 58 as do Songs VII and VIII, which attest the collocation ‫“ זמרות פלא‬wondrous songs” (4Q403 1i 40; 4Q405 F 8 [frg. 64+67 2ʹ] || 11Q17 III [frgs. 4–5] 4). 59 But a plene, no longer ambiguous, spelling occurs in Song VI, disclosing that a form akin to Tiberian ‫ְמירֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬was indeed an established part of Second Temple Hebrew: ‫“ [שב] ̊ע תהלי זמיר[ו]ת קודשו‬seven psalms of songs of His holin[e]ss” (Mas ii 22 || 4Q403 1i 9). 60 In MH, the evidence is less decisive. Admittedly, the form ‫ְמירָה‬ ִ ‫ ז‬is not found in the early stratum, the language of the Tannaim (MH1), but it is well attested in rabbinic prayers, which are usually taken to stem from Tannaitic times as well: 61 ‫ונתנו ידידים זמירות שירות תושבחות הודאות‬ And beloved ones (i.e., the Israelites) pronounced songs, chants, praises, and thanksgivings. (“True and Sound” benediction, Morning Prayer) 57.  The reading Ζεμιρα, attested by many manuscripts, is evidently a hexaplaric correction. The reading Αμαριας of ms B and related manuscripts can either represent a different name (cf. ‫אמ ְַריָה‬ ֲ in Neh 11:4; 1 Chr 6:37, et al.) or be the result of a textual error (the loss of initial sigma). For the variant readings, see A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H. St. J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek, vol. 2/3: I and II Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), 416. 58.  Newsom, “Shirot,” 194, pl. 16. 59.  Ibid., 269, pl. 20 and 383, pl. 28; F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 4, II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31, DJD 23 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 271, pl. 30. 60.  Newsom, “Shirot,” 244, pl. 19. An alternative interpretation to the coexistence of the two spellings is that they represent two different grammatical forms—namely, both /‫ְזמָרֹות‬ ‫ִמרֹות‬ ְ ‫ ז‬and ‫ְמירֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬. A solution of this sort is hinted at by E. Qimron (The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, HSS 29 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 68, §330.3b), who refers to ‫ זמרות‬in the Songs under the category “plurals not attested in classical BH” and comments parenthetically: “in BH ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬, always without a yod!” Similarly, DCH, the only dictionary that covers both BH and QH, asserts that the form ‫ זמרות‬attested in the Songs is a plural of ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫;ז‬ see D. J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 8 vols. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996–2011), 3.119b, 383. 61.  Note also Syriac ‫ ܙܡܝܪܬܐ‬/zmirtā/, which testifies to the existence of this form in Aramaic. See R. Payne Smith, ed., Thesaurus Syriacus, 2 vols. (Oxford, Clarendon, 1879– 1901), 1.1136–37; M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009), 385b. The Syriac form is used in the Peshiṭta to translate not only Hebrew ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫( ז‬e.g., Ps 95:2; 119:54) but also )‫( שיר(ה‬e.g., Isa 23:15; 26:1), ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫( ז‬Amos 5:23), and ‫( נ ְִגינָה‬Lam 3:14).

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r

219

‫ ונעמו] זמירות לאל‬:‫א‬′′‫ ופצו [נ‬,‫ הים] עמדו מובדלים‬:‫א‬′′‫על שפת ים סוף [נ‬ ‫שהבדילם משבעים לשונות‬ On the shore of the Sea of Reeds [variant: On the sea shore], they stood distinct, and uttered [variant: and chanted] songs to the God who distin­ guished them from seventy tongues [i.e., the other nations]. (Third bene­dic­ tion, Saturday Evening Prayer) 62 A prominent function of the /qətilɔ/ pattern—especially (although not exclusively) in postexilic Hebrew—is that of nomen actionis. 63 The semantic scope of this usage is often extended to include the product or result of the action; in such cases, the noun may acquire a concrete meaning and can accordingly be pluralized. 64 A semantic development of this sort can explain how ‫ְמירָה‬ ִ ‫ ז‬came to denote the song itself and why it is attested in its plural form ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬. Noteworthy is the fact that in this respect the nominal pattern of ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬is somewhat alien to the grammatical system of BH. While nomina actionis of the /qətilɔ/ pattern are normally associated in Hebrew (especially in the postexilic period) with the G-stem, the default verbal stem of z-m-r1 is D. 65 Even though one need not expect an absolute one-to-one relation between given nominal forms and specific verbal stems, Hebrew generally exhibits a clear derivational connection between the /qətilɔ/ pattern and the G-stem, which becomes even more pronounced in MH. 66 Seen in this light, the morphosemantic relationship between the noun ‫ְמ־‬ ִ‫ז‬ ‫ רֹות‬and the D verb ‫ ִזּמֵר‬is unusual from a synchronic point of view. 67 It is explainable, however, as resulting from a diachronic development. The 62.  For this version of the prayer, which is no longer employed in current liturgical practices, see Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, ed. I. Davidson, S. Assaf, and I. Yoel (Jerusalem: Meqiṣe Nirdamim, 1941 [repr. 1963]), 123–24. 63.  For example, ‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫ַחּורים ִמּנ ְִגינ‬ ִ ‫ׁשבָתּו ּב‬ ָ ‫“ ְז ֵקנִים ִמּׁשַ עַר‬Elders have ceased from [their sessions in] the gate, and young men from their playing” (Lam 5:14). 64.  For example, ′‫“ ּונ ְִגנֹותַ י ְננַּגֵן ּכָל ְימֵי ַחּיֵינּו עַל ּבֵית ה‬So let us play my melodies all our life long in the house of the Lord” (Isa 38:20). 65.  The situation can again be contrasted to ‫נ ְִגינָה‬, which is similarly related to a verb in the D-stem (1 Sam 16:16, et al.). However, BH also knows the G participial form ‫נֹוגנִים‬ ְ (Ps 68:26), which confirms that the related verb was indeed employed in the G-stem at an earlier phase of the language (Psalm 68 contains other archaic features as well). In contradistinction, no similar evidence is available for z-m-r1. 66. E.  Y. Kutscher, “Studies in the Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (according to ms Kaufmann),” Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 110–16. Compare S.  Sharvit, “The Emergence and Crystallization of Verbal Nouns in Ancient Hebrew,” in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal, ed. M. BarAsher and M. Florentin (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005), 177–88. 67.  Compare with the cautious comment by J.  Huehnergard (“Qātîl and Qətîl Nouns in Biblical Hebrew,” in Shaʿarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, ed. Y. Breuer, S. E. Fassberg, and A. Maman, 3 vols. [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007], 1.*9) regarding *zāmîr: “perhaps a passive actant noun, < ‘what is sung’ (the verb is D only).”

220

Noam Mizrahi

difficulty of interpreting the nominal form on the basis of the grammatical system of CBH disappears when one realizes that its source is to be located in a later phase of the language’s development. One should keep in mind that, even if similar or identical grammatical forms are employed in different chronolects, their formal similarity or identity does not mean that they are functionally equivalent as well. Being part of a larger grammatical system that had undergone various changes across the board, individual categories were necessarily affected and became susceptible to functional and semantic changes that distanced them from their formal counterparts in earlier phases of the language. Finally, one may wonder why the change to /qətilɔ/ targeted BH /zimrɔ/ in particular. One answer to this query is the fact that biblical nomina actionis that belonged to the segholate nominal patterns (i.e., the historical *qVtlnouns) were replaced, in the Second Temple period and onward, by forms that belonged to the /qətilɔ/ pattern. The full-fledged manifestation of this trend is found in MH, and an illustrative example is supplied by the BH noun ‫ּתֵ קַ ע‬ /téqaʕ/ (< *tiqʕ-), which was superseded in MH by ‫ ְּת ִקיעָה‬/təqiʕɔ/. Compare, for instance, the following two passages: ‫ה ְַללּוהּו ְּבתֵ קַ ע ׁשֹופָר‬

BH

Praise Him by blowing a trumpet. (Ps 150:3) MH

‫כל היום כשר לקריאת המגילה ולקריאת ההלל ולתקיעת השופר‬ The whole day is valid for reading the Scroll, and for reciting the Praise, and for blowing the trumpet.68 (m. Meg. 2:5)

This phenomenon is not restricted to masculine segholates but also extends to feminine forms, in other words, to nouns of the *qVtl-ā pattern. This can be illustrated with BH ‫ׁש ְכבָה‬ ִ /šikbɔ/ (< *šikb-ā), which is replaced in MH by ‫ׁש ִכיבָה‬ ְ /šəkibɔ/: 68 BH

‫ָמאּו עַד‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְכבַת זָרַ ע ְו ָרחֲצּו ַב ַּמיִם ְוט‬ ִ ‫ִׁשּכַב ִאיׁש א ָֹתּה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫ְו ִאּשָׁה א‬ ‫ָה ָערֶב‬ And a woman whom a man lies with and has an emission of semen—both of them shall bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. (Lev 15:18)

68. H. Danby, trans., The Mishnah (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), 203.

The Case of Biblical Hebrew z-m-r MH

221

‫ מה שכיבת זרע אמורה למטן כבירייתה אף כן‬:”‫“שכבת זרע‬ ‫כבירייתה פרט לשכיבת זרע שניסרחה‬ “An emission of semen”: Just as the emission of semen discussed below is in its natural state, so here it is in its natural state, with the exception of an emission of semen that putrefied. (Sipra, Zavim 3:3 [ed. Weiss, 77d])

These examples furnish exact parallels to the reconstructed diachronic relationship between ‫ִמרָה‬ ְ ‫ ז‬/zimrɔ/ (< *zimr-ā) and ‫ְמירָה‬ ִ ‫ ז‬/zəmirɔ/. The evidence thus allows one to propose that the same process of grammatical replacement of one nominal pattern with another is reflected in the grammatical discrepancy that apparently exists, in the case of ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ז‬, between the consonantal text of the MT and the vocalization tradition. Conclusion The above discussion proposes that the plural form ‫ְמרֹות‬ ִ ‫ ז‬is a mixed form in which a relatively late grammatical pattern interfered with a consonantal text that had originally represented a different form. The consonantal text reflects /zimrot/ (and perhaps also /zəmɔrot/), the expected, regular plural(s) of /zimrɔ/ and /zimrat/. But the vocalization tradition reflects /zəmirot/, which is either a plural formation of the /qətil-/ type that supplanted /qətal-/ as the base form of the broken plural of segholates or the verbal noun /qətilɔ/ in a semantically secondary usage. While /zimrot/ represents an older linguistic phase—still reflected in Jerome’s writings—aligned with CBH, /zəmirot/ finds its closest parallels in the language of the Second Temple period. Historically, then, it is doubtful whether the suppletive paradigm found in BH, in its present form, existed in this way while CBH was still a living vernacular. Instead, it seems to conflate two different linguistic phases, which were integrated together by tradents only after CBH ceased to be a native language. This case is just one example of a much broader phenomenon that scholars have studied in a variety of its manifestations. From a diachronic point of view, the MT comprises at least two textual strata that are now intertwined: a consonantal text that became static at an early stage of the textual transmission and a vocalization system(s) that represented oral traditions that crystallized at later stages, mostly toward the end of the Second Temple period. During their longer evolution, the vocalization traditions absorbed elements—such as grammatical patterns—that developed in relatively late phases of the language, and these were eventually projected back onto the older consonantal text, since the tradents naturally had only a little awareness of (or took little care with) the mechanisms of linguistic change. 69 69.  See the seminal study of H. L. Ginsberg, “Through the Tradition,” Tarbiz 5 (1934): 208–23; 6 (1935): 543 [Heb.]. Compare the programmatic formulations of Z. Ben-Ḥayyim,

222

Noam Mizrahi

This conclusion has an implication for our understanding of the complexity of the diachronic stratification of BH. Late features may appear, not only in specifically late texts, which were incorporated into the biblical canon at some point of its transmission. Rather, the entire biblical corpus was subjected (to some extent) to linguistic leveling, and late features may be discerned in any given passage, regardless of its time of authorship. At the same time, this conclusion should not be taken as suggesting that the very distinction between early and late features is rendered impossible. The contrary is true: remnants of older linguistic phases can nevertheless be detected in the final form of the text by way of a careful analysis of each case. A sound application of methodologies of comparative and historical linguistics on the one hand and textual criticism on the other helps us in unveiling the hidden linguistic and textual history of each element of this sort. The enormous (but often undervalued) grammatical complexity that is reflected in the various vocalization traditions, especially the Tiberian tradition, is a vociferous indication that the vocalization is not at all a homogenous entity. There are countless cases in which it clearly preserves ancient traits that can only be understood as going back to preexilic times. 70 The MT therefore represents a multilayered linguistic complex, and one should be very careful not to commit to sweeping generalizations but should examine each case carefully on its own terms. As opposed to instant and all-embracing solutions that submit that BH en bloc is a product of one period or another (thus reflecting an approach that is inherently uncritical), it should be insisted that only intensive, critical analysis may bring us closer to understanding the complicated process through which the biblical text and language arrived at their present form. “Concerning the Evaluation of Chronology in Language,” in Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, ed. A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983), 1.25 [Heb.]; idem, “The Historical Unity of the Hebrew Language and Its Periodization,” Studies in Language 1 (1985): 25 [Heb.]. It may not be superfluous, however, to caution against overstating the case. Such a solution may be entertained only with discrimination, and not every apparent grammatical mismatch can be shown to result from the interference of more-recent phases of the language with the older. See J. Joosten, “Textual Developments and Historical Linguistics,” in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books, ed. H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and J. Trebolle Barrera, BETL 246 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 21–31 70.  See, among others, S. Morag, “On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible,” JAOS 94 (1974): 307–15; R. Steiner, “On the Monophthongization of ay to i in Phoenician and Northern Hebrew and the Preservation of Archaic/Dialectal Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization,” Or 76 (2007): 73–83.

Whodunit? Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles Frank H. Polak Tel-Aviv University

Wellhausen on Explicit and Implicit Subject Julius Wellhausen has drawn our attention, more than once, to the problem of references to the subject in Biblical Hebrew and Greek. 1 He dutifully notes the rule in languages such as English and German in which a subject is mentioned explicitly when necessary for clarity but should be left implicit in pronoun and verbal forms when the subject is known. 2 But “in Hebrew prose,” Wellhausen cautions, 3 Relative liberty prevails in this respect. Thus we have in 1 Sam 19:7: “Jonathan called David, and Jonathan told him all this. Then Jonathan brought David to Saul.” Likewise in 2 Sam 12:19 the explicit subject (David) is unnecessarily repeated three times in succession. Inversely, however, it is equally frequent that the explicit mention of the subject is pretermitted, even when the subject changes: for instance, in 1 Sam 15:27 and LXX v. 31.

The possibility that this liberty results from textual corruption is not even considered since, as Wellhausen remarks in a footnote, “the same phenomenon [non-indication of subject in subject change] appears even more strikingly in narrative sections in the Qoran.” 4 On the next two pages, Wellhausen continues 1. J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871), 22–23; idem, Einleitung in die Drei Ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer, 1905), 4–5, 15. 2.  In modern linguistics, this is the issue of subject deletion in coordinate clauses. 3.  Wellhausen, Text der Bücher Samuelis, 22 (translation mine). See also S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), lxi–lxiii. With regard to prophetic literature, this issue (“unrubricated dialogue”) is studied by R. P. Gordon, “Dialogue and Disputation in the Targum to the Prophets,” JSS 39 (1994): 7–17. 4.  I note, for instance, Sura 12 (Yūsuf):95; Sura 28 (ʾal Qiṣaṣ):18–20, 26–27, 29–30; see J. M. Rodwell, The Koran Translated from the Arabic, Everyman’s Library 380 (London:

223

224

Frank H. Polak

to consider cases in which the MT, LXX, or ancient manuscripts have inserted the explicit subject, especially if “erroneous identification” leads to textual corruption (e.g., 1 Sam 20:41; 30:20). 5 In addition to the indication of these problems in the Qoran as remarked upon by Wellhausen, we should note that implicit change of subject is even found in Sumerian and Old Babylonian legal texts 6 and appears frequently in many languages. 7 In the present essay, which I dedicate to Zipi Talshir in view of our common studies in Jerusalem and our protracted collaboration on the Jeremiah apparatus of the Hebrew University Bible Project, I want to discuss both the alleged “liberty” of Biblical Hebrew prose with regard to the verb with implicit subject, and some adaptations in the textual tradition. Mention and Non-Mention of the Subject in the Tanakh According to modern linguistic treatments, the Ungebundenheit, which in Wellhausen’s view characterizes the Hebrew way of treating the subject, actually reflects different norms rather than taking “liberties.” 8 In the domain of the Tanakh, some of these rules have been analyzed by Robert Longacre and Lénart de Regt. Longacre indicates that central characters (“participants,” in his terminology) such as Joseph are introduced by name (and other features, such as descent, dwelling place, or title) in the exposition, but following this introduction are indicated obliquely by pronoun or, implicitly, by verbal form

Dent; New York: Dutton, 1909), 238, 248–49; and in particular H. Reckendorf, Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen (Leiden: Brill, 1898), 371–72. 5.  Wellhausen, Text der Bücher Samuelis, 23; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, lxii–lxiii. 6.  See W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 3rd ed., AnOr 33 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995), 257. One notes, for example, the laws of Eshnunna (§§9, 18, 22, 28, 30) and Hammurabi (§§27, 30, 42, 44); see M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed., SBLWAW 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press: 1997), 60–63, 86–89; R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1969), 58–59; similarly in the Sumerian laws of Lipit-Ishtar (§§8, 12, 18; Roth, Law Collections, 27–29). 7. For ancient Greek, see R.  Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, Zweiter Theil: Erster Abtheilung, 2nd ed. (Hannover: Hahnsche Hofbuchhandlung, 1870), 32 (§352e); for a general discussion of many problematic issues, see Y. Huang, Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 50–54, 57–77. 8.  In modern linguistics, this issue is studied under headings such as “null-subject,” “zero anaphora,” and “pro-drop.” However, in Biblical Hebrew, as in Classical Greek and Latin, the finite verb is the “most simple form of sentence”: ἐσ-τί = “he/she/it is”; φη-μί = “I say”; see Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik, 2–3, 30; Reckendorf, Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen, 312; W. Wright, W. Robertson Smith, and M. J. de Goeje, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 2 vols., 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896– 98), 2.250–51, 255. Accordingly, Wellhausen’s term, implicit subject, is preferable by far.

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

225

(prefix/affix). 9 In his view, full reference is resumed in “crucial transitions” (reidentification). Full reference is also used for characters of high social rank, such as Pharaoh. On the other hand, when one participant is dominated by another participant, reference is often by pronoun or suffix. In dialogue stretches, Longacre notes re-identification for “a sudden and important turn, much like a new beginning” for participants of equal status, for a decisive intervention, as an indication of social rank, for a person in control of the situation, or as an introduction of the final word. Participant reference may be omitted (‫ויאמר‬ ‫ )אליו‬when the utterance is introduced for nonaggressive utterances or to introduce a stalemate. 10 Full reference in the introduction is also described by de Regt, who adds the ending of the tale and structural transition but differs from Longacre in his argument that a major participant of one episode can be reintroduced as a minor participant in a second episode. 11 Full introduction of a well-known participant (“overdetermination”) may indicate the opening of a new “paragraph block” but can also serve to focus on that specific participant or to indicate the importance of his/her words, which may be surprising or unexpected. 12 Additionally, de Regt notes the delay of full identification in the opening of certain units, in particular when the identification is surprising (such as the identification of Moses, Exod 2:10, or David, 1 Sam 16:13). 13 De Regt highlights the implicit change of subject in the dialogue, because the shift from first to second speaker is not indicated but is inferred from context. 14 Two dimensions stand out in the studies of Longacre and de Regt. Full references to the participants in openings and closures are related to discourse; the text as a whole is viewed as an utterance in which such features as anaphora, consecutio temporum, and opening and closure are governed by contextual conditions “beyond the sentence.” 15 The second dimension pertains to pragmatics, 9. R. E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 144–48, 155–62. 10.  Ibid., 165–69, 174–83. 11.  L. J. de Regt, Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator: Reference Devices and Their Rhetorical Impact (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999), 7–19, 26, 57. See also S. E. Runge, “Pragmatic Effects of Semantically Redundant Anchoring Expressions in Biblical Hebrew Narrative,” JNSL 32 (2006): 55–83. 12.  Ibid., 58–70. 13.  Ibid., 73–84. 14.  Ibid., 28–32. 15.  Numerous definitions of discourse are discussed by D. Schiffrin, Approaches to Discourse (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 20–43; see also A. Jaworski and N. Coupland, “Introduction: Perspectives on Discourse Analysis,” in The Discourse Reader, ed. A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (London: Routledge, 1999), 1–3, 12–14; Ultimately, Schiffrin (Approaches to Discourse, 39–42) adopts the general definition of discourse as “utterance,” which already was preferred by J. E. Grimes, The Thread of Discourse (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 21–25,

226

Frank H. Polak

the study of language in a communication perspective, relative to intended/perceived content of the utterance in its given form and context in the interaction between speaker and addressee. 16 This sphere includes such factors as surprise and expectation, as well as, for example, the status of the participant. Analysis along such lines must raise the question of the reliability of the tradition. Indeed, in some cases one might suspect textual corruption, such as in the LXX reading καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν “and he was not ready” for MT ‫וימאן‬ ‫“ אביו‬and his father refused” (Gen 49:18), where the nonrepresentation of ‫אביו‬ “his father” is best explained as haplography because of the graphic similarity. In some cases, the problems surrounding the representation of the subject are related to redactional issues, such as the shorter reading of the LXX at Exod 24:13, ἀνέβησαν “they ascended” for MT ‫“ ויעל מׁשה‬and Moses ascended.” This issue is related to the previous clause, “So Moses and his attendant Joshua arose” (MT = LXX), which in itself is not entirely in harmony with the divine instruction to Moses to ascend the mountain (24:12). Another case in point is the clause καὶ ἀνήνεγκεν μόσχον καὶ κριὸν ἐπὶ τὸν βωμόν “and he offered a calf and a ram on the altar” for MT ‫“ ויעל בלק ובלעם פר ואיל במזבח‬and Balak and Balaam offered a bull and a ram on the altar” (Num 23:2), where the mention of Balak and Balaam reflects scribal harmonization in the MT. 17 But problems of this sort are infrequent. Moreover, in the tale of Abraham’s mysterious guests at the terebinths of Mamre, where the indication of the subject can be problematic indeed, the LXX faithfully reflects all cases of underspecification (Gen 18:5b, καὶ εἶπαν “and they said” with variant καὶ εἶπoν, 18 vv. 9a, 10, 15) and explicit subject (v. 13, ‫“ ויאמר יהוה‬and Yhwh said”/καὶ εἶπεν κύριος). Textual issues, then, may complicate the picture but do not invalidate the analysis of the problem of the implicit subject in terms of discourse and pragmatics. In this respect, Longacre’s analysis forms an important contribution— and all the more so because Jacob Mey views literary analysis as a branch of “macropragmatics.” 19 On the other hand, Longacre’s discussion is often dependent on the plot in the wider sense of the word, rather than on the immediate context. The concept of “control of the situation” is in need of a translation into more direct and formal features. In my view, it is possible to discern such features in the context of the dialogue. 30–32. Mey regards discourse as “human-language-in-use,” which is different from text as “a collection of sentences” in the human act behind the text and its relation to the context: J. L. Mey, Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 191. 16.  Ibid., 5–8. 17.  This issue is related to the status of Balaam’s proclamation in v. 4b, a proclamation that is hardly appropriate to the prophetic speech at the inception of a divine revelation but would fit Balak at the end of v. 2; and see the commentaries. 18.  Manuscript 911; εἶπον 961 and the d group; singular εἶπεν: A and the b, n, s, t groups. 19.  Mey, Pragmatics, 236–56; and previously in his When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics (Berlin: Mouton; New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 6–12.

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

227

The Speaking Parties in the Dialogue Indication of the participants in a dialogue can be rather complicated, as shown in “Conversation Analysis.” 20 One notes, for example, the dialogue between Absalom and his father on the occasion of the prince’s shearing fest. Like all dialogues in biblical narrative, this give-and-take is a negotiation process in which both participants have interests at heart and a goal that they are trying to reach, rather than being a mere conversation. 21 In this dialogue, Absalom is the initiator who is inviting David to the festivity. The king is the respondent, who refuses to accept this invitation (the “dis-preferred response”). David’s approval, his consent to let Amnon participate (the “preferred response”) is given only when Absalom keeps insisting. In this dialogue, the two participants, the prince and his father, keep speaking in turn. Their proffers and responses, then, form “speaking turns.” Consecutive turns of proffer and response form an “adjacency pair” or, more elegant, a “round.” In the following analysis, the rounds will be indicated as “R1,” “R2,” and so on. The initiator’s turns will be indicated as “a,” the respondent’s as “b”; thus we have R1 a, R1 b; R2 a, R2 b; and so forth. This notation will include summarizing “indirect speech” and silent responses. When the reference to the subject is implied by a verbal form, this is indicated by a hyphen, such as for example, “he-said.” An independent pronoun will be indicated by italics. The dialogue typically opens with the indication of both parties: 22 R1 a: 2 Sam 13:24 ‫ויבא אבׁשלום אל־המלך‬ ‫ויאמר הנה־נא גזזים לעבדך ילך־נא המלך ועבדיו עם־עבדך‬

20.  The methods of “Conversation Analysis” are discussed by, for example, A. J. Liddicoat, An Introduction to Conversation Analysis (London: Continuum, 2007); I. Hutchby and R.  Wooffitt, Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications (Cambridge: Polity, 1998). In the biblical context, one notes C. L. Miller, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis, HSM 55 (Atlanta: Scholars Press; 1996), 235–43, 257–61; R.  F. Person, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah, JSOTSup 220 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 16–22, 37–40, 44–50. Literary dialogues take their cue from realworld conversation. 21.  A goal-oriented view of conversation, which by implication turns into a deal, is proposed by W. Edmondson, Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis (London: Longman, 1981), 75–87; F. H. Polak, “On Dialogue and Speaker Status in Biblical Narrative,” Beit Mikra 48 (2002–3): 1–18, 97–119 [Heb. with Eng. summary]; idem, “Forms of Talk in Hebrew Biblical Narrative: Negotiations, Interaction and Socio-cultural Context,” in Literary Fiction and the Construction of Identity in Ancient Literatures, ed. H. Liss and M. Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 167–98. 22.  The English renderings of the Hebrew are mostly dependent on the NRSV, with an occasional adaptation.

228

Frank H. Polak

And Absalom came to the king and said, “Your servant is having his flocks sheared. Will the king and his servants please go with your servant?” R1 b: 2 Sam 13:25a ‫ויאמר המלך אל־אבׁשלום אל־בני אל־נא נלך כלנו ולא נכבד עליך‬ But the king said to Absalom, 23 “No, my son, let-us not all go, and let-us not be burdensome to you.” David’s rejection of the proposal is marked by the indication of both speaker and addressee, as often in cases of disagreement, when both parties insist on their position. But the situation changes in the next round, when Absalom renews his proffer and David keeps refusing: 24 R2 a: 13:25b So he-urged him

‫ויפרץ־בו‬

R2 b ‫ולא־אבה ללכת ויברכהו‬ But he-did not agree to go and gave him his blessing. In this round, the speaking persons are not indicated explicitly, apart from the prefix/affix of the verbal form, which could indicate, however, both Absalom and the king. The ambiguity is resolved by the mechanics of turn-taking and role identification. With David’s refusal, it is Absalom’s turn to react. He may (1) give in, accepting the rejection of his proffer; or (2) press the king, renewing the invitation; or (3) adjust his proffer. 25 The narrator’s statement ‫ויפרץ־בו‬ “So he urged him” fits case (2) and thus marks Absalom as the speaking subject. On the other hand, the statement ‫“ ולא־אבה ללכת‬but he would not go” can only fit David’s position. The indication of the speaking subject, then, follows from the conjunction of two principles of discourse structure: (1) change of turn, and (2) the possible roles of the two parties. The next stage of the dialogue is once again marked by the indication of both parties: 23.  So also in the LXX (with very few variants according to the Cambridge apparatus) and the Lucianic manuscripts. 24.  On the Lucianic readings in v. 25b, which supply the subject that is not present in the MT, see p. 228 below. 25.  For these possibilities, see Edmondson, Spoken Discourse, 75–87; Polak, “Forms of Talk,” 173–89.

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

229

R3 a: 2 Sam 13:26 ‫ויאמר אבׁשלום ולא ילך־נא אתנו אמנון אחי‬ Thereupon Absalom said, “If not, let Amnon, my brother, go with us.” R3 b ‫ויאמר לו המלך למה ילך עמך‬ But the king said to him, “Why should he-go with you?” Absalom renews his proffer and asks, by way of compromise, for Amnon’s participation, but the king still turns him down. The indication of Absalom and David as speaking subjects creates a distinction between this stage of the dialogue and the preceding rounds. Thus the narrator marks Absalom’s new proposal and David’s continued rejection. In the end, however, the king does give in to Absalom’s continued requests: R4 a: 13:27a But Absalom urged him,

‫ויפרץ־בו אבׁשלום‬

R4 b: 13:27b ‫ויׁשלח אתו את־אמנון ואת כל־בני המלך‬ and he-sent 26 with him Amnon and all the princes. At this stage of the dialogue, the narrator distinguishes between Absalom, who is named by name, and David, who is not indicated explicitly as speaking subject. This distinction is quite meaningful, since it is Absalom who in the end prevails, whereas the king assents. One of the most characteristic examples is found in the tale of Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:29–34). At the outset, both characters are mentioned by name: Gen 25:29 ‫ויזד יעקב נזיד ויבא עׂשו מן־הׂשדה והוא עיף‬ So Jacob cooked a stew and Esau came in and he was famished. Their names appear again in the introduction of the dialogue. Esau takes the initiative: R1 a: 25:30a ‫ויאמר עׂשו אל־יעקב הלעיטני נא מן־האדם האדם הזה כי עיף אנכי‬ Then Esau said to Jacob, “Give me some of that red stuff to gulp down, for I am famished.” 26.  In this verse, no plus is noted for the Lucianic text, unlike v. 25b.

230

Frank H. Polak

R1 b: Gen 25:31 ‫ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום את־בכרתך לי‬ But Jacob said: “First sell me your birthright.” The names of the brothers are mentioned again in the second round of the negotiations when Esau gives in and Jacob demands an oath (vv. 32–33a). But when Esau accedes to this demand, the narrator changes the order of the discourse: R3a v. 33b ‫ויׁשבע לו וימכר את־בכרתו ליעקב‬ So he-swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. R3 b: 25:34aα ‫ויעקב נתן לעׂשו לחם ונזיד עדׁשים‬ Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew. Since Jacob has the upper hand and sets the deal, he is mentioned by name, whereas Esau is not, for he has yielded. The narrative is concluded in the same way: R4 a: 25:34aβ Then he-ate and drank, rose and went away.

‫ויאכל ויׁשת ויקם וילך‬

Only when the narrator asserts Esau’s responsibility for this fateful decision is his name mentioned again: ‫ויבז עׂשו את־הבכרה‬, “Thus did Esau spurn the birthright” (v. 34b). 27 We encounter a similar game in the tale of Naboth. In the description of Ahab’s homecoming following Naboth’s refusal to sell his land, the king is mentioned by name, in keeping with the norms for the setting: 1 Kgs 21:4 ‫ויבא אחאב אל־ביתו סר וזעף על־הדבר אׁשר־דבר אליו נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫ויאמר לא־אתן לך את־נחלת אבותי‬ ‫ויׁשכב על־מטתו ויסב את־פניו ולא־אכל לחם‬ Ahab went home moody and irate over the answer that Naboth the Jezreelite had given him; for he-had said, “I-will not give you my ancestral inheritance.” He-lay down on his bed, turned away his face, and would not eat food. When Jezebel appears on the scene, a conversation develops: R1 a: 1 Kgs 21:5 ‫ותבא אליו איזבל אׁשתו ותדבר אליו מה־זה רוחך סרה ואינך אכל לחם‬ 27.  By the same token, the narrator mentions man, woman, and serpent as respondents in the divine interrogation (Gen 3:12, unlike v. 11; 3:13b).

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

231

His wife Jezebel came to him and spoke, 28 “Why are you so depressed and will not eat food?” R1 b: 21:6 ‫וידבר אליה כי־אדבר אל־נבות היזרעאלי ואמר לו‬ ‫תנה־לי את־כרמך בכסף או אם־חפץ אתה אתנה־לך כרם תחתיו‬ ‫ויאמר לא־אתן לך את־כרמי‬ He-spoke to her, “For I-spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, ‘Sell me your vineyard for money; or else, if you prefer, I-will give you another 29 vineyard for it’; but he-said, ‘I-will not sell you my vineyard.’” R2 a: 21:7 ‫ותאמר אליו איזבל אׁשתו אתה עתה תעׂשה מלוכה על־יׂשראל‬ ‫קום אכל־לחם ויטב לבך אני אתן לך את־כרם נבות היזרעאלי‬ Then his wife Jezebel said to him, “Now you are exerting kingship over Israel! 30 Get up, eat some food, and be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.” In this conversation, the decisions are made by Jezebel rather than by Ahab. The queen is mentioned twice by name, whereas the name of the king is only mentioned at his homecoming, the setting for this exchange. The Pragmatics of Action Sequence and Character Presentation The upshot is that the mention/non-mention of name, title, or appellative relates to narrative structure, pragmatics and the way the narrator represents the position of a given character within the give-and-take. 31 I found it convenient to open this discussion with an analysis of dialogue episodes which 28.  The use of ‫ דבר‬as introduction to direct discourse without the additional introduction ‫ לאמר‬is striking. Since this verb is not used for Naboth’s speech, one may presume that it marks royal discourse. It has been classified as a deviation from classical usage by A. Rofé, “The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story,” VT 38 (1988): 89–104, esp. pp. 97–98. Rofé notes its usage in 1 Kings 13 and 2 Kings 1, which he attributes to the postexilic period, but he does not note Gen 41:17 (Pharaoh speaking); Exod 32:7 (divine speech); Lev 10:12, 19. 29.  LXX: ἀμπελῶνα ἄλλον. 30.  The contrast of ‫ אתה‬and ‫ אני‬indicates sarcasm rather than merely an ironic question. 31.  In previous discussions, similar structures were noted in, for example, Gen 18:23– 32; 23; 27:6–18; 31:26–31, 43–48; Exodus 32–33; Ruth 1:8–16; 4:1b–3, 5–9; 1 Sam 3:4–10; 9; 15:24–27; 1 Kings 2; 2 Kings 5; see my papers, “On Dialogue and Speaker Status,” 2–16, 97–102; “Forms of Talk,” 173–90; and “On Dialogue and Speaker Status in the Scroll of Ruth,” Beit Mikra 46 (2000–2001): 193–218 [Heb. with Eng. summary], esp. pp. 202–18; “Speaker, Addressee and Positioning: Dialogue Structure and Pragmatics in Biblical Narrative,” in Interested Readers: Essays on the Bible in Honor of David J. A. Clines, ed. J. K. Aitken, J. M. S. Clines, and C. M. Maier (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 359–72.

232

Frank H. Polak

define the interaction between two (or more) characters and thus establish their relative status in narrative discourse. These insights allow for two important amplifications. If one views an action episode as an interaction, either between protagonist and antagonist or between protagonist and an object, an action narrative may be analyzed along similar lines. The successful participant can be indicated by his/her name. For instance, in the Ehud tale the protagonist is repeatedly mentioned by name, whereas the mention of other participants is for the most part implicit (Judg 3:20–25): R1 a: Judg 3:20a ‫ואהוד בא אליו והוא־יׁשב בעלית המקרה אׁשר־לו לבדו‬ ‫ויאמר אהוד דבר־אלהים לי אליך‬ Ehud, then, came in to him, as he was sitting alone in his cool upper chamber. Ehud said, “I have a message for you from God.” R1 b: 3:20b So he-rose from his seat.

‫ויקם מעל הכסא‬

Since Ehud’s speech is decisive, he is mentioned by name, whereas Eglon, who lets himself be tricked, remains an implicit subject. This logic continues after Ehud finishes the undertaking (v. 22): R3 a: 3:23 ‫ויצא אהוד המסדרונה ויסגר דלתות העליה בעדו ונעל‬ Then Ehud went out into the vestibule, shut the doors of the upper chamber on him, and locked them. R3 b: 3:24 ‫והוא יצא ועבדיו באו ויראו והנה דלתות העליה נעלות‬ ‫ויאמרו אך מסיך הוא את־רגליו בחדר המקרה‬    3:25 ‫ויחילו עד־בוׁש והנה איננו פתח דלתות העליה ויקחו את־המפתח ויפתחו‬ ‫והנה אדניהם נפל ארצה מת‬ He left, and the courtiers came. They-saw—here, the doors of the upper chamber were locked, and thought, “He must be relieving himself in the cool chamber.” Thus they-waited until it-was-embarrassing; here, he did not open the doors of the chamber, so they-took the key and opened them—and there, their lord was lying dead on the floor!

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

233

Even when the mention of the king interrupts the sequence of the actions on the part of the courtiers, they are not mentioned again: they get the worst of it, whereas Ehud succeeds in his mission. No less exemplary is the tale of Asahel’s death (2 Sam 2:20–23): R1 a: 2 Sam 2:20a ‫ויפן אבנר אחריו ויאמר האתה זה עׂשהאל‬ Then Abner looked back and said, “Is it you, Asahel?” R1 b: 2:20b ‫ויאמר אנכי‬

He said, “It is I.” R2 a: 2:21a

‫ויאמר לו אבנר נטה לך על־ימינך או על־ׂשמאלך‬ ‫ואחז לך אחד מהנערים וקח־לך את־חלצתו‬ Abner said to him, “Turn to your right or to your left, seize one of the warriors, and seize his equipment.” R2 b: 2:21b ‫ולא־אבה עׂשהאל לסור מאחריו‬ But Asahel would not turn away from following him. The repeated mention of Asahel’s name is related to his refusal to accept Abner’s advise. But when the discussion continues, Abner dominates the scene and is referred to repeatedly by his name, unlike Asahel, whose name is only mentioned again at the end of the episode: R3 a: 2:22 ‫ויסף עוד אבנר לאמר אל־עׂשהאל סור לך מאחרי למה אככה ארצה‬ ‫ואיך אׂשא פני אל־יואב אחיך‬ Abner again said to Asahel, “Turn away from behind me! Why must I strike you down, and how should I hold up my face to your brother Joab?” R3 b: 2:23aα But he refused to turn away.

‫וימאן לסור‬

R4 a: 2:23aβ ‫ויכהו אבנר באחרי החנית אל־החמׁש ותצא החנית מאחריו‬

234

Frank H. Polak

So Abner struck him in the belly with the butt of his spear, and the spear came out at his back, R4 b: 2 Sam 2:23a and he fell there and died on the spot.

‫ויפל־ׁשם וימת תחתיו‬

In some cases, the mention/non-mention of a participant is connected to his/ her point of view, such as, for example, the low self-esteem of Mephibosheth, whose name is not mentioned even when he is acknowledging David’s gestures, in total self-humiliation or maybe in utter stupefaction (2 Sam 9:6, 8). Jacob’s subtle diplomacy vis-à-vis Esau is hinted at by the way in which the narrator refrains from mentioning his name, when the former fugitive succeeds in appeasing his brother by presenting himself as helpless and submissive. The encounter opens when Jacob perceives how Esau is coming near (Gen 33:1). Here, both brothers are indicated by name. Esau’s name is mentioned again when he sees Jacob’s wives and children (v. 5aα). The dialogue that develops between the two brothers is not marked by the name of Esau, the initiator, or Jacob, the respondent (vv. 5abβ, 8). But Esau’s refusal of the gifts that Jacob offers him is marked by the mention of his name and so is Jacob’s rejoinder: R1 a: Gen 33:9 ‫ויאמר עׂשו יׁש־לי רב אחי יהי לך אׁשר־לך‬ So Esau said, “I have plenty, my brother; let what you have be yours.” R1 b: 33:10 ‫ויאמר יעקב אל־נא אם־נא מצאתי חן בעיניך ולקחת מנחתי מידי‬ And Jacob said, “No, please; if I find favor with you, then accept my present from my hand.” But in the continuation, their names, which are by now clear to all, are not mentioned again (vv. 11–13) until Esau announces his intention to have a detachment accompany Jacob: R1 a: 33:15a ‫ויאמר עׂשו אציגה־נא עמך מן־העם אׁשר אתי‬ So Esau said, “Let me leave with you some of the people who are with me.” R1 b: 33:15b ‫ויאמר למה זה אמצא־חן בעיני אדני‬ But he said, “Why should my lord be so kind to me?”

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

235

Esau is presented as the commandeering brother who takes his mask off and threatens Jacob with his military power. Jacob, on the other hand, keeps a low profile as he uses all his diplomacy to ward off Esau’s proposal. In similar ways, women succeed in overcoming the ostensibly dominant male, such as Rachel vis-à-vis Laban (Gen 31:34–35) and Tamar over against Judah (Gen 38:11–22). In the book of Ruth, Naomi prevails over all parties, including Boaz. Guilt and responsibility are also indicated by the mention of a person’s name (Gen 3:9–17; 2 Sam 11:13–14). The Specification of Names in the LXX and the Qumran Texts The pragmatic game with name references often makes for opaque texts, unclear to readers who are less versed in the intricate patterns of Classical Hebrew stylistics, and thus in need of elucidation. In the tale of Absalom and David discussed above, the Lucianic version supplies the subject in both turns and thus clarifies the course of the dialogue (2 Sam 13:25): 32 R2 a: 2 Sam 13:25bα καὶ κατεβιάζετο αὐτὸν αβεσσαλωμ So Absalom urged him,

+ ‫ויפרץ־בו‬

R2 b: 13:25bβ ‫ ללכת ויברכהו‬+ ‫ולא־אבה‬ καὶ οὐκ ἐβούλετο ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ πορευθῆναι καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτόν but the king (he-)did not agree to go and gave him his blessing. The Lucianic plus parallels the next verses (vv. 26, 27a) as well as the preceding round (vv. 24–25a). A famous example is the episode of the meeting of Jeroboam and the prophet Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29–30): 1 Kgs 11:29 ‫ויהי בעת ההיא וירבעם יצא מירוׁשלם וימצא אתו אחיה הׁשילני הנביא בדרך‬ ‫והוא מתכסה בׂשלמה חדׁשה וׁשניהם לבדם בׂשדה‬ It happened during that time—Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, and the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh met him on the way, and he was clothed with a new robe, and the two were alone in the open country.

32.  The plus αβεσσαλωμ is attested by zc2e2, whereas ὁ βασιλεύς is found in boc2e2. Notably, in v. 27b, ‫ויׁשלח אתו את־אמנון‬, no plus is attested in the Lucianic version or in any other witness.

236

Frank H. Polak

LXX: 1 Kgs 11:29 καὶ ἐγενήθη ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ καὶ Ιεροβοαμ ἐξῆλθεν ἐξ Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ εὗρεν αὐτὸν Αχιας ὁ Σηλωνίτης ὁ προφήτης ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ καὶ ἀπέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ καὶ ὁ Αχιας περιβεβλημένος ἱματίῳ καινῷ, καὶ ἀμφότεροι ἐν τῷ πεδίω. And it happened at that time that Ieroboam went out of Ierousalem, and the prophet Achias the Selonite found him on the way and took him aside out of the way, and Achias was clothed in a new garment, and both were in the plain.  

11:30 ‫ויתפׂש אחיה בׂשלמה החדׁשה אׁשר עליו ויקרעה ׁשנים עׂשר קרעים‬ Then Ahijah took hold of the new robe he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces.

LXX καὶ ἐπελάβετο Αχια τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ τοῦ καινοῦ τοῦ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ καὶ διέρρηξεν αὐτὸ δώδεκα ῥήγματα The MT does not specify who was wearing the new robe, Jeroboam or Ahijah, since the subject is only indicated as ‫“ הוא‬he.” Thus the Midrash raised the question “Whose robe? This question is discussed by Rav and Levi. One said, Jeroboam’s robe, and one said, Ahijah’s robe. Said R. Shmuel bar Nahman, It seems that it was Ahijah’s robe, for it is the way of the righteous to be distressed when there is a division in David’s kingdom” (Midr. Sam. 18:5). 33 In the reading presented by the LXX, this question could hardly arise, since this reading specifies that it was indeed Ahijah’s robe. This is only one of a large number of cases in which the LXX (often accompanied by the Samaritan Pentateuch or one of the Qumran texts) specifies the speaking or acting subject where the MT lacks specific determination, for example: Gen 39:11 34 ‫ הביתה לעׂשות מלאכתו‬+ ‫ ויבא‬35 ‫ויהי כהיום הזה‬ SamP ‫ויהי כיום הזה ויבא יוסף הביתה לעׂשות מלאכתו‬ One day, however, Joseph (he-)entered the house to do his work. 33.  Midrash Samuel According to the Print of Constantinopel, 1512, ed. Berachyahu Lifshitz (Jerusalem: Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 2009), 61; for the variants, see p. 323; included in Yalqut Shimoni under sign 123 (‫)קכג‬. 34.  So also Gen 42:24; 43:29; 44:1, 17; 47:22; 48:17; Exod 13:19 (also the Samaritan Pentateuch). The plus is also found in the Vulgate at 39:11; 43:29; 44:1, 17. 35. 4Q1: ‫ = ויב]א הביתה‬MT.

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

237

LXX: Gen 39:11 ἐγένετο δὲ τοιαύτη τις ἡμέρα, εἰσῆλθεν Ιωσηφ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ποιεῖν τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Exod 15:25 36 ‫ אל־יהוה ויורהו יהוה עץ ויׁשלך אל־המים וימתקו המים‬+‫ויצעק‬ SamP ‫ויצעק משה אל יהוה ויורהו יהוה עץ ויׁשלך אל־המים וימתקו המים‬ LXX ἐβόησεν δὲ Μωυσῆς πρὸς κύριον· καὶ ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ κύριος ξύλον, καὶ ἐνέβαλεν αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ ἐγλυκάνθη τὸ ὕδωρ Frequently, pluses include the names of Abraham, 37 Jacob, 38 David, 39 Solomon, 40 Elijah, 41 and the title “king.” 42 In the lion’s share of these cases, the longer reading as presented by the LXX serves to clarify the picture, even though in the shorter reading of the MT the situation is not always unclear. In some cases, the longer reading seems to have ceremonial or symbolic value, such as in the episode of the building of Abram’s first altar (Gen 12:7) or Jacob’s consecration of the pillar at Bethel (28:19). In most cases, however, the specification of the subject, as against its nonspecification in the MT, seems to be conditioned by the ambiguity of the underspecification vis-à-vis the MT. A famous case in point is the episode of the tearing of the corner of Samuel’s robe (1 Sam 15:27–31): 43 R1 a: 1 Sam 15:27a So Samuel turned to go away,

‫ויסב ׁשמואל ללכת‬

36.  So also Exod 2:22; 4:13; 10:6, 18; 11:8; 16:23; 24:4; 34:4, 28; Lev 8:12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 28; 9:2; 10:16; Num 12:1; Deut 31:23. 37.  Gen 12:7, 11; 15:6 (see below); and for Rebekah: 25:26. I have no examples for Isaac. 38.  Gen 28:19; 29:7, 23, 25; 30:29, 37; 31:1; 32:9; 33:1; 35:8, 16; 48:9. For Rachel: 30:3, 23; and for Leah: 29:33. 39.  1 Sam 21:11; 2 Sam 3:13 (the reading of 4QSam51 is unclear); 8:2; 12:5, 22 (possibly haplography); 13:37 (ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαυιδ; Vulgate: David); 20:5. 40.  1 Kgs 3:1 (5:14a); 5:12; 7:1; 9:24 (2:35–36); 2 Chr 9:10. 41.  1 Kgs 17:5, 10, 11, 19, 20; 18:8, 18, 21, 43; 19:3, 6, 10, 14, 20; 2 Kgs 1:9, 15; 2:10; and Elisha: 1 Kgs 19:20; 2 Kgs 2:4, 6, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21; 4:7, 29, 30, 33, 36, 38; 5:16, 19, 26; 6:16; 7:2, 19; 8:5; 13:18. 42.  Judg 3:20 (vocative); 1 Kgs 8:14; 22:6; 2 Kgs 1:11, 13 (following v. 6); 7:17; 13:18. 43.  This question is discussed in Midrash Samuel before the discussion of Ahijah’s robe (see n. 33). On the short reading of LXX 1 Sam 15:31, p. 245 below.

238

Frank H. Polak

R1 b: 1 Sam 15:27b ‫ויחזק בכנף־מעילו ויקרע‬ But he-caught-hold of the hem of his robe, and it-tore. In the MT, the text does not specify who took hold of whose robe, but in the context it can only be Saul who tried to prevent Samuel from leaving. His action, then, represents a response within the interaction between prophet and king and thus a turn-taking within an interaction. Saul’s name is not mentioned because he has the worst of it. It is Samuel who calls the shots, and accordingly, is mentioned by name each time: R2 a: 15:28 ‫ויאמר אליו ׁשמואל קרע יהוה את־ממלכות יׂשראל מעליך היום‬ So Samuel said to him, “Yhwh has torn the Kingdom of Israel from you today.” R2 b: 15:30 ‫ויאמר חטאתי עתה כבדני נא נגד זקני־עמי ונגד יׂשראל‬ ‫וׁשוב עמי והׁשתחויתי ליהוה אלהיך‬ Then he-said, “I-have-sinned; honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, so that I-may-bow-low to Yhwh your God.” In the LXX and 4Q51 (4QSama), the subject is made explicit both times: 44 LXX: 15:27b καὶ ἐκράτησεν Σαουλ τοῦ πτερυγίου τῆς διπλοΐδος αὐτοῦ καὶ διέρρηξεν αὐτό 4Q51 [. . .] ‫]ו]יחזק שאול‬ NRSV Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it-tore. LXX: 15:30a καὶ εἶπεν Σαουλ Ἡμάρτηκα, ἀλλὰ δόξασον με δὴ ἐνώπιον πρεσβυτέρων Ισραηλ 44.  The Vulgate, by contrast, adds the demonstrative ille “that one”/“the other one”: ille autem adprehendit “the other, however, caught . . .”; so also in v. 30a: at ille ait, “he said, in his turn . . .” (similarly, e.g., Gen 15:8; 19:33; 21:30, and passim—with 137 occurrences according to Accordance).

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

239

NRSV: 1 Sam 15:30a Then Saul said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now. . . .” The longer reading specifying Saul’s role as agent and speaker makes clear who is doing what. In many cases, then, the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the scrolls from the Judean desert add an explicit subject not present in the MT in order to clarify the text. Two questions, then, arise. First, why do translator and/or scribe find it necessary to clarify the text where the primary reading does not reflect a need of this kind? In other words, how to explain the difference in attitude between the MT and the other witnesses to the text? This question gives rise to a second question: is clarification of this type in general due to Hebrew scribal transmission, to the translator or to both? Participle, Pronoun, and Clarification by Means of the Greek Idiom Addition of the explicit subject is not the only method used for clarification. In the LXX we encounter other methods as well, some of them quite minimal. Sometimes an easy way out is provided by the conjunct participle which turns a predicate with implicit subject into an attribute in a noun phrase and thus determines agent or speaker by the morphosyntactic dependence of the attribute. 45 This is the way the translator handles the meeting between Joseph and Jacob in Egypt: Gen 46:29 ‫ויאסר יוסף מרכבתו ויעל לקראת־יׂשראל אביו גׁשנה‬ ‫וירא אליו ויפל על־צואריו ויבך על־צואריו עוד‬ Joseph made ready his chariot and went up to meet his father Israel in Goshen. He presented himself to him, fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while. LXX ζεύξας δὲ Ἰωσὴφ τὰ ἅρματα αὐτοῦ ἀνέβη εἰς συνάντησιν Ἰσραὴλ τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ καθ᾿ Ἡρώων πόλιν καὶ ὀφθεὶς αὐτῷ ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔκλαυσεν κλαυθμῷ πλείονι. The MT and the Samaritan famously raise the question: who presented himself to whom, Joseph, as a son to his father (Rashi)? or Jacob, as a fugitive to the 45.  In the Vulgate, this method is often used to render circumstantial clauses with pronominal subject—e.g., Gen 18:1 (sedenti in ostio tabernaculi sui); Num 22:5 (sedens contra me); Judg 13:9 (sedenti in agro); 2 Sam 18:9 (sedens mulo); 1 Kgs 11:29 (opertus pallio novo; see pp. 239–239 above); 1 Kgs 19:19 (arantem duodecim iugis boum). The LXX has ἐκλείπων for MT ‫( והוא עיף‬Gen 25:29). For some general comments on the use of the conjunct participle, see A. Aejmelaeus, “Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion of Translation Technique,” VT 32 (1982): 385–93.

240

Frank H. Polak

viceroy? 46 In the LXX (and the Vulgate, vidensque eum), the problem is solved by the use of the participle, which can only refer to Joseph. In many cases, the translator uses the Greek pattern of independent pronoun followed by the clitic δέ, as found often in Greek, 47 for instance in the story of Stephen in the book of Acts: Acts 7:1–2 48 Εἶπεν δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· εἰ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει; ὁ δὲ ἔφη· Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες, ἀκούσατε. Then the high priest asked him, “Are these things so?” And he said: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me.” In the tale of the encounter of Jacob and Esau (Gen 33:1–15), the Hebrew text of which was discussed above, we note: R1 a: Gen 33:15a ‫ויאמר עׂשו אציגה־נא עמך מן־העם אׁשר אתי‬ So Esau said, “Let me leave with you some of the people who are with me.” LXX εἶπεν δὲ Ησαυ Καταλείψω μετὰ σοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ R1 b: 33:15b ‫ויאמר למה זה אמצא־חן בעיני אדני‬ But he said, “Why should my lord be so kind to me?” LXX ὁ δὲ εἶπεν 49 Ἵνα τί τοῦτο; ἱκανὸν ὅτι εὗρον χάριν ἐναντίον σου, κύριε. 46. N. Leibowitz, Studies in Bereshit (Genesis), trans. A. Newman, 4th ed. (Jerusalem: Eliner Library, Joint Authority for Zionist Education, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora, 1981), 503–4. Nahmanides argues that Jacob was all his life weeping for Joseph, and thus he must likewise be the person weeping here. Leibowitz implicitly follows the logic of turn-taking when she points to the indication of Jacob’s response in v. 28. 47. See Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik, 507–9; note the rendering ὁ δὲ τελευτᾷ ὑπὸ πικρίας ψυχῆς for ‫( וזה ימות בנפׁש מרה‬Job 21:25); and 4 Macc 13:11: καὶ ὁ μέν Θάρρει, ἀδελφέ ἔλεγεν, ὁ δέ Εὐγενῶς καρτέρησον “And one said, ‘Courage, brother,’ and another, ‘Bear up nobly.’” 48.  In accordance with the demands of the English idiom, the RSV and NRSV clarify the matter by insertion of the personal name: “and Stephen replied” for ὁ δὲ ἔφη. 49.  The Göttingen apparatus does not mention any variant that adds Jacob’s name.

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

241

NETS And he said: “Why is this? It is enough that I have found favour before you, lord.” A construction of this type enables the translator to clarify the situation without explicitly mentioning the speaker’s name. 50 In this respect, the Greek version preserves the character of the Hebrew, although this construction differs from the syntactic structure of the Hebrew in the use of the pronoun. In the present tale, this method is used also in vv. 5 and 8 (here the Vetus Latina [Sabatier]) has iacob). Note also such cases as: Gen 4:9 ‫ויאמר יהוה אל־קין אי הבל אחיך ויאמר לא ידעתי הׁשמר אחי אנכי‬ Then Yhwh said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” But he said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” LXX καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Κάιν Ποῦ ἐστιν Ἅβελ ὁ ἀδελφός σου; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Οὐ γινώσκω· μὴ φύλαξ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μού εἰμι ἐγώ Gen 18:9 ‫ויאמרו אליו איה ׂשרה אׁשתך ויאמר הנה באהל‬ Then they (LXX “he”) said to him, “Where is your wife Sarah?” And he said, “There, in the tent.” LXX Εἶπεν 51 δὲ πρὸς αὐτόν Ποῦ Σάρρα ἡ γυνή σου; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Ἰδοὺ ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ. The last example carries all the more weight since in this pericope the LXX faithfully reflects all cases of underspecification (v. 5b, καὶ εἶπαν, with variant καὶ εἶπoν; 52 vv. 9a, 10, 15) and explicit subject (v. 13, ‫ויאמר יהוה‬ / καὶ εἶπεν 50.  So also, according to the Rahlfs text used by Accordance, Gen 22:1, 7; 24:56; 27:18, 20, 32; 32:27, 28 (26, 27); 37:16; 38:17–18; 39:8; 42:13 (plural), 38; 44:10; 46:2; 47:30; Exod 2:14, 18, 20; 3:4; 4:2; 8:6 (10); Num 20:20; 22:30; Josh 5:14; 2 Sam 20:17; Prov 9:18; Job 2:10; Ruth 4:4; and in the Apocrypha: Tob 5:9, 13; 8:2; Dan 13:58. and with ἡ δέ: Gen 24:18, 57, 58, 65; 38:16–18, 29; Exod 2:8 (followed by ἡ θυγάτηρ Φαραω); 2 Sam 14:5; 1 Kgs 1:17; 2:13; 2 Kgs 4:2, 13, 16, 23, 26, 28; 5:3 (not as a reaction); Jer 2:25 (‫;)ותאמרי‬ Ruth 2:13; 3:7, 9, 14, 16, 18; and in the Apocrypha: Jdt 13:14; Tob 2:14. With οἱ δέ: Gen 24:57; 29:4–6, 8; 34:31; 40:8; 42:7, 10, 13; 43:28; 44:7; 47:3; and in the Apocrypha: 1 Esd 6:12 (Ezra 5:11); Jdt 14:12; Tob 7:4–5. And with αἱ δέ: Exod 2:19. 51.  With hexaplaric variant εἶπον. 52.  Manuscript 911; εἶπον: 961 and the d group; singular εἶπεν: A and the b, n, s, t groups.

242

Frank H. Polak

κύριος). The Greek idiom, then, enables the translator to clarify the text perfectly without having recourse to the addition of noun phrases. Thus the translator did not need to add personal names and nouns in order to present a clear narrative sequence. This finding raises the question whether the longer text that offers specification of the acting/speaking subject should be ascribed to the translator. In the following sections, I will present evidence that points to the Hebrew Vorlage as the source of the specification instead. Indications of Role and Status in the LXX In the preceding discussion, I already pointed out a number of cases in which the longer reading, with specified subject, appears both in the LXX and in an alternative Hebrew text, such as the Samaritan Pentateuch (Gen 39:11; Exod 15:25) or a Qumran scroll (1 Sam 15:27). A Hebrew source text may be postulated when the longer reading with specification serves the pragmatics of discourse rather than mere clarity: Gen 3:1 . . . ‫והנחׁש היה ערום מכל חית הׂשדה‬ . . . ‫  אל־האׁשה‬53+ ‫ויאמר‬ Now the serpent was more wily than any other wild animal. . . . And the serpent/he-said to the woman. . . . LXX Ὁ δὲ ὄφις ἦν φρονιμώτατος πάντων τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ... καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ὄφις τῇ γυναικί In this case, the repeated mention of the serpent as subject in two coordinate clauses is not necessary for clarity. One could regard the longer reading as a mere expansion by parallelism. But the structuring of the discourse points to another possibility, for the introduction of the dialogue typically includes both parties—in this case, the woman and the serpent. Thus the LXX presents the full introduction of the dialogue. A full introduction of this kind is even found when both sides have already been introduced, such as, for example: Gen 31:36 54 ... ‫ויחר ליעקב וירב בלבן ויען יעקב ויאמר ללבן‬ Then Jacob became angry, and upbraided Laban. Jacob said to Laban, . . . . 53.  So also the Peshiṭta (Ambrosianus), but 4Q10, SamP, and Vulgate = MT. 54.  See also Gen 31:31 and 42:18. The apparatus of the Göttingen edition for 31:36 does not indicate any variants without a second reference to Jacob.

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

243

LXX ὠργίσθη δὲ Ἰακὼβ καὶ ἐμαχέσατο τῷ Λαβάν· ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰακὼβ εἶπεν τῷ Λαβάν Accordingly, the long reading in the Greek version of the tale of the serpent may reflect an authentic Hebrew text. 55 The shorter reading of the MT could reflect its ultimate exposure and punishment. Another case in point is the divine accusation of Cain: Gen 4:10 ‫ויאמר מה עשית קול דמי אחיך צעקים אלי מן האדמה‬ LXX καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός 56 Τί ἐποίησας; φωνὴ αἵματος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου βοᾷ πρός με ἐκ τῆς γῆς The explicit indication ὁ θεός could be based on the preceding introduction in v. 9, ‫ ויאמר יהוה אל קין‬/ καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Κάιν, in which the specification of the divine speaker is in keeping with the norm. The shorter reading of the MT fits the principle of turn-taking, but the longer reading suits the divine role, since the deity accuses Cain and decides his fate. The use of the appellation ὁ θεός in our verse fits this role, like its parallel in v. 9, and is not necessarily secondary. 57 By the same token, one notes the specification of the divine speaker in the Greek version of the episode of Jacob’s blessing: Gen 35:9 + ‫וירא אלהים אל־יעקב עוד בבאו מפדן ארם ויברך אתו‬ SamP ‫וירא אלהים אל־יעקב עוד בבאו מפדן ארם ויברך אתו אלהים‬ God appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-aram, and God/he-blessed him. 55.  So also, for example, Gen 4:10 (// v. 9, in spite of the reading ὁ θεός in both verses); in this case, the plus could fit a decisive divine dictum. 56.  A few manuscripts read κύριος or κύριος ὁ θεός. SamP = MT. 57.  On this use of the divine appellation, see E.  Otto, “Abraham zwischen Jhwh und Elohim: Zur narrativen Logik des Wechsels der Gottesbezeichnungen in den Abrahamerzählungen,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert, ed. A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer, BZAW 400 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 49–65; P. Volz and W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? an der Genesis erläutert, BZAW 63 (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1933), 15–16: and my paper, “Divine Names, Sociolinguistics and the Pragmatics of Pentateuchal Narrative,” in Words, Ideas, Worlds: Biblical Essays in Honour of Yairah Amit, ed. A. Brenner and F. H. Polak (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 159–78. By contrast, the commutation of Cain’s sentence is presented in the name of κύριος ὁ θεός, which combines authority (“judgment”) and solidarity (“mercy”). Accordingly, this reading could represent an authentic Hebrew text.

244

Frank H. Polak

LXX: Gen 35:9 Ὤφθη δὲ ὁ θεὸς Ἰακὼβ ἔτι ἐν Λοῦζα, ὅτε παρεγένετο ἐκ Μεσοποταμίας τῆς Συρίας, καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός 58 The plus ‫אלהים‬/ὁ θεός is redundant in the light of the preceding clause and the following ‫ ויאמר לו אלהים‬/εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός (v. 10). Thus we must consider the possibility that it serves to highlight divine sovereignty. 59 The pragmatic overtones of the specification of the speaking/acting subject suggest roots in Hebrew textual tradition rather than in the work of the Greek translator. In some cases, the Greek version even represents underspecification where the MT has the longer and better specified text. I turn now to some of these cases. Underspecification in the LXX and the Scrolls In spite of the frequency of clarification by expansion, the LXX and some Qumran texts also include a number of shorter readings, in which the acting subject, indicated by the MT, is not specified. 60 In many cases, this pattern is related to coordinate clauses 61 in which the repetition of the subject is related to his/her role in the present interaction, such as, for example: 62 Gen 42:18 ‫ויאמר אלהם יוסף ביום הׁשליׁשי זאת עׂשו וחיו‬ LXX 63 Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς—τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ Τοῦτο ποιήσατε καὶ ζήσεσθε On the third day Joseph (LXX “he”) said to them, “Do this and you will live, for I am God-fearing.” In this verse, the MT notes Joseph’s name in the context of a new interaction, in spite of the fact that in the preceding clauses Joseph already appears as the speaking and acting subject (42:14–17). In the LXX, Joseph’s role remains implicit, as it is in the preceding verse (v. 17), which is dependent on the men-

58.  This phrase is lacking in only a few manuscripts. 59.  Similar considerations could serve to explain the plus of ὁ θεὸς in Gen 1:7. 60.  The Pentateuch minuses of the LXX involving the subject (according to the MT) are registered systematically in F. Polak and G. Marquis, A Classified Index of the Minuses of the Septuagint, Part II: The Pentateuch, CATSS Basic Tools 5 (Stellenbosch: s.n., 2002), 37–38, 129–30, 203–4, 271–72, 352–53. Other syntactic functions are likewise catalogued. 61.  So also Gen 29:12; 35:29; 41:33; 42:1, 4; 43:17. 62.  The vocable lacking representation in the LXX is underlined; the position where it would be expected in the Greek is indicated by a long dash. 63.  SamP = MT. Joseph is mentioned explicitly in the hexaplaric manuscripts.

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

245

tion of Joseph in the opening of the spoken discourse (v. 14). 64 Since this clause introduces a new stage in the interaction, the construction of the LXX fits the norms of Biblical Hebrew discourse structure and could represent an authentic Hebrew text. One also encounters cases in which the shorter reading of the Greek suits pragmatic preferences of the Classical Hebrew narrative style. In the continuation of the tale of the confrontation between Saul and Samuel, discussed above, Saul is mentioned explicitly in the MT but not in the LXX: 1 Sam 15:31 ‫ויׁשב ׁשמואל אחרי ׁשאול ויׁשתחו ׁשאול ליהוה‬ So Samuel turned back after Saul; and Saul 65 (LXX/4Q51, “he”) bowed low to Yhwh LXX καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν Σαμουηλ ὀπίσω Σαουλ, καὶ προσεκύνησεν—τῷ κυρίῳ 4Q51 66 ‫]וי]שב שמו[א]ל ]אח]רי ]שאול וישת]חו—ליהוה‬ It is not easy to assess these readings. What speaks in favor of the shorter reading of the LXX and the scroll is the consideration that Saul is still presented at the losing end, in accordance with his position in the previous sequence and in the ensuing ceremony, dominated by Samuel (15:32–33). One could theorize that the shorter reading arose in order to avoid unnecessary repetition, but this solution seems less likely in view of the clear preference for specification in the LXX. In this case, then, one may conclude that the shorter reading, using underdetermination as a way of characterizing Saul’s position in the interaction, was the primary reading, which was expanded and clarified in the longer reading of the MT. Another case in point is the Balaam tale: Num 22:23 ‫ותרא האתון את־מלאך יהוה נצב בדרך וחרבו ׁשלופה בידו‬ ‫ותט האתון מן־הדרך ותלך בׂשדה ויך בלעם את־האתון להטתה הדרך‬ The donkey saw the angel of Yhwh standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; so the donkey turned off the road, and went into 64.  So likewise Gen 42:1; Deut 31:24–25; and in the opening of a new interaction: Exod 2:2; 13:14–15; Num 20:27–28; 30:14–15; or a new stage in the ritual: Exod 34:31–33; Lev 14:15–16, 24; Num 23:2. 65.  So also the (hexaplaric) Alexandrinus, Vulgate, Targum Nebiʾim, and Peshiṭta. 66.  The sequence ‫[חו ליהוה‬. . .] does not leave any doubt about the lack of specification of the acting subject.

246

Frank H. Polak

the field; and Balaam (LXX “he”) struck the donkey (LXX + with the stick) to turn it back onto the road. LXX: 67 Num 22:23 καὶ ἰδοῦσα ἡ ὄνος τὸν ἄγγελον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνθεστηκότα ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ καὶ τὴν ῥομφαίαν ἐσπασμένην ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐξέκλινεν ἡ ὄνος ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ καὶ ἐπορεύετο εἰς τὸ πεδίον καὶ ἐπάταξεν—τὴν ὄνον τῇ ῥάβδῳ τοῦ εὐθῦναι αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. The implicit reference to Balaam in the last part of the verse in the LXX seems to be related to his role in the confrontation, for he has the worst of it. In the MT, we encounter a similar pattern in the next stage: 22:25 ‫ותרא האתון את־מלאך יהוה ותלחץ אל־הקיר‬ ‫ותלחץ את־רגל בלעם אל־הקיר ויסף להכתה‬ Then the donkey saw the angel of Yhwh, it-scraped against the wall, and scraped Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he-struck it again. LXX . . . καὶ ἀπέθλιψεν τὸν πόδα Βαλαάμ—καὶ προσέθετο ἔτι μαστίξαι αὐτήν . . . and it-squeezed Balaam’s foot, and he-added to whip it again. In view of this parallel, it is clear that in v. 23 the shorter reading of the LXX is primary vis-à-vis the clarifying specification of the MT. In some cases, the shorter reading has to do with the psychological state of the character being described: Gen 42:4 ‫ואת־בנימין אחי יוסף לא־ׁשלח יעקב את־אחיו כי אמר פן־יקראנו אסון‬ But Jacob (LXX “he”; SamP = MT) did not send Joseph’s brother Benjamin with his brothers, for he feared that harm might come to him. LXX τὸν δὲ Βενιαμὶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰωσὴφ οὐκ ἀπέστειλεν—μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ· εἶπεν γάρ Μήποτε συμβῇ αὐτῷ μαλακία The underspecification of Jacob’s preventive measures is surprising, for the previous verse mentions the brothers as agents (42:3). But this case of under­ determination could be connected to the indication of Jacob’s fears. If this is 67.  The hexaplaric manuscripts and manuscript groups d, n, and t have the longer reading with Balaam as subject.

Implicit Subject, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatics

247

the case, the explicit mention of the patriarch in the MT and the SamP once again presents a clarifying expansion. Overdetermination, Underspecification, and Periodization To cut a long story short, the apparently unimportant game of mention and non-mention of the subject is of basic importance in biblical narrative, both for discourse structure and for the pragmatics of the character’s role in the narrative. Mention and non-mention are indicative of highlighting, discourse structure, and the pragmatics of the role of the character at hand: of her/his success in the spoken interaction and the action/reaction sequence, and of the way in which a character views her- or himself. The question that still demands an answer is why certain versions, mostly the MT, preserve the game of mention and non-mention, whereas other text forms frequently mention the acting/speaking subject—at times the SamP or one of the texts from the Judean Desert but more often the LXX. It seems to me that the answer to this question relates to differences in taste. We see that late biblical texts, such as Esther, almost always mention the subject (unless the narrative continues with the same subject in coordinate clauses). 68 These texts, then, prefer clarity over the intricate pragmatics of the classical texts, a preference that could be connected to the professional scribal norms of biblical narrative in the postexilic (and post-Assyrian) period. 69 One may discern a similar preference in most cases of explicit subject in the LXX, the SamP, and the scrolls vis-à-vis an implicit subject in the MT. In the few cases where the MT has the explicit subject as against an implicit subject in variant texts, such as the LXX or the SamP, it seems that adaptation to the preference for clarity has occurred in the transmission line of the (proto-)MT. No line of transmission could be considered immune to secondary adaptation, but in the line of the MT this sort of adaptation is generally less frequent than in the lines of the alternative textual variants. 68.  For instance: Esth 4:1a, 5–10, 12–17; 6:3–7, 10–13; 7:1–9 (including the mention of Harbonah). One notes the mention of the subject in the continued dialogue in 4:7, 10, 13, 15, 17; 6:4–5 (‫נערי המלך‬, repeating 6:3b); 6:7 (Haman, repeating v. 6a–b); 6:10–11a (as against v. 11b–c); 7:5–6, 8. In Ezra and Nehemiah, we do not encounter significant turn-taking (but note the indefinite subject, Neh 8:18). In the parts of Chronicles that do not have parallels in Samuel or Kings, we encounter only a few cases of turn-taking without explicit indication, but note 2 Chr 25:15–16; 35:20b–21. In 2 Chr 29:21, the change of subject is indicated by the singular/plural interchange: ‫ ;ויאמר ויביאו‬similarly 35:1–2; Jonah 1:8–9, 11–12; 4:8. An unmarked change of subject appears in Jonah 3:6; 4:9. 69.  For this view of the evolution of biblical narrative style see, most recently, my paper “Language Variation, Discourse Typology, and the Socio-Cultural Background of Biblical Narrative,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, ed. C. L. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 301–38.

Weighing in the Scales: How an Egyptian Concept Made Its Way into Biblical and Postbiblical Literature Nili Shupak Haifa University The notion of measuring and reckoning plays a prominent role in Second Temple Jewish literature (customarily dated from the 2nd century b.c.e. to the end of the 1st century c.e.), which is reflected in the widespread usage of vocabulary such as ‫“ מדד‬measure,” ‫“ שקל‬weigh,” ‫“ תכן‬estimate,” ‫“ חלק‬divide, share,” and ‫“ חשב‬calculate” (verbs); and ‫“ מאזנים‬scales,” ‫“ מידה‬measure, length,” ‫“ משורה‬measure, capacity,” and ‫“ משקל‬weight” (nouns). 1 The three principal contexts in which this terminology is employed are the divine act of creation, the determination of times and seasons, and the ethicalspiritual appraisal of (human) character and deeds. 2 In this essay, I shall focus on the third aspect, suggesting that its origins lie in an Egyptian motif that penetrated biblical Wisdom Literature, whence it found its way into the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings and Qumran literature. I begin by surveying the relevant biblical Wisdom texts in light of the Egyptian evidence and tracing the adoption and adaptation of the Egyptian material within biblical literature. I shall then turn my attention to Second Temple writings that deal with measuring and weighing in general and ethical evaluation in particular. Finally, I shall endeavor to reconstruct the process whereby First 1.  This paper deals with, among other things, the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings—one of the special areas of interest of my dear colleague Prof. Zipi Talshir, to whom this essay is dedicated with great esteem. 2.  See most recently M. Kister, “Physical and Metaphysical Measurements Ordained by God in the Literature of the Second Temple Period,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran, ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. A. Clements (Leiden:Brill, 2005), 153–76; D.  Dimant, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in the Light of Qumran Literature,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction After the Fall in Light of Qumran Literature, ed. M. Henze, G. Boccaccini, and J. M. Zurawski; JSJSup (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming); idem, “The Concept of Time in 4 Ezra in Light of the Qumran Sectarian Literature,” Me­ ghillot [Heb.] (forthcoming). My thanks go to Devorah Dimant for allowing me to read her papers prior to publication and drawing my attention to additional relevant sources.

249

250

Nili Shupak

Temple notions were incorporated into the compositions of the Second Temple period. Second Temple Jewish literature, like the biblical texts, employs the motif of weighing and measuring primarily in the context of the divine act of creation (cf. Isa 4:12–13; Job 28:25; Ps 75:4) and ethical evaluation rather than the determination of times and seasons. The dominant lexicon of biblical literature was, for the most part, retained in Second Temple writings. The roots ‫מדד‬, ‫שקל‬, and ‫ ;תכן‬and nouns ‫מידה‬, ‫משקל‬, and ‫ מאזנים‬appear in both sets of texts. 3 The root ‫תכן‬, which is widely used in Second Temple literature in the context of measuring and weighing, also appears often in the biblical texts, where it also signifies measuring, reckoning, and counting. 4 Although it occurs in the description of the divine act of creation, it more frequently appears in the ethical framework—in relation to human qualities and attributes or to God’s ways and thoughts, which cannot be fathomed or plumbed. 5 In this context, the phrases ‫ תֹכֵן ִלּבֹות‬and ‫תֹכֵן רוחות‬, which apply to human ethical conduct and occur only in Proverbs, are particularly striking: Prov 21:2

ְ ‫ָל־ּדר‬ ′‫ָׁשר ְּבעֵינָיו ְותֹכֵן ִלּבֹות ה‬ ָ ‫־איׁש י‬ ִ ‫ֶך‬ ֶ ‫ּכ‬ Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart. 6

Prov 24:12

‫ֵׁשיב‬ ִ ‫ׁשךָ הּוא י ֵָדע ְוה‬ ְ ‫ָבין ְונֹצֵר נ ְַפ‬ ִ ‫ִּכי־תֹאמַר הֵן לֹא־יָדַ ְענּו־זֶה הֲלֹא־תֹכֵן ִלּבֹות הּוא־י‬ ‫ָדם ְּכ ָפעֳלֹו‬ ָ ‫ְלא‬ If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not requite man according to his work?

In Prov 16:2, which parallels 21:2, ‫ תֹכֵן ִלּבֹות‬is replaced by ‫תֹכן רוחות‬: ′‫ֵי־איׁש ז ְַך ְּבעֵינָיו ְותֹכֵן רּוחֹות ה‬ ִ ‫ּכָל־ּדַ ְרכ‬

All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirit.

3. The biblical texts include additional roots, such as ‫“( כול‬measure”) and ‫נטה קו‬ (“stretch out a line”). 4.  Kister, “Physical and Metaphysical Measurements,” 153–54, 166–69. 5. God ‫ ִּתּכֵן‬the waters, sky, and pillars of the earth: cf. Isa 40:12; Job 28:25; Ps 75:4. For the usage in regard to human traits, see Prov 16:2, 21:2, 24:12; cf. Ezek 18:25, 33:17; and below. For the usage in an ethical connotation with respect to God’s nature, see Isa 40:13; Ezek 18:25, 29; 33:17, 20. 6.  Scriptural quotations follow the RSV, unless otherwise stated.

Weighing in the Scales

251

The idiom ‫ תֹכֵן ִלּבֹות‬should be understood in light of the role the heart plays in the Egyptian Judgment of the Dead. Here, the deceased’s heart is weighed on a scale against Maat, the goddess of justice—or her symbol, the feather. 7 In this context, the heart (the seat of understanding, intellect, and emotion in both Egyptian and biblical texts) symbolizes the innermost being and essence of human existence. 8 The deceased person is found innocent and gains eternal life if the weight of his heart equals that of truth. Some of the verses in Proverbs are set in a similarly forensic framework, wherein the motif of recompense according to one’s deeds is represented as “measure for measure”: ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ֵׁשיב ְלא‬ ִ ‫ְוה‬ ‫“ ְּכ ָפעֳלֹו‬and will he not requite man according to his work?” (24:12); ′‫ּכֹל ָּפעַל ה‬ ‫ָׁשע ְליֹום ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫“ ַל ַּמעֲנֵהּו ְוגַם־ר‬The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (16:4). Not all scholars concur that the phrase ‫ תֹכֵן ִלּבֹות‬reflects an Egyptian motif. Those who dispute Egyptian influence on these biblical passages contend that the Hebrew root ‫ תכן‬does not carry the sense of “to weigh.” 9 Analysis of the biblical use of the root indicates that it does indeed customarily signify “measure, count, reckon” rather than “weigh.” Precisely this fact, however, reinforces the claim of Egyptian influence. 10 In contrast to the iconographic descriptions, the Egyptian literary sources rarely refer to the weighing of the 7.  The first to note this association was H. Gressman, Israels Spruchweisheit in Zusammenhang der Weltliterature, Kunst und Altertum: Alte Kulturen im Licht nuer Forschung 6 (Berlin: Curtius, 1925), 43–57; idem, “Die neuegefundene Lehre des Amen-em-ope und die vorexilische Spruchdichtung Israëls,” ZAW 42 (1924): 281. See also R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, AB 18 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 106; M. H. Pope, Job, AB 15 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 201; R. E. Murphy, Proverbs, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 120; and recently V. A. Hurowitz, Proverbs, Mikra Leyisrael (Jerusalem: Magnes; Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 2012), 2.483–84 [Heb.]. 8.  For the various meanings and uses of the term “heart” in Egyptian and biblical writings, see my book Where Can Wisdom Be Found? The Sage’s Language in the Bible and in Ancient Egyptian Literature, OBO 130 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: University Press, 1993), 297–311. The belief in judgment of the dead and the image of the heart weighed in the scales occurs frequently in Egyptian sapiential literature, both explicitly and implicitly via metaphoric usage. Thus, for example, “The Court that judges the wretch, you know they are not lenient, on the day of judging the miserable. . . . When a man remains over after death, his deeds are set beside him as treasure” (Instruction Addressed to Merikare, 53–57); “Do not move the scales nor alter the weights. . . . The ape sits by the balance, his heart is in the plummet; Where is a god as great as Thoth . . . ?” (Instruction of Amenemope, 17.17–18.2); “The god lays the heart on the scales opposite the weight. He knows the impious and the pious man by his heart” (Instruction of Papyrus Insinger, 5, 7–8; cf. 4, 17–18). See M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–80), 1.101, 2.156–57, 3.189, respectively. 9.  See Y. Kaufmann, Toldot ha-emuna ha-israelit [The History of Israelite Religion] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute/Dvir, 1976), 2.636 n. 10 [Heb.]; B. Gemser, Sprüche Salomos, HAT (Tübingen: Mohr, 1937), 54; W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL (London: SCM, 1970), 496. 10.  See BDB 1067; HAL 4.1596–97; Gemser, Sprüche Salomos, 54; McKane, Proverbs, 496.

252

Nili Shupak

human heart or deeds. While they regularly adduce weighing instruments such as scales, balances, and plumb line, they use the verb “to weigh ( f Ꜣi)” only once in the extant literature; the idea of weighing is instead indicated by ir ḏnf (“to make [right] measure”) or ḥsb (“to calculate”). 11 The fact that these verbs are direct semantic parallels to the biblical root ‫“ =( תכן‬measure, estimate”) indicates that the Hebrew is a precise rendering of the Egyptian motif but has been stripped of its “pagan” aspects. In our Hebrew rendering, the scales and accompanying Egyptian gods are absent, and the future judgment of the dead is replaced by recompense in this world. The expression ‫ תֹכֵן רּוחֹות‬is synonymous with the phrase ‫תֹכֵן ִלּבֹות‬, replacing the former in Prov 16:2: ′‫ֵי־איׁש ז ְַך ְּבעֵינָיו ְותֹכֵן רּוחֹות ה‬ ִ ‫“ ּכָל־ּדַ ְרכ‬All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirit.” This most likely represents a subsequent stage of the process in which the Egyptian motif was adapted to its new Hebrew context. Unlike the expression ‫תֹכֵן ִלּבֹות‬, in which the reference to the “heart” still evinces the foreign source, ‫תֹכֵן רּוחֹות‬ reflects the attempt to blur the mythic element and assimilate it into the Hebrew framework. In this context, the polysemic word ‫“( רוח‬spirit”) carries the sense of a disposition or temper, as in other similar biblical expressions, such as ‫ארך‬ ‫“( רוח‬patient”), ‫“( קצר רוח‬impatient”), ‫“( שפל רוח‬lowly”), ‫“( קר רוח‬calm”), and so forth. 12 Alongside these two phrases, Proverbs also employs the expression ‫בֹחן‬ ‫“( ִלּבֹות‬tester of hearts”): ′‫“ מ ְַצרֵף ַל ֶּכסֶף ְוכּור ַלּזָהָב ּובֹחֵן ִלּבֹות ה‬A smelter for silver, and furnace for gold, and the tester of hearts is the Lord” (Prov 17:3). While scholars have sought to demonstrate an Egyptian influence in this case as well, this image occurs frequently in the Psalms and in Jeremiah’s personal laments: ‫ְּת ִל ִּבי‬ ָ ‫“ ָּב ַחנ‬You have tested my heart” (Ps 17:3; cf. 1 Chr 29:17); ‫בֹחֵן‬ 11.  See A. de Buck, The Egyptian Coffin Texts I–VII: Texts of Spells (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1935), 1.181. The verbs ḫꜢi and wṯs, signifying “weighing” in Egyptian, do not occur in the context of judgment of the dead: see A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1926–31), 1.383, 385; 3.223. For ir ḏnf, see Instruction of Papyrus Insinger 4, 17–8 (Lichtheim, 3.188); V. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1954), 681. For ḥsb, see G. Lefebvre, Le Tombeau de Petosiris (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1923–24), 1.136, 16–22. For the root ‫חשב‬, which also appears in Semitic, see Erman and Grapow, Wörterbuch 3.166–67. 12.  Cf. Isa 40:13–14; see BDB 925; Shupak, Where Can Wisdom Be Found? 171–72. For a similar phrase, see 1QS 9:12–14: ‫ ;לשקול בני הצדוק לפי רוחום‬and compare the discussion below. Identification of the stages whereby the Egyptian material was incorporated into the biblical text, as reflected in the use of these two expressions ((‫תֹכֵן ִלּבֹות‬/‫)תֹכן רּוחֹות‬, follows Bryce, who posits a three-stage process: adaptation, assimilation, and integration. Acknowledging that this division remains conjectural and dependent on the perception of the particular scholar, my present argument is subject to the same limitations: see G. Bryce, A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1979).

Weighing in the Scales

253

‫ּוכלָיֹות‬ ְ ‫“ ִלּבֹות‬You test the minds and hearts” (Ps 7:10; Jer 11:20; cf. Jer 12:3, 17:10, 20:12; Ps 26:2). 13 Therefore, it is likely that this idea has been borrowed from the Hebrew religious vocabulary rather than from the Egyptian terminology. While the Hebrew root ‫ תכן‬relates to weighing, ‫ בחן‬belongs to the realm of metallurgy. 14 In the Psalms, the image of “testing the heart” functions as a borrowed simile for God’s testing and judgment of human beings: just as gold and silver are refined by being smelted in the furnace, so God distinguishes between the ore and the dross in human character. The phrases ‫ בֹחן לבות‬and ‫תֹכן‬ ‫ לב‬thus possess disparate origins, one being an ossified remnant of an Egyptian motif, the other a sort of Hebrew parallel—the fruit of an independent, internal development of the idea of God’s judgment. Both relate, however, to the evaluation of a person’s ethical character and his judgment in this world rather than in the world to come. Proverbs reflects a much greater degree of assimilation of the foreign material into Hebrew thought than the book of Job; the latter still contains the original Egyptian motif in a depiction of scales: ‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫ֱלֹוּה ֻּתּמ‬ ַ ‫ִׁש ְק ֵלנִי ְבמֹא ְזנֵי־צֶדֶק ְוי ֵדַ ע א‬ ְ‫י‬ “Let me be weighed in a just balance, and let God know my integrity” (Job 31:6). As the continuation of the chapter (which relates to the “great oath”) indicates, this verse contains remnants of the Egyptian idea, adducing a series of sins that Job has not committed, formulated as unreal conditional clauses: “If my step has turned aside from the way . . . If my heart has been enticed . . . If I have rejected . . . If I have withheld. . . .” The “great curse” is constructed on the pattern of the “Egyptian Confession of the Dead” (ch. 125 in the Book of the Dead), in which the deceased declares the transgressions that he has not committed. 15 The distinction between Job and the Egyptian source lies in the fact that, like the author of the sayings in Proverbs, Job speaks of judgment in this world rather than in the world to come. 16 In contrast, the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period speaks explicitly in terms of weighing people in the scales, not on earth but in heaven—at the great and final judgment. 13.  See G. Fohrer, “Sophia,” in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. J. Crenshaw (New York: Ktav, 1976), 75; The translation of the last four biblical citations is mine. 14.  The primary meaning of ‫ בחן‬is refining gold, just as ‫ צרף‬signifies purifying silver: see Job 23:10; Zech 13:9. 15.  See R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (London: British Museum, 1989), 29–31. Cf. P. Humbert, Recherches sur les sources égyptiennes de la littérature sapientiale d’Israël (Neuchâtel: Secretariat de l’Université, 1929), 93–95. 16.  The motif of the weighing of human beings in the scales also appears in Daniel: ‫תקל‬ ‫“ תקלתא במאזניא והשתכחת חסר‬Tekel—you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting” (Dan 5:27). Compare with Job, who refers to the weighing of his “vexation” and “calamity” (6:2); and the psalmist’s use of the image in order to stress human worthlessness (Ps 62:10).

254

Nili Shupak

The idea of weighing, measuring, dividing, and assessing lies at the center of the Jewish writings, being linked first to the divine act of creation. Thus, for example, the “Book of Parables” (1 Enoch 37–71), dated to the end of the first century b.c.e. or beginning of the first century c.e., depicts the creation of the stars in terms of the calculation of their dimensions: “I saw a righteous balance, how they are weighed according to their light, according to the breadth of their spaces and the day of their appearing” (1 En. 43:2). 17 The same motif is also applied to the wind: “And in the storehouses of the winds, how the winds are divided and how they are weighed, and how the springs (?) of the winds are (divided and) numbered.” (1 En. 60:12). 18 The Enochic descriptions almost certainly derive from the depiction of creation given in the biblical prophecies and psalms. Thus, for example, Isa 40:12 states: ‫ָרים‬ ִ‫ׁשקַ ל ַּב ֶּפלֶס ה‬ ָ ‫ָלׁש עֲפַר ָה ָארֶץ ְו‬ ִ ׁ‫ׁש ַמיִם ַּבּזֶרֶת ִּתּכֵן ְוכָל ַּבּש‬ ָ ‫ׁשעֳלֹו ַמיִם ְו‬ ָ ‫ִמי־מָדַ ד ְּב‬ ‫ּוגבָעֹות ְּבמֹא ְזנָיִם‬ ְ “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?” Job likewise declares: ‫ׁש ָקל ּו ַמיִם ִּתּכֵן ְּב ִמָּדה‬ ְ ‫ָרּוח ִמ‬ ַ ‫“ ַלעֲׂשֹות ל‬When he gave to the wind its weight, and meted out the waters by measure” (Job 28:25), further asking: ‫י־ׂשם ְממֶַּדי ָה ִּכי תֵ ָדע אֹו ִמי־נָטָה ָעלֶי ָה ָּקו‬ ָ ‫“ ִמ‬Who determined its measurements— surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?” (Job 38:5). In like fashion, the psalmist pronounces that it is God “who keeps steady its [earth’s] pillars (ָ‫ְּתי עַּמּודֶיה‬ ִ ‫( ”)אָנ ִֹכי ִת ַּכנ‬Ps 75:4b). In 1 Enoch, however, this motif is linked to the historical conception of designated periods and times (compare with ‫ עתים‬and ‫ קצים‬in the Qumranic literature) that is familiar from other Second Temple writings. 19 According to this view, the length of historical time is divinely predestined as part of the creation of the world, thus, the image of “weighing times” is often used. 4 Ezra, for example (dated to the end of the 1st century or beginning of the 2nd century c.e.), states: “For He has weighed the age in the balance, and measured the times by measure, and numbered the times by number” (4 Ezra 4:36–37; cf. 6:4–5). 20 Here, God weighs the world and measures the times, the succession of the time thereby being determined by a preformed divine plan and part of the creation of the world. 21 17.  G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 58. 18.  Ibid., 73. Cf. 2 Bar. 48:4, 59:5. For the idea that the whole of creation is “according to height, measure, and standard,” see T. Naph. 2:3; Wis 11:20. 19. Cf. Dimant, “The Concept of Time,” 3 n. 13. 20. M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 90. For additional examples in 4 Ezra, see pp. 97–98; Dimant, “Fourth Ezra,” 4. 21. Cf. Dimant, “The Concept of Time,” 2. For the idea that the part (‫ )חלק‬of the human being is also predetermined via weighing in the scales, see Pss. Sol. 5:4.

Weighing in the Scales

255

The notion that God created everything by measuring and weighing also appears in the Qumranic sapiential literature. One of the most striking references is to the ‫“ מוזני צדק‬righteous balance” (4Q418 127 5–6), which serves as the divine instrument with which God weighs the measure of “all things.” 22 The same theme occurs again in 4Q418 774 4, where the ‫“( מבין‬the understanding one”) must “grasp the mystery of being according to the [w]eight of periods and the measure of. . . .” For our present purposes, however, the weighing of deeds committed by human or quasi-human beings in the divine scales at the final judgment is of even greater interest. The majority of the incidents of this motif are in the “Book of Parables,” which, while only being preserved in medieval Geez copies, appears to have been composed originally in Aramaic. Here, Enoch is given a “tour” of the heavens by an angelic being who explains to him what is being revealed to him, including the future judgment before which the righteous and wicked must stand: “And after this, I saw all the secrets of heaven . . . and how human deeds are weighed in the balance” (1 En. 41:1). 23 According to this view, human beings will be judged by their deeds on a heavenly scale, and the continuation of the text indicates the direct consequences of this judgment—namely, the expulsion of all the sinners (v. 2). A further description of the final judgment states that Enoch is told that the “Chosen One”—appointed by God to conduct the judgment—will weigh all the deeds of the “holy ones” (i.e., the angels): “And the Lord of Spirits seated the Chosen One upon the throne of glory; and he will judge all the works of the holy ones in the height of heaven, and in the balance he will weigh their deeds” (1 En. 61:8). 24 These descriptions clearly reflect the Egyptian depiction of the judgment of the dead, recalling the texts in Proverbs and Job in which this influence is clear. Despite the fact that no passage from the “Book of Parables” has been discovered at Qumran, Devorah Dimant has recently demonstrated that their author was indubitably familiar with the sect and its writings. 25 It is thus no wonder that a similar idea occurs in the Rule of the Community. The instruction, which reveals to the maskil the way in which human beings should relate to one another, still retains the early image of weighing spirits: ‫להבדיל ולשקול‬ ‫ ואיש כרוחו כן לעשות משפטו‬. . . ‫“ בני הצדוק לפי רוחום‬he shall separate and weigh the Sons of Righteousness according to their spirits. . . . According to 22.  Cf. 4Q418 126 ii 3–4; Dimant, “The Concept of Time,” 6; idem, “Fourth Ezra,” 10 n. 42. 23.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 55. 24.  Ibid., 78. 25. D. Dimant, “The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Ideology of the Qumran Scrolls,” in Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple Period, Asuppot 3 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010), 314–30 [Heb.].

256

Nili Shupak

a man’s spirit (is) justice done (to him)” (1QS 9:14–15). 26 In other words, the maskil is to “weigh” the members of the community according to their qualities and attributes. 2 Baruch, which like 4 Ezra can be dated between the end of the 1st century and beginning of the 2nd century c.e., contains a similar idea. God explains the meaning of the vision to Baruch—namely, that the earth will be destroyed in the eschaton. Baruch responds by asking a series of questions, including an inquiry regarding the fate of various people—among others, those who have accepted the yoke of His Law and those who have sought refuge under His wing: “Or how will the last time receive them? Or will their time surely be weighted, and will they be judged as the beam tips?” (2 Bar. 41:5–6). The author of this text evidently also subscribes to the view that human fate is decided by their personal “balance.” 27 In summary, this analysis of some of the key passages in Second Temple Jewish literature referring to the idea of measuring and weighing suggests that the texts should be classified according to two groups: (1) those that employ the motif in relation to the divine act of creation, wherein God measures and evaluates the world and its contents and calculates the times and periods as part of the divine plan; and (2) those that adduce it in reference to the weighing of human beings and celestial creatures in the final judgment. Both aspects are rooted in the biblical text, occurring in diverse literary genres—sapiential, prophetic, and psalmodic. Thus Job, Isaiah, and Psalms describe the creator as a builder who measures and calculates the various parts of the world and its components via an assortment of measuring instruments, while Job and Proverbs portray him as a judge passing sentence on human beings by weighing their hearts or spirits. These notions were originally independent of one another, the one being linked to the deterministic view that everything is predestined by a preexistent divine plan—the other to the conventional doctrine of retribution based on the principle of “measure for measure” or “cause and effect,” according to which a person’s nature and deeds determine his or her fate. The apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple period incorporated both motifs, integrating them into a new framework. Thus, for example, while the Enochic “Book of Parables” adduces the ancient Egyptian tradition of weighing the human heart and deeds in the final judgment, it elaborates this by applying weighing to celestial as well as human beings. The place and time of retribution have also been transposed—from this world (as in the biblical Wis26.  The translation follows J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Rule of the Community (Philadelphia: American Interfaith Institute  / World Alliance, 1996), 41. See also M. Kister, “Wisdom Literature at Qumran,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World, ed. M. Kister (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi , 2009), 1.306–7 [Heb.]. 27. D. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text (London: T. & T. Clark, 2009), 77. According to Dimant (“Fourth Ezra,” 15), the question in 2 Baruch relating to “personal weight” may concern time, as in 4 Ezra and the Qumran sapiential texts.

Weighing in the Scales

257

dom Literature) to the world to come, in line with the ancient Egyptian belief. In the Qumranic literature, on the other hand, these two themes, the calculation of times and the weighing of human beings, are combined; the “Instruction for the maskil” declares that he must treat everyone “according to the norm of every time (‫ ”)לתכון עת ועת‬and “separate and weigh the Sons of Righteousness according to their spirits (‫( ”)להבדיל ולשקול בני הצדוק לפי רוחום‬1QS 9:12–14). 28 We can thus state that this essay confirms previous findings that show that Second Temple Jewish literature is founded on both biblical and extrabiblical sources. Its contribution lies in the suggestion that extrabiblical sources also include early Egyptian literature and culture—a little-noted phenomenon to date. 29 Positing that Second Temple literature in general and sapiential texts in particular very likely contain additional motifs borrowed from ancient Egyptian beliefs and tenets, I hope that this paper will encourage this nascent field of research. 28. Both ideas—ethical weighing and time measuring—are probably also found in 2 Bar. 41:6, which may rely on a Qumranic precedent: see n. 27. 29.  To the best of my knowledge, only one paper dealing with the contact between ancient Egyptian ideology and the Jewish apocalyptic has been published: A.  Loprieno, “Il Pensiero Egizio e l’Apocalittica Giuaitaca,” Henoch 3 (1981): 289–320. Another related issue regards the extent to which Jewish apocalyptic was influenced by contemporaneous Egyptian literature: see A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, eds., Apokalyptik und Ägypten, OLA 107 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 303–14 and the bibliographical references cited therein.

The Rabbinic Sages’ Allegation about LXX Genesis 1:1: Bickerman’s Cogent Explanation Mayer I. Gruber Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Virtually every student of Hebrew Scripture in college, university, or theological seminary encounters the famous tannaitic source quoted in b. Meg. 9a, according to which the Greek version of the Pentateuch, miraculously prepared by 72 divinely inspired sages, misrepresented the first three words of Gen 1:1. In the Hebrew text, we read ‫בראשית ברא אלהים‬, while in the Greek version prepared for Ptolemy, the rabbinic source alleges, the 72 sages recorded the Greek equivalent of ‫אלהים ברא בראשית‬. It appears, therefore, that the difference between the commonly attested Hebrew version of the first three words of Genesis and the Greek version produced by the 72 sages was the word order. However, it is commonly observed, the word order of Gen 1:1 in all versions of the Septuagint is Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς. Thus, as many have observed, the change in word order that the tannaitic source attributes to the 72 sages has yet to be found in any manuscript of the LXX. 1 However, as a perusal of the scholarly literature (typified by the documentation cited in n. 1) indicates, it 1. M. Zipor notes that the change in word order assumed by the tannaitic source is not found in editions of the LXX that have survived (The Septuagint Version of the Book of Genesis [Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2005], 55 [Heb.]). E. Tov argued that the purpose of the change introduced into the Septuagint as recorded in the tannaitic source was to make “God” the first word of the Torah (“The Rabbinic Traditions about the ‘Changes’ Introduced into the Septuagint,” in Isac Leo Seeligman Volume, ed. A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch, 3 vols. [Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1983], 391 [Heb.]). See also idem, “The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the ‘Alterations’ into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX,” JSJ 15 (1984): 65–89. Repr. in idem, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–20, esp. p. 18. Additional bibiliography on the subject at hand includes the following: S. Olofsson, Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version, ConBOT 57 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 105–33; G. Dorival, M. Harl, and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaisme hellenistique au christianisme ancient (Paris: Cerf, 1988); Z. Karl, The Septuagint Version of the Torah (Tel Aviv: Israel Society of Biblical Research, 1979), 1 [Heb.]; G. Veltry, Eine Tora für den König Talmai (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994); G. Marquis,

259

260

Mayer I. Gruber

is taken for granted (1) that the tradition recorded at the head of the tannaitic list recorded in b. Meg. 9a is reliable and (2) that the issue at stake is the word order in Gen 1:1. A radically different suggestion was offered, however, by the Wasserstein father and son. 2 Taking into consideration the fact that the presumed change in word order from the standard Hebrew text to the version prepared for Ptolemy is not attested in any surviving version of the LXX, the Wassersteins argue as follows: Brought together, as a pendant to the story of the miracle that was invented between ca. 80 and ca. 117 c.e., the individual items in the list in its original form all existed in the religious life of the Jews before the list was compiled; they did not, however, necessarily exist as changes in the translation of the Bible into Greek. Even the fact that some of the items on what may be our core list do in fact appear in some of our septuagintal texts does not indicate that. 3

The Wassersteins argue, therefore, that the famous list found in b. Meg. 9a was, in fact, a list of changes that might have been presented to an audience in ca. 100 c.e. Palestine as having been made in a translation for Ptolemy. This is not the same, however, as differences between the Masoretic Hebrew text and existing Greek version(s); for this reason, it is worth recalling that the context in which the story (and with it, the list) came into being was not Alexandria in the 2nd century b.c.e. but Palestine around the beginning of the 2nd century c.e. 4 In other words, according to the Wassersteins, the reason that the alleged change in the word order of Gen 1:1 does not appear in any known version of the LXX is that, in fact, the list was not based on the Greek version of the Pentateuch produced in the time of Ptolemy II but was based on various readings that the 100 c.e. author(s) of the baraita in b. Meg. 9a was seeking to marginalize. With regard to the case at hand, we could argue that the baraita is polemicizing, not against the LXX, but against the understanding of Gen 1:1 that is reflected in Targum Onqelos, where we read as follows: ‫ ית שמיא וית ארעא‬′‫בקדמין ברא ה‬ In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The Babylonian Talmud, in b. Meg. 3a and Qidd. 49b, declared Targum Onqelos to be Rabbinic Judaism’s official Aramaic version of the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, no less an authority on Jewish exegesis of Scripture than R. Shlomo Yitzhaki—whose acronym, Rashi, has been interpreted to mean “Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of a Translation Technique and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX Ezekiel,” Textus 13 (1986): 59–84. 2. A. Wasserstein and D. J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 91–93. 3.  Ibid., 91. 4.  Ibid., 93–94.

LXX Genesis 1:1

261

Rabban shel Yisrael (i.e., the teacher of Israel par excellence)—dared to challenge the rendering of Targum Onqelos at Gen 1:1. In both his commentary on the Pentateuch at Gen 1:1 and his commentary on Hos 1:1, Rashi argued that the correct literal interpretation of the first clause of Gen 1:1 is not “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” but instead, “When God began to create the heavens and the earth.” The basis of Rashi’s argument is that the Hebrew lexeme ‫ בראשית‬with which the Pentateuch begins, like the synonymous Hebrew lexeme ‫תחילת‬, includes a noun in the construct state whose genitive is a transitive verb in the so-called perfect tense form. Consequently, the Pentateuch begins with the clause, “When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” while Hosea begins with the clause “When the Lord began to speak with Hosea.” 5 In a graduate seminar at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in the 1969–70 academic year, my late, revered teacher Elias Bickerman, of blessed memory, explained most lucidly that the issue at stake between the ambiguous Hebrew text of Gen 1:1—which may be interpreted either as Rashi interpreted it, “When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” or as Targum Onqelos interprets it, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”—is not the word order. If, however, one wished to express in Greek unequivocally “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” one would translate this text precisely as it appears in all versions of the LXX, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς. This Greek version takes the Hebrew verb ‫ ברא‬in its common meaning as the finite verb, “he created,” corresponding to Gk. ἐποίησεν, rather than as the rare but not unique (see Hos 1:1) use of a finite verb as an alternative to the infinitive employed as a genitive in a construct genitive chain. To render the Greek interpretation of the verb as a verb, in the Hebrew perfect back into Hebrew the author of the baraita (or, if you will, the first entry in that baraita) needed to present the Hebrew word order as ‫אלהים‬ ‫ברא בראשית‬. This would give us, as is common in Rabbinic Hebrew and Hellenistic Greek (as well as Modern English) the word order of subject followed by object followed by an adverbial expression modifying the verb. To express this idea in Greek did not require a change in word order but only the use of the finite verb ἐποίησεν. To render the idea back into Hebrew using the words of the Hebrew original did require a change in word order. This change in word order could not help but bring to an ancient audience’s mind the idea that to 5.  W. Rainey Harper, Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), 213 notes that the same syntactical phenomenon (that is, a construct genitive chain in which the genitive is a finite verb) is found also in Ps 4:8 and 90:15. In the former verse, we read as follows: ‫“ מעת דגנם ותירושם רבו‬From the time when their grain and their wine became abundant.” In the latter verse, we read: ‫“ שמחנו כימות עניתנו שנות ראינו רעה‬Make us rejoice according to the number of the days that you afflicted [us], according to the number of years that we have experienced misfortune.”

262

Mayer I. Gruber

differ with the interpretation of some ancient proto-Rashi was tantamount to changing the order of the first three words of the Torah. For the latter embellishment, which puts into relief the idea shared in modern times by the Wassersteins that there was a polemical element here, I credit myself rather than Bickerman. He spoke very matter-of-factly, without a suggestion that there was any ideological element involved. However, the writer of this small contribution in honor of my esteemed colleague Zipora Talshir has spent his professional life engaging in biblical philology because of the belief that subtle nuances in language are the very essence of a sacred literature that attempts to convey messages that matter—messages that ought to matter between people and people, and between people and the cosmos. In dedicating this study to Zipi, I wish Zipi many, many more years of inspired teaching and scholarship.

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture? Anneli Aejmelaeus University of Helsinki My topic is a question, and it’s a question that needs to be posed. 1 Whether there will be an answer is another matter. I think that too much has been taken for granted in the past, particularly concerning the so-called Deuteronomistic History or the Former Prophets. In the ongoing discussion on the emergence of authoritative Scripture and the “canonization” of the tripartite collection of the Hebrew Bible, 2 there has been very little talk about the individual books that came to be part of the authoritative collection. The Pentateuch is, of course, an exception, but otherwise, it is often the books that remained outside the canon whose authoritativeness interests the scholars. I shall begin with what aroused my curiosity—and suspicion. I shall also briefly touch on the question of what I understand to be Scripture. In order to say something definite on the question of my topic, it will be necessary to go through the earliest reception of the books in question. In the context of this essay, it will not be possible to give more than preliminary results on the reception of 1 Samuel. The Greek text of 1 Samuel has been my primary scholarly interest for some time now. In the books of Samuel, however, textual criticism of the Greek text cannot be conducted without due attention to the Hebrew text—its development as well as its corruption. 3 It is obvious that the original Greek text of the books of Samuel was translated from a Hebrew text that was widely different from the MT. Later on, details of the Greek text were corrected by various 1.  I am very grateful for the opportunity that I had to discuss this question with my dear friend and colleague Zipi Talshir at the symposium that was organized in her honor on January 3–5, 2012, in Beer-Sheva. 2.  I am fully aware that canonization is a much later, Christian term, but it seems to be increasingly used in the discussion concerning the process that led to the closing of the authoritative collection of the Hebrew Bible. 3.  Some part of my discussion applies to the rest of the so-called Deuteronomistic History as well, but since I am working mainly on 1 Samuel, which is closely connected with 2 Samuel, I shall refer to these books as one whole.

263

264

Anneli Aejmelaeus

Jewish and Christian revisers to accord more closely with current forms of the Hebrew text, mainly the (proto-)MT. 4 Thus, I cannot confine myself to working on the Greek manuscripts but must work on both the Greek and the Hebrew texts and sometimes reconstruct not only the original Greek but also its Hebrew Vorlage. Background of the Question As for the status of the books of Samuel in Second Temple Judaism, my interest (and suspicion) was first aroused by the characteristic features of the Greek translation. It is amazing how many times this translator seems to have had difficulties understanding his Hebrew Vorlage. His knowledge of Hebrew really does not seem to be fully adequate. One cannot help asking: why was he assigned this task at all, if he was not capable of doing a better job? One of the things that have been taught us about the Septuagint translation is that the later translators used the Greek Torah as a model or a dictionary that provided them with Hebrew-Greek equivalences. 5 This has been taken for granted—but it does not hold true for the books of Samuel. 6 Most of the time, the translator is of course using the same Greek equivalents for Hebrew words as in the Pentateuch, because there are actually no alternatives, but when it comes to rare words, there are some striking gaps in his vocabulary. Consider, for instance, the Hebrew verb ‫ חרם‬hiphil, which is connected to the idea of ‫ ֵחרֶם‬, devoting the enemy to total destruction: the verb occurs in 1 Samuel 15 seven times and the noun once (vv. 3, 8, 9 [2×], 15, 18, 20, 21); in two cases (vv. 3 and 8), there is a transliteration, as if it were a proper name. 1 Sam 15:3

‫ֲשׁר לֹו‬ ֶ ‫יתה אֶת עֲ ָמלֵק ְו ַהחֲרַ ְמ ֶתּם אֶת כָּל א‬ ָ ‫ע ַָתּה ל ְֵך ְו ִה ִכּ‬ καὶ νῦν πορεύου καὶ πατάξεις τὸν ᾿Αμαλὴκ καὶ ᾽Ιαρὶμ καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ

The rest of the cases have been translated by ἐξολεθρε´υω, which, however, occurs much more often in the Torah as a rendering of other Hebrew verbs, and thus the translator was more likely influenced by the Greek text of the Torah 4.  For the textual history of 1 Samuel in outline, see my article “How to Reach the Old Greek in 1 Samuel and What to Do with It,” in Congress Volume: Helsinki 2010, ed. M. Nissinen, VTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 185–205. 5.  See E. Tov, “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books,” in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy études bibliques offertes a l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire, ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker, OBO 38 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 577–92; now also in E. Tov, The Greek and the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 183–94. 6. My doctoral student Raimund Wirth, whose dissertation Die SeptuagintaÜbersetzung der Samuelbücher: Untersucht unter Einbeziehung ihrer Rezensionen (Heidelberg University, 2015) deals with the translation character of the books of Samuel, was the one who opened my eyes in this respect.

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

265

without recourse to the underlying Hebrew. The term used in the Greek Torah for ‫ ֵחרֶם‬is actually in the majority of cases ἀνάθεμα and its cognate verb. 7 The translator of Samuel was obviously not familiar with the term and only little by little understood what the text is about. This is a clear example (and by far not the only one) of this translator’s incompetence. What does this indicate about the translator and about his translation project? This person was not a scholar; if he had been, he would have studied the Torah both in Hebrew and in Greek. He probably knew only the Greek text, which gave him a certain familiarity with biblical translation Greek but not the Hebrew-Greek correspondences that he would need. He was also not a scholar who studied the books of Samuel in great detail. In fact, it might be that the text had not been available to him until recently. These books seem to have had no special prestige, at least not among the Diaspora community in Egypt, which is the probable place of translation. The period we are talking about would have been the 2nd century b.c.e., hardly earlier than the second half of the century. 8 Other observations that have made me reflect on the status of the books of Samuel concern the variations in the text. Comparison between the LXX and the MT had already led some scholars of the 19th century to suspect what is now confirmed by the Qumran manuscripts: 9 there was a great deal of variation in the text of these books until rather late in their textual history—perhaps as late as the 1st century b.c.e. In the MT, there is much corruption, which can often be remedied by the Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts, but there is also (in the MT) deliberate correction of theologically or ideologically doubtful passages. In my recent papers, I have dealt with these kinds of details. 10 Again, something is taken for granted. We have been told by those who have worked most intensively on the Qumran scrolls that the authoritativeness of a text mainly concerns the composition of the book as a whole and not its 7.  This is one of the lexical items listed by Tov in his above-mentioned article as examples of the influence from the Greek Pentateuch. The verb ἀνaθεματίζω does occur in 1 Sam 15:3 but only as part of a doublet caused by later correction. 8. J. Joosten (“The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History,” BIOSCS 43 [2010]: 53–72) draws attention to the fact that general knowledge about Israel’s history was deficient in the Egyptian Diaspora: in writings such as Judith, Hecataeus of Abdera, and the Letter of Aristeas, “the Jewish people of the Hellenistic period are viewed as a direct continuation of the exodus generation,” in that it is described as consisting of 12 tribes (esp. pp. 66–69). This picture is fully consistent with my view that the historical books were not studied in the Diaspora until late in the 2nd century b.c.e. 9.  See, for instance, J.  Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871). For the Samuel Scrolls from Qumran, see F. M. Cross, D. W. Parry, R. Saley, and E. Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4 XII: 1–2 Samuel, DJD 17 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005). 10.  See, for instance, my article “Corruption or Correction? Textual Development in the MT of 1 Samuel 1,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls: Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera—Florilegium Complutense, ed. P. A. Torijano Morales and A. Piquer Otero, JSJSup 157 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1–17.

266

Anneli Aejmelaeus

wording in the small details. 11 Why should this be true? Why should we think that the books of Samuel had authoritative status while the text was still going through transformations? The Witness of the Letter of Aristeas and the Prologue of Sirach Another observation concerns the situation in the Egyptian Diaspora in the second half of the 2nd century b.c.e., as witnessed by two documents: the Letter of Aristeas and the Prologue of the Greek version of Ben Sira. Aristeas tells the story of the translation of the Torah into Greek. The writer pretends to be reporting as an eye witness what happened more than a century earlier but of course reveals more about the attitudes and beliefs of his own time. At the end of the story, the translation of the Law is read to the congregation, which praises its accuracy and sacredness and pronounces, “according to their custom,” a curse on anyone who would change its wording by addition or omission or any kind of alteration (Arist. 311). This seems to be the first time that the so-called canon formula is used in reference to the biblical text. Its model is of course Deut 4:2, but there is a shift of focus: Aristeas speaks of the unchangeability of the wording, whereas Deuteronomy stresses obedience of each and every ordinance. It is also extraordinary that the canon formula is used in the case of the translation of the Torah. This means that by the 2nd century b.c.e. the translation had replaced the original Hebrew text in the Diaspora community. Of course, the authority of the translation is only a reflection of the authority of the Hebrew original. The whole endeavor of translating the Torah reflects the great importance attached to this text: since it was important to understand the content of the text, it was not just a holy book to be worshiped (no relic), but it obviously had a function in the life of the community as well as existential relevance for the people. Furthermore, the use of the curse formula must derive from the context of the Hebrew Torah. Thus, in Aristeas’s attitude toward the Greek Torah, we see a reflection of the status of the Hebrew Torah in Judaism in the 2nd century b.c.e. and certainly for sometime before this. Thus, we can see that the Greek Torah had the status of authoritative Scripture among the Diaspora Jews in the 2nd century b.c.e. 12 It is astonish11. E. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 79–98 (esp. p. 93); J.  J. Collins, “Changing Scripture,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila, BZAW 419 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 23–45 (esp. p. 29). 12.  This view is also supported by Benjamin G. Wright III, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Reception History of the Septuagint,” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 47–67 (esp. p. 67); as well as J. Joosten, “The Prayer of Azariah (DanLXX 3): Sources and Origin,” in Septuagint and Reception, ed. J. Cook, VTSup 127 (Leien: Brill, 2009), 5–16 (esp.p.  5).

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

267

ing, however, that Aristeas does not say a word about other sacred books. It has generally been taken for granted that the other books were translated one after the other soon after the Torah had been finished. It is true that Aristeas wanted to give the impression of its being a document of the 3rd century, but still, the attitude toward the Greek Torah is that of the 2nd century. Had the writer known and appreciated a number of other translated sacred texts, one would expect that he would have mentioned them—for instance, in a wish that they should be translated with the same accuracy as the Torah—but this is not the case. If we consider the Prologue of the Greek book of Sirach against this background, we are confronted with a very different attitude. The two texts in question are chronologically close to one another, although it is difficult to say exactly how close. 13 The Prologue mentions the Law and the Prophets and the other books (of the fathers) three times. Ben Sira, the author who is said to be the grandfather of the translator, had devoted his life to the study of these books, which are urgently recommended to the reader: to anyone who wishes to live by the Law. The Torah is thus clearly the center of religious life, and the significance of the other books, as well as the book of Ben Sira, is that they function as guides to life according to the Torah. Speaking of translation, the grandson has a more critical attitude than Aristeas. He apologizes for his own translation, saying that a translation never has the same force as the original: “The Law itself, and the Prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.” Whether this refers to problems of translation exclusively or to textual differences as well, we cannot know. Nevertheless, the reader is left with the impression that the writer of the Prologue knows not only the Law but also some other books in Greek and that he is a scholar who is capable of comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts. Why such a difference between the two writers? The author of Aristeas obviously represents the Greek-speaking Jews of the Egyptian Diaspora, whereas the grandson of Ben Sira seems to have come from Palestine, representing Palestinian convictions. Indeed, his prologue could be interpreted as propaganda for the usefulness of sacred texts other than the Torah. It seems obvious to me that there was a difference between the Jews of the Diaspora and of Palestine in their attitude toward the Prophets and the other books. This difference in attitude might also explain why the translation of the books of Samuel shows such incompetence and unfamiliarity with the content of the text. If speculation is allowed, I 13.  Both texts can be dated approximately to the final third of the 2nd century b.c.e. The translation of Ben Sira is generally dated, on account of the information in the Prologue, to 132–117 b.c.e. For discussion about the dating of Pseudo-Aristeas, see R. L. Troxel, LXXIsaiah as Translation and Interpretation, JSJSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 41–42.

268

Anneli Aejmelaeus

could imagine the books of Samuel being imported to Egypt and subsequently translated as a result of the mission of Ben Sira’s grandson. Or, there may have been other traveling teachers before him. Whoever the initiator was—the grandson may have known the Greek translation of 1 Samuel. A clue in this direction is that he seems to have followed the false rendering in 1 Sam 12:3. 14 Sir 46:19 ‫]תי‬. . .[‫העיד ייי ומשיחו כופר ונעלם ממ‬ He called the Lord and his anointed one to witness, “From whom have I taken a bribe or a secret gift . . . ?” The Hebrew text of Ben Sira is a witness to the correct reading (niphal participle ‫)עלם‬, which is corrupted (along with the two following words) in the MT: 1 Sam 12:3 ‫אַע ִלים עֵינַי בֹּו‬ ְ ‫וּמיַּד ִמי לָקַ ְח ִתּי כֹפֶר ְו‬ ִ And from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it?” The Septuagint of 1 Sam 12:3 is based on the correct consonantal text (‫ )נעלם‬but provides an incorrect rendering: ἢ ἐκ χειρὸς τίνος εἴληφα ἐξίλασμα καὶ ὑπόδημα; ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ (“And from whose hand have I taken a bribe or a sandal; witness against me!”). The Greek rendering of Sirach makes the same error: ἐπεμαρτύρατο ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ· χρήματα καὶ ἕως ὑποδημάτων ἀπὸ πάσης σαρκὸς οὐκ εἴληφα (“He bore witness before the Lord and his anointed one, ‘No property, not even sandals, have I taken from anyone.’”). Conventional Thinking Concerning the Tripartite Canon The Prologue of Sirach has been influential in scholarship with regard to the development of the Hebrew collection of Scriptures, but a great deal has been taken for granted. The tripartite collection known from the MT has been thought to be present in the Prologue. Based on the interpretation that was common until recently, not only the Torah but also the Prophets were already completed and considered authoritative in the 2nd century b.c.e. Only the third collection, the Writings, was supposedly still open until the 1st century c.e. 15 But how can we know that the Prophets referred to in the Prologue were meant to include the so-called Deuteronomistic History (the Former Prophets) and not just the actual prophetic books—or some of them? How do we know which books the author meant by his reference to the prophets? Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors does show that the original writer made use of the historical 14.  Another example might be the reversal of the word-order in Sir 7:11, ἔστιν γὰρ ὁ ταπεινῶν καὶ ἀνυψῶν “for there is one who humbles and exalts” (cf. 1 Sam 2:7), whereas the Hebrew text of Ben Sira has ‫“ מרים ומשפיל‬lifts up and brings down.” 15.  For a discussion of the traditional view, see J. Barton, “The Prophets in the Canon,” The Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile, new ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 13–34.

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

269

books, but these could just as well be counted among the other books and considered less authoritative. All in all, scholars have been too eager (or perhaps naïve) to project the final tripartite collection of Scriptures as far as into the centuries b.c.e. Looked at from another angle, the Prologue could be interpreted as representing the preeminence of the Torah and the secondary position of the other books in relation to it. According to the Prologue, the goal of all study is life lived according to the Torah. 16 What Is Meant by Scripture? This brings up the questions: What is Scripture? What do we mean by Scripture? It is our terminology when referring to the sacred texts of Second Temple Judaism that needs to be defined. 17 In the case of the Torah, it is easy to see how it functions as Scripture. It is the founding document of the Jewish religion. It is constitutive for the identity and the life of the community, because it contains the stories about its ancestors and God’s covenant with them as well as the regulations normative for the Jewish way of life. Its authority is obvious. In the case of the books of Samuel, it is more difficult to see in what sense these books could be considered Scripture. They are not indispensable to the Jewish way of life. On the other hand, these books contain a great deal of ancient material, and this attaches a certain authority to them. However, I am inclined to think along the lines drawn by Molly Zahn, who speaks of determining “which works were viewed as possessing scriptural authority in this [the Second Temple] period (and by whom) and which works were more likely viewed as authoritative but not scriptural or not authoritative at all” [emphasis mine]. 18 Different texts may have different kinds of authority. Not all sacred texts are authoritative, and texts that are not sacred may have authority of a different kind—for instance, legal authority or authority of historical records. The kind of authority that makes a sacred text Scripture is of existential nature for the religious community in question. Ancient documents in archives or libraries may be interesting from the point of view of the history of the nation, and they may have authority in this respect, but this cannot mean that any such literary document was regarded as Scripture once it took on the form of a book. 16.  For the preeminence of the Torah in Judaism and the different status of the Prophets in the Christian canon, see Barton, ibid. 17.  I use the expression “sacred text” as a basic term that is practically equivalent to “religious text.” 18. Molly Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila, BZAW 419 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 93–120. Zahn also emphasizes that “judgements about the authoritative status of late Second Temple texts, though they constitute an important aspect of the analysis of these texts, should be kept separate from—and must not be given priority over—analysis of each text’s content, form and relationship to other known texts” (p. 116).

270

Anneli Aejmelaeus

The books of Samuel ended up as Scripture when they were included in the Prophets collection of the tripartite canon of the MT. When did they acquire this status? This question has not been dealt with in conventional introductions to the Hebrew Bible, as far as I can see. Their later status as Scripture is projected back onto their composition or the final redaction through which they came about. Until recently, the Deuteronomistic History with its various redactions was dated to a very early period, mainly the century of the exile. 19 Thus, the so-called Former Prophets were thought to have emerged as Scripture as soon as the Torah had acquired its status as Scripture or soon thereafter—or possibly even before. In recent discussions, however, various parts of the so-called Deuteronomistic History are dated considerably later according to the social and historical situations in which they functioned and found their motivation. 20 How about the immutability of Scripture? In the case of the Torah, we can observe relative immutability in the 2nd century b.c.e., when the canon formula was applied to the Torah—both in Hebrew and in Greek, if my conclusion is correct. Between the time of translation of the Septuagint in the 3rd century b.c.e. and the final completion of the MT, some changes have still taken place, and there are the differences between the Samaritan text and the MT. However, I would not say that the text of the Torah was in a state of fluidity in the same way that the books of Samuel—and even more so, Jeremiah—can be observed to have been until at least the 1st century b.c.e. The many “rewritten” pentateuchal texts discovered at Qumran and also known from elsewhere witness the flow of the interpretation and elaboration of the Pentateuchal stories into independent “rewritten” texts outside the Torah and thus indirectly reflect the unchangeableness of the Torah itself. Early Reception of the Books of Samuel in Chronicles Until now I have been expressing doubts about the status of the books of Samuel as Scripture in the 2nd century b.c.e., especially in the Diaspora. How could we study the status and emerging scriptural authority of these books in a more positive way? Perhaps some keys to my questions can be discovered by studying the earliest reception of these books. 19.  For a review of the history of research concerning the Deuteronomistic History, see T. C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T. & T. Clark, 2007), 13–41. 20.  I refer especially to Römer, ibid. As for 1  Samuel, the extreme is represented by G. Auld (I and II Samuel: A Commentary, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011]), according to whom the oldest story of David is part of the so-called Book of Two Houses and begins with Saul’s death in 1 Samuel 31 // 1 Chronicles 10. The rest of 1 Samuel, written on the basis of some source materials and a great deal of creativity, has grown from end to beginning as successive introductions to the following history of the nation (esp. pp. 9–17).

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

271

In discussions about the so-called rewritten texts, Chronicles is often mentioned as an example of similar literary activity, with the exception that this text ended up in the canon. The so-called Deuteronomistic History has been seen as the main source of the Chronicler, who approached the history of the nation from a different angle and with theological emphases of his own. 21 The comparison between these books has been conducted on the basis of their final canonical forms, and the differences have been explained mainly through the activity and theological aim of the Chronicler, except for the textual differences in which Chronicles often preserves the more ancient wording. 22 Certainly many have taken it for granted that the so-called Deuteronomistic History must have existed in its final composition, or nearly so, and even enjoyed an authoritative status before the writing of Chronicles, and consequently the Chronicler as the later writer is responsible for the differences. But is this necessarily so? Does the use of sources place Chronicles in the category of “rewritten” Scripture, and does it prove that the source was regarded as Scripture? It is true that a “rewritten” text receives its share of the authority of the Scripture that is being “rewritten”—and at the same time underlines the authority of that Scripture. However, “rewriting” a text, or rather using it as a source, does not prove that the source is Scripture. In the case of Chronicles, the immutability of the source was certainly not a motivation for the “rewriting.” 23 Large parts of the books of Samuel are repeated verbatim in Chronicles, whereas others are absent. The actual story begins with Saul’s death and the anointing of David to be king over Israel. The Chronicler takes a special interest in David, whom he sees as the founder and patron of the temple cult in Jerusalem. It is possible to imagine that stories about David’s struggles with Saul or with his own sons or the Bathsheba affair might not have interested him. But did he know about them? How do we know whether he knew? 21. This view is also represented by Z.  Talshir, “Several Canon-Related Concepts Originating in Chronicles,” ZAW 111 (2001): 386–403. Recently, for instance, G. N. Knoppers, “The Relationship of the Deuteronomistic History to Chronicles: Was the Chronicler a Deuteronomist?” in Congress Volume: Helsinki 2010, ed. M. Nissinen, VTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 307–41; instead of “rewriting,” Knoppers speaks of “mimesis.” A challenging view is represented by A.  Graeme Auld, “The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, ed. L. S. Shearing and S. L. McKenzie, JSOTSup 268 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 116–26; Auld sees in the text shared by Samuel–Kings and Chronicles a common source, the “Book of Two Houses.” 22. S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, HSM 33 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). 23.  The last sentence is doubly true: the Deuteronomistic History was still subject to change for a long time, and its text was by no means immutable in the mind of the Chronicler, who felt free to use the parts that were available to him. To quote a much-quoted statement by H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 23: “[T]he Chronicler shows himself as the master, not the servant, of his sources.”

272

Anneli Aejmelaeus

As sources for “the acts of King David, from first to last,” 1 Chr 29:29 mentions “the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and the Chronicles of Gad the seer.” 24 In view of the later decision to include the Deuteronomistic History in the collection of the Prophets, this remark was of course invaluable. It also gave more credibility to the Chronicler’s own work to refer to the prophets as his sources. 25 The chronicles of the three prophets are mostly interpreted as referring to the books of Samuel, without paying attention to the fact that the source is not mentioned as one volume, whereas “The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” also referred to as a source of Chronicles, appears to be an integrated whole that was close to our 1–2 Kings. Considering the disparate content of 1 Samuel, reference to the chronicles of the various prophets might indicate that the composition we know as 1–2 Samuel had not yet reached its final dimensions, although some of its components were available to scribes and scholars in an archive or library. But if there were just components of what later became the books of Samuel, I have difficulty thinking that they were considered authoritative Scripture. Scribal culture and the existence of libraries in Jerusalem in the Second Temple period is an area of study that has experienced a renaissance lately. 26 Reference to a library is found in 2 Macc 2:13–14: ἐξηγοῦντο δὲ καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνηματισμοῖς τοῖς κατὰ τὸν Νεεμίαν τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡς καταβαλλόμενος βιβλιοθήκην ἐπισυνήγαγεν τὰ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων βιβλία καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τὰ τοῦ Δαυὶδ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βασιλέων περὶ ἀναθεμάτων. 14ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιούδας τὰ διαπεπτωκότα διὰ τὸν πόλεμον τὸν γεγονότα ἡμῖν ἐπισυνήγαγεν πάντα, καὶ ἔστιν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν· 13

The same things are reported in the records and in the memoirs of Nehemiah, and also that he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David / those about David, and the letters of kings about votive offerings. 14In the same way Judas also collected all the books that had been lost on account of the war that had come upon us, and they are in our possession. 13

The list of the books in the library does not include the Torah; thus, it is not a list of authoritative Scripture. It is not clear which books were included in the 24.  Similarly, prophets are referred to as history writers in connection with Solomon, Rehoboam, and Abijah (2 Chr 9:29, 12:15, 13:22), but otherwise the source mentioned is “The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel” (2 Chr 16:11, 20:34 with additional reference to Jehu, 25:26, 27:7, 28:26, 32:32 with additional reference to Isaiah, and in 35:27, and 36:8). 25. S. J. Schweitzer, “Judging a Book by Its Citations: Sources and Authority in Chronicles,” in What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? ed. E. Ben Zvi and D. Edelman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 37–65. 26. D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

273

library, but possibly there were more books than and different ones from those that appear in the Hebrew Bible today. 27 The “books about the kings and the prophets” may correspond to the main content of 1–2 Kings, but “those about David” does not seem to be an adequate description of 1–2 Samuel in their final form. 28 This finding corresponds interestingly to the way the Chronicler named his sources. Parts of the Deuteronomistic History or some of its sourcetexts may have been available to the Chronicler in the library of his days, and he used them as historical sources are used. He was not necessarily aware of a comprehensive history of the nation. Consequently, the question of whether he aimed at supplanting the Deuteronomistic History is out of place. To presuppose that the Chronicler knew details of 1 Samuel and still omitted them does not always seem plausible. I would like to take one small example. Certainly one of the latest narrative items is the story about Samuel anointing David as a young boy (1 Sam 16:1–13). 29 It uses the motif of David as a small shepherd boy that was popular in later times. It is in contradiction to the latter part of ch. 16, where David is introduced to Saul’s court as a young warrior who is good-looking and can play the lyre and who becomes Saul’s personal assistant and armor-bearer. The same contradiction is found in ch. 17, where the longer text of the MT again brings the small shepherd boy onto the stage (especially the plus of 17:12–31). The first part of ch. 16 is also problematic because older traditions probably did not bring Samuel and David together. 30 The story has been created to connect David’s election with Saul’s rejection and to show David from the very beginning as Saul’s successor. Saul was anointed by the prophet, which was typical of the northern charismatic leadership, whereas David, according to the older story (2 Sam 5:1–3), made a covenant with the elders of Israel, and they anointed him king. To someone working on these texts later, this must have been too modest. David also needed the anointing by the prophet and the spirit that came upon him from that day forward (1 Sam 16:13). The Chronicler, however, as it seems to me, does not know about this anointing. 1 Chr 11:3 repeats the anointing by the elders verbatim (2 Sam 5:3) but adds: “according to the word of the Lord by Samuel.” Now, the story of Samuel anointing David does not contain a word of the Lord by Samuel. If the Chronicler were referring to the story in 1 Samuel 16, one could expect him to express his knowledge of it more clearly. The word of the Lord (1 Chr 11:3)

27.  This is the estimate of van der Toorn, ibid., 237–44. 28.  Psalms is not what is being referred to, because this is a matter of narrative content. 29.  Similarly, for instance, P. Kyle McCarter Jr., I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 277–78. 30.  So also J. Van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009).

274

Anneli Aejmelaeus

must refer to the rejection of Saul that had been pronounced by Samuel earlier on, in 1 Sam 13:14: But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you. 31

It seems obvious to me that the Chronicler did not know of David’s anointing by Samuel and, therefore, that the books of Samuel were not yet available to the Chronicler in their final form and length. 32 On the other hand, the Chronicler refers to the “word of the Lord by Samuel” that is fulfilled and thus obviously possesses authority, although he does not quote the word. The authority of the word referred to, however, rests on the authority of the prophet and not on the authority of the book in which the Chronicler may have found this word. In a way, the Chronicler diverges from his normal use of the historical sources and approaches the kind of usage that he makes of the Torah, which to him no doubt is Scripture. 33 The difference is not easy to pinpoint, but one characteristic feature of scriptural usage is the involvement of interpretation, often in reference to the future or to the present—in this case, interpretation of the prophetic word as fulfilled in a certain event. Thus, it does not seem to me that the books of Samuel were authoritative Scripture to the Chronicler. References to the Books of Samuel by Ben Sira In my discussion of the early reception of the books of Samuel, I now come to another early witness, Ben Sira, who wrote a good century later than the Chronicler. In his Praise of the Ancestors, he details all the important men in 31. 1 Sam 15:28 is a later version of Saul’s rejection, probably not available to the Chronicler: “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you”; the same is repeated by Samuel’s ghost in 28:17, “. . . given it to your neighbor, David.” 32.  Curiously enough, we have an early textual witness for the story of David’s anointing (1 Samuel 16), namely, 4QSamb, which is said to be one of the oldest biblical manuscripts and is dated to as early as the middle of the 3rd century b.c.e. 1 Sam 16:1–11 is represented on frg. 4 of 4QSamb and contains a few words along the right margin of most of its nine lines. For the dating, see F. M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4, XII: 1–2 Samuel, DJD 17 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 220. The story must have been known to Ben Sira, who praises Samuel for having “established a kingdom and anointed princes (pl.)” (Sir 46:13). The story of David’s anointing by Samuel had clearly become common knowledge in the course of the 3rd century. According to Ps 89:21, it was the Lord himself who anointed David, but Psalm 151 in its different versions refers to a “messenger”/ ἄγγελος, or a prophet—that is, Samuel—who anointed him. 33.  H. G. M. Williamson, “History,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture—Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. D.  A. Carson and H.  G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 25–38; Williamson emphasizes the difference between the Chronicler’s references to the Torah and references to his other sources.

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

275

the history of Israel. Two important characters from the books of Samuel— Samuel (Sir 46:13–20) and David (Sir 47:1–11)—are mentioned, and Nathan (Sir 47:1) appears in connection with David. In Ben Sira’s praise of David, mainly two areas of activity are mentioned as meritorious: David’s victory over Goliath and the Philistines in general and his faith in the Lord, whom he loved and to whom he sang praise. This rather general picture does not presuppose that the books of Samuel were an important part of Ben Sira’s curriculum. 34 That the Lord forgave David his sin is also mentioned, but whether it should be interpreted as referring to the Bathsheba story or to the story of the census (2 Samuel 24) is not clear. Part of what David is praised for corresponds to Chronicles: his organization of the temple music and the cult. From the manner of reference, it is difficult to say whether Ben Sira considered his sources to have scriptural authority or merely to be interesting historical sources. On the one hand, he freely summarizes the sources in his own words without making explicit quotations, and he makes no difference between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles, so that the Deuteronomistic History does not seem to have more scriptural authority than Chronicles. On the other hand, Ben Sira’s own contribution is that he presents the great men of the past as examples of obedience to the Lord and thus gives a religious application to the stories. Perhaps he contributed in this way to the growing reverence toward the historical books. In addition to the summary-like references in the Praise of the Ancestors, wordings from the Song of Hannah seem to have had an influence on what Ben Sira says about David, as well as what he says in a few other passages: Sir 47:11 The Lord took away his sins, and he exalted his horn (1 Sam 2:1, 10) forever, and he gave him a covenant of kings and a throne of glory (1 Sam 2:8) in Israel. Sir 7:11 Do not deride a person when he is embittered in spirit, for there is one who humbles and exalts (1 Sam 2:7). 35 Sir 11:1 A humble person’s wisdom will raise up his head, and it will seat him in the midst of nobles (1 Sam 2:8). 34.  See Sir 39:1–5, in which Ben Sira lists the curriculum of a true scribe (cf. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 209: a divergence in comparison to the Prologue) βθτ does not mention any historical records. 35.  See n. 14 above.

276

Anneli Aejmelaeus

Ben Sira, however, detaches the borrowed expressions from their context and adapts them to his own purposes. It seems to me that he has knowledge of the Song of Hannah either from 1 Samuel or from its use in other contexts. Quotations and Allusions in Other Writings In order to trace the reception of the books of Samuel from the 2nd century on, I have gone through lists of alleged references to the books of Samuel during the late Second Temple period. Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold have recently published a book containing such lists for all the books of the Hebrew Bible, and Donald Parry has published an article that lists “echoes of the books of Samuel in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” 36 Going through the alleged references to 1 Samuel, I have found that a great many cases consist of what can be described as examples of fairly rare idioms or phrases that occur in the books of Samuel and in some other writings. For instance, 1  Samuel 25, the story of David and Abigail contains a few such phrases: 1 Sam 25:26 // 25:33

ְ ‫ָדךָ ל‬ ‫ָך‬ ְ ‫ֲשׁר ְמנָעֲךָ יְהוָה ִמבֹּוא ְב ָד ִמים ְוהֹושׁ ֵַע י‬ ֶ‫א‬ because the Lord has restrained you from bloodguilt and from helping yourself (= taking vengeance) with your own hand.

1QS VI 27 [He h]as taken the law into his own hands

‫]והו]שיעה ידו לוא‬

CD IX 9 You shall not do justice with your (own) hand.

‫לא תושיעך ידך לך‬

1 Sam 25:29 ‫ְתה נֶפֶשׁ אֲדֹנִי ְצרוּרָה ִבּ ְצרֹור ַה ַחיִּים‬ ָ ‫ְו ָהי‬ The life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living. 1QHa X 20 ‫שמתה נפשי בצרור החיים‬ You have placed my soul in the bundle of the living. 36. A.  Lange and M.  Weigold, Biblical Quotation and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplement 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011). D. Parry, “Retelling Samuel: Echoes of the Books of Samuel in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RevQ 17 (1996): 293–306. Both lists contain about 70 items from 1 Samuel, although they differ from each other.

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

277

It is difficult to know, however, whether this is a matter of borrowed language or of shared language that also was used elsewhere. Such examples may speak of familiarity with 1  Samuel, but whether they reveal something about the status of the text is difficult to say. It would be important to know whether the borrowed phrases were meant to convey a reference to the history of David— perhaps to David’s conduct toward his enemies as an example for the writer’s generation: David did not revenge himself, and those who joined the Qumran community were expected not to do so. In a few other cases, a clearer connection to the books of Samuel can be observed, but the borrowed text has been adapted to a new context. For instance, phrases from the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10) have been used in prayer texts and in the Hodayot. The opening verse of the Song of Hannah is clearly reflected in Barki Nafshi. 4QBarki Nafshid 2 i 15 [‫זכרתי ויעלוץ לבבי בכה תרום ק[רני‬ I remember and my heart shall rejoice in you, [my] h[orn] will be raised. These borrowed words are adapted to a different prayer and show no reference to Hannah or her situation. Additionally, the divine epithet ‫דעות‬/‫אל דעת‬ “God of knowledge” (1 Sam 2:3) occurs several times in the Hodayot (1QH 1:26, 12:10), in the Community Rule (1QS 3:15), and in a few other texts from Qumran. That the Lord “humbles and exalts” and “lifts up the poor from the dust, giving them seats of honor” (1 Sam 2:7–8; the same expressions that were borrowed by Ben Sira 7:11, 11:1) also occurs in Qumran (1QHa XXVI 27 [7 ii 2], 4QInstructionb [4Q416] 2 iii 11–12) and seems merely to be borrowed language without reference to Hannah or her situation. A similar borrowing from the Song of Hannah in its Greek form is also found in the Wisdom of Solomon: Wis 16:13 σὺ γὰρ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις καὶ κατάγεις εἰς πύλας ᾅδου καὶ ἀνάγεις. For you have authority over life and death and you lead down to the gates of Hades and bring back up again. 1 Sam 2:6 ‫שׁאֹול ַויָּעַל‬ ְ ‫מֹוריד‬ ִ ‫וּמ ַחיֶּה‬ ְ ‫יְהוָה מ ִֵמית‬ Κύριος θανατοῖ καὶ ζωογονεῖ, κατάγει εἰς ᾅδου καὶ ἀνάγει The same passage influenced Tob 13:2, which is also reminiscent of Deut 32:39. This passage, which is well-nigh a quotation, could be taken as an argument for the originality of the shorter text of the book.

278

Anneli Aejmelaeus

Tob 13:2 BA ὅτι αὐτὸς μαστιγοῖ καὶ ἐλεᾷ, κατάγει εἰς ᾅδην καὶ ἀνάγει, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὃς ἐκφεύξεται τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ. For he afflicts, and he shows mercy; he leads down to Hades and brings up, and there is no one who will escape his hand. Thus, the text of Samuel—or perhaps just the Song of Hannah—must have been known to these writers in one form or another. It may be that the Song of Hannah was used as a psalm without connection to 1 Samuel. In that case, borrowing from this text does not reveal anything about the reception of the books of Samuel, not to mention the status of the book. There are also examples of references to certain persons or events in the books of Samuel. One such example is found in the Commentary on Genesis from Qumran: 4Q252 = 4QCommGen A IV 1–3 [‫ ותלד לו את עמלק הוא אשר הכ[ה‬. . . ‫י‬ ‫ כאשר דבר למושה באחרית ה מים תמחה את זכר עמלק‬

  ‫שאול‬ ‫מתחת השמים‬ . . . and she bore to him Amalek. It was he who[m] Saul sl[ew] . . . as he said to Moses: “In the last days (Deut 25:19:) you will erase the memory of Amalek from under the heaven.” vacat

In this case, there is a verbatim quotation of Gen 36:12 and a quotation of Deut 25:19 with an introductory formula. But the reference to Saul is different, like a historical note referring to 1 Samuel. On account of the verb used (in both texts ‫ נכה‬hiphil), the reference seems to be to the short note in 1 Sam 14:48 (“he struck the Amalekites”) rather than to ch. 15, which deals with the theme of “erasing the memory of Amalek” but, in point of fact, it is depicting Saul’s failure to do so: Saul failed to devote to destruction all the Amalekites, and this led to his final rejection. My main point here is that the reference to 1 Samuel is different from the reference to the Torah. A superficial historical note does not give proof of the authoritative status of the book, even though the book or its content may appear to have been known—at least partially known. 37 Psalm 151 uses the stories of David and adapts them to a new composition in which David himself relates the main points—namely, that he was the smallest of his father’s sons, a shepherd boy who played musical instruments, was anointed by the prophet, and fought Goliath. This is a rather romantic picture of David, one that is connected to the tradition of David as the patron of the 37.  4Q252 seems to refer to Saul as the one who fulfilled Deut 25:19. The story of his failure to do so, which refers to Deut 25:17 (1 Sam 15:2), obviously was not known to the writer.

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

279

temple singers, first encountered in Chronicles and then in Ben Sira. As David gains more importance, certainly the books that tell his story also become more important. Reference to the story of David and Goliath is found in the Qumran War Scroll (1QM [1Q33] XI 1–2): “Goliath . . . you delivered into the hand of David, your servant. . . . The war is yours.” This is a general reference to the story and a partial quotation from 1 Sam 17:46–47 (“This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down. . . . For the war is the Lord’s”) adapted to the 2nd-person address used in the context. The story of David and Goliath is by far the most popular of the stories in the books of Samuel. This and other warlike narratives may have become all the more important during the Maccabean times, because they often describe battles against an overwhelming enemy. The only references to the books of Samuel that I have found to give the impression of being references to Scripture in the full sense of the word are found in 1 Maccabees. The book is of course to be dated considerably later than the actual events, but it seems to reflect the spirit of the time: 1 Macc 4:30 And he saw that powerful army, and he prayed and said, “Blessed are you, the saviour of Israel, who smashed the attack of the powerful one by the hand of your slave David, and delivered the camp of allophyles into the hands of Ionathan the son of Saul, and his armour-bearer. (NETS) This prayer appeals to God by referring to stories about David and Jonathan. Now the interest is not just historical, and in fact, there is more here than can be read in the text. When Jonathan starts out with his armour-bearer to attack the Philistines, he says, “It may be that the Lord will work for us, for nothing can hinder the Lord from saving by many or by few” (1 Sam 14:6). And David, going towards Goliath, says, “All this assembly will know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hand” (1 Sam 17:47). That the Lord is able to save by few as well as by many is a statement—a confession of faith—that has existential relevance in the situation of the Maccabees. In fact, this confession of faith occurs in 1 Macc as a quotation of 1 Sam 14:6, not often recognized: 1 Macc 3:17–19 [T]hey said to Ioudas, “How will we, being so few, be able to fight against such a powerful multitude? And we are weak, having eaten nothing today.” And Ioudas said, “It is easy for many to be ensnared by the hands of a few. And it makes no difference before heaven to save by many or by few (καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν διαφορὰ ἐναντίον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ σῴζειν ἐν πολλοῖς ἢ ἐν

280

Anneli Aejmelaeus

ὀλίγοις). 38 For victory in war is not in the multitude of force, but rather, power is from heaven.” (NETS) 1 Sam 14:6 ‫יע ְבּרַ ב אֹו ִב ְמעָט‬ ַ ‫הֹושׁ‬ ִ ‫ִכּי אֵין לַיהוָה מ ְַעצֹור ְל‬ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι τῷ Κυρίῳ συνεχόμενον σῴζειν ἐν πολλοῖς ἢ ἐν ὀλίγοις. In addition to these theologically significant references, there are numerous other cases where 1 Maccabees refers to 1 Samuel; for instance: 1 Macc 3:46–47 And they gathered together and came to Massepha across from Ierousalem, for there was a place of prayer formerly in Massepha for Israel. And they fasted on that day and wrapped themselves in sackcloth and ashes on their head and tore their clothes. (NETS) Similarly, 1 Sam 7:5–6 reports that Samuel gathered Israel together in Mizpah and prayed with them; they also fasted and confessed their sins before a confrontation with the Philistines. Furthermore, expressions such as ἡ κραυγὴ τῆς πόλεως ἀνέβη ἕως οὐρανοῦ “the cry of the city went up to heaven” (1 Macc 5:31; cf. 1 Sam 5:12) and καὶ ἐγενήθη σωτηρία μεγάλη τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ “and Israel had a great deliverance that day” (1 Macc 4:25; cf. 1 Sam 14:45) are strongly reminiscent of 1 Samuel. Conclusion The strongest use of 1 Samuel, a usage that gives the impression that this book was already regarded as Scripture, is found in 1 Maccabees, which is commonly dated from the late 2nd to 1st century b.c.e. Considering the timespan from Ben Sira to 1 Maccabees—approximately a century—this must have been a time when the books of Samuel gradually gained more importance, primarily among Palestinian Jews. At the beginning of the century, there seems to have been interest by scribes and scholars in the old sources of the history of the nation but, in time, the books seem to have gained more scriptural authority. This is certainly connected to the historical and political situation in Palestine in the 2nd century b.c.e. At the same time, the books seem hardly to have been known at all in the Diaspora. How to date all the other writings that borrow language from 1 Samuel or make reference to it is not easy to say. Very few of them probably date earlier than the 1st century b.c.e, and if a few of them do, I was not able to find any 38.  The Hebrew source text of 1 Maccabees obviously quotes 1 Samuel in Hebrew, which mainly explains the differences between the Greek texts. Replacing the divine name with “heaven” is typical of the writer.

When Did the Books of Samuel Become Scripture?

281

reference to 1 Samuel that would clearly show that the book was regarded as Scripture. It is not self-evident that the books of Samuel were regarded as Scripture from the beginning of the existence of some parts of the books, through the whole process when they were being edited, till the emergence of the tripartite canon. They may have had authority as ancient writings and as historical sources, but their scriptural authority came about gradually as the result of a literary process—the growth of the text to its final dimensions, the creation of links with the Torah, the polishing of ideologically or theologically doubtful passages—but also through changes in historical situations and social structures when the content of these books became existentially meaningful to some groups of Jews more than to others. Furthermore, something had to happen to the prophetic books as well. Prophecy was less and less understood to be a prediction of the future, at least in some circles. When the prophets became historians and teachers of the law, then history could also become prophecy, encouragement in moments of danger, and an admonition to obedience. 39 39. See Barton, “The Prophets in the Canon.”

What Is a Biblical Book? Ronald Hendel University of California, Berkeley A theory of the work does not exist, and the empirical task of those who naively undertake the editing of works often suffers in the absence of such a theory. —Michel Foucault 1

When Foucault wrote these words in 1969, it is fair to say that textual critics had yet to think through many of the theoretical entailments of their editorial practices. Since then, much intellectual ferment has occurred around the topic of textual criticism, primarily in the fields of medieval and modern literature. Theoretical reflection about textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible is still in its early stages, despite important advances stimulated by the biblical texts from Qumran. 2 In my work on The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition project (formerly the Oxford Hebrew Bible), I have come to see the necessity of reflection about the theoretical presuppositions of a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible. 3 In the following, I will attempt to outline what a theory of an edition of the biblical books ought to look like, drawing on pertinent literature from the philosophy of art. In order to make these theories more suitable to the task at hand, I will historicize the (mostly) unhistorical character of these theories, thereby Author’s note: It is a pleasure to dedicate this essay to Zipi Talshir, who has been an ideal conversation partner about all of these thorny issues in our mutual work on The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition project. I treasure her friendship and her scholarship. 1. M.  Foucault and P.  Rabinow, The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon, 1984), 104. 2.  See, e.g., E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), esp. pp. 155–90; E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999); Z. Talshir, “The Contribution of Diverging Traditions Preserved in the Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible,” in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, ed. L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 21–41. 3. R. Hendel, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” VT 58 (2008): 1–28.

283

284

Ronald Hendel

adding complexity to their formulations. I will begin with the general question “What is a book?” and then move to the particular question “What is a biblical book?” with an eye to how these topics clarify the concept and task of a critical edition. What Is a Book? In the course of a discussion of intellectual property rights (including publishing rights), Kant asked the question “What is a book?” His answer elucidates several features that are pertinent to our inquiry: A book is a writing (it does not matter, here, whether it is written in hand or set in type, whether it has few or many pages), which represents a discourse that someone delivers to the public by visible linguistic signs. 4

Kant refers to a book as, in the first instance, “a writing,” as a physical object—that is, a manuscript or a printed text. He then specifies what we may call its semiotic function: to “represent a discourse” to the public. A book accomplishes this function by means of “visible linguistic signs,” which are its semiotic means. As a consequence of this process, the physical object conveys the discourse to the reading (or listening) public. Kant emphasizes the duality of materiality and abstraction in the concept of a book: On the one hand a books is a corporeal artifact (opus mechanicum) that can be reproduced. . . . On the other hand a book is also a mere discourse of the publisher to the public. 5

It is this dual nature of a book—as a reproducible corporeal artifact and as the abstract representation of a discourse—that requires further examination in order to formulate a coherent concept of a book. Kant provides a good starting point. Two further sets of distinctions will help us to unpack the complexities of this concept. The philosopher Nelson Goodman formulated an important distinction between autographic and allographic arts. This will help us to understand how a book differs from other kinds of representational art. A second distinction, formulated by Charles Peirce and developed by Richard Wollheim and others, is between types and tokens. This will clarify the duality of a book 4. Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 71–72 = Metaphysik der Sitten (1797), 6.289: “Ein Buch ist eine Schrift (ob mit der Feder oder durch Typen, auf wenig oder viel Blättern verzeichnet, ist hier gleichgültig), welche eine Rede vorstellt, die jemand durch sichtbare Sprachzeichen an das Publicum hält.” 5.  Idem, The Metaphysics of Morals, 72 = 6.290: “das Buch einerseits ein körperliches Kunstproduct (opus mechanicum) ist . . . andrerseits aber ist das Buch auch bloße Rede des Verlegers ans Publicum.”

What Is a Biblical Book?

285

as a physical and abstract object. 6 I submit that a selective linking of these theories is feasible, despite the fact that these philosophers often disagree on some (in my view, secondary) features. These sets of distinctions attend to complementary aspects of the constituency of a book and, by extension, a biblical book. Autographic and Allographic Artworks Goodman’s distinction accounts for the difference between arts in which only the autograph is the artwork (hence autographic artworks) and those in which the artwork exists in multiple authentic copies (hence allographic artworks), none of which need be the autograph. 7 In autographic arts, such as painting or sculpture, the artwork is a single object, locatable in space and time. The artwork is a particular thing and can therefore be displayed in a particular place. For instance, the Mona Lisa is a particular object that once hung in the bathroom of Louis XIV and is now on display in the Louvre. One can try to steal the Mona Lisa—indeed it was stolen in 1911 and recovered two years later. If anyone copies the Mona Lisa, the result is either a (usually cheap) reproduction or a (very expensive) forgery. Even a perfect copy would be a forgery, since it does not share the same history of production as the actual Mona Lisa. This is why the detection of forgeries is essential for museums and collectors of autographic arts. In autographic arts, authenticity is not a property of copies. In contrast, allographic arts, such as literature and music, exist in multiple and dispersed copies, and any accurate copy is an authentic instantiation of the artwork. Any copy of James Joyce’s Ulysses is the artwork itself, whether it is a printed edition, a photocopy, an e-book, or any other transcription (say, a tattoo version). The concept of forgery does not apply to allographic artworks. The distinguishing feature that makes this condition possible is a system of semiotic notation. As Goodman argues, “An art seems to be allographic just insofar as it is amenable to notation.” 8 That is, the objects exist as artworks by means of what Kant calls “visible signs,” whether these signs are linguistic, musical, or some other kind (e.g., computer code). Hence the artwork can be reproduced without limit. One can produce a forgery of a particular instance of a work, such as a rare printing or manuscript, but one cannot forge the artwork itself. 6. The relevance of these distinctions for textual criticism has been discussed by J. McLaverty, “The Mode of Existence of Literary Works of Art: The Case of the Dunciad Variorium,” Studies in Bibliography 37 (1984): 83–91; similar reflections are found in P. L. Shillingsburg, “Text as Matter, Concept, and Action,” Studies in Bibliography 44 (1991): 31–82. 7. N. Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968), 99–123. 8.  Ibid., 121.

286

Ronald Hendel

The medium of notation makes allographic arts plural, with no single instance counting as the artwork itself to the exclusion of the others. Even the autograph is not the artwork itself, since the autograph can be lost and, as long as other copies survive, the artwork still exists. Only if the autograph and all copies are lost does the artwork cease to exist. It then becomes a lost work of art, like Aristotle’s treatise on comedy or the Sefer ha-Yashar (2 Sam 1:18). Goodman emphasizes the correctness of notation in the valid copy of an allographic artwork. This is an important and complicated issue. As Goodman observes, this criterion does not include features of presentation that are inessential to the notation system. These secondary or contingent features can vary without affecting the correctness of the notation: Let us suppose that there are handwritten copies and many editions of a given literary work. Differences between them in style and size of script or type, in color of ink, in kind of paper, in number and layout of pages, in condition, etc., do not matter. All that matters is what may be called sameness of spelling: exact correspondence of sequences of letters, spaces, and punctuation marks. Any sequence—even a forgery of the author’s manuscript or of a given edition—that so corresponds to a correct copy is itself correct, and nothing is more the original work than is such a correct copy. 9

The criterion of correct copy consists solely of the notation itself, not differences in the features of presentation or physical material. Goodman maintains that a work of allographic art consists of the text itself, defining “text” as “a character in a notational scheme . . . in a vocabulary of syntactically disjoint and differentiated symbols.” He concludes: “A literary work, then, is . . . the text or script itself.” 10 This conclusion has obvious implications for the production of critical editions. If a book is the text itself, in the sense of its notational scheme, then accuracy of notation is the primary value. The constitution of the best attainable copy of a sequence of “character[s] in a notation scheme” is an apt definition of the task of textual criticism. However, aspects of Goodman’s model require qualification. Goodman posits absolute notational fidelity in order for a copy to count as a correct copy of a work of art. He argues that “even replacement of a character in a text by another synonymous character . . . yields a different work.” 11 Other philosophers of art have taken issue with this exacting standard, since it does not correspond to the use of these concepts in ordinary language. Susan Wilsmore cites a perspicuous example: 9.  Ibid., 115. 10.  Ibid., 209. 11.  Ibid.

What Is a Biblical Book?

287

Virginia Woolf published To the Lighthouse in both England and America at the same time with small but important differences of text. Some say that the American version is the better version. . . . Readers on both sides of the Atlantic believe they have read the very same work by Virginia Woolf. Are they wrong? The way in which we discuss such cases, as different versions of the same work, makes clear that they need not be. 12

If we want the theory to accommodate ordinary usage, 13 we will need to modify Goodman’s criterion of “sameness of spelling” as a condition of the validity of a copy of a work. Variants in spelling, words, and word sequences exist among the copies of literary works. Textual critics know that it can hardly be otherwise. Furthermore, for many books, including the Hebrew Bible and other preand early-modern books, “sameness of spelling” is not a felicitous condition, since spelling was not a fixed system. We can redefine this criterion as “sameness of words and word sequences,” or in text-critical terms, “sameness of substantive readings.” 14 But it remains the case that there are differences in words and word sequences (viz., substantive readings) among copies that in ordinary usage count as authentic copies of the artwork. What we are accustomed to regard as “correct copies” can vary considerably. A degree of variation among its copies must be included within a coherent concept of a book. I would modify Goodman’s model by noting that books are doubly allographic (in the sense of “different writing”): as Goodman maintains, they are allographic such that correct copies count as instantiations of the artwork; but they are also allographic in that variants exist among the copies that count as correct copies of the book. In consequence we should ask, since copies vary, in what does the correctness of a copy consist? Can we specify a limit to the range of allowable variation? In ordinary practice, there are no obvious rules or limits that are generally applicable. But local traditions and authorities will, on occasion, assign and enforce limits. A publisher may withdraw a garbled printing of a book. A scribal tradition—such as the medieval Sopherim—may have internal practices of quality control. The extent of allowable variation depends on local practices and mechanisms of enforcement, which involve the historical relationships around the book, the occasion, and the interests of the bibliographical authorities. 12. S.  Wilsmore, “The Literary Work Is Not Its Text,” Philosophy and Literature 11 (1987): 312.; similar criticisms are advanced by N. Wolterstorff, Works and Worlds of Art (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), 101–5. 13.  This is not among Goodman’s aims, but it is among mine. 14.  On substantives and accidentals, see my “Oxford Hebrew Bible,” 343–46, with reference to W.  W. Greg’s essay, “The Rationale of Copy-Text,” Studies in Bibliography 3 (1951): 19–36.

288

Ronald Hendel

In some cases, a single variant may suffice to invalidate a copy of a book. A perspicuous example is the infamous “Wicked Bible,” a 1631 printing of the King James Version. This printing omits the second “not” from Exod 20:13, yielding “Thou shalt commit adultery.” (This may have been an act of industrial sabotage by a disgruntled typesetter.) 15 The local bibliographical authority, King Charles I, supported by his bishops, required all copies to be destroyed. This extreme case illustrates the possible kinds and extent of variation that are permissible for a copy to count as a correct—and licit—instantiation of the book. This example also shows how the history of production enters into the constituency of a book. Copies of books vary, sometimes a little, and sometimes too much. How, then, can we map the relationship between a book and its copies? In Goodman’s terms, an authentic copy is one that correctly represents the notation of the autograph. The relationship between a copy and the autograph is a historical one. But there are other features of the relationship between a book and its local instantiations that Goodman’s model does not cover, including the variations among valid copies of a book. How can copies differ but still instantiate the same book? Another way to put this is to ask, why do we distinguish between particular copies—which can differ in their notation—and the book of which they are copies? This brings us to another distinction. Type and Token Charles Peirce, a founder of semiotics and pragmatism, introduced the terms type and token to clarify the curious duality of physical and abstract objects in our systems of communication, the duality pointed to by Kant. An example he uses is the word the, which in different senses of its usage is a visible sign and an abstract object: A common mode of estimating the amount of matter in a MS. or printed book is to count the number of words. There will ordinarily be about twenty the’s on a page, and of course they count as twenty words. In another sense of the word “word,” however, there is but one word “the” in the English language; and it is impossible that this word should lie visibly on a page or be heard in any voice, for the reason that it is not a Single thing or Single event. It does not exist; it only determines things that do exist. Such a definitely significant Form, I propose to term a Type. . . . In order that a Type may be used, it has to be embodied in a Token. 16 15. D. Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 81. 16. C. S. Peirce, “Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism [1906],” in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, ed. C.  Hartshorne and P.  Weiss (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933), 423–24.

What Is a Biblical Book?

289

The word the, which is a single abstract object or type, has multiple, dispersed instantiations, which are its tokens. In Peirce’s example, this type—the word the—has around 20 tokens on the page. The type exists as an abstract object within the system of language. Its physical instantiations exist as blots of ink or, if one reads the page aloud, as audible noises. This duality of abstract and physical objects corresponds to Kant’s description of a book as a “mere discourse” and a corporeal object. A book as a discourse is a type (an abstract semiotic object), and the physical object with its visible symbols is its token (a physical semiotic object). The type-token relationship has been successfully extended to other semiotic domains, such as mathematics, physics, and biology. In these domains, as W. V. Quine observes, “type and token nicely span the abstract and concrete.” 17 Richard Wollheim has applied this distinction to literary works: In philosophical language, a literary work of art is a type, of which your copy or my copy or the set of words read out in a particular hall on a particular evening are the various tokens; it is a type like the Union Jack or the Queen of Diamonds, of which the flags that fly at different mastheads and have the same design, or the cards in different packs with the same face, are the tokens. 18

A literary work is, in this sense, a type, an abstract object. The physical instantiations of a literary work are its tokens. The situation is analogous to the semiotics of playing cards—there is only one Queen of Diamonds, but there are as many copies of her as there are decks of cards. As Wollheim says, “Ulysses and Der Rosenkavalier are types, my copy of Ulysses and tonight’s performance of Rosenkavalier are tokens of those types.” 19 The type-token relationship is pertinent to the concept of a book, which, as we have seen, entails a relationship between multiple physical copies and the book of which they are copies. Can we specify more clearly how a book exists as an abstract object? It is not equivalent to any one of its copies, but it somehow, as Peirce says, “determines” those copies as its embodiments. What does this mean? The situation of books may be analogous to words or playing cards but seems to have additional complexities—for example, the problem of variant copies of a book. Some of these complexities derive from the history of the production and transmission of books. Wollheim touches on some of these historical conditions: “In the case of any work of art that it is plausible to think of as a type, 17. W.  V. Quine, Quiddities: An Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 218. 18. R. Wollheim, On Art and the Mind (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974), 104. 19.  Idem, Art and Its Objects: An Introduction to Aesthetics (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 65.

290

Ronald Hendel

there is . . . a piece of human invention.” 20 The individual tokens each descend from that “piece of human invention,” and the invention is the occasion that logically entails the genesis of the type. So there is history behind the typetoken relationship. But how then should we think of the book as a type? Does it have any particular qualities? Is it a Platonic form of the written notation, or is it simply a name for a historical family or class of copies? Wollheim argues that it is incorrect to regard a type as a class of material objects. One might think that “a novel, of which there are copies, is not my or your copy but is the class of all its copies.” 21 This formulation, he argues, fails at several points. If the copies are not perfect matches, then this condition raises the problem of how we know that these particular copies belong to a given class. To say that they “resemble each other in all relevant respects” does not suffice, since we cannot specify what those relevant respects are and, more to the point, this is precisely the question that we are trying to answer: To say that certain copies or performances are of Ulysses or Rosenkavalier because they resemble one another seems precisely to reverse the natural order of thought: the resemblance, we would think, follows from, or is to be understood in terms of, the fact that they are of the same novel or opera. 22

The problem that we cannot specify precisely how the copies resemble each other is the reason that Goodman restricts his theory to perfect copies of the autograph’s notation. Inexact copies raise the problem of how we group the copies together and distinguish them from copies of another work. Hence Wollheim argues that the type is something more or other than a class of similar objects—the criterion of similarity is simply too malleable (a point on which Goodman agrees). I suggest that history and culture again supply some necessary conditions for construing the type-token relationship of a book and its copies. A given book type (such as Ulysses or To the Lighthouse) is a historical and a regulative or normative concept that operates within our semiotic discourses. A book has pragmatic, semiotic, and historical features that make it different from a word (the) or a card (the Queen of Diamonds). A book is an abstract object that seems overtly to relate an instance of invention to its variant physical manifestations. This distinguishes books from other types (such as the word the or the Queen of Diamonds) for which the instance of invention seems irrelevant to their semiotic work. Whereas a word is a relational type, a book has relational features and an implicit history of production (even if this implicit history involves metaphysical entities, such as God). 20.  Ibid., 69. 21.  Ibid., 7. 22.  Ibid., 9.

What Is a Biblical Book?

291

The seeming paradox that we, as physical creatures, can know about abstract objects (viz., types), is clarified by Linda Wetzel: “A word token is just a meaningless blob of ink, or a noise, unless there is a word type of which it is a token. . . . Being a token is a relational property.” 23 Token and type together constitute a meaningful semiotic relationship. Otherwise, a book is just a combination of wood pulp and ink. The type-token relationship is a linguistic and social fact, even if some aspects of this relationship are abstract. Another historical twist on this semiotic relationship requires attention. Prior to the historical event when a book is published (when, in Kant’s terms, a writing is delivered to the public), there is arguably a type-token relationship in the private act of writing. Joyce had a concept of Ulysses that he was trying to instantiate by writing it. We may regard this as a phase in the prehistory of the book, since, in Kantian and ordinary language, the writing is not yet a book. The transition from private writing to publication (making public) is arguably the occasion when a book begins to exist. This historical event constitutes the birth of the public type-token relationship. In this respect, as Wetzel comments, “types can have spatio-temporal properties,” such that they are occasioned by tangible events. 24 A type is an abstract object that we produce when we make a book. It does not have physical existence, but with it we collectively sort out and render meaningful things that do. Abstraction and Change The two theories of a book that I have explored—the book as an allographic artwork and the book as constituted by a type-token relationship—are generally compatible (including a revision of Goodman’s theory to include variant copies), but they diverge on an important point. The type-token model posits the existence of abstract objects (types), whereas the model of allographic artworks only refers to particular objects—viz., the autograph and its copies. In this respect, Goodman’s is a nominalist theory, which only grants the existence of individual physical objects, whereas the type-token theory is a realist theory, which also grants the reality of abstract objects and classes. Nominalist theories are appealing to the empirically minded, for whom the idea of abstract objects smacks of supernaturalism or Platonism. However, as W. V. Quine somewhat ruefully observes (since he is a nominalist by inclination), nominalism is an “ill-starred project,” since “to the nominalists’ sorrow science is saddled with abstract objects.” 25 It seems we are compelled to grant the reality of abstract objects, even if their existence seems contrary to common 23. L.  Wetzel, Types and Tokens: On Abstract Objects (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), 123; idem, “Types and Tokens,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/. 24.  Idem, Types and Tokens, 151. 25.  Quine, Quiddities, 228–29.

292

Ronald Hendel

sense. But, at least they are our abstract objects; as Wetzel says, “They are the abstract objects we specify them to be.” 26 If we grant the existence of types as abstract objects, then by necessity they do not change. Ulysses as a type cannot morph into To the Lighthouse. But, as we have seen, we must construe the work of types in a way that accommodates change among their tokens. In order to clarify this requirement, let us consider two extreme examples of the relationships between a type and its tokens: Joyce’s Ulysses and Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. These “discourse[s] that someone delivers to the public by visible linguistic signs” were complicated events, and thus, they open up further complications in the concept of a book. There have been (depending on how one counts them) 18 editions of Ulysses, from the 1st edition published in Paris in 1922 to the critical edition issued in 1984. 27 The problem that occasioned these multiple editions is the uncertain text of the first edition. The transition from manuscript to book was cluttered with copyists’ errors, incorrect corrections by copyists and printers, and authorial corrections and revisions. The manuscripts, typescripts, and printer’s proofs are a mess (see fig. 1). As a consequence, the 1st edition of Ulysses contains many scribal errors and passages of dubious authenticity. Subsequent editions attempted to correct the errors but also introduced new ones. Hans Gabler’s 1984 critical edition may be the best representation of what we may call (with a measure of ambiguity) Joyce’s final text, but aspects of his method and particular editorial decisions have been criticized by Joyce scholars. The point of immediate interest, however, is the unity of the type despite the variability of its tokens. Gabler’s edition differs considerably from previous copies and editions, but it is nonetheless a token of Ulysses. Each of the variant tokens of Ulysses instantiate a singular abstract type. The type therefore accommodates historical and editorial change, on the condition that all the copies have a historical relationship to a particular piece of human invention. All the copies are members of a (messy) family tree. The type encompasses a family of tokens, the internal relationships of which may be complicated or irrecoverable. Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass was also issued in multiple editions but for a different reason. 28 The first edition of 1855 consisted of 12 poems. Whitman continued to revise, supplement, and occasionally delete poems until the so-called deathbed edition of 1891–92, which consisted of nearly 400 poems. After preparing the latter edition, he wrote to a friend, “I now consider it finished as I propose & laid out.” Many poems in the later editions differ con26.  Wetzel, Types and Tokens, 123. 27.  On the following, see P. Eggert, Securing the Past: Conservation in Art, Architecture and Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 164–78. 28. See Leaves of Grass: A Textual Variorum of the Printed Poems, ed. S. Bradley et al. (New York: New York University Press, 1980), 1.xv–xxviii.

What Is a Biblical Book?

293

Fig. 1.  Printer’s proof of Ulysses with author’s corrections and revisions.

siderably from their earlier versions. For instance, the elder Whitman deleted some of the homoerotic lines in “Song of Myself,” creating a less controversial poem. In sum, the editions differ. Today, Whitman scholars tend to use the Variorum Edition of 1980, which reproduces each of the multiple editions. In the case of Leaves of Grass, the tokens vary considerably, yet each, by common consent, is an instantiation of Leaves of Grass. The book accommodates all of its tokens, including those that are considerably different editions. The type of Leaves of Grass is an abstract entity that includes among its tokens vast textual change. Both of these theoretical models—allographic arts and the type-token relationship—can be revised to accommodate the historical fact of textual diversity among the copies/tokens. Moreover, both models can be construed, in some respects, as both descriptive and normative, since the allographic model

294

Ronald Hendel

highlights the criterion of correct copies, and the type-token model highlights the regulative function of types. The normative features of these models raise the question of whether one should prefer a particular copy or token of a book over another. Many people choose to read any available copy. Some prefer to read the most prestigious copy, irrespective of its relationship to other copies and irrespective of its notational defects. Thomas Tanselle aptly points out the theoretical problem with the common situation in which a person makes no distinction among copies or prefers a particular copy because of habit or prestige: Persons . . . need not search for the work represented by the text, but they should realize that what they are doing is equating the text of the document before them with the text of a work—just as if the object before them were a painting. 29

Tanselle does not articulate a theory of the work/text distinction, but his criticism of treating a book as though it were a painting has an apt Goodmanian resonance. To consider a book a single physical object is to conflate the properties of autographic and allographic artworks. To privilege a single copy or token is to overlook the multilayered condition of a book (as an allographic artwork, involving a type-token relationship) and the changes that characterize its copies through time. It is to misconstrue a book’s ontology and its history. What Is a Biblical Book? The complex nature of a book is clearly relevant to the concept of a biblical book. Although some scholars have suggested that the concept of a book was radically different in antiquity, 30 I submit that the key features of allographic artworks and the type-token relationship are entailed in the concept of a book in ancient Israel, including the period when the biblical books were produced and circulated. (The word biblical is anachronistic in this context, but I use it as shorthand for “books that came to be included in the Hebrew Bible.”) 31 In his reflections on how these books came to be canonical, Eugene Ulrich comments on the ancient conceptual distinction between a biblical book and its copies, given that the copies circulated in diverse text forms and editions. He notes that 29. G. Thomas Tanselle, A Rationale of Textual Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), 70. 30.  See J.  Barton, “What Is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. J. C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 2: “No-one had yet combined two ideas which form parts of our concept of a book, one physical, the other metaphysical.” I submit that the dual concept of a book is native to biblical discourse, as I argue below. 31.  The term Scripture, which some scholars prefer, has its own confusions, since many more books were considered scriptural (e.g., at Qumran) than were included in the Hebrew or Greek Bible.

What Is a Biblical Book?

295

the concept of canon pertains to books in the abstract (in our vocabulary, as types) and not to a book’s diverse textual instantiations: Canon concerns biblical books, not the specific textual form of the books. One must distinguish two senses of the word “text”: a literary opus and the particular wording of that opus. It is the literary opus, and not the particular wording of that opus, with which canon is concerned. Both in Judaism and in Christianity it is books, not the textual form of books, that are canonical. . . . [A book] is an abstraction, not a text that one can pick up and read. 32

The dual nature of a book—as an abstract object and its physical instantiations—is implicit in the discourses and practices involving books in ancient Israel. The concept of canonical or sacred books refers to the book as a type, which is instantiated by each of its variant tokens in circulation. At Qumran, for instance, a particular book token could be inscribed with the notation of any of several textual families—proto-MT, proto-SP, protoLXX—or anything in between. 33 When a Qumran document cites ‫ספר משה‬ “the book of Moses” (viz., the Pentateuch), the book referred to is a type, an abstract semiotic object that encompasses all of its variant manuscript copies (as long as the copies survive the scrutiny of the bibliographical authorities). 4QpaleoExodm, a proto-SP text written in Paleo-Hebrew script, was as much a copy of Exodus as 4QExodb, which was an older manuscript with (arguably) a proto-LXX text, written in the square script. A biblical book was an abstract type, with many variant tokens in circulation. The Hebrew word ‫“( ספר‬book, document”) can apply to the type and its tokens, just as the English word “book.” A scroll as a physical object, with or without writing, is a ‫מגלה‬. A written scroll can be referred to as a ‫“( ספר‬book”) or as a ‫ספר‬-‫“( מגלת‬book-scroll”). 34 The relationship between a biblical book and any particular book-scroll of that book is an instance of the relationship between a type and its tokens. In order to focus on this relationship, I will use the term book-scroll (following Menahem Haran) to refer to these tokens. 35 To illustrate the type-token relationship, let us consider the case of 4QGenh-title (= 4Q8c), a fragment of a title page of Genesis. This sheet would have been wrapped around a book-scroll to protect and identify it, like a dust 32.  Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls, 57–58. 33. See my “Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible after Qumran,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 281–302. 34.  On the lexical issues, see A. Hurvitz, “The Origins and Development of the Expression ‫מגלת ספר‬: A Study in the History of Writing-Related Terminology in Biblical Times,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 37*–46* [Heb.]. 35. M.  Haran, “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-exilic Times,” JJS 33 (1982): 161–73; idem, “Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period: The Transition from Papyrus to Skins,” HUCA 54 (1983): 111–22.

296

Ronald Hendel

jacket on a modern book. This fragment displays the word ‫ברשית‬, which is a dialectal spelling (absent the medial ‫ )א‬of the first word of the book of Genesis. (It was customary to use the first word or phrase –the incipit –as the name of a literary work.) As Emanuel Tov observes, this sheet “may have been attached to any Genesis scroll, preserved or not.” 36 That is, the designation ‫ ברשית‬is relational, identifying a book-scroll with the book of which it is a copy. The designation refers to any copy, any book-scroll that counts as an instantiation of Genesis. We have fragments of approximately 19 manuscripts of Genesis from Qumran. Each of them differs in some details of notation from the others, yet each of them is an authentic copy of the literary work Genesis. The book’s title performs the semiotic function of linking the tokens to their type. The history of the book’s title illustrates some additional features of the type/token relationship that pertain not only to books but also to individual readings and words (as in the case of the, discussed above). I have been using the word Genesis as the name of a Hebrew book. The oldest native designation is ‫( בראשית‬or, as above, the dialectal ‫)ברשית‬, which means roughly “In the beginning (of).” The English name of the book derives from the LXX of Gen 2:4: Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως (= ‫)זה ספר תולדות‬, “This is the book of the generations/origins (geneseos).” In Greek, the book came to be called Genesis, since this seems to be a self-identification of the book in the Greek of 2:4: “This is the book of Genesis.” The word this (αὕτη, ‫ )זה‬does not refer to a particular book-scroll of Genesis. It designates a book (‫ )ספר‬in the sense of a type, an abstract object. This self-designation can be included (like the title page) in any and all physical instantiations of the book, that is, in any book-scroll of Genesis. The deictic particle points to the book as such, and relates it to the book-scroll at hand. It says, “this is the book of Genesis,” which semantically foregrounds the type of this particular token. Interestingly, this name derives from a textual variant of Gen 2:4. The MT and SP read ‫“( אלה תולדות‬These are the generations”) rather than ‫זה ספר‬ ‫“( תולדות‬This is the book of generations”), which is the reading reflected in the LXX. The LXX of Gen 2:4 is arguably the result of a scribal harmonization in a Hebrew book-scroll with Gen 5:1, which reads ‫“( זה ספר תולדת‬This is the book of generations”) in all the textual versions. The two verses are related as introductory tags to the “generations” of something (“heaven and earth” in 2:4; “Adam” in 5:1), and as a consequence a scribe in the proto-G tradition has harmonized the wording of these two introductory tags. 37 Both variant readings are tokens of the same type—viz., the text of Gen 2:4. Note that the book of 36. E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 121. 37. R.  Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 34.

What Is a Biblical Book?

297

Genesis is an abstract type, and so also is its text. That is, when we refer to the text of Gen 2:4, we are referring to a type that encompasses all of its variant tokens. The type/token relationship at the level of text and variants clarifies Emanuel Tov’s comment that “the ‘biblical text’ is an abstract unit that is not found in any one single source.” 38 Like Ulrich’s observation about the biblical books, Tov observes that the biblical text has a dual nature, consisting of an abstract object and its physical manifestations. In other words, the biblical text is a type, and the extant manuscripts and printed editions are its tokens. The concept of the biblical text is constituted by a type-token relationship. This terminology lends analytical precision to the apt observations of Tov on the biblical text and Ulrich on the biblical books. If Genesis (or Exodus, etc.) is a biblical book that has variant instantiations, and its text likewise has variant instantiations, can we specify any criteria by which a particular book counts as a token of Genesis and its text? Are there any limits to variation that determine whether a particular book-scroll becomes an invalid token? In medieval Jewish book-scroll manufacture, biblical books were subjected to stringent quality controls. For instance, the Babylonian Talmud (b. Menaḥ. 29b) recounts a disagreement over the number of permitted corrections in a column of a Torah scroll (Rab says two, another sage says three, and a third says that these may be mitigated if there is one column with no mistakes). In some scribal circles, too many corrections invalidated a Torah scroll. Among the Qumran scrolls, we find evidence of scribal conventions regarding corrections in a book-scroll but nothing that indicates criteria for an invalid copy. 39 I propose a thought-experiment: If a book-scroll of Leviticus lacked one or more of the ritual laws (viz., God’s commands), would this lacuna suffice to make it an invalid book-scroll of Leviticus in an observant Jewish community? I think so. If the missing law was particularly cherished in this community, then the likelihood of invalidation would be even greater. This hypothetical situation is pertinent to a group of manuscripts called 4QReworked Pentateuch (4Q158 + 4Q364–367), which has occasioned a lively debate over whether the group should be regarded as books of the Pentateuch (and hence renamed 4QPentateuch) or whether they are a kind of commentary in the form of “rewritten” biblical books. 40 These manuscripts, as 38.  Tov, Textual Criticism, 341. 39.  On corrections in the Qumran manuscripts, see idem, Scribal Practices, 222–30. 40. See M.  Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, ed. L.  H. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 391–99; and the overviews of S.  White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 39–59; and M. M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1–12 (and see pp. 245–58 for her transcription and

298

Ronald Hendel

Tov characterizes them, “contain long stretches of unaltered Scripture text as well as small and large exegetical additions and changes.” Since these types of variation are typical in copies of other biblical books, Tov concludes: “The manuscripts of this group should therefore be considered Scripture.” 41 That is, they are copies of the Pentateuch in the same respect as the other book-scrolls that are tokens of pentateuchal books. However, as Moshe Bernstein has cautioned, among the variants in these manuscripts are omissions of laws. 42 4Q365 (frg. 28) jumps from Numbers 4 to Numbers 7, leaving out all the ritual laws in between, including laws concerning purity, sacrifice, and adultery. Unless these laws were reinserted elsewhere in the book-scroll (which is not ascertainable because of the fragmentary condition of the manuscript), this poses the problem raised above. Similarly, 4Q367 (frg. 2) jumps from Lev 15:15 to Leviticus 19, omitting the laws in the intervening chapters, including the purity laws for menstruation and sexual intercourse, the instructions for the Day of Atonement, and the laws of incest. According to the Qumran sectarian documents, the laws omitted in 4Q365 and 4Q367 were very important, constituting some of the boundary conditions for the community. 43 Bernstein asks, “Can we imagine and explain a text of the Pentateuch which did not contain all of its legal material?” 44 These omissions in particular, I suggest, would signal to its readers at Qumran and elsewhere that these book-scrolls were not tokens of the Pentateuch but tokens of another kind of book, perhaps of the kind that one Qumran text calls a “book of the Second Torah” (‫)ספר התורה שנית‬. 45 That is, the omission of ritual laws and some striking additions (including new laws for the festivals of wood and new oil) 46 would signal that the book-scroll is not a token of the “First Torah” 47 but reconstruction of 4Q158). For 4Q364–367, see E. Tov and S. White (Crawford), “Reworked Pentateuch,” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part I, DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 187–351. 41. E. Tov, “The Many Forms of Scripture: Reflections in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of His 65th Birthday, ed. A. Lange et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 26. 42. M. Bernstein, “What Has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch,” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49. 43.  E.g., CD 3:13–15 and 6:18–19 on the festivals, including the Day of Atonement; and CD 5:7–11 on the incest laws, citing Lev 18:13. 44.  Bernstein, “What Has Happened?” 48. 45. T. H. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 317, quoting 4Q177. 46.  Added at Lev 24:2 in 4Q365, frg. 23; these festivals are found in the Temple Scroll and other texts; see Tov and Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuch,” 290–96; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 49–51; Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 102–8. 47.  This is the locution of Jub. 6:22, which seems to situate itself self-consciously as a Second Torah; see Lim, “Authoritative Scripture,” 316; H. Najman, Seconding Sinai: The

What Is a Biblical Book?

299

is a Second Torah, a secondary work or meta-discourse (which may be regarded as authoritative) on the Torah. As Sidnie White Crawford observes, 4QRP “ceased to be copied after the Hasmonean period and was lost in the tradition.” 48 These manuscripts (characterized by what John Strugnell called “wild” readings) raise the issue of boundary conditions for what counts as a copy of a biblical book in the late Second Temple period. There were such boundaries, as the different designations for Genesis and Jubilees indicate. 49 Our discussion of Genesis, Exodus, and 4QRP illustrates the complex relationships of books and their book-scrolls, of types and their tokens in the era of Qumran, around the time when books of the Bible came to be regarded as such. Conclusion: Editing Biblical Books Biblical scholars have long acknowledged a distinction between the biblical text and its physical witnesses in scrolls, codices, and printed editions. The scholar who inaugurated modern textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Louis Cappel, wrote in 1650: Truly, the authentic Hebrew text, considered as such, is one thing, and the actual Jewish codex is another, in which the text as such is contained (as in other codices). 50

Emanuel Tov reiterates this distinction in his comment, quoted above, that “the ‘biblical text’ is an abstract unit that is not found in any one single source.” He adds elsewhere: “These sources shed light on and witness to the biblical text, hence their name: ‘textual witnesses.’ . . . [N]o textual source contains what could be called the biblical text.” 51 This distinction between the biblical text and its variant physical instantiations is clarified by the theoretical work of Kant, Goodman, Peirce, and Wollheim, with the historicizing qualifications that I have proposed. By asking “What is a book?” and its corollary, “What is a biblical book?” I have attempted to elucidate the relationship between the abstract and physical qualities of a book, which affects our understanding of the textual variations Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 48 and passim. 48. S.  White Crawford, “The ‘Rewritten Bible’ at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts,” ErIsr 26 (1999): 5. 49.  CD 16:3–4 refers to Jubilees as “The book (‫ )ספר‬of the divisions of the periods according to their jubilees and their weeks”; this designation echoes the first verse of Jubilees. 50. Louis Cappel, Critica Sacra (Paris: Cramoisy, 1650; repr. Halle: Hendel, 1775), 603; quoted in F. Laplanche, L’Écriture, le sacré et l’histoire: Érudits et politiques protestants devant la Bible en France au XVIIe siècle (Amsterdam: Holland University Press, 1986), 242, 878: “Verum aliud est ipse authenticus textus hebraeus in se consideratus, aliud hodiernus codex judaïcus, in quo textus ipse (ut in aliis codicibus) continetur.” 51.  Tov, Textual Criticism, 3.

300

Ronald Hendel

among its copies. I have argued that two distinctions—that between allographic and autographic arts and that of a type and its tokens—allow us to think more precisely about the biblical books as works with multiple and dispersed instantiations. As the observations of Ulrich, Tov, and Cappel demonstrate, this condition is pertinent to the biblical books, both in our thinking and in the conception of ancient Israel. A careful exploration of these concepts has multiple implications for the theory and practice of editing biblical books. First, it enables us to understand more clearly the distinction between the biblical text and its physical instantiations. It provides the intellectual apparatus to comprehend clearly that, as Tov stresses, the “MT and the biblical text are not identical concepts.” 52 The biblical text as such is a type that is instantiated in its many variant tokens. The MT is also a type that is instantiated in its variant tokens. Those who regard a particular token as if it were the biblical text—whether for reasons of habit, religious conservatism, or empiricism— are committing the mistake of confusing an allographic artwork with an autographic work. They are treating a book as though it were a painting. Scholars know that any particular copy of the MT (such as L, A, or BHS) is not the original “piece of invention”; hence, it is unwarranted to treat it as if it were. Any medieval manuscript or printed edition is an object that tokens its type. To read a particular physical copy as though it were the only authentic copy of Genesis (or Exodus, etc.) is a category mistake. Of course, one can choose to read any available copy of a book, but scholars should be aware that it is not intellectually defensible to invest a particular copy of a book with the authority of an autographic artwork. Notably, even the diplomatic editions that claim to reproduce a single manuscript, such as L, acknowledge the relationship between this copy and the biblical text as an abstract object. BHS, which functions as the textus receptus for most biblical scholars, recognizes that two verses of Joshua 21 (vv. 36–37) were lost by homoioteleuton in the group of MT manuscripts to which L belongs, and it restores these verses in small type. These verses exist in many MT manuscripts and in the earliest printed editions. 53 In this instance, BHS produces a critical (eclectic) text. This is the only place where BHS does so. 52.  Ibid. (1st ed., 1992), xxxviii. In subsequent editions, the author omitted this sentence—perhaps, like the older Whitman, preferring a less controversial tone. 53.  For example, the M1 codex (1280 c.e.) in Madrid (which was a base text for the Complutensian Polyglot); 18 codices in the British Museum, including Or 2201 (1246 c.e.); and all the printed editions prior to the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Ḥayyim (1524–25); see C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897), 178–80. These verses are lacking in several of our oldest MT codices (A, L, and C), whose tradition Ben Ḥayyim preferred (without knowing these particular codices). The verses are extant in the LXX, Vulgate, some targum mss and are quoted in 1 Chr 6:63–64.

What Is a Biblical Book?

301

But in doing so even once, BHS grants the correctness of the principle of a critical text—that is, the most accurate attainable notation. Second, the criterion of accurate notation clarifies the distinction between the substantive readings of an edition (= the notation as such) and the “accidental” features of presentation, which are secondary to the notation as such. The accidental features include spelling (which can change without affecting the semantics of the notation) and other matters of presentation. A critical edition should focus on accuracy of notation (in its allographic sense) and can adopt any reasonable strategy for presentational features. 54 Third, variant editions of a book count as instantiations of that book. The case of Whitman’s Leaves of Grass is exemplary, since its editions vary considerably. In the case of the books of the Hebrew Bible, the variant editions that circulated in antiquity were not produced by a single author (although in some cases we cannot exclude this possibility), so the situation is more complicated than Whitman’s editions. But variant editions of biblical books circulated in antiquity, and all of them were, in principle, valid copies of the book (compare the existence of variant editions of Jeremiah, Samuel, Judges, Exodus, and so on at Qumran). In a critical edition, it is valid to reproduce any or all of these editions, as is the case for Whitman’s book. Each edition is a valid token of the book and therefore can or should be represented in a critical edition. Fourth, the concept of a book clarifies that one of the chief goals of a critical edition is to recover, to the extent feasible, the notation of the book at the point when it became a book, that is (in Kant’s phrase) when “someone delivers [it] to the public.” The goal of a critical edition is not the reconstitution of earlier compositional phases, such as a book’s constituent sources or editorial layers, since these are literary features that predate the book as such. The goal is to approximate the notation of the book in its state when it entered into public circulation as well as the notation of subsequent public editions of the book. It may be impossible to specify the relevant historical events of “publication” (public delivery) with precision, but it is a coherent goal, even if it remains for the biblical books an ideal goal or limiting condition. 55 A critical edition should attend to each of the phases in the book’s punctuated history as a book, including substantially different editions (as with Whitman’s book). Finally, tying together some of these points—a critical eclectic edition of a biblical book is a valid token of this book. This responds to a criticism by Hugh Williamson that an eclectic edition does not, in his view, count as the 54.  See above, n. 14. 55.  In the case of the Pentateuch, we may point to the account of Ezra’s reading the ‫ספר‬ ‫“( תורת משה‬Book of the Torah of Moses”) in Nehemiah 8, which, if it actually occurred, may possibly be dated to October 2, 458 b.c.e.; see my Text of Genesis, 114.

302

Ronald Hendel

Bible. 56 According to ordinary usage, critical editions—of Ulysses, Leaves of Grass, the Gospel of Mark, and so on—are tokens of this type, unless one has a situation in which the local bibliographical authorities declare it invalid. It is certainly the case that critical editions of the Bible, such as BHS, are invalid in communities that adhere to a particular authoritative edition (such as the King James Version or the Hebrew textus receptus [which derives from the Second Rabbinic Bible, an eclectic edition of the Masoretic Text]). The HBCE editions of biblical books will count as tokens of these books in this ordinary sense. We are not creating editions that will omit the laws of Yom Kippur and incest (cf. 4QRP) or mandate adultery (the “Wicked Bible”), and so the ordinary criteria for valid tokens will apply. The concept of biblical books includes critical editions as valid tokens. Moreover, this concept arguably has a normative sense, entailing a preference for copies with accurate notation, which is what an edition with a critical text aims to accomplish. The criticism that a particular critical text never previously existed—that is, that it does not replicate a past copy in all details—is correct but misses the point of what a critical edition is and does. Even if a critical edition is (necessarily) imperfect, it aims to provide a better copy of the notation of the book than the other extant copies. It therefore ought to be preferred by informed readers. In summary, to echo Foucault, the practical task of editing the biblical books suffers in the absence of a cogent theory of a biblical book. I have attempted to outline such a theory and to draw out its implications for the production of a fully critical edition—that is, an edition with a critical text, apparatus, and commentary. A biblical book is constituted by the relationship between an abstract object and its (varying) corporeal manifestations. When it is unread, a copy of a book is, as Borges says, “literally, geometrically, a volume, a thing among things.” 57 Only when it is opened does the tangible thing entail a semiotic event, a type-token relationship, a discourse made public by visible signs. Our scholarly editions should respond to the complex nature of biblical books. 56.  H. G. M. Williamson, “Do We Need a New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible,” Bib 90 (2009): 175. 57. J. Luis Borges, Seven Nights, trans. Eliot Weinberger (New York: New Directions, 1984), 76.

Revelatory Experiences as the Beginning of Scripture: Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible Roland Deines University of Nottingham

Introduction: Revelatory Experiences as an Overlooked Factor in the Origin of Scriptures What is presented in the following in honoring my dear colleague and friend, Professor Zipi Talshir, is part of a larger project on the question “What is Scripture?” I will propose here some ideas about the very first steps in a historical development that eventually resulted in texts regarded as being “holy” or “canonical.” 1 Methodologically, I follow a historical approach that is informed by theological reflection based on a religious, theistic world view. I am aware that many have reservations about this dual perspective, not least the honoree of this volume, with whom I have had more than one debate on this subject in and around Beer-Sheva. But the topic necessitates at least the willingness to engage with religious experiences and how they might have become causal forces within the historical process. It can hardly be doubted that the revealed “word of the Lord” stands at the heart of the prophetic tradition in the Bible. Many of the prophetic books begin with a reference to the “word of the Lord that happened” to a prophet during a given time, and elements of the historical books focus on the role of the prophets in the development of the course of history. Author’s note:  Again, heartfelt thanks are due to my two young colleagues here in Nottingham, Dr. Christoph Ochs and Peter Watts, who helped me with this essay in many ways. 1. See my essay “The Term and Concept of Scripture,” in What Is Bible? ed. K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, CBET 67 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 235–81; slightly revised and repr. in idem, Acts of God in History: Studies Towards Recovering a Theological Historiography, ed. C.  Ochs and P.  Watts, WUNT 317 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 263–308; idem, “Did Matthew Know He was Writing Scripture? Part 1,” European Journal of Theology 22 (2013): 101–9; idem, “Part 2,” European Journal of Theology 23 (2014): 3–12.

303

304

Roland Deines

The formula ‫ ויהי דבר־יהוה‬belongs among the key identifiers of biblical prophecy: 1 Sam 15:10 (with Samuel as recipient); 2 Sam 7:4 (Nathan); 1 Kgs 6:11 (Solomon); 12:22 (Shemaiah); 13:20 (an unnamed prophet); 16:1 (King Jehu); 17:2, 8; 21:17, 28 (Elijah); Isa 38:4 (Isaiah); Jer 1:4, 11, 13, et al. (Jeremiah); Ezek 3:16; 6:1; 7:1, et al.; Jonah 1:1; 3:1; Hag 1:3; Zech 4:8; 6:9, et al.; see also the variations of the formula in Gen 15:1 (Abraham); 1 Kgs 18:1 (Elijah); 18:31 (retrospection on Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had “happened” that is now to be going to be fulfilled); Jer 1:2; Ezek 1:3; Zech 1:1. Israel’s election began with God’s addressing Abram (Gen 12:1, “And the Lord said to Abram”), and the redemption from Egypt is similarly rooted in God’s address to Moses (Exod 3:4). Creation itself is described as a speech-act on the part of God (Gen 1:3, etc.), and the decisive revelation on Mt. Sinai is a public proclamation of God in front of all Israel (Exod 20:1–20; Deut 5:1). When young Samuel was called as a prophet at a time when “the word of the Lord was rare” (1 Sam 3:1), he accepted his commissioning by saying to God, who had called him: “Speak Lord, for your servant is listening” (1 Sam 3:10). This is in short the task of a prophet: to listen to what God is saying and to transmit it to those whom God wants to address (see also Isa 5:9; 6:8–9; Jer 1:9, etc.). The expression ‫“ גלה את־אזן‬to uncover one’s ear” (1 Sam 9:15; 2 Sam 7:27 = 1 Chr 17:25; Isa 22:14; for individual “warnings,” see Job 33:14–18; 36:10–15) for receiving God’s revelation is a very graphic expression of this understanding. Related to the task of being God’s messenger in words and deeds is the imperative to write, which was given to Moses and the prophets. 2 The problem is not so much that the biblical texts are ambiguous about this point but, rather, that historical scholarship is somehow oblivious to these claims about a revelatory experience as the prime cause for the prophetic words to be collected and eventually written down. In the wider context of academia and, in particular, professional biblical scholarship, a tendency prevails, as Christine Helmer comments, toward erasing “the religious dimension.” She sees this occurring when religious experiences and religious texts are pressed “into the terms of modern historiography” and “reductionistic models of religion,” only to be explained away “on neuroscientific or other naturalistic grounds.” 3 She therefore advises: If a scholar is sensitive to the inevitable erasure of the religious dimension of religious experience, then she must hold open the possibility of the religious dimension of a religious phenomenon that is irreducible to any other descriptive category. 4 2. D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 112 n. 4; Deines, “Writing Scripture,” 108 n. 9. 3. C.  Helmer, “Bible, Theology, and the Study of Religion,” in What Is Bible? ed. K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, CBET 67 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 81–94 (esp. p. 90). 4.  Helmer, “Bible, Theology, and the Study of Religion,” 91; see also below, n. 36.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

305

In the same way, biblical departments at universities cannot and should not ignore the fact that at the center of their research are texts that are regarded as “holy” by adherents of millenia-old faith traditions. It is not least because of these communities of faith and their impact on contemporary society that these departments can expect public support and interest in such detailed and painstaking work as text-, source- and redaction-criticism. It was first and foremost the religious value of these texts that resulted in their complex transmission and translation history, which is the focus of this volume and the work of the jubilarian. What I intend to do here, therefore, is to reflect on the religious experiences recorded in the biblical texts as one cause for their preservation and transmission. The last two decades have witnessed an increased interest in how the Bible came to be the book that it is now, both in its literary and canonical form, involving not only specialists on the Hebrew Bible and early Christian writings but also scholars dealing with ancient Near Eastern textual traditions and their transmission, redaction, and adaptation in scribal workshops attached to temples or royal courts. Related to this topic within Biblical Studies is the question of how scribal professionalism and the nature of a text as Holy Scripture fit together. 5 My interest in this question focuses on the religious element within this process. 5.  See especially the fascinating and challenging study of K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). The discussion focuses heavily on whether the “scribes behind the Hebrew Bible were attached to the temple” (so van der Toorn) or whether the HB is mainly the product of “palace scribes,” as is claimed by Edward Lipiński, Moshe Weinfeld, and William M. Schniedewind (see van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 82–83). This is an unfortunate reduction of possibilities. Van der Toorn himself points to the fact that available archaeological evidence indicates “that the professional production of written texts must have been significant even in the pre-exilic period” (p.  75). But why is it then necessary to find the authors of the biblical books only in either the temple or the royal court? Literacy in Iron Age Israel was probably more widespread than often assumed, and this means that writing skills also were probably more widely available, as van der Toorn allows; see Helga Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie 2/1 (Munich: Beck, 1988), 578–87: the archaeological evidence suggests “daß weite Bevölkerungskreise über zumindest elementare Lesekenntnisse verfügten” (p. 583) and that it was customary to write larger texts on scrolls or wooden tablets, most of which have perished forever (ibid.); J. Jeremias, “Das Rätsel der Schriftprophetie,” ZAW 125 (2013): 93–117, uses the Balaam inscription of Deir Alla as proof that in 8th-century Palestine there were “Möglichkeiten komplexer Textproduktion auch außerhalb des Königshofes” (p. 100); see further Carr, Tablet of the Heart, 111–73, who allows for scribal skills beyond the court and temple—that is, among army officers and especially among the prophets after the time of Isaiah (pp. 143–51, 164–65), and sees in the 7th century an even further expansion of writings (p. 166); on the question, see also J. Schaper, “A Theology of Writing: The Oral and the Written, God as Scribe, and the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, ed. L.  J. Lawrence and M. I. Aguilar (Leiden: Deo, 2004), 78–88; idem, “The Living Word Engraved in Stone: The Interrelationship of the Oral and the Written and the Culture of Memory in

306

Roland Deines

I begin with what seems to me a most obvious assumption, namely, that the prototypes of the present biblical books were written to preserve an experience—either personal or collective—that the people who did the writing valued as some form of divine disclosure. Something extraordinary, something inspirational triggered the prophets to speak and some also to write (or to let others write for them), and to speak and write in such a way that their words were preserved, transmitted, redacted, and read again and again. The manifold religious experiences that shaped Israel as God’s people, and later the church are reflected in the various literary modes and genres used as deposits of God’s revelation. 6 Among them, prophetic oracles, which form the preeminent element in Israel’s unique revelation history, regularly claim to be received directly from God either in the form of a vision or an audition, and although they often address a very specific situation in a given time and are directed to one or more persons in order to influence their actions immediately, they now appear in the Bible predominantly in larger collections of named prophets. Beyond the purely conservational aspect amply attested in ancient Near Eastern prophecy, the collecting and editing of the prophetic oracles into the books of the prophets as we have them now points to an understanding of these prophetic messages as transcending their original context. As Robert Wilson observes, “A prophet’s supporters believe that the prophet truly delivers a divine word.” 7 But what happened when what the prophet foretold had come or not come to the Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua,” in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium, ed. L. Stuckenbruck, S. C. Barton, and B. G. Wold, WUNT 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 9–23; B. Ego, “‘In der Schriftrolle ist für mich geschrieben’ (Ps 40,8): ‘Mündlichkeit’ und ‘Schriftlichkeit’ im Kontext religiösen Lernens in der alttestamentlichen Überlieferung,” in Die Textualisierung der Religion, ed. J. Schaper, FAT 62 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 82–104. 6.  Historical narratives tell in predominantly descriptive terms how Israel experienced God’s election, guidance, judgment, and restoration in its history, whereas prescriptive genres dominate the Torah as well as prophetic and sapiential paraenesis. They relate to their readers various modes of divine disclosure that can be considered in terms of a hierarchy, from ultimately foundational and binding (the Torah as revealed on Mount Sinai) to counsel based on the study of natural phenomena in the wisdom literature, where personified and preexistent wisdom, which was God’s delight at the time of creation (Prov 8:22–31), guarantees the relational and revelatory link to God (Prov 8:32–36). The responsive genres (psalms, prayers, laments, and liturgies) enable direct encounter with the divine from the side of the human partner that can lead to new understandings and, as a result, to new writings. 7. R. R. Wilson, “Scribal Culture and the Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” in The Bible as a Human Testimony to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. R. Heskett and B. Irwin, LHBOTS 469 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 95–107 (esp. p. 106). See also R. Stark (“A Theory of Revelations,” JSSR 38 [1999]: 287–308), who emphasizes the need for a “supportive cultural tradition” for the reception of revelation; he also points out that “the most famous prophets began by converting their immediate families and friends.” See also idem, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 52, 174.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

307

pass? Could one not discard the written record, if there ever was one, because the file was somehow closed? Martti Nissinen affirms this on the basis of the evidence available from outside Israel. He relates that “only exceptionally part of the prophetic process of communication” took place in written form, and when this was the case, “the written document was not necessarily filed in the archives, at any rate not for long-term preservation.” 8 He points out that “the huge process of collecting, editing, and interpreting prophecy that took place as a part of the formation of the Hebrew Bible is virtually without precedent elsewhere in the ancient Near East.” 9 Bernard Levinson makes a similar point when he criticizes Biblical Studies for not giving enough attention to “the remarkable issue” that isolated prophetic oracles “developed altogether” into Scripture and, finally, a canonical collection in a way that could not be foreseen. He concedes that, “in isolation, almost all the individual phenomena that we associate with the Bible in individual terms are already present in cuneiform literature.” But after listing these common elements he concludes: But in the ancient Near East, none of this material ever came together to form anything like a scripture, either with its distinctive textual features, like the dense weave of inter-textual connections that hold the separate parts together, let alone with its distinctive ideological features, such as the truth claims it mounts, the extraordinary demands for adherence it requires from its audience to uphold the

8. M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, SBLWAW 12 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 4–5, and 98 on the Nineveh Oracles. All of the 29 individual oracles relate to the two kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, who seemed to be the only kings of Assyria “who purposefully let prophecies . . . be filed away,” probably because “they were more attentive to prophecy than any of their predecessors.” See also idem, “Spoken, Written, Quoted, and Invented: Orality and Writtenness in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. E. Ben Zvi and M. H. Floyd, SBLSymS 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 235–71, who discusses evidence for immediate written accounts of prophetic appearances (pp.  242–48). See also M.  J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies, VTSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). He also points out that “evidence for ancient Near Eastern prophecy comes from royal correspondence, royal archives and steles,” which explains the topical relationship with kingship, although this is “not necessarily representative of all prophecy” (p. 183). The point to make, however, is that these prophecies, be they to the king or in relation to other persons and affairs, had no lasting transmission history and survived only as archaeological artefacts. This is the key difference from the biblical texts, which represent an uninterrupted transmission that began with their original textualization, most likely in the immediate context of and closely related to the prophet who initially formulated the message. De Jong’s study also provides a helpful summary of the relevant texts (pp. 171–88). 9.  Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy, 5; see also Jeremias, “Schriftprophetie,” 95–96, 103–5.

308

Roland Deines

demands it seeks to place upon them, or the polemics it makes opposing competing ideologies. 10

One can think of more than one reason for this exceptional status, but prominence should be given to the possibility that the community who knew and believed these prophecies somehow concluded that their meaning was “not exhausted by a single fulfilment.” 11 Hence, for the beginning of the prophetic collections and books, one should not look to the temple or the royal court but to those who accepted the prophetic messages as genuinely being God’s word to his people, and it is prudent to follow James Crenshaw and others who argue for a group of disciples as the main and initial preservers and transmitters of a prophet’s heritage, from which a reception history could emerge. 12 The ability to create meaning and to attract faith and obedience (and a resulting support in terms of time, means, and devotion) beyond its immediate historical context (or Sitz im Leben) is the key requirement for a religious message on the road to canonicity. In the biblical texts (and in other revelationbased belief-systems as well), the reference point that allows an individual to call others into obedience is “the word of God.” This is said to have been experienced by the prophet in the form of a divinely given vision, hearing, summoning, or action that transcends everyday experience in such a way that the one to whom it was given could not escape its consequences (cf. Isa 6:1–8; Jer 1:6–9; 11:21; 15:10ff.; 17:15–16; 20:7ff.; Ezek 2:1ff.; Amos 3:8; 7:15). The late Erich Zenger wrote in one of his last publications: “Biblical religion is not an imagination of the divine, but the reception of history as word, listening to the speech of prophetic women and men, and attention to the instruction of the priests and the teachers of wisdom.” 13 10. B. M. Levinson, “The Development of the Jewish Bible: Critical Reflections upon the Concept of a ‘Jewish Bible’ and on the Idea of Its ‘Development,’” in What Is Bible? ed. K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, CBET 67 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 377–92 (esp. p. 387). 11.  Wilson, “Scribal Culture,” 106: “The Isaiah Community seems to have taken this belief [that the prophet “truly delivers a divine word”] one step further. They seem to have believed that First Isaiah’s prophecies were eternally true and were not exhausted by a single fulfillment.” See also my “Scripture,” 305–6. In contrast to the biblical transmission history, prophetic texts preserved on cuneiform tablets never became part of a canon or a Scripturelike collection and were seemingly never used as guidance for a religiously motivated community that was unconnected to their original addressee or context. 12. J. L. Crenshaw, “Transmitting Prophecy across Generations,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. E. Ben Zvi and M. H. Floyd, SBLSymS 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 31–44 (esp. pp. 35–40); see further Carr, Tablet of the Heart, 143–51; Jeremias, “Schriftprophetie,” 108–13; Stark, Discovering God, 178–86, who sees “The Yahweh-Only Sect” as the carrier of the traditions that in the end became canonical, in which he includes the Deuteronomists and the schools of the prophets; this seems to me a line of inquiry worthy of further pursuit; Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 510–13. 13. E. Zenger, “‘If You Listen to My Voice . . .’ (Exodus 19:5): The Mystery of Revelation,” in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

309

Hearing and responding as a people to what was received as God’s word can therefore be taken as the key to Israel’s written heritage in the Hebrew Bible, which relates itself throughout to this initial revelatory experience. Zenger makes another important observation: “The truth that biblical religion is a religion of hearing is expressed with prophetic force when cultic sacrifices, the fundamental acts of ancient piety, are devalued, and even rejected, in favour of the demand for hearing.” 14 It is therefore worthwhile when looking at Israel’s Scriptures not only to look for analogies in surrounding cultures but also to identify the peculiarities of the Hebrew Bible, which is theologically but also historically not “a book among books” but “the book above books.” 15 One important difference between the biblical prophets and their ancient Near Eastern “colleagues,” in addition to those already mentioned, is their seeking of a large audience and wide publicity: they do not predominantly address individuals such as the king (see, for example, 1 Sam 22:5; 2 Sam 12:7; Isa 38:1; Hag 2:21) but often seek to address—ideally—all people (Isa 1:3–4; 2:1; 5:3; 6:9; 30:9–10; Jer 7:1–2, 25; 25:2; 26:5, 8; 28:1ff.; 38:1; 43:1; 44:24; Hos 4:1; 14:2; Joel 2:16; Amos 3:1; 5:1; 7:15–16; Hag 1:2–3; Zech 5:4–5) or all the inhabitants of a city (1 Kgs 22:10, Jer 25:2; Jonah 3:4; Mic 5:1; Neh 6:7; see also Isa 1:10). This understanding is rooted in the covenant between Israel and Yhwh, which included “all Israel” and laid the covenantal obligations on all Israel (Exod 19:17; 20:18–22; 34:32; 35:1; Deut 1:1; 4:44; 5:1; 29:1–2; Joshua 23–24). As a consequence, all Israel was summoned to obey God’s commandments. Accordingly, the prophets laid the blame for breaking the covenant on the people as a whole (Judg 6:7–10; 2 Kgs 17:13ff.; Isa 5:7; 30:9; Jer 5; 7:25–31; 44:4–6; Zeph 1; Dan 9:6; 2 Chr 14:19–20), even though sometimes the leaders of Israel were addressed specifically (e.g., Isa 7:3, 13; 28:1–6, 7–13; Hos 5:1; Amos 4:1; Joel 1:2; Mic 3:1; see also Jer 8:1–3). They were addressed—publicly—because they represented Israel and were responsible for its spiritual well-being. That all people were judged in relation to Yhwh is another distinctive feature that separates Israel’s prophecy from its ancient Near Eastern parallels. 16 The prophetic announcements could be further accompanied by symbolic actions in public (e.g., Isa 20:1–6; Jer 19:1–15; 27:1–2; Ezek 4:4–8) and symbolic names given to their children (Isa 7:3, 14; 8:1–3; Hos 1:4, 6, 9). The fair number of hints regarding written public messages are also closely related to these attempts to reach and address the whole nation. Though the biblical references are far from being unequivocal (Isa 8:1–2; 38:9; Hab 2:2; through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. R. Heskett and B. Irwin, LHBOTS 469 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 15–31 (esp. p. 18). 14.  Ibid., 19, with reference to 1  Sam 15:22–23b; Amos 5:21–24; Jer 7:21–24; Qoh 4:17–5:1, 6; to which can be added Isa 1:11–15; Hos 12:12; and Amos 4:4–5. 15.  Helmer, “Bible, Theology, and the Study of Religion,” 92. 16.  Jeremias, “Schriftprophetie,” 105–6.

310

Roland Deines

see also Deut 27:2–3; Jer 17:1; 51:60–62; Dan 5:5), 17 there is archaeological evidence especially from Israel—with the Book of Balaam serving as an example from its immediate geographical neighborhood—that confirms the public display of prophetic texts even away from the main temple and the capital: •  The Book of Balaam, written on plaster at the entrance of a building, which was discovered in 1967 in Deir Alla (Jordan), bears the superscription: “Book of [Ba]laam, [son of Beo]r, seer of the gods” and contains the description of a vision and the reception of an oracle given to the seer by the god El. This inscription dates to about 800–750 b.c.e. and is evidence of written testimonies of a divine disclosure. 18 There is some discussion about the nature of the building, because nothing points to a religious context besides the inscription. As one of the excavators, G. van der Kooij writes, “The building remains show no indication of cultic use. On the other hand, the quarters excavated do have a domestic and an industrial and commercial character.” 19 The cultic interpretation seems to be favored mainly because of a preconceived judgment that prophetic texts have their place only in temples. 20 •  Evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman), located roughly halfway between Beer-Sheva and Eilat, from around the same time as Deir Alla provides evidence of the public display of a text describing an epiphany of Yhwh (or another deity) who is designated bʿl (lord) in the form of a prophetic oracle. 21 17.  See van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 179–81. On Isa 38:9 (and also Psalms 57–59), see Zevit, Ancient Israel, 365–66, who sees evidence that “psalms and prayers of a public nature may have been inscribed on steles for public display” (p. 365). The Zakkur Stele (see n. 18) would then be the closest parallel to Isa 38:9. 18.  See van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 175–76; van der Toorn mentions further an Assyrian dream report about the sun-god Sin’s warning of a plot against the king, which he accepts as attesting “the phenomenon of written prophecy displayed in a public place” (p. 181). This illustrates that it “was not totally foreign in the ancient Near East” to publish a prophecy by way of “a display inscription” (p. 180). Further pieces of evidence for such a praxis are the Amman Citadel inscription, publishing an oracle delivered in the name of Milcom, and the Zakkur Stele, which is a public report of a ruler’s prayer to Baalshamayn and the answer he received through “seers.” For these texts, see C.-L.  Seow, “West Semitic Sources,” in Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Nissinen, SBLWAW 12 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 201–18 (esp. pp. 202–7; on Deir Alla, see pp. 207–12). 19.  G. van der Kooij, “Deir ʿAlla, Tell,” NEAEHL 1.338–42 (esp. p. 341), where a facsimile of the plaster inscription can also be found; a very detailed description and commentary are also presented in Zevit, Ancient Israel, 370–405. 20.  See as an example the argument in Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, 626–27 (on Kuntillet ʿAjrud [see also n. 21], see pp. 625–26). 21. Z. Meshel, “Teman, Ḥorvat,” NEAEHL 4.1458–64, describes the site as a “wayside shrine” (p. 1463); on the inscriptions, see pp. 1461–62; and now S. Aḥituv, E. Eshel, and Z.  Meshel, “The Inscriptions,” in Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, ed. Z. Meshel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2012), 73–142. For a critical rereading and discussion of three of them, one of which is a description of a theophany (= inscription 4.2), see E. Blum, “Die Wandinschriften 4.2 und 4.6 sowie die Pithos-Inschrift 3.9 aus Kuntillet ʿAğrūd,” ZDPV 129 (2013): 21–54 (for understanding baʿal, see p. 28 n. 22). Blum interprets inscription 4.2 as “die Ankündigung der göttlichen Hilfe in einer die Natur erschütternden Theophanie mittels eines wie auch im-

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

311

Again, the text—written in ink on wall plaster and located in the center of the entryway to a building with unknown function (fortress, cultic shrine, way station for perambulating merchants?)—is preserved only in fragments, and the readings are disputed. But there is no doubt that texts similar to what can now be found in the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible were written on a wall to be read by the few who sought shelter in this desolate place. The site revealed over 50 inscriptions, and about 30 of them contain more than just one or two letters. Most famous among them are those that refer to “Yhwh of Teman/Shomron and his ashera,” inscribed on the rims of large decorated pithoi (the famous Pithos A and B). •  Ziony Zevit, in his highly informative chapter “Writ on Rock—Script on Stone” mentions further a Hebrew ink-on-rock inscription in a cave in the Judean Desert, near En-gedi, that was discovered by P. Bar-Adon in 1974. It is dated to around 700 b.c.e. and contains a blessing and a curse that seem to be connected to Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem in 701. The echoes within the very fragmented text of Isaiah’s words against Assur (Isa 10:7–8; 30:31) cause Zevit “to speculate fancifully” that the inscription may be a “commentary on an oracle heard by its author in Jerusalem before the Assyrian siege.” 22 •  The tomb inscription from Khirbet el-Qom seems to commemorate the successful intercession of a prophet or mantic before Yhwh for the benefit of the person interred in this tomb. 23 •  The newly found Hazon Gabriel, which might be dated to the late 1st century b.c.e. is also an ink-on-stone inscription that once decorated a wall in a large chamber. The text repeatedly contains the phrase “Thus said the Lord of Hosts” and similar expressions (lines 11, 13, 17–18, etc.), and it speaks about “prophets” that the Lord sent to his people (lines 69–70). Yardeni and Elizur characterize the inscription as “a collection of short prophecies dictated to a scribe, in a manner similar to prophecies appearing in the Hebrew Bible,” although the language used “sounds more like Mishnaic Hebrew than Biblical Hebrew.” 24

This impressive list supports the main point: there is evidence, inside the Bible and outside of it, that literary documents based on and documenting revelatory experiences were produced from the 8th to the 1st  century b.c.e. Historians of the genesis of the biblical texts cannot therefore ignore the very mer gearteten Orakels” (p. 37), although the fragmented text does not indicate whether it is direct divine speech or a 3rd-person description or whether a prophet or priest acted as the mouthpiece (see p. 37 n. 71). 22.  Zevit, Ancient Israel, 351–59 (esp. p. 358). He also links “The Inscribed Tomb from Khirbet Beit Lei” (pp. 405–37) to the events of Sennacherib’s campaign and sees echoes of Isaiah in some of the inscriptions. 23.  Ibid., 359–70. 24. A. Yardeni and B. Elizur, “A Hebrew Prophetic Text on Stone from the Early Herod­ ian Period: A Preliminary Report,” in Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation, ed. M. Henze, SBLEJL 29 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 11–29 (esp. p. 17). The same volume also contains the slightly differing readings by E. Qimron/A. Yuditsky and I. Knohl.

312

Roland Deines

experience that stands at the beginning of these texts and confine themselves to the redactional process alone. These texts—to which can also be added Lachisch Ostracon 3 mentioning a prophetic oracle 25—leave no doubt that prophetic oracles and divine disclosures played an important role throughout the revelatory history of Israel and that they were not confined to Jerusalem and the temple. It is also evident that these oracles were put into writing using literary forms that were similar to those found in the Hebrew Bible and were obviously in chronological proximity to the pertinent events. The notion of revelation as invention in the scribal workshop centuries after the presumed lifetime of the prophets cannot be accounted for given the available evidence. In particular, it does not explain why the priestly scribes would have invented prophetic voices that were regularly so critical of their own profession. The following approach to the phenomenon of revelatory experiences as the beginning of Scripture confines itself to the question what happened? and requires a willingness to accept that a certain message is based on what was once experienced as divine revelation. In addition to biblical examples, the history of religion in the past and present provides ample analogies of individuals who claim that they have received some form of divine, transempirical instruction or knowledge and as a result preached and/or wrote books to describe and preserve what they experienced. In the same way, one also must accept the possibility that in some cases these revelatory experiences allowed people to express things that were beyond the knowledge available to them through their upbringing, education, and cultural and intellectual context. As a biblical example, one might think of the prophet Amos, who most likely had no literary or priestly education (Amos 7:14: “I am not a prophet, and I am not a prophet’s disciple” [JPS]) but stands chronologically as the first in the line of the “Schriftpropheten” and is commemorated as the inaugurator of a prophetic book under his name that displays astonishing rhetorical force. Although there is no consensus about which parts of the book can be traced to the historical Amos, many scholars assume that the core of the two visionary 25.  Lachish Ostracon 3, lines 20–21, where a subaltern officer quotes in a letter to his commander another letter written by a prophet sending a one-word warning. Johannes Renz notes that the one word quote should not be seen as the whole content of the letter, but rather its beginning or a key sentence of its content, see Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik I: Die althebräischen Inschriften, vol. 1: Text und Kommentar (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 419 n. 1. The text is also found in Seow, “West Semitic Sources,” 212–15. Van der Toorn regards the Lachish ostraca as “copies of letters written on papyrus,” which were kept by the sender (Scribal Culture, 181), and it seems likely that similar archival conventions can also be presupposed for the prophets. Like the officers who need proof of sending the required information, so the prophets would need to have proof of what they said in the name of God. Given the fact that these oracles were often of a political nature and that competing prophecies occurred, prophets could easily find themselves accused of supporting the wrong side, and for such instances it might have been necessary to keep a copy as security against false allegations in conflicts with other prophets or as part of court intrigues.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

313

cycles in chs. 1–2 and 7–9 form the oldest part of the book, clearly indicating that a visionary call experience (7:15; see 1:1–2; 3:7–8; 4:13) stands at the beginning, followed by further divine disclosures (7:1, 4, 7; 8:1; 9:1). 26 Or, as Jörg Jeremias wrote in the preface to his commentary: “Wer dem historischen Amos begegnen will, sollte am ehesten bei der Lektüre der Visionen einsetzen.” 27 What is impossible to decide through historical inquiry is the veracity of such a claim. But acknowledging the historical problem of the inaccessibility of a past prophetic experience does not necessarily lead to the reductionists’ conclusion that the claim to be “divine revelation” is nothing more than the “construct of the Hebrew scribes,” as van der Toorn suggests. According to him, the priestly scribes responsible for the prophetic books invoked “the revelation paradigm” and by doing so claimed for their texts the status of divine revelation—but only “when written texts supplant[ed] the oral tradition as the principal source of authority and the main channel of information.” 28 Van der Toorn holds this to be mainly a postexilic development with its earliest traces related to Jeremiah and his time. His argument is that, as long as the transmission of prophetic lore and divine rights were mainly oral, the priests and scribes had an unchallengeable authority about the religious tradition, because only they knew it, and without their treasured memories no certain knowledge about divine matters was possible. As a consequence, van der Toorn minimizes early written records of prophetic messages. He acknowledges the existence of “prophetic collections in the monarchic period” but assumes that they were “considerably smaller” and, due to “the impression of incoherence and disorder,” rather more like “anthologies and compilations of quite heterogeneous materials” and therefore not “‘the master plan of a single creative mind.’” 29 26.  See the discussion in E. Zenger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998), 489–92; and more recently T. S. Hadjiev, The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos, BZAW 393 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), who concludes that no “clear distinction can be maintained between Amos and his ‘disciples’ who wrote down his words. We know Amos only through the portrait painted for us by his followers.” He continues by stating that “this portrait follows in basic outline the original contours of the figure of the historical prophet” and that “there is not sufficient evidence to deny to Amos any of the major themes found in the book” (p. 208). The core of the book was written and brought together from two originally independent scrolls of Amos-words (written before 722) into one document in the 7th century. 27. J.  Jeremias, Der Prophet Amos, 3rd ed., ATD 24/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), ix. See also P.  Riede, Vom Erbarmen zum Gericht: Die Visionen des Amos­buches (Am 7–9*) und ihr literatur- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Zusammenhang, WMANT 120 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), who claims that the visionary accounts are chronologically closely related to the historical prophet. 28.  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 205, 227. 29.  Ibid., 177, quoting William McKane, “Prophecy and Prophetic Literature,” in Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by the Members of the Society for Old Testament Study,

314

Roland Deines

Van der Toorn also discusses at length the ancient Near Eastern parallels to written reports of prophetic oracles, which were made immediately after their reception through the prophet or prophetess, but this evidence can be used very differently from his own analysis. In the rare instances where multiple versions of the same revelatory event have been preserved, van der Toorn tends to overinterpret the differences in the wording of these logged oracles to prove that “scribal interpretation” changed the message, whereas one could instead point to the astonishing similarity of the different reports to underline their accuracy. Their differences do not go beyond those evident within the synoptic tradition or Luke’s three versions of the same narrative of Paul’s Damascus experience (see below). The transcript of an oral message would in most cases have led to certain changes and those who wrote (who I doubt were always professional scribes) would have adapted it “to suit the conventions of the written genre,” although this is not the same as inventing revelation. Van der Toorn further claims “that the prophetic collections of the Bible are basically compilations of separate oracles” and that therefore “the context of the collection is secondary to the separate oracle record.” 30 Surely no one wants to disagree with this observation, but does this prove that the compilers invented revelation? They sorted it and integrated individual elements in a wider narrative to enhance the intelligibility of the given oracle. But this is not necessarily a distortion of the original meaning, because often the full meaning of a message (or a historical event, or a life’s worth) becomes visible only from hindsight. Integration into larger contexts therefore does not necessarily mean the loss of the original meaning but might lead to the gaining of a wider meaning. 31 While van der Toorn uses this to demonstrate that the result of the scribal work is in the end an invented revelation, one can also draw the theological conclusion that through this process the original revelations are contextualized within the ongoing salvation history of God and his people, which is at the same time a history of divine revelation. Revelatory experiences are mostly of a very private and individual nature, and the details of the circumstances are seldom recorded and even more rarely witnessed by others. In the case of the Apostle Paul, we hear about his visionary experiences mainly because he was required to defend his authority, and even then he resorted to extreme brevity (Gal 1:12; 2:2; 1 Cor 9:8; 15:8; see also 1 Cor 14:6, 18–19; Eph 3:3) or even distancing 3rd-person language ed. G. W. Anderson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 163–88 (esp. p. 181), and p. 335 n. 7. P. Davies, “‘Pen of Iron, Point of Diamond’ (Jer 17:1): Prophecy as Writing,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. E. Ben Zvi and M. H. Floyd, SBLSymS 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 65–81, equally dismisses the prophetic books as purely literary creations. 30.  See van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 110–15, 123–24, and 173–88. 31.  Ibid., 125–41. See also my “Scripture,” 305.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

315

(2 Cor 12:1–7). The most detailed report about his vision of the risen Christ is in Acts, where Luke inserts three slightly differing versions into his narrative (Acts 9:1–7; 22:3–16; 26:12–18, see also Acts 16:9–10; 18:9). That we do not have more biographical details about the prophets and the circumstances of their revelatory experiences seems to me, not proof of a predominantly literary production unaffected by any “real” prophetic experience with the divine (as, for example, Philip Davies thinks), but quite the opposite. 32 The compilers of the books in the name of a given prophet did not make up stories to fill existing gaps in knowledge or to satisfy biographic curiosity. They confined themselves to the task of collecting and editing (rather conservatively) the available material. The often enigmatic brevity of prophetic texts, the lack of a narrative context for many oracles, and the presence of very few details about how they actually experienced their auditions or visions is much harder to explain in the case of a purely literary phenomenon than in a collection of divine disclosures whose contours were limited in their content, focus, and clarity according to what was revealed. Hence, if these texts are allowed to be in the first place what they claim to be—namely, the deposit and summation of revelatory experiences (which does not mean that they truly were divine disclosures but only that they were firmly believed to be so by others and treated accordingly)—there is less pressure to explain their “incoherence and disorder” 33 and other “strange” elements on the basis of either a sophisticated literary theory or a creative redactional process that allows for freely “inventing revelation.” 34 If the prophetic books were purely and predominantly the result of such professional scribal activities, would we not expect “better” books, which indeed would display “the master plan of a single creative mind” (or a well-organized literary guild), the absence of which van der Toorn demonstrates? 35 It is therefore ultimately much more likely and in line with what the texts themselves claim that at their core stands an “inspired” individual rather than a professional clerk, scribe, bureaucrat, or other religious functionary. This person formulated the essence of what he saw, heard, or otherwise experienced as divine disclosure with the rhetorical and literary means within his reach. Most likely these would have included certain preconceptions based on the already available prophetic traditions, which might have helped and formed to a certain degree the recording of what was revealed. Historians of religion need not appreciate or regard these divine encounters as binding in any way, but they would do well to adopt a certain readiness to consider them as reflecting an 32.  Davies, “Pen of Iron, Point of Diamond,” 68–69. 33.  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 177. 34.  Ibid., 205ff. 35.  See above, n. 29.

316

Roland Deines

actual revelatory experience that was a subjective, formative historical cause. 36 If we accept the above—namely, that revelatory experiences are formative historical causes—then the following options seem to be valid: (1) The prophet (that is, any person who claims to be delivering a message whose content s/he regards as divinely revealed specifically to him/her 37) did indeed have a revelatory experience in the form of an audition, vision, or some other form of encounter with what s/he regards as divine; all actions as a result of this encounter (certain deeds or proclamations) need to be understood by the observing historian as part of the resulting binding obligation felt by the prophet; s/he acts in good faith, and this may influence the subsequent historical development of his/her message. Thus the personal conviction of being called by the divine cannot be ignored by the historian from the outset, even though it is impossible to examine the veracity of this basic experience critically. Decisive for the historical process, however, is whether this message was believed to be true and accordingly put into action. (2) The second option is that the revelatory claim was made up based on already-existing models accepted in a given cultural and religious context. The moment any prophet is successful in his claim that God has spoken to him and people accept his message as a “word of God,” others will use this 36.  See K.  Berger, Identity and Experience in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 96–114, on “Visions,” “Mythical Events,” and “Journeys to Heaven”; Larry W. Hurtado, “Religious Experience and Religious Innovation in the New Testament,” in How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 179–204; and now the (so far) two volumes of the SBL Section “Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity,” which began in 2005: F. Flannery, C. Shantz, and R. A. Werline, eds., Experientia, vol. 1: Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, SBLSymS 40 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008); C. Shantz and R. A. Werline, eds., Experientia, vol. 2: Linking Text and Experience, SBLEJL 35 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). Going beyond the biblical realm are the works of A. Taves, Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009). See also eadem, Fits, Trances and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). The changes in the social-scientific study of religion toward a greater openness to transempirical realities and “real” revelatory experiences is best documented (and helpfully accessible) in the works of the American sociologist Rodney Stark, who began to expose the inadequacy of atheistic approaches as ways to understand religious phenomena in the 1960s; see, among others, R. Stark, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief (New York: HarperCollins, 2007); idem and R. Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). 37. See Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy, 1, who defines prophecy as the “human transmission of allegedly divine messages” that were obtained by a non-inductive form of divination; that is, “prophets—like dreamers and unlike astrologers or haruspices—do not employ methods based on systematic observations and their scholarly interpretation, but act as direct mouthpieces of gods whose messages they communicate.”

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

317

same method to gain influence or authority. So, from the beginning, any true “word of God” would be followed by those who imitated its style and genre for their own ends. This might be done in good will and with honest intentions to support a cause regarded as good or important, but it might also be misused for making a living or business. That the biblical authors were aware of this problem is illustrated by the texts that advise discernment between true and false prophets and also in the conflict stories between court prophets and the independent prophets whose authority rested on their charismatic gifts. 38 Where the work of the historian ends, the task of the theologian is not yet finished. A theological examination is not only interested in the subjective persuasion of the “prophet” to be summoned by God but also in knowing whether this revelatory experience should be regarded as genuine divine disclosure or not. The theological question is not the topic of this essay but is nevertheless worth mentioning, because the historical process of canonization cannot be understood without it. A text that claims to contain the “word of God” receives the status of Scripture or of being canonical for a community only when its members are convinced that this claim is true. In other words, people in the past made theological judgments about the authenticity of a revelatory event, and their validation (whatever the contemporary historian or theologian thinks about it) determined the impact of the initial revelatory event. Only after a validation of this sort would a community be prepared to accept the event as a “word of God” (which can include redactional adaptations to already-existing Scriptures) and, as a result, incorporate it into their personal and communal spiritual life. This most likely happened (if it happened at all) gradually, after something professed to be a divinely inspired message was written down for the first time, although the element of writing does imply a strong desire to preserve the “word of Yhwh” from the outset. But before the message was fully recognized within a larger community, a centuries-long period of time might go by. This is acknowledged in some of the prophetic books when the futility of the prophets’ preaching and the failure to elicit obedience to their message from the addressees were openly conceded. However, this was not regarded as the falsification of the prophets’ words but was attributed to the people’s sin. The message was nevertheless regarded as 38.  Most notable is the story of Micaiah ben Imlah against the 400 prophets of Ahab (1 Kgs 22:5–28 // 2 Chr 18:4–27), with the recounting of Micaiah’s vision of God sitting on his throne in the center. See also the conflict between Jeremiah and his prophet colleague Hananiah (Jeremiah 27–28), where it is clear that the prophets saw themselves as part of an enduring line of tradition (28:8–9; compare with Deut 13:1–5; 18:15–22). See also J. L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion, BZAW 124 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971). A comparable phenomenon in the New Testament is the issue of fake letters (which makes sense only in a context in which letters by certain figures, such as Paul were already treated as authoritative); see 2 Thess 2:2, see also Acts 15:24; 2 Cor 3:1.

318

Roland Deines

true and in need of preservation to prove God’s sovereignty when it had come to pass. 39 Hence, means were taken to preserve it until the “appointed time” (Hab 2:3; Ps 102:14; Dan 8:19). 40 However, during this process—from initial writing to full recognition as canonical—the text must have been held in high regard in certain circles; otherwise, it would not have survived. In another article, I pointed out the implications of this for our understanding of a “word of God” as becoming Scripture: One has to keep in mind that in antiquity, every message or piece of knowledge that was intended to outlive its progenitor needed a support group willing and able to provide the required means to preserve the message and pass it on to a future generation. This would have implied very often not just a mechanical act of preservation or transmission but also the additional labour of adaptation and interpretation. This is true for any kind of text, and certainly also for religious ones. Regarding the latter, their support is based on their achievements within a religious community that was willing in the first place to accept the message and claim of the respective texts. If texts that claimed to be divinely authorized messages were not supported long enough and did not make it into a form of enduring communal reception, they would lose their initial impact if there was any and fall into oblivion. The final stage of communal acceptance within the JewishChristian tradition was to become part of those texts that were regarded as scriptural and, therefore, fit to be used in the worship of the respective communities. 41

The transformation of a revelatory experience into a text and from there into Scripture presupposes that a written product of one or more individuals at a given time has gained religious authority within Israel, or at least a large enough and cross-generational community within it. The authority, function, and impact of these texts are then no longer directly linked in chronological and geographical terms with the circumstances that initially led to their creation. In this process, the following elements need to be taken into account: 42 39. See Jeremias, “Schriftprophetie,” 101–2: The refusal of the prophetic message led to writing, the main task of which was to function “als der Garant der Wahrheit eines Gotteswortes bis zu seiner Bestätigung durch den Verlauf der Geschichte.” 40.  The Deuteronomistic interest in fulfilled prophecy, which is evidenced by 58 recorded fulfillments, is another way to indicate that what is not yet fulfilled will come true as surely as the other words spoken by God’s prophets; for a full list and discussion of these texts, see Zevit, Ancient Israel, 481–89. 41.  Deines, “The Term and Concept of Scripture,” 300, see also Crenshaw, “Transmitting Prophecy.” For a list of forgotten books mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, see L. Martin McDonald, “Canon,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, ed. J. W. Rogerson and J. Lieu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 777–809 (esp. p. 785), where he also mentions that “the survivability of the ancient scriptures had much to do with their ability to be interpreted afresh in new communities and new circumstances.” Lucky finds of ancient collections of literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts, which have a scriptural character and partly laid claim to divine authority/inspiration, sometimes obscure the fact that these writings had already lost their support group in antiquity. 42.  See for a similar list Crenshaw, “Transmitting Prophecy,” 37.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

319

1.  A conviction that one has a divine message to communicate (“word of God to . . .”) 2.  An audience who is willing to receive such a message as “divine” (“word of God through . . .”) 3.  A memorable and transmittable (most-likely written) stabilization of the “divine” message 4.  An audience who is willing to believe and respond to it with action/ life/faith (the preserved text as a deposit of the “divine” word by which the community or part of it lives) 5.  A continuous transmission and (if necessary) adaptation of the received “divine” message (at which point professional scribes might be involved); status of “Scripture” 6.  Integration into a larger collection/corpus of sacred texts (protocanonization; this can happen from stage 3 onward) 43 7.  Acknowledgment as part of a canon Pace van der Toorn and others, it immediately seems much more likely that the initial steps (which can vary from book to book) are not the result of an institutionally controlled or regulated process of production or selection but a rather fluid, seemingly contingent development that made some texts (and the groups behind these texts) into winners in the long term and others into losers in the process of canonical development. My interest is focused on the question of what factors placed a “divine” message on the road to victory and finally turned it into Scripture. The intriguing element in this process is that, during the formative centuries, for the production of Scripture no formal institutions either in Jewish or Christian culture had the authority or power to inaugurate or guarantee this sort of development. Neither the temple in Jerusalem nor any bishop or synod in the first three centuries of the Christian era had the means to “make” a Bible. 44 Religious hierarchies cannot enforce or uphold a 43.  This is the phase when innerbiblical interpretation starts to become a discernible object for the onlooking historian, although I assume that this process began even earlier; see my “Scripture,” 302. The classic study is still M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988); a helpful research review can be found in B. M. Levinson, Der kreative Kanon: Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung und religionsgeschichtlicher Wandel im alten Israel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), which is based on (but not identical to) idem, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); see also B. Ego, “Biblical Interpretation— Yes or No? Some Theoretical Considerations,” in What Is Bible? ed. K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, CBET 67 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 53–62. 44.  Differently, for example, A. van der Kooij, “Authoritative Scriptures and Scribal Culture,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, ed. M. Popović, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 55–71, who defines the starting point for a text’s becoming Scripture: “A given set of books were considered authoritative because they were ancestral/ancient, were kept in the temple and were worthy of study.” He also claims that these texts were regarded as authoritative because the “the appropriate authorities—the scholar scribes” had studied them

320

Roland Deines

message as “divine” as easily as van der Toorn assumes, especially not when it is connected with judgment and doom. As Jeremias points out, the refusal of the prophets in Israel is largely due to the novelty and unpopularity of their message for the people, not just the ruling elite. 45 Van der Toorn, however, claims that “the Bible was born and studied in the scribal workshop of the temple” and was in its fundamental essence “a book of the clergy.” 46 This might be true for a book like Chronicles and most likely also for most of the various stages that lead to the Pentateuch, but is it convincing for a book like Amos? The scathing remarks in Amos against cultic worship (e.g., Amos 4:4–5; 5:21–23, 25; 7:9), even if they are directed against the sanctuaries in Israel and not the temple in Jerusalem, inevitably threaten the temple as well (see 6:1: Zion and Samaria are mentioned in parallelism). In addition, true religious authority lies with the prophets and not with any religious functionary (cf. 7:14–15; 3:7). The prophets receive the true and powerful word of God (7:15–17), and they—not the priests—act as successful intercessors to avert divine punishment (7:1–6). How likely is it that a priestly hierarchy would promote its own antagonists? 47 Established religious hierarchies nearly always and everywhere suffer from a loss of credibility as the unavoidable result of the fact that they are legitimized and established—which often also includes being paid—for their religious duties or services. And the authority of those who receive a payment or reward for loyalty to a higher cause can potentially be compromised because there is inevitably a suspicion that they are doing what they do to protect their own prestigious position. Hence official or institutional religious legitimacy is, in prophetic religions such as Judaism and Christianity, regularly counterbalanced and most often also preceded by a charismatic legitimacy that is individual, nonhereditary, unpaid, and often even persecuted by the institutionalized religious authorities. The beginning of Scripture was therefore not a religious institution or a group of priests and professional scribes striving for power by inventing a holy book. When such phenomena occur, it is more likely due to later developments that use or misuse an already-existing belief system. From the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the Witnesses of Jesus It is obvious that tracing the beginning of the development from revelation to canon in historical terms is hindered by the inaccessibility of these events or the effects that they had on the recipients and their target audiences. The (p. 70). This might be true for the 3rd century, but it does not explain how these books came into being in the first place and endured long enough to become ancestral/ancient. 45.  Jeremias, “Schriftprophetie,” 101, 105–6. 46.  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 2. 47.  Crenshaw argues similarly, in “Transmitting Prophecy,” 39–40. See also above, n. 14.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

321

suggestion made in the following is to bridge this gap by approximating this phenomenon through yet another analogy that is historically relatively well documented. I want to offer—in a context dominated by scholarship on the Hebrew Bible—some insights from the New Testament writings into the selfunderstanding of those who claim to have “a word of God” to communicate as the result of a revelatory divine event. These testimonies are chronologically separated from the Hebrew prophets by many centuries, but they share a common “theology.” Many New Testament figures and authors related their experience and teaching to the Hebrew Bible in such a way that they conceived themselves as continuing the work of the prophets by writing a new chapter in this ongoing history of God with his people. 48 In order to do so, they did not look for religious and scribal professionals or for institutional support from priests or the temple (whose authorities were, in any case, opposed to them, as they were similarly opposed to the prophets of old). The authors of the New Testament themselves were not priests, professional scribes (although Paul and probably a few others had received some formal education with regard to Hebrew Scriptures), members of any distinct religious class or society, and most if not all of them were not members of any literate elite group. They were, as far as we know, rather average authors and, from the time of Origen at the latest, Christian writers had to defend the relatively poor style of the New Testament writings against the derision of their pagan readers. 49 Origen defends their style with these words (Contra Celsum 1.62): I affirm in reply to this that to people who can study the question about Jesus’ apostles intelligently and reasonably it will appear that these men taught Christianity by divine power (δυνάμει θείᾳ ἐδίδασκον οὗτοι τὸν χριστιανισὸν) and succeeded in bringing many to obey the word of God (τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ θεοῦ). For in them there was no power of speaking or of giving an ordered narrative by the standards of Greek dialectical or rhetorical arts which convinced the hearers. It seems to me that if Jesus had chosen some men who were wise in the eyes of the multitudes, and who were capable of thinking and speaking acceptably to crowds, and if he had used them as the means of propagating his teaching, he might on very good grounds have been suspected of making use of a method similar to that of philosophers who are leaders of some particular sect. The truth of the claim that his teaching is divine would no longer have been self-evident (οὐκέτ᾽ ἂν ἡ περὶ τοῦ θεῖον εἶναι τὸν λόγον ἐπαγγελία ἀνεφαίνετο), in that the 48.  This is the main topic of my article “Did Matthew Know He Was Writing Scripture?” (see n. 1). Since I published this article, a new book by M. J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Nottingham: Apollos, 2013) has appeared, making a very similar argument; see especially pp. 67–78, 91–103, 119–54. 49.  The texts are collected by M.  Fiedrowicz, Christen und Heiden: Quellentexte zu ihrer Auseinandersetzung in der Antike (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004), 535–39.

322

Roland Deines

gospel and the preaching were in persuasive words of the wisdom that consists in literary style and composition. And the faith, like the faith of the philosophers of this world in their doctrines, would have been in the wisdom of men, and not in the power of God (cf. 1 Cor 1:18f.). 50

According to Origen, it is the “power of God” that stands behind the apostolic writings and makes them authoritative, not the persuasiveness of their authors and their rhetorical skills. It is interesting to see how the argument concerning poor literary quality was used in early form-critical studies and then also by Adolf Deissmann (who used contemporary nonliterary documents such as papyri to demonstrate that NT Greek belongs to standard koine Greek and is not a special language of the Holy Spirit) to downplay any literary interests among the first generation of Christian authors. As a consequence, this was then used as an argument against their thinking of themselves as authors of Scripture or of anything intended to last beyond its immediate purpose. 51 Nevertheless, the heritage of the first generation of Christian authors forms the foundation of the world’s largest religion, which has influenced children and geniuses, farmers and professors in all four corners of the earth. The Christian faith had no political support during its first 300 years, and afterward political support was won only in the Roman Empire. But its message swiftly reached territories way beyond the borders of Rome, and from there it continued its progress for many centuries without the help of institutional power. That the canonical process inside and outside the borders of the Roman Empire resulted in a more-or-less equally delineated corpus of writings is nothing short of a historical miracle, particularly considering the diversity of Christian communities and the rivalries and theological disputes among them. The very few books about which no agreement could be achieved do not undermine this overall picture but strengthen it, because they show that the various communities could make independent decisions. The basic core of this message, the εὐαγγέλιον, was the conviction that the one God had spoken to the people of Israel through his son, who was therefore venerated as the “Logos” and “word of God made flesh.” 52 The lasting deposit of this revelation and epiphany of God was thought to be contained in the writ50. H.  Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 57. For the Greek text, see M.  Marcovich, Origenis Contra Celsum libri VIII, VigChrSup 54 (Leiden, Brill: 2001), 63–64. 51. See Kruger, Question of Canon, 81–82 on Franz Overbeck; and pp. 91–92 on Adolf Deissmann (1866–1933). On the latter, see also A.  Gerber, Deissmann the Philologist, BZNW 171 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010). 52.  Cf. John 1:1ff.; Ps.-Justin, Oratio ad Graecos 5, where the author of this apology repeatedly refers to the “divine logos” as the one who teaches and guides him and, through him, also invites others to be guided by the logos (for the text, see Fiedrowicz, Christen und Heiden, 54).

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

323

ings we now have in the New Testament. 53 Its authors claim, in various ways, that they are reporting a divine revelation. 54 But it is one thing to claim divine authority and another to find people who accept it. Acceptance of a message as having divine authority is beyond the author’s influence, and at this time there was no authority available to enforce acceptance of the claim. Without active support within a community and through a community, any message claiming to be a word of God or revelation would vanish in time, either by being actively rejected or (and this may have happened much more often) by simply being ignored and therefore forgotten. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, a large number of texts claimed to be the true or secret or hidden revelation of the words of Jesus or of some other founding figure in the Christian tradition. But these texts were not able to win enough enduring acceptance to survive. Their claim to be based on divine revelation failed to convince a large enough group to sustain them, and hence they fell into oblivion. This failure of some supposedly revealed literature is important to bear in mind because it documents the willingness of the ancients to discern critically. It is not easy to make people believe in a divine message, even though early on, in the 2nd century, the author Lucian of the Syrian city of Samosata (ca. 120–80 c.e.) mocked the followers of Jesus for their credulity. 55 Paul to the Thessalonians as a Case Study In the remainder of this essay, I want to present one example from the New Testament, taken from the letters of the Apostle Paul, to illustrate how the claim of divine revelation influenced the writing and reception of Paul’s letters. This is just one example. I am convinced that it would be possible to demon53. For a statement from the perspective of a classic and rather liberal scholar, see H. Lietzmann, “Der Theolog und das Neue Testament,” in Kleine Schriften II: Studien zum Neuen Testament, ed. K. Aland, TU 68 (Berlin: Akademie, 1958), 3–8. For Lietzmann, the New Testament is the only way to approach God’s revelation in Jesus, and this is why the words of the authors of the New Testament are of prime importance for the Christian theologian, even if he is aware that any stabilization of the revelation in a text is necessarily a reduction of meaning and complexity. For Christians, the New Testament is not just a historic document but the source of the knowledge of God (“Quell der Gotteserkenntnis”). They engage with the authors of the New Testament because they expect God to talk to them through the biblical authors: “Er lauscht den Worten der Apostel, weil sie ihm von Gott predigen, von dem Gott, der heute wirkt wie vor aller Zeit, und er müht sich um die schärfste Erfassung ihrer Worte, weil er weiß, daß hier durch Menschenmund Gott selbst zu ihm spricht. So sind ihm die Sätze des Neuen Testaments nicht Zeugnisse der Vergangenheit, sondern Anruf des ewigen Gottes an ihn selbst in ständiger Gegenwart” (p. 7). 54.  For references, see my “Did Matthew Know He Was Writing Scripture?” 107–8 n. 8. 55. M. Hengel, “Die ersten nichtchristlichen Leser der Evangelien,” Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V, WUNT 211 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 702–25 (esp. pp. 707–8), who discusses The Passing of Peregrinus (Peregrinus Proteus) and Philo­pseudes (Φιλοψευδής ἤ Ἀπιστῶν, Lover of Lies or Cheater; Der Lügenfreund) as being partly based on Gospel stories.

324

Roland Deines

strate that a good number of the writings in the New Testament were intended to be Scripture-like—in other words, that they wanted to provide testimony or to instruct their addressees on the basis of what the authors had experienced as God’s revelation in their own time. 56 They presented God’s revelation of himself in Jesus as a continuation of the way that he revealed himself in previous times through the prophets and other mediators. This explains not only why the New Testament authors used scriptural quotations so frequently to mark this continuation but also why they adopted—albeit quite freely—a biblical or scriptural style for their own writings. This also implies a certain awareness of the implications of testifying to the revelation of God through Jesus on a parallel with the prophetic witness, which is clearly illustrated by the opening verses of the Letter to the Hebrews (1:1–2): 1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις 2 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

While God spoke many times and in varied ways in time past to the fathers through the prophets, in these last days he spoke to us by a/the son, whom he placed as heir of everything, through whom he also created the universe.

The notion and awareness of Jesus’ being the ultimate revelation of God for the last times can be taken as the default setting of the New Testament authors, even though they do not all express it as clearly as the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebrews. 57 56.  For similar attempts see, for example, D. G. Meade, “Ancient Near Eastern Apocalypticism and the Origins of the New Testament Canon of Scripture,” in The Bible as a Human Testimony to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. R. Heskett and B. Irwin, LHBOTS 469 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 302–21, who sees apocalypticism as “the ideological basis for the extension of Scripture” in early Christianity and rightly points out that it has been especially the “apocalyptically oriented groups” who have had a tendency to expand the canon of authoritative Scriptures (p. 308); F. Watson, “Gospel and Scripture: Rethinking Canonical Unity,” TynBul 52 (2001): 161–82, mentions in passing, dealing with Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, that “Paul here testifies to the gospel by way of a written text of his own, whose claim to scriptural or proto-scriptural normativity is everywhere overwhelmingly evident“ (p. 167); M. Hüneburg, “Das Matthäusevangelium als heilige Schrift: Vom Anspruch eines Textes,” Quatember 71 (2007): 144–55; Kruger, The Question of Canon, 119–54; T. Nicklas, “‘The Words of the Prophecy of this Book’: Playing with Scriptural Authority in the Book of Revelation,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, ed. M.  Popović, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 309–26; idem, “The Development of the Christian Bible,” in What Is Bible? ed. K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, CBET 67 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 393–426; N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God (London: SPCK, 2005), 36–37. 57.  Texts that I would regard as indicative of this conviction include Matt 11:13–14; 11:25–27 // Luke 10:21–22; Matt 13:16–17; Luke 16:16; John 1:1–4, 10–18; Acts 2:16–36; 3:13–26; 10:36–43; 13:23–41; Rom 1:1–5; 2 Cor 3:6–4:6; Eph 3:1–7; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

325

The Apostle Paul is the best known author of any of the New Testament writings, and he is the first one we can identify with certainty. He was not a follower of Jesus but was in Jerusalem during the short period of Jesus’ activity. It seems possible that he in some way or another encountered Jesus’ message, if not Jesus himself, given his persecution of his followers (Acts 8:1). His surprising move from foe to follower somewhere between 31 and 33 c.e. made him a kind of outsider among the earliest followers of Jesus, who became the nucleus of the communities formed in Jesus’ name. 58 As a result, Paul had to defend his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ, and he did this with recourse to his call or conversion on the road to Damascus, which involved a revelatory experience in which he saw the risen Jesus in a vision. 59 He based his authority as an apostle on this experience, as can be seen clearly from 1 Cor 9:1 in a context where this authority stood in question: Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑόρακα;

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

Later in 1 Corinthians, Paul refers back to the same event when he lists those to whom the risen Jesus appeared (1 Cor 15:3–11): 5 καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα· . . . 8 ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί. 9 Ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων ὃς οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος, διότι ἐδίωξα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ·

And that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. . . . 8 Last of all as though to a miscarriage he appeared also to me. 9 But I am the least of the apostles—not worthy to be called an apostle—because I have persecuted the church of God.

1:9–11; 1 Pet 1:3–5, 10–12, 20–23; 2 Pet 1:16–21; 3:2; 1 John 1:1–4; 5:10–11; Rev 1:1–3; 22:16–19. In other texts the notion of Jesus’ being the ultimate revelation of God is more implicit—for example, Mark 1:10–11; 4:41; etc. 58.  For the early period of Paul’s life, see M. Hengel and R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM, 1991); K.-W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel aus Israel: Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen, WUNT 62 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 4–78; R.  Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998); R. H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel, WUNT 184 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 1–37. 59.  See J.  Frey, “Paulus und die Apostel: Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Apostelbegriffs und zum Verhältnis des Heidenapostels zu seinen ‘Kollegen,’” in Biographie und Persönlichkeit des Paulus, ed. Eve-Marie Becker and Peter Pilhofer, WUNT 187 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 192–227; B. S. Childs, The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 81–97. For Paul’s visionary experience, see B. Heininger, Paulus als Visionär: Eine religionsgeschicht­ liche Studie, Herders Biblische Studien 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 1996); S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 2nd rev. ed., WUNT 2/4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984).

326

Roland Deines

In the Letter to the Galatians (1:11–15), he describes the Damascus road event as a revelation, and the language he uses to describe his call is reminiscent of Jeremiah’s call: 60 Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον· 12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι᾿ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. . . . 15 Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ 16 ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, . . .

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel which is preached as gospel by me, is not according to a human (origin). 12 For I received it neither from a human being nor was it taught (to me) but (I received it) through a revelation of Jesus Christ. . . . 15 But when God, who set me apart out of the womb of my mother and called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his son to me, so that I may preach him as gospel among the nations, . . .

Paul, despite his self-estimation as a “miscarriage” or unworthy apostle, became, together with Peter, the main founding figure of the church. His letter to the newly founded community in Thessalonica is probably the first of his preserved letters and is therefore quite likely the oldest written document in the NT. The letter contains no reference to or quotation from the Jewish Scriptures (which is otherwise a typical feature of most of the NT writings and also of Paul’s letters) but refers repeatedly to “the gospel,” τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (1 Thess 1:5; 2:2, 4, 8–9; 3:2; always with the article); this can be described more precisely as the “gospel of God” (2:2, 8–9) or, once, as the “gospel of Christ” (3:2, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ). In 1:8, the parallel expression “the word of the Lord” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου) is used. The first use of εὐαγγέλιον in 1:5 reveals Paul’s understanding of it: . . . τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ . . .

. . . our gospel “happened among” (NRSV came to) you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full assurance.

60.  Jer 1:5 (JPS): “Before I created you in the womb, I selected you; Before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet concerning the nations.” The other text that is relevant here is Isa 49:1–6. On Paul’s call, see Bell, Irrevocable Call, 38–45; U. Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 87–102; A. Maria Schwemer, “Erinnerung und Legende: Die Berufung des Paulus und ihre Darstellung in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth DurhamTübingen Research Symposium, ed. L. Stuckenbruck, S. C. Barton, and B. G. Wold, WUNT 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 277–98 (on Jer 1:5, p. 285); for his prophetic selfimage, see T. Nicklas, “Paulus: Der Apostel als Prophet,” in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, ed. J.  Verheyden, K.  Zamfir, and T.  Nicklas, WUNT 2/286 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 77–104; G. H. Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous: A Historical Reconstruction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 61–66.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

327

The preaching of the gospel was accompanied by “powerful” (ἐν δυνάμει) manifestations of God, which were seen as confirmation of the message that Paul preached (see also 1 Cor 1:25; 2:4). From Acts and the other Pauline correspondence, we can confidently determine that these were healings done by Paul and signs of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the new converts, such as speaking in tongues. 61 In 1  Thess 2:1–12, Paul reminds the community that they received the gospel from him and his co-workers and that he taught them to lead a life worthy of God’s calling. In 2:13, he praises the Thessalonians that they “received” (παραλαμβάνειν) the message he preached, not as a “human word” only, but as what it really is: “God’s word.” 62 Thus, Paul equates “the apostolic preaching” of the gospel with “the chosen instrument of God through which his [= God’s] word is manifest in the world,” 63 and by this means he attributes to his preaching the same spiritual and religious quality as that of the biblical prophets, who are regularly described as communicators of God’s word to his people. That the prophets play a major role in the self-understanding of the early messengers of Jesus Christ 64 is evident even in 1 Thessalonians, despite the letter’s dearth of direct references to the Hebrew Bible. In 1 Thess 2:15, Paul reminds the readers of the fate of certain followers of Christ Jesus in Judea at the hands of their fellow Jews, who “killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets” and are now persecuting Paul and his like as well (ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων). It was not yet 20 years since Paul himself had been among these persecutors, and this may explain the harsh tone, which he is now leveling against his previous self. The main reason for his attack is that other Jews want to hinder him from talking “to the Gentiles so that they might 61.  Ibid., 180–87, on 1 Thess 1:5. 62.  See T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, EKK 13 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 98–99: “Das Predigtwort ergeht durch den Apostel, aber es ist Gottes Wort” (p. 98). The use of παραλαμβάνειν for the preached word of Paul implies further that it is received and kept like an authoritative tradition in a stable form. Again Holtz: “Das Predigtwort, in dem Gottes eigenes Wort begegnet, wird empfangen als ein Überlie­f­ erungsgut. Es ist nicht ein nur aktuell im Ertönen und Gehörtwerden sich konstituierendes Gotteswort, es ist vielmehr ein in Dauer geltendes und kann entsprechend aufbewahrt und weitergegeben werden.” For παραλαμβάνειν as a technical term for the reception of a tradition equivalent to the rabbinic ‫( קבל‬cf. m. Peʾah 2:6; m. ʾAbot 1:1, 3, etc.), see further 1 Cor 11:23; 15:1–3; Gal 1:9; 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6; Col 2:6–8; for the canonical implications, see Kruger, The Question of Canon, 86, 124–26. In Gal 1:12, Paul parallels παραλαμβάνειν with “being taught” (διδάσκεσθαι) but emphasizes that the origin of this gospel was not παρὰ ἀνθρώπου but δι᾿ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ—that is, a divine revelation stands at the beginning of the tradition that he transmits and to which he commits his communities. When Paul describes his handing over of what he has received, the verb παραδίδωμι is used in much the same way as the rabbinic ‫מסר‬. The famous opening line of m. ʾAbot 1:1 has close parallels in 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3. 63.  For this precise understanding, avoiding a simplistic equation of Paul’s preaching with the word of God, see Bell, Irrevocable Call, 63. 64.  Cf. Matt 5:12 (10:40–42); and my book Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias, WUNT 177 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 158–69.

328

Roland Deines

be saved” (2:16). It is the hindrance of God’s word being spread to all that he regards as displeasing God (see very similarly Matt 23:13). 65 This short reference is enough to show: (1) that the Thessalonians heard from Paul about the biblical prophets and the traditions regarding their violent deaths (a common topic in early Christian literature; see Matt 23:34–36 // Luke 11:49–51; Mark 12:1–9; Acts 7:52); and (2) that Paul sees his own persecution as evidence that he stands in line with the prophets of old. 66 His self-characterization as one who preaches God’s word is actually a prophetic one, evidence of which can be found in other parts of the Pauline correspondence as well. 67 One may argue that this sort of prophetic self-awareness relates to his oral preaching only and does not allow extrapolation to any “canonical” authorial claim for his letters. 68 But it is not that simple to differentiate between oral and written material: It is clear that in the time of Paul the message of the prophets is accessed in written form as Scripture, which means that the notion that the “word of God” is actually a written word can be taken as the rule rather than the exception. This can easily be demonstrated by Paul’s regular use of the term γραφή and the passive perfect forms of γράφειν to introduce quotations from the prophets in his letters. 69 But more interesting is the fact 65.  On 1  Thess 2:14–16, see Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, 69–70; Bell, Irrevocable Call, 69–72; Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 179–81. 66. See Holtz, Thessalonicher, 104–5. On “Paul persecuted by Jews,” see Bell, Irrevocable Call, 47–56, 59–60. 67. See Deines, Gerechtigkeit, 174–75; L.  Doering, Reading Ancient Jewish Letters, WUNT 298 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 389–90, on Paul’s letter-writing as “a ‘commissioned’ piece of work” which has its closest parallel in Jewish prophetic letters (on “The ‘Quasi-Official’ Character of Paul’s Letters,” see pp. 383–40). The new magisterial study of Doering now allows for tracing the development of a certain type of authorial prophetic letter (cf. p. 169), beginning with Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles (Jeremiah 29), which remained closely connected to the Jeremiah tradition up to the 2nd century c.e.; see pp. 154– 60 (The Epistle of Jeremiah = Epistula Ieremiae; The Book of Baruch), 190–94 (4Q389 = 4QApocrJer C), 253–62 (Paraleipomena Jeremiou = 4 Baruch). 68.  This argument was again brought to the fore in J. Becker, Mündliche und schrift­liche Autorität im frühen Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 66–72, who rightly emphasizes the Holy Spirit as the source of the letters’ authority (p. 70), but he denies that the letters were intended to have any further function beyond clarifying the immediate concerns addressed in them (pp. 71–72). This is why Becker downplays the references to an exchange of letters between the Pauline communities (see n. 72 below) and also argues against the idea that Paul himself inaugurated a first collection of his letters (see n. 73 below). 69.  For references, see my “Scripture,” 290–91, where I demonstrate that despite the importance of written Scriptures in the time of the New Testament “the oral dimension of Scripture as Word of God” was never lost from sight. Important treatments of Paul’s use of Scripture include R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989); D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, BHTh 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986); C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, MSSNTS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); J. Whitlock, Schrift und Inspiration: Studien zur

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

329

that, in writing to the Thessalonians, Paul supplements his preaching of the gospel with the written form of a letter, which can be seen as a kind of summary, a reminder, or a further explanation. In doing this, he takes up again an element of the prophetic ministry of Jeremiah, who also bridged geographical distance with a letter to the community in Babylon (Jeremiah 29). 70 The resulting overlap between Paul’s preaching of the gospel as “God’s word” and its written crys­tallization inevitably transfers the spiritual quality attributed to the oral message to its written imprint as well. The challenge for early Christians was how to integrate their understanding of God’s new revelation in the form of the gospel message (which was available early on in both oral and written form) into the established understanding of Jewish Scriptures as the container of God’s authoritative messages and revelations for all times (see, for example, Matt 5:17; John 2:22; Rom 1:1–2). 71 Vorstellung von inspirierter Schrift und inspirierter Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und in den paulinischen Schriften, WMANT 98 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002). See further C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, JSNTSup 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); S. E. Porter and C. D. Stanley, eds., As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, SBLSymS 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). A challenging view on Paul’s understanding of Scripture was recently presented by G. H. van Kooten, “Ancestral, Oracular and Prophetic Authority: ‘Scriptural Authority’ according to Paul and Philo,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, ed. M. Popović, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 267–308, which I find unconvincing in its sharp distinction between revelation and Jewish Scripture. But even if van Kooten is right, it would not harm my argument: in this case, one would need to acknowledge that Paul clearly separates immediate oracular revelation (1st-person language with God as subject) and “God’s manifestation in the works of creation and in the advent of Christ” (p. 303) from the witness of divine revelation through the biblical authors. 70. Jeremiah 29 in fact portrays an extended, hostile exchange of prophetic letters between Jerusalem and the Babylonian exiles. The prophet Shemaiah of Nehelam wrote one or two letters against Jeremiah to Jerusalem (29:25–28), complaining about Jeremiah’s interference in the exiles’ affairs, to which Jeremiah retorted with yet another letter containing a word of God (29:30–32). According to 2 Chr 21:12–15 (with no parallel in 2 Kgs 8:16–22), the prophet Elijah once sent a letter (‫ )מכתב‬to King Jehoram of Judah, announcing his judgment and death as a word of God. Prophetic letters might also be implied in 2 Kings 19 // Isaiah 37 with Isaiah as potential letter writer to King Hezekiah. In 2 Kgs 19:9, the Assyrian king sent messengers to Hezekiah; what Hezekiah received, however, was a written document (‫ספרים‬, LXX τὰ βιβλία), which he presented to God in the temple (19:14). The same expression for sending messengers as in 19:9–10 is also used in 19:6 (for Isaiah’s answer to the king after he sent messengers to the prophet, among them Shebna the scribe, see 19:2) and 19:20, which makes it likely that these messages and prophetic oracles were delivered in both oral and accompanying written form. On these letters, see Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 104–8, 112. 71.  See already H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 64–65; and more recently Childs, Reading Paul, 4 n. 4, who claims that the Early Church “was never without a canon since it assumed Israel’s Scriptures as normative. From its inception, the major theological problem was to relate the evangelical tradition of the gospel with its inherited Scriptures” (see also p. 61); Kruger, Question of the

330

Roland Deines

The second part of Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians leaves no doubt that he considers himself in a position to teach the Thessalonians “how it is necessary to walk and to please God” (4:1 . . . τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ . . .). It is a kind of new Halakah, and Paul’s use of περιπατεῖν “to walk (or to live one’s life)” is telling in this respect. This new Halakah is something the new believers need “to receive” (παραλαμβάνειν), and it is composed of “certain commandments” (τίνας παραγγελίας) that he gave to the Thessalonians “through the Lord Jesus” (4:2). This hints at a rather unspectacular form of revelatory experience, and Paul did not elaborate on how he received these instructions from the Lord Jesus. But it is obvious that he expected obedience to them, because they were not his own ideas but the “word of God” for the Thessalonians. About the eschatological future, he tells the community “with a word of the Lord” (ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου) what will happen to the ones who had died before the hoped-for return of Jesus (4:15). He quotes this “word of the Lord” at some length (4:15–17) and concludes the section with the admonition “comfort one another with these words” (4:18). How seriously Paul took the importance of his letter can also be seen at the end in 5:27, where in very strong words he urges the recipients of the letter to read it to all members of the congregation: Ἐνορκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν κύριον ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς “I adjure you regarding the Lord to have the letter read to all members (of the community).” 72 Canon, 21, 94–95. How the authority of Jesus as “word of God” could function to place him (and, as a result, the apostles as his mouth-pieces) next to Hebrew Scriptures can be seen in the concluding comment of the fourth evangelist’s version of Jesus’ so-called cleansing of the temple (John 2:22): After the resurrection, the disciples remembered what Jesus said with regard to “this temple” because “they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus said to them” (ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς). Here ἡ γραφή and the λόγος of Jesus form a double object of the verb πιστεύειν, thus implying that “Scripture” and Jesus’ word are equally authoritative. This makes the books containing Jesus’ words into “biblical” books very much like the books of the prophets containing the words of God. Nicklas, with reference to John 2:22, sees here not just an equation so that “‘scripture’ and ‘Jesus’ word’ are . . . standing side by side for John” but that the latter “increasingly developed into the decisive criteria for a Christian understanding of Israel’s Scriptures” (“Development of the Christian Bible,” 397). 72. A similar command can be found at the end of Colossians, in 4:16: καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ᾿ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή, ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε. For differing views on the evidence from this verse, depending on whether one regards Colossians as authentic or pseudepigraphical, see Kruger, The Question of Canon, 126, 199; Becker, Mündliche und schriftliche Autorität, 71, 168–69; another example of Paul’s reflection on his letters as authoritative is 2 Cor 10:8–11, where v. 8 reveals a strong Jeremianic tone (cf. Jer 1:10; 24:6; 42:10; 45:5), and the argumentation ends in v. 17 with a quotation from Jeremiah (9:22–23) that is, according to U. Heckel, the key to the whole section of 2 Corinthians 10–13; see U. Heckel, “Jer 9,22f. als Schlüssel für 2 Kor 10–13,” in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, ed. M. Hengel and H. Löhr, WUNT 73 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebecke, 1994), 206–25.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

331

Paul obviously wanted his letter to be read to the whole congregation during one of their regular gatherings. But these regular gatherings were not just a social coming together but also an act of worship similar to the gathering in a synagogue, where the reading of Scripture played a prominent part (see Acts 15:21). Given the strong Jewish matrix of early Christianity, it is almost certain that the Jewish Scriptures were read, studied, and preached about in the earliest “Christian” gatherings, and this further accounts for the many scriptural references in the NT writings. The oldest preserved “sermons” in the NT are laden with scriptural allusions (Acts 2:14–36; 3:12–26; 7:2–53; 13:15–41; 17:2, 11; 18:4, 15; 28:23; Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; Hebrews; see also Acts 8:28–36), and it is obvious that the Jewish Scriptures played an important role in Christian identity formation from the very beginning. Hence, when Paul wished his letter to the Thessalonians, containing binding commands and authoritative teaching authorized by the Lord, to be read in a setting where Jewish Holy Scriptures played a crucial role in the worship of a community, it aligned his own writing closely with the already established Scriptures. But, again, it is one thing to ask a community to believe that something should be regarded as God’s word and another for it to be received as God’s word. In the case of 1  Thessalonians, the reception history allows for some glimpses into the way in which the letter was regarded from earliest times. The first thing to remember is that the letter survived and became part of a collection of Pauline letters—a process that began in the last quarter of the 1st century and is attested by P46 in the second half of the 2nd century. 73 The 73.  Papyrus 46 is the oldest manuscript containing a collection of Paul’s letters and is usually dated around the year 200. The most detailed study of its text-critical value and the questions arising with regard to the formation of the Pauline corpus is Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1946 (London: Published for the British Academy, 1953). The standard assumption is that, around 100 c.e. at the latest, a collection of the 14 Pauline letters was made based on Alexandrian philological principles, and this became the single archetype for the extant Pauline corpus. On the formation of the Corpus Paulinum, see A. von Harnack, Die Briefsammlung des Apostels Paulus und die anderen vorkonstantinischen Briefsammlungen (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926), 6–27; Kurt Aland, “Die Entstehung des Corpus Paulinum,” in Neutestamentliche Entwürfe, TB 63 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1979), 302–50; A. Lindemann, “Die Sammlung der Paulusbriefe im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge, BETL 163 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), 321–52; and Childs, Reading Paul. A much-discussed proposal has been presented by David Trobisch, who argues that Paul himself is responsible for a first edition of his letters (comprising the two letters to the Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians) that he sent to Ephesus (and perhaps other communities in Asia Minor) as a theological justification for the independent identity of the new “Christian” communities from Judaism and at the same time maintaining the inseparable connection between Jewish and Gentile Christians; see D. Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); idem, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 60–62 (on Paul’s letters); in the 2000 study, he argues that a carefully redacted edition of the NT in its present form already existed in the 2nd century. So far, Trobisch has not received much support; see, among

332

Roland Deines

most remarkable (and regularly ignored) fact is that Paul’s letters survived long enough to become part of a collection. Even if we allow that such a collection originated as early as the end of the first century, this means that 1 Thessalonians would have already been preserved for at least 30 or 40 years. The question that needs to be asked, therefore, is why it was preserved at all. The view that Paul’s letters were kept as a kind of souvenir or memorabilia of this “famous” apostle, as Jürgen Becker has recently suggested, projects a later perception of Paul onto the very beginning of his ministry in the West. 74 When Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, he was not yet the “celebrity” or acclaimed authority that he would become some 30 years later. Quite the opposite: he was a disputed figure in the early church, and many thought themselves to have good reason to contradict his teaching. He was not yet “Saint Paul” or anything similar. Nevertheless, the churches kept his letters (though not all of them) and obviously treasured them in such a way that they were regarded as formative from very early on, as can be seen by their reception in the Deutero-Pauline tradition (a label that makes sense only if Paul’s letter writing was regarded as authoritative or at least influential), 2 Pet 3:16, the letters of Ignatius, the canon of Marcion, and Canon Muratori—covering the time from Paul’s death through the entire 2nd century. 75 So an important, though often neglected observation is that someone preserved Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, which is not as self-evident as it might seem. This is further highlighted by the fact that some of Paul’s letters were lost (e.g., some of the Corinthian correspondence; others, U. Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 8th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 426–42; Becker, Mündliche und schriftliche Autorität, 72. E. R. Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 210–23, argues that the Pauline collection of letters goes back to copies of them that Paul himself kept for personal use and which—after his death—one of his co-workers edited (for the question why some of Paul’s letters were lost, see pp. 221–22). 74.  Becker, Mündliche und schriftliche Autorität, 80. He also assumes that the letters were only read once to the community, not in one of their regular worship gatherings, but as part of a business meeting (like the meetings reported in Acts 1:15–26; 6:1–2; 13:2; 15:22), where organizational questions were addressed (pp. 73–81). But he makes very clear that this does not mean that these were secular meetings; they were gatherings under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:2; 15:28; 1 Cor 5:4). His assumption that the Pauline letters, after their one-time public reading, were integrated into the library of the local church (“Gemeindebibliothek”), where it was possible for individual members to read them again and for preachers to draw inspiration for a Sunday sermon (“Hier konnten alle Gemeindeglieder, wenn sie denn wollten, den Brief nochmals und mehrfach für sich alleine in Muße lesen, vielleicht auch ein Prediger sich Gedanken holen, um solche Lesefrucht in einer Sonntagspredigt zu benutzen”) is, however, rather anachronistic. A similar anachronistic veneration of Paul’s qualities as a letter writer—Paul’s special charisma for writing and his “aus der Sache fließende, produktive Lebendigkeit” must have impressed every reader—can be found in Harnack, Briefsammlung, 7. It is a liberal prejudice toward esthetics over revelation that is behind these assumptions. 75.  See the discussion in Kruger, The Question of Canon, 175–76, 189–202.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

333

see also 1 Cor 5:9; the Letters to the Laodiceans, Col 4:16; Phil 3:1 may also point to a previous letter). In the case of 1 Thessalonians, there is an additional witness in the form of 2 Thessalonians, which presupposes the first letter and represents the earliest testimony to its impact. The authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is disputed, but this does not affect the general argument. The letter belonged to the earliest collection of Pauline letters from the beginning of the 2nd century and must have been written at the end of the 1st century at the latest. 76 Personally, I think that the arguments against its authenticity are not convincing but are based on preconceived, theologically biased prejudices regarding what theologians (especially Protestant theologians) do and do not want to be connected with Paul. 77 The main topic of the letter—namely, the return or second coming of Jesus, which is depicted quite vividly in apocalyptic coloring, with angels and judgment and the final overcoming of the antichrist—is greatly disliked by “enlightened” Christianity and therefore easily dispensed with as pseudepigraphical. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that it is literally dependent on 1 Thessalonians. In fact, the remarkable closeness of the two letters is the main argument adduced against its authenticity. 78 Those who take the letter to be authentic date it to the immediate aftermath of the first letter, whose vivid description of the second coming of Jesus obviously caused some ethical and theological issues within the Thessalonian church, which the second letter seeks to address. Here again, a key feature is obedience to the “gospel of our Lord Jesus” (cf. 2 Thess 1:8, ὑπακούουσιν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ). The saving act on the day of judgment depends on the belief that the Thessalonians exercised regarding what Paul had witnessed on their behalf (1:10, ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη τὸ μαρτύριον ἡμῶν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς “because our testimony among you was believed”). The “gospel of 76.  See P. Pokorný and U. Heckel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Seine Literatur und Theologie im Überblick (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 653. On the question of authorship, see also Kruger, The Question of Canon, 128–29; D. A. Hagner, The New Testament: A Theological and Historical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 464–67. A careful argument in favor of its authenticity can be found in Fritz W. Röcker, Belial und Ka­ techon: Eine Untersuchung zu 2Thess 2,1–12 und 1Thess 4,13–5,11, WUNT 2/262 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 223–33; also in favor of Pauline authorship is Paul Foster, “Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem,” JSNT 35 (2012): 150–75. 77.  On this question, see Klaus Haacker, “Rezeptionsgeschichte und Literaturkritik: Anfragen an die communis opinio zum Corpus Paulinum,” TZ 65 (2009): 209–28. 78.  Pokorný and Heckel, Einleitung, 650. In particular, the direct appeal to his own authority in handing down tradition (2  Thess 2:15; 3:17) is often seen as evidence for the pseudepigraphical character of the letter. But there is nothing in these verses that cannot be found in the undisputed Pauline letters, in which he can present his own teaching and himself as an agent of tradition and a role model for other Christians in similarly strong terms; compare with, for example, Rom 1:5; 16:26 (Paul is commissioned to exhort the Gentiles to the obedience of faith); 1 Cor 11:2; 15:2; Gal 1:6–12; Phil 4:9; 2 Tim 2:2, etc.

334

Roland Deines

our Lord Jesus” and the “testimony” of Paul are thus more or less identical (see also 2:14: God called them “through our gospel”—ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἡμῶν), and obedience to Jesus implies obedience to Paul (3:4–6, 12). The second chapter of the letter deals, then, with the question that caused the problems: some thought that “the day of the Lord is already here” (2:2). Paul warns them not to become worried about this question so easily “either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us” (μήτε διὰ πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι᾿ ἡμῶν). This triple list displays exactly the spiritual sources upon which these early churches lived, namely, (1) “the Spirit,” which means a kind of direct uttering caused by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Thess 5:19–20; 1 Cor 12:3–11; 14:1ff., etc.); (2) “a word,” which here means presumably a Jesus tradition or a sermon based on one (cf. 1  Thess 1:8; 2:13; 4:15); and (3) “a letter” from Paul himself. In other words, we have a revelatory experience (the Spirit) or a revelatory message (the words of Jesus) and an oral and/or written reflection upon it as the main sources of authority. And already here the possibility arises that someone else was misusing the means of a letter to introduce another teaching in Paul’s name. Therefore, Paul reminds the Thessalonians of what he has told them (2 Thess 2:5) and to use their already existing knowledge as a criterion to discern false teachings (see already 1 Thess 5:21, πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε). The final admonition in this regard is to keep steadfast to the “traditions” they had received from Paul through his teaching in oral and written form (2:15, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν). Under the assumption that Paul is the author of 2 Thessalonians—which implies that forged letters in his name were already in circulation from very early on—the position about Paul himself initiating the collection of his letters (see above, n. 73) receives some weight: as the prophets of old would have benefited from keeping records of their prophecies as protection against misrepresentation by their opponents, so also Paul might have found it useful to keep copies of his letters in order to demonstrate easily what he had actually written. 79 But, as so often, the texts allow us to formulate intelligent hypotheses but do not provide enough details for verified results. Conclusion What I hope to have demonstrated is the close relation between revelatory events and their imprints in the biblical tradition. I have chosen the earliest 79.  Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, 156–61, points out that “modern classical scholarship generally agrees that ancient letter writers kept copies of their letters” (p. 156). Ample evidence of this exists among classical authors, and Richards argues that this is probable for Paul as well (pp. 214–15). The close relationship in wording between 1 and 2 Thessalonians is then best explained under the assumption that Paul worked from the copy of the first letter to clarify the misunderstandings that it caused.

Paul’s Letters and the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible

335

writing in the New Testament to illustrate how quickly this process took place. Hardly more than a century passed between Jesus’ life and its understanding as the ultimate form of God’s revelation and its stabilization in authoritative writings which were regarded as equal to the Jewish Scripture (cf. 2 Pet 3:2, 15–16), with the first authoritative texts already in existence within 20 years after Jesus’ death. This happened without the influence of institutions, professional scribes, or established hierarchies. The message received its lasting meaning beyond the immediate reason for its composition through the authority of the messenger as a witness to the decisive revelatory event (cf. Acts 1:21–22; 2:32; 3:15; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15; 1  Cor 9:1; 15:3–8; 1  Pet 5:1; 2 Pet 1:16–18; 1 John 1:1–3). It is worthwhile testing further whether these insights into the way the NT writings became Scripture might also shed some light on the genesis of the books of the Hebrew Bible.

The Canonization of the Hebrew Bible in Light of Second Temple Literature Cana Werman Ben-Gurion University of the Negev In one of her papers, Professor Zipi Talshir deals with the question of canonization in light of the book of Chronicles. 1 She indicates that the author of Chronicles (and Ezra–Nehemiah) knew the Pentateuch, referring to it as ‫ספר‬ ‫ משה‬or ′‫תורת ה‬. Furthermore, she shows that the author knew and used the books of Samuel and Kings, giving them authority by attributing their authorship to “prophets.” She also points out that the books of the later prophets were probably known to the author of Chronicles, as well as the book of Psalms. Asking how the Chronicler dared to reshape the authorized version of Samuel– Kings, Talshir considered Chronicles to be one example of the many attempts made during the second part of the Second Temple period to rewrite books of the Hebrew Bible: “The fact that the existing books were dealt with so much through editing, adapting, rewriting and Midrash, rather testifies to the efforts invested in bringing them closer to the new era. The Chronicler is but a forerunner of a general tendency which was gaining strength.” She later added, “It would be hard to assume that the author of the book of Jubilees acted in a cultural milieu which did not accept the authority of Genesis–Exodus, but still he reworked their tradition beyond recognition.” 2 I would like to return to the question of canonization and to the related question of the existence or nonexistence of scriptures. 3 It is necessary to do so because, in the last 15 years or so, the idea that 3rd- and 2nd-century b.c.e. 1. Z. Talshir, “Several Canon-Related Concepts Originating in Chronicles,” ZAW 113 (2001): 386–403. 2.  Ibid., 393–94. 3.  I prefer scriptures over Scripture. As Kraft notes, before the appearance of codexes in the 4th century c.e., the biblical books were recorded on scrolls that could contain only one or two compositions at a time. The plural scriptures is a reminder of this reality. See: R. Kraft, “Para-mania: Beside, Before and Beyond Bible Studies,” JBL 126 (2007): 5–27. However, Kraft’s avoidance of careful consideration of the available data from Second

337

338

Cana Werman

Judeans/Jews of the land of Israel perceived the books of the Bible as the words of God—that is, as scriptures, gathered as a group that served as a guide, a “canon”—has become unacceptable. The skepticism regarding the existence of a fixed list of books that could be considered scriptures and perceived as a canon has been enhanced by the emergence from the caves near Qumran of many examples of texts that are a reworking of books known today to be part of the Bible. These texts will be referred to here as the RP (Rewritten Pentateuch) or the RB (Rewritten Bible). Another factor in this skepticism is the fluidity of the biblical text, which became apparent upon the publication of the pre-SP—that is, SP without the Samaritan additions—and a pre-LXX (or the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX), which were found in the caves side by side with a proto-MT. To quote Zahn as an example of this skepticism: As a result of the publication and study of these texts, a new model for understanding the production, transmission, and interpretation of authoritative literature in Second Temple Judaism is slowly emerging. Although the particulars of these processes are still debated, at the heart of this new model stand observations about the pluriformity of scriptural texts, the active role of successive scribes in shaping the texts they copied, and the lack of a fixed canon of scripture. 4

Indeed, the above claim that the freedom to edit existing biblical text is a clear sign that the text was not regarded as part of a canon in the time of its editing can be questioned. Nonetheless, contemporary Dead Sea Scrolls scholars avoid the assumption of a biblical canon; hence the call for further discussion. In the following essay, I will address the questions of canon and scriptures from two angles: the phenomena of RP and of the various biblical editions will be discussed in the second part of my paper, while the first part of my paper will point to the earliest clear evidence of the use of biblical books as scriptures. Throughout the paper, I will use Bible/biblical and scriptures to denote the books now accepted as the Bible (as well as Pentateuch/pentateuchal for the five books of the Torah). I will avoid using the term scriptural, a term coined by scholars to denote the noncanonical status of the biblical composiTemple literature should be criticized, and his discourse against the “tyranny of canonical assumptions” (p. 17) should be rejected. 4. M. M. Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. H. von Weissenberg et al., BZAW 419 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 93–94 (italics mine); and see bibliography there. For evaluation of the terms scripture and canon, I find Chapman’s paper most useful: see S. B. Chapman, “How the Bible Canon Began: Working Models and Open Questions,” in Homer, the Bible and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, ed. M. Finkelberg and G. G. Stroumsa, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 29–51.

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

339

tion. 5 Thus, this question will remain open throughout my essay: Was a canon of scriptures compiled in Judea of the 3rd–2nd century b.c.e.? Prophetic Books as “Scriptures” in the Qumran Community and Earlier In this first section, I point to the earliest clear quotations from biblical books in which the name of a prophet (in one case, “of God”) is mentioned, and a distinction is made between a lemma taken from his (prophetic) book and the interpretation or exegesis assigned to it. 6 This phenomenon of prophet’s name-lemma-exegesis is known from the thematic pesherim discovered at Qumran (it is of course unnecessary for the continuous pesherim; there, only the lemma-exegesis appears). However, my claim is that in the texts to be discussed we witness the pesherim’s forerunner and that two of these lemma even precede the establishment of the Qumran community, while the others are from the very early stages in the formation of this community. 7 The importance of the very occurrence of a prophet’s name-lemma-exegesis formula for the question of canonization will be discussed after presenting proof that these are indeed very early evidences. Locating these occurrences in a particular and exact time frame depends, of course, on a careful study of their content, and the following paragraphs will be devoted to this task. 5.  Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts,” 93–119. This term is an example of the way that denial of canon forces scholars to create new terminology while discussing the phenomenon of a “rewritten Pentateuch.” Zahn’s paper is a good example of the textual and terminological acrobatics required and employed today. I will also refrain from using the term discourse, which has become popular lately and is lauded by Zahn. The imprecise nature of the term does not permit a clear, accurate evaluation of the relationship between the biblical forms and editions on one hand and the different kinds of hermeneutic on the other. 6.  I will try to be consistent in my use of the terms interpretation, exegesis, commentary, and hermeneutic. Interpretation will be saved for an effort made to give an explanation for the literal meaning of unclear texts (for the validity of the term literal meaning, see: C. Milikowsky, “Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of Ancient Hermeneutical Practice: The Question of the Literal Meaning,” in The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth Are Gracious: FS for Günter Stemberger, ed. M. Perani [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005], 7–8); exegesis will denote an attempt to find/impose a new meaning on the text; hermeneutic will be used as a generic name for the act of making the text an object of reflection; commentary will be used as the name of a genre in which a clear distinction is made between the text cited and the message that is the result of its hermeneutic. Thus, for example, the pesherim are a commentary in which exegesis is given to biblical verses, while Jubilees forms another genre—namely, rewriting—in which biblical interpretation can be found. Both the pesherim and Jubilees are the outcome of hermeneutic. 7.  Indeed, in the literary units discussed below, no use is made of the technical terms with the root ‫פשר‬, and the exegesis offered for the verse is, most of the time, attached directly to the citation, paraphrasing it, exploring it, or adding to it, with no intervention of phrases such as ‫ פשר הדבר‬or ‫פשרו הוא‬. However, without exception, the citations are preceded by the expressions ‫ אשר כתוב‬or ‫אשר אמר‬.

340

Cana Werman

CD’s Three Units The text to be discussed is found in the Damascus Document from the Geniza (= CD). Three separate literary units are imbedded in CD, each containing an analogy between the past and the present. I will attempt to prove that all three units reflect disastrous events taking place in Jerusalem between the early 3rd and mid-2nd century b.c.e.—events that were close in time but distinct in essence. No direct description of these events is provided in the CD; rather, there are theological statements and declarations, sustained by analogy, that justice will triumph and will be revealed. The analogies are created by using biblical verses, borrowing data about the past from some of them and presenting others as referring to the present and/or future. As we shall see, in terms of the discussion of the existence of canon and scriptures, the first and third units are crucial. However, to understand the third unit, the second must also be analyzed. Unit 1 is found in manuscript B of CD, at 19:5–13: 5 But all those who despise the ordinances 6 and statutes, the evil ones, will be repaid their due when God visits the land; 7 when that happens of which it is written by Zechariah the prophet: “Wake, O sword, upon 8 my shepherd and

upon the man (who is) close to me; God says, Strike the shepherd so the sheep will be scattered, 9 but I will turn my hand away from the young ones.” And those who guard it are the poor/humble of the sheep. 10 Those will escape at the time of visitation. But those who remain will be handed over to the sword when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel 11 comes. And this will be as it happened at the first time of visitation, as it is said 12 through Ezekiel: “To make a mark upon the foreheads of those who sigh and groan.” 13 But those who remained were turned over to the avenging sword of the covenant’s vengeance.

Two periods are being compared here, as the words “And this will be as it happened at the first time of visitation” indicate: ‫וכל המאסים במצות ובחקים להשיב גמול‬ ‫רשעים עליהם בפקד אל את הארץ‬

‫כאשר היה בקץ פקדת הראשון‬

‫ בבוא הדבר אשר כתוב ביד זכריה הנביא‬.1 )7 ‫(יג‬ ‫ “חרב עורי על‬:‫ הגמול לרשעים בפסוק‬.2 ‫ הך את הרעה‬,‫רועי ועל גבר עמיתי נאם אל‬ ”‫ותפוצינה הצאן‬ ‫ “והשיבותי ידי על‬:‫ גורל הצדיקים בפסוק‬.3 ”‫הצוערים‬ ‫ והשומרים אותו הם עניי‬:‫ סיכום גורל הצדיקים‬.4 ‫ אלה ימלטו בקץ הפקדה‬,‫הצאן‬ ‫ והנשארים ימסרו לחרב‬:‫ סיכום הגמול לרשעים‬.5 .‫בבוא משיח אהרן וישראל‬

)4 ‫ אשר אמר ביד יחזקאל (ח–ט; ט‬.1

‫ “להתות התיו על‬:‫ גורל הצדיקים בפסוק‬.2 ”‫מצחות נאנחים ונאנקים‬ ‫ והנשארים הסגרו‬:‫ סיכום הגמול לרשעים‬.3 .‫לחרב נוקמת נקם ברית‬

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

Past

341

Present / Future

And this will be as it happened at the first But all those who despise the ordinances time of visitation, and statutes, the evil ones, will be repaid their due when God visits the land; 1. when that happens of which it is written by Zechariah the prophet (13:7), 2. The sinners’ punishment in the verse: Awake, O sword, upon my shepherd and upon the man (who is) close to me; God says, Strike the shepherd so the sheep will be scattered, 2. The fate of the righteous in the verse: 3. The fate of the righteous in the verse: “To make a mark upon the foreheads of but I will turn my hand away from the young ones. those who sigh and groan.” 4. Rephrasing the fate of the righteous: And those who guard it are the poor/ humble of the sheep. Those will escape at the time of visitation. 3. The sinners’ punishment in the verse: 5. Rephrasing the sinners’ punishment: But those who remained were turned over But those who remain will be handed to the avenging sword of the covenant’s over to the sword when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes. vengeance. 1. as it is said through Ezekiel (8–9; esp. 9:4):

The description of the period from the past comes from Ezekiel. Reporting the last days of First-Temple-period Jerusalem as revealed to him in a vision, Ezekiel identifies two groups in the city: idol-worshipers in the temple court and the temple itself; and their opponents, the righteous, who “sigh and groan” over the defilement of the temple. According to Ezekiel, an angel is commanded to mark the foreheads of the mourners (no. 2 on the left), as a means of protecting them from the impending disaster. The other group, “those who remained” (no. 3 on the left) in our writer’s words: “were turned over to the avenging sword of the covenant’s vengeance” ‫והנשארים הסגרו לחרב נוקמת נקם‬ ‫ברית‬. Two opposing groups also existed in the author’s day (right-hand side of the table): “those who despise the ordinances and statutes” ‫וכל המאסים במצות‬ ‫ובחקים‬, also called “those who remain” ‫( הנשארים‬no. 5 on the right) as opposed to “those who guard it” ‫והשומרים אותו‬. The framework of analogy between past and present/future indicates that the author of lines 5–13 is coping with circumstances similar to those referred to in Ezekiel—namely, that he perceives his days as a time when idol worship is taking place in the temple. It is perhaps not too far-fetched to suggest that the “present/future” event is related to the reign of Antiochus the IV, Epiphanes, when Jerusalem underwent intense

342

Cana Werman

Hellenization. Indeed, both books of Maccabees report that, around 168–167 b.c.e., “those who remain[ed]” in Jerusalem were devotees of a foreign cult installed in the temple, whereas the devotees to God’s ordinances left the city. 8 Relying on the clear-cut picture of reward and revenge in Ezekiel, the writer of this passage applies a similar reading to a prophecy in Zechariah: “Wake, O sword, upon my shepherd and upon the man (who is) close to me; God says, Strike the shepherd so the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the young ones” ‫ הך הרעה‬,‫ צבאות‬′‫ נאם ה‬,‫חרב עורי על רעי ועל גבר עמיתי‬ ‫ותפוצין הצאן והשבתי ידי על הצערים‬. Zechariah’s prophecy becomes a promise that those “who despise the ordinances and statutes” will be struck by a sword, whereas the righteous will be protected from it. To impose his reading on the biblical verse, the author takes a few exegetical steps: 9 1. The writer makes Zechariah’s prophecy into a prophecy of reward and punishment by identifying two groups: one that deserves a punishment and one a reward: a.  He interprets ‫ צוערים‬as “young ones,” 10 thereby creating a second group in addition to the obvious one, the shepherds (and the flock). b.  He interprets “and I will turn my hand against” ‫ והשיבותי ידי‬as “but I will turn my hand away,” 11—that is, God’s promise is to strike the shepherd(s) and sheep but to avoid harming the young ones. 2. Hinting at Zech 11:11, “and so the poor of the flock who were guarding me knew it was the word of the Lord” ‫ותפר ביום ההוא וידעו כ ן עניי הצאן הש�מ‬ ‫ הוא‬′‫רים אתי כי דבר ה‬, the author identifies ‫צוערים‬, the young sheep, as “those who guard it,” ‫( והשומרים אותו‬it = the ordinances and statutes) 12 as well as the “poor” or “humble” of the sheep, ‫( עניי הצאן‬no. 4). 3. The author rephrases “I will turn my hand away” as “escape at the time of visitation” ‫( אלה ימלטו בקץ הפקדה‬no. 4). 4. In referring to the sinners’ fate, the author points to the Messiah as the anthropomorphized sword of God (no. 5), “But those who remain will be handed over to the sword when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes” ‫והנשארים‬ ‫ימסרו לחרב בבוא משיח אהרן וישראל‬. 8.  1 Macc 2:28–29; 2 Macc 5:27. 9.  I rely here on Goldman’s analysis of CD 19:5–13. See L. Goldman, “Biblical Exegesis and Pesher Interpretation in the Damascus Document” (Ph.D. dissertation, Haifa University, 2007), 55–171 [Heb.]. Goldman, however, does not point to the same historical background as I do. 10.  Goldman, ibid., 161–62. 11.  This was noted rightly by Goldman, ibid., 165–66. 12.  Instead of referring to God, the author is referring to God’s ordinances; on this, see M. Kister, “Studies in MMT and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language, and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68 (1999): 350 n. 147 [Heb.].

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

343

The analogy between past and present/future thus creates hope for a group in a time of crisis: as in Ezekiel’s day, those who worship idols in the temple will be punished by God but, as envisioned by Zechariah, the righteous will survive. If my evaluation of lines 5–13 is correct, CD here echoes events from around 170–167 b.c.e.—that is, 20 years prior to the establishment of the Qumran community. We must assume that the writers are from the priestly elite who resisted the reformation imposed by Antiochus and by his supporters and appointees. Given the detection of reactions to Antiochus’s day and decrees in other scrolls, including the Apocryphon of Jeremiah 13 and 4Q248 (where a reference to Antiochus’s first campaign in Egypt is found), 14 these echoes should not surprise us. Unit 2 is found in the succeeding lines, CD 19:13–22: 13 And thus (is) the judgment for all who enter 14 his covenant and will not hold

firmly to these statutes: they will be visited unto destruction by the hand of Belial. 15 That is the day when God will visit, as he said (Hos 5:10), “The lords of Judah were like those who backslide border(s). 16 I will pour out rage upon them like water.” For, although they entered into a covenant of repentance, 17 they did not depart from the way of traitors but wallowed in the ways of unchastity and wicked wealth, 18 avenging and bearing grudges each man against his brother and each hating his neighbor; and each ignored 19 the relation of his flesh and they drew near (one to another) for incest; and they strove mightily for wealth and profit, and each did 20 what was right in his (own) eyes. And each chose according to the wantonness of his heart and did not remove himself from the people 21 and their sin. And they arrogantly became unruly, walking in the ways of wicked ones, of whom 22 God said: “The poison of serpents (is) their wine and the head of the asps (is) cruel.” “The serpents” 23 (are) the kings of the nations, and “their wine” is their ways, and “the head/poison of asps” is the 24 head of the kings of Greece who came upon them to do vengeance. ‫וכן משפט לכל באי בריתו אשר לא יחזיקו‬ (‫באלה החקים (לפקדם לכלה ביד בליעל‬

‫ללכת בדרכי רשעים‬

‫ הוא היום אשר יפקד אל כאשר דבר (הושע‬.1 )10 ‫ה‬

)33 ‫ אשר אמר אל עליהם (דברים לב‬.1

‫ “היו שרי\סרי יהודה‬:‫ חטא הרשעים בפסוק‬.‫א‬2 ”‫כמשיגי גבול‬

‫ “חמת תנינים יינם‬:‫ החטא והעונש בפסוק‬.2 ”‫וראש פתנים אכזר‬

13. C. Werman, “Epochs and End-Time: The 490-Year Scheme in Second Temple Literature,” DSD 13 (2006): 229–55. 14. D.  Schwartz, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, and D. R. Schwartz (Boston: Brill, 2001), 45–56. For first publication and a different evaluation, see E. Eshel and M. Broshi, “The Greek King Is Antiochus IV (4QHistorical Text = 4Q248),” JJS 48 (1997): 120–29.

344

Cana Werman

‫ התנינים מלכי העמים‬:‫ זיהוי החטא ועונשו‬.3 ‫ “עליהם אשפך כמים‬:‫ הגמול לרשעים בפסוק‬.‫ב‬2 ”‫ויינם הוא דרכיהם וראש פתנים הוא ראש מלכי עברה‬ ‫ כי באו בברית תשובה ולא‬:‫ תאור החטא‬.3 .‫יון הבא עליהם לנקם נקמה‬ ‫סרו מדרך בוגדים ויתגללו בדרכי זנות ובהון‬ ‫הרשעה ונקום ונטור איש לאחיהו ושנא איש‬ ‫את רעהו ויתעלמו איש בשאר בשרו ויגשו‬ ‫לזמה ויתגברו להון ולבצע ויעשו איש הישר‬ ‫בעיניו ויבחרו איש בשרירות לבו ולא נזרו‬ .‫מעם ומחטאתם ויפרעו ביד רמה‬

Past Walking in the ways of wicked ones,

Present / Future And thus (is) the judgment for all who enter his covenant and will not hold firmly to these statutes. They will be visited unto destruction by the hand of Belial

1. of whom God said (Deut 32:33),

1. That is the day when God will visit, as he said (Hos 5:10), 2. The sin and its punishment in the verse: 2a. The sin in the verse: “The lords of Judah were like those who backslide “The poison of serpents (is) their wine border(s). and cruel head\poison of asps” (Deut 2b. Its punishment in the verse: I will 32:33). pour out rage upon them like water.” 3. Identifying the sin and its punishment: 3. Identifying the sin: For, although they “The serpents” (are) the kings of the na- entered into a covenant of repentance, tions, and “their wine” is their ways, and they did not depart from the way of “the head/poison of asps” is the head of traitors but wallowed in the ways of the kings of Greece who came upon them unchastity and wicked wealth, avenging and bearing grudges each man against his to do vengeance. brother and each hating his neighbor; and each ignored the relation of his flesh and they drew near (one to another) for incest; and they strove mightily for wealth and profit and each did what was right in his (own) eyes. And each chose according to the wantonness of his heart and did not remove himself from the people and their sin. And they arrogantly became unruly, walking in the ways of wicked ones.

Deut 32:88 is here read as referring to the evil done in the past (left-hand side of the table), ‫חמת תנינים יינם וראש פתנים אכזר‬. The author, by creating a few parallel readings of the verse, is able to find references in it to two political entities as well as their fates:

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

345

1. The three-word nominal sentence ‫“ חמת תנינם יינם‬the poison of serpents (is) their wine” (in this passage, ‫ חמה‬means poison) of which the first part of the biblical verse consists is read in this exegesis as containing two construct phrases. Consequently, Deut 32:33a has not one but two nominal sentences: a.  The first construct phrase borrowed from the biblical verse is ‫יין תנינם‬ “serpents’ wine.” Thus the nominal sentence is: “Serpents’ wine is their wine.” Wine is interpreted as “a way” 15 and the serpents as the kings of the nations. The evil group hinted at in the possessive pronoun attached to wine (‫ )יינם‬is blamed for going in the way of the kings of the nations (the construct phrase is read as genetivus subjectivus): ‫התנינים מלכי‬ ‫העמים ויינם הוא דרכיהם‬. b.  The second construct phrase taken from the biblical verse is ‫חמת תנינם‬ “the poison of serpents.” Thus the nominal sentence is: “Serpents’ poison is their poison.” However, ‫ חמה‬is understood here as anger or wrath. The anger/wrath that came on the kings of the nations (the construct phrase is read as genetivus objectivus, in the dative case instead of accusative, however) also came upon the evil group inferred here. This reading of the construct phrase will be used by the author in his exegetical account of the second part of the verse: ‫וראש פתנים אכזר‬ “and cruel head/poison of asps.” 2. The nominal sentence found in the second part of the biblical verse, ‫וראש‬ ‫פתנים אכזר‬, lacks an overt subject; it relies on and takes the subject of the first part, “their wine is the poison of cruel asps.” The author of our unit turns the object of the first part—the poison of the serpents (= the wrath that came upon the kings of the nations)—to be the subject of the second part. The wrath that came upon the kings of the nations (as well as on the present/future evil group) is the head/poison of asps. As was noted rightly by Goldman, 16 the author makes use of the double meaning of ‫ראש‬, both head and poison. Thus, he is also able to create two statements here: a.  The wrath that came on the serpents is the cruel poison of asps—in his words: “to do vengeance” ‫הבא עליהם לנקם נקמה‬. b.  The wrath that came upon the serpents is the cruel head \ leader of asps: “the head of the kings of Greece” ‫ראש מלכי יון‬. Which two political entities, one foreign and one internal, suffered from the same “king of Greece”? The comparison offered here brings to mind the Hellenized priest Jason and the Ptolemaic kingdom. Appointed by Antiochus, Jason subsequently lost his position to Menelaus, battled to regain his position 15.  As was noted by Goldman, the wine metaphor as denoting way(s) is already present in the biblical chapter. See v. 32. 16.  “Biblical Exegesis,” 196.

346

Cana Werman

in Jerusalem during Antiochus’s second Egyptian campaign, and later had to withdraw due to Antiochus’s cruel, angry intervention (2 Maccabees 4–5). 17 It is likely that the shared features of Jason and the Ptolemaic king—that is, their devotion to Hellenism as well as their confrontation with Antiochus IV— brought about this highly sophisticated exegesis of Deut 32:33. We can point to two reasons for the choice of this verse. First, it is important to note that the metaphor of serpents fits these historic players, as the king of Egypt is portrayed as a serpent in Ezekiel 32. And, from another angle, Deut 32:33 is cited and reworked in the 2 Maccabees report of the events during the Antiochian battles and decrees (note especially 2 Macc 4:16). 18 Apparently, the mid-2nd-century Judeans perceived Deut 32:33 to be reflecting their crisis. For the author of the unit found in CD 19:13–22, the important point is the punishment that (at least as he perceived it) is imbedded in Deut 32:33; it supports the lesson he wants to teach, which is that the evil ones were punished. His main goal, however, is to support the claim that he is making regarding present events: the evil ones will be punished. A verse from Hosea is cited (in the right-hand column), in which the lords of Judah are accused of being “backsliders of the border” ‫( כמשיגי גבול‬Hos 5:10). Both this verse and the preceding one deal with the kingdoms of Judea and Ephraim and condemn them: “Ephraim shall be desolate in the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Israel I make known what is sure. The lords of Judah are like those backsliders of the border; I will pour out my wrath on them like water” ‫ היו שרי יהודה‬:‫אפרים לשמה תהיה ביום תוכחה בשבטי ישראל הודעתי נאמנה‬ ‫כמסיגי גבול עליהם אשפוך כמים עברתי‬. However, the author of the present unit offers only one subject for the two verses: Ephraim. Ephraim is mentioned explicitly in v. 9 but it is also the subject of v. 10: “lords of Judah” ‫שרי יהודה‬ is its epithet. This epithet for Ephraim is rooted in its effort to “lord it over” the Kingdom of Judea and its effort to “slide back” the border between the two kingdoms. It seems that, from the point of view of the author, who was one of the members of the Qumran community, the verse from Hosea reflects the political situation of his day: the taking over of Jerusalem by the Hasmoneans and their allies. The lords of Judah are those who lorded it over Judea (‫)השתררו\הסתרר‬, the group that the author belongs to, the priests who were overturned by the Pharisees during the Hasmonean regime. Several clues point to the Pharisees as the target of the writer’s rage in these lines. Note, first, the accusation that emerges from the citation of Hosea, 17. V. A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1959), 175–203. 18. D. R. Schwartz, “On Something Biblical about 2 Maccabees,” in Biblical Perspectives; Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 223–32.

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

347

“backsliders of the border.” In an important paper, Kister showed that the term “border” was interpreted metaphorically during the Second Temple period. 19 When read as part of the biblical prohibition against backsliding, it was understood as denoting the crossing of the line between the commitment to abide by one’s own tradition and new, unfamiliar ways of life. The prohibition against “backsliding the border” denotes a warning against forsaking ancient rules and customs. Having acquired this meaning, the phrase appears whenever halakic issues are at the heart of the dispute. Indeed, in Qumran community literature, the pharisaic Halakah is accused of “backsliding the border.” From the priestly point of view, acceptance of the oral law shifts the border away from its original and true place, the border of the written Torah. That the Pharisees are the object of this attack can also be deduced from the list of accusations that the author enumerates (no. 3): “Avenging and bearing grudges” ‫—ונקום ונטור איש לאחיהו‬that is, not obeying the strict Qumranic law of reproach; 20 “drawing near (one to another) for incest” ‫—ויגשו לזמה‬that is, taking their brothers’ daughters as (second?) wives; 21 “Each did what was right in his (own) eyes. And each chose according to the wantonness of his heart” ‫—ויעשו איש הישר בעיניו ויבחרו איש בשרירות לבו‬a known idiom used in accusing whoever did not accept the Qumranic version of the priestly Halakah. Situating our unit in the context of the halakic dispute with the Pharisees leads to a better understanding of the quotation from Hosea and how it is linked to the preceding statement: “all who enter his covenant and will not hold firmly to these statutes” ‫( כל באי בריתו אשר לא יחזיקו באלה החקים‬the top of the right column). According to Hosea, “the lords” ‫ שרי‬are both those who lorded it over Judah (the term Judah denotes the priests who were overthrown by the Pharisees during the Hasmonean regime) and at the same time those who departed ‫ סרי‬from Judah, despite previous cooperation between the two groups and their mutual devotion to God’s covenant. This apparently happened during the struggle against the decrees of Antiochus: ‫ שרי יהודה‬are ‫סרי יהודה‬. Upset by the emergence of the Pharisees, who do “not hold firmly to these statutes,” the writer predicts the punishment to befall them by creating an analogy with an earlier period of unwanted influence in Jerusalem and its end—the time of Jason. The past event, also envisioned in the scriptures, is perceived as 19. M.  Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991, ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner, STDJ 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 571–76. 20. A. Shemesh, “Rebuke, Warning and the Obligation to Testify, in Judean Desert Writings and Rabbinic Halakah,” Tarbiz 66 (1997): 149–68 [Heb.]. 21.  Idem, “Marriage and Family Laws,” in C. Werman and A. Shemesh, Revealing the Hidden: Exegesis and Halakah in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jerusalem: Bialik, 2010), 169–76 [Heb.].

348

Cana Werman

a guarantee that God, as was promised in Hosea, will “pour out rage upon them like water” in the present. We now come to unit 3. This unit replaces what I designated earlier as unit 1 in manuscript A of the Geniza copy of CD (A7:9–21). As opposed to the two previous analogies, where the past and the present/future each had its own verse (Ezekiel and Zechariah; Deuteronomy and Hosea), in the third analogy the same verses are cited as referring simultaneously to the two periods compared. In the present analogy, the First Temple period returns to the equation. The author compares the rift that occurred during the First Temple period, the split betweeb Ephraim and Judea, to the Second-Temple-period rift, the dispute between the Pharisees (Ephraim) and the priests (Judea). The author also compares the disastrous fate of the Kingdom of Ephraim to the expected disastrous fate of the Pharisees and at the same time points to the good fate of Judah in both periods. To understand these lines, we should note that the author merges a few verses and hints at others. The author alludes to the two verses from Hosea used in analogy 2: “Ephraim shall be desolate in the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Israel I make known what is sure. The lords of Judah are like those backsliders of the border; I will pour out my wrath on them like water.” These two verses are tied to Zeph 1:6, in which the root ‫ סוג‬also appears, “those who have backslid from the Lord and those who have not sought the Lord or inquired of Him” ‫ ולא דרשהו‬′‫ ואשר לא בקשו את ה‬′‫ואת הנסוגים מאחרי ה‬. The explicit citation in our passage comes from Isa 7:17, “[God shall cause to =] There shall come days upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such as have not come since the day Ephraim lorded it over / departed from Judah [the king of Assyria]” ‫ עליך ועל עמך ועל בית אביך ימים אשר‬′‫יביא ה‬ ‫ ;לא באו למיום סור אפרים מעל יהודה את מלך אשור‬and from Amos 5:26–27, “And you shall carry off Sikkut, your king, and Kiyyun, the astral-deity images you made for yourselves, as I drive you into exile beyond Damascus” ‫ונשאתם את‬ ‫ והגליתי אתכם מהלאה‬.‫סכות מלככם ואת כיון צלמיכם כוכב אלהיכם אשר עשיתם לכם‬ ‫ אלהי צבאות שמו‬′‫לדמשק אמר ה‬. 9 But (as for) those who despise when God visits the land to repay to the wicked their due, 10 when that happens which is written in the words of Isaiah, son of Amoz, the prophet, 11 who said, “There shall come days upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such as 12 [did not come/]those com-

ing since the day Ephraim ruled over / departed from Judah.” When the two houses of Israel split, 13 Ephraim lorded it over / departed from Judah, and all the backsliders were turned over to the sword. But those who held firmly (to the covenant) escaped to the land of the north, as he said, “I will expel your king’s booth 15 and the kywn of your images from my tent to Damascus.” The books of the Torah are “the booth of 16 the king,” as he said, “I will raise up the fallen booth of David, “the king,” 17 which is the assembly, and “the kywn of the im-

‫‪349‬‬

‫‪Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature‬‬

‫‪ages” are the books of the prophets 18 whose words Israel despised. And the‬‬ ‫‪“star” is the interpreter of the Torah 19 who came to Damascus, as it is written,‬‬ ‫‪“A star stepped from Jacob, and a staff arose 20 out of Israel.” “The staff ” is the‬‬ ‫‪prince of all the congregation, and when he arises, “he will destroy 21 all the sons‬‬ ‫)‪of Seth.” (CD A7:9–21‬‬ ‫וכל המואסים בפקד אל את הארץ להשיב גמול וכל המואסים בפקד אל את הארץ להשיב גמול‬ ‫רשעים עליהם‬ ‫רשעים עליהם‬ ‫‪ .1‬העונש בפסוק‪ :‬בבוא הדבר אשר כתוב‬ ‫‪ .1‬העונש בפסוק‪ :‬בבוא הדבר אשר כתוב‬ ‫בדברי ישעיה בן אמוץ הנביא אשר אמר “יבוא בדברי ישעיה בן אמוץ הנביא אשר אמר‪:‬‬ ‫עליך ועל עמך ועל בית אביך ימים אשר באו “יבוא עליך ועל עמך ועל בית אביך ימים אשר‬ ‫באו מיום סור אפרים מעל יהודה”‬ ‫מיום סור אפרים מעל יהודה”‬ ‫‪ .2‬סיכום החטא‪ :‬בהפרד שני בתי ישראל שר‬ ‫‪ .2‬סיכום החטא‪ :‬בהפרד שני בתי ישראל שר‬ ‫אפרים מעל יהודה‬ ‫אפרים מעל יהודה‬ ‫‪ .3‬סיכום העונש‪ :‬וכל הנסוגים הוסגרו לחרב‬ ‫‪ .3‬סיכום העונש‪ :‬וכל הנסוגים הוסגרו לחרב‬ ‫‪ .4‬סיכום הגמול לצדיקים‪ :‬והמחזיקים נמלטו‬ ‫‪ .4‬סיכום הגמול לצדיקים‪ :‬והמחזיקים נמלטו‬ ‫לארץ צפון‬ ‫לארץ צפון‬ ‫‪ .5‬זיהוי הגמול בפסוק נוסף‪ :‬כאשר אמר‬ ‫‪ .5‬זיהוי הגמול בפסוק נוסף‪ :‬כאשר אמר‬ ‫“והגליתי את סכות מלככם ואת כיון צלמיכם “והגליתי את סכות מלככם ואת כיון צלמיכם‬ ‫מאהלי דמשק”‬ ‫מאהלי דמשק”‬ ‫ספרי התורה הם “סוכת המלך”‬ ‫ספרי התורה הם “סוכת המלך”‬ ‫‪ .6‬אישוש הזיהוי בציטוט פסוק נוסף‪ :‬כאשר אמר ‪ .6‬אישוש הזיהוי בציטוט פסוק נוסף‪ :‬כאשר אמר‬ ‫“והקימותי את סוכת דוד הנפלת‪”. . . .‬‬ ‫“והקימותי את סוכת דוד הנפלת‪”. . . .‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬ו“כיניי הצלמים” המה ספרי הנביאים אשר ‪ .7‬ו“כיניי הצלמים” המה ספרי הנביאים אשר‬ ‫בזה ישראל את דבריהם‬ ‫בזה ישראל את דבריהם‬ ‫‪“[ .8‬כוכב אלהיכם אשר עשיתם לכם”]‬ ‫והכוכב הוא דורש התורה הבא ארץ דמשק‬ ‫‪ .9‬אישוש הזיהוי בציטוט פסוק נוסף‪ :‬כאשר היה‬ ‫כתוב “דרך כוכב מיעקב וקם שבט מישראל”‬ ‫‪ .10‬זיהוי נוסף‪ :‬השבט הוא נשיא כל העדה‬ ‫ובעמדו ו“קרקר את כל בני שית‪”.‬‬

‫‪Present / Future‬‬

‫‪Past‬‬

‫‪But (as for) those who despise when God But (as for) those who despise when God‬‬ ‫‪visits the land to repay to the wicked their visits the land to repay to the wicked their‬‬ ‫‪due:‬‬ ‫‪due:‬‬ ‫‪1. The punishment in the verse: when that‬‬ ‫‪happens which is written in the words of‬‬ ‫‪Isaiah, son of Amoz, the prophet who said‬‬ ‫‪(Isa 7:17), “There shall come days upon‬‬ ‫‪you and upon your people and upon your‬‬ ‫‪father’s house such as did (not) come/‬‬

‫‪1. The punishment in the verse: when that‬‬ ‫‪happens which is written in the words of‬‬ ‫‪Isaiah, son of Amoz, the prophet who said‬‬ ‫‪(Isa 7:17), “There shall come days upon‬‬ ‫‪you and upon your people and upon your‬‬ ‫‪father’s house such as did (not) come/‬‬

350

Cana Werman

those coming since the day Ephraim lorded it over / departed from Judah.” 2. The sin in the verse: When the two houses of Israel split, Ephraim lorded it over / departed from Judah, 3. Rephrasing the punishment: and all the backsliders were turned over to the sword. 4. Rephrasing the fate of the righteous: But those who held firmly (to the covenant) fled to the land of the north, 5. Identifying the fate of the righteous in an additional verse: as he said, “I will expel your king’s booth and the kywn of your images from my tent to Damascus” (Amos 5:26–27).   The books of the Torah are “the booth of the kings,” 6. Sustaining the identification by citation of another verse: as he said, “I will raise up the fallen booth of David” (Amos 9:11), “the king,” which is the assembly, 7. and “the kywn of the images” are the books of the prophets whose word Israel despised.

those coming since the day Ephraim lorded it over / departed from Judah.” 2. The sin in the verse: When the two houses of Israel split, Ephraim lorded it over / departed from Judah, 3. Rephrasing the punishment: and all the backsliders were turned over to the sword. 4. Rephrasing the fate of the righteous: But those who hold firmly (to the covenant) will flee to the land of the north, 5. Identifying the fate of the righteous in an additional verse: as he said, “I will expel your king’s booth and the kywn of your images from my tent to Damascus” (Amos 5:26–27).   The books of the Torah are “the booth of the kings,” 6. Sustaining the identification by citation of another verse: as he said, “I will raise up the fallen booth of David” (Amos 9:11), “the king,” which is the assembly, 7. and “the kywn of the images” are the books of the prophets whose word Israel despised. 8. And the “star” is the interpreter of the Torah who came to Damascus, 9. Sustaining the identification by citation of another verse: as it is written, “A star stepped from Jacob and a staff arose out of Israel” (Num 24:17). 10. “The staff ” is the prince of all the congregation, and when he arises, “he will destroy all the sons of Seth.

Isaiah 7 addresses Ephraim during wartime. The Northern Kingdom, with the aid of Aram, is battling to conquer the Kingdom of Judah. Like the verse from Hosea, Isa 7:17 includes the root ‫שור )שרר(\סור‬, which connotes both to “rule over” and to “depart from.” In the context of Isaiah 7, to “depart from” is the plain meaning of the root; the prophet warns Ephraim of the harsh punishment that will befall it through the king of Assyria, a punishment without precedent since the days of the split between the two kingdoms. At the same time, the meaning “rule over” cannot be ruled out: in ch. 7, Isaiah does indeed address Ephraim’s wish to rule over Judah. Accepting “rule over” as the meaning, however, leads to a different

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

351

reading of the biblical verse. The clause, “since the day Ephraim lorded it over / departed from Judah” becomes a causal rather than a temporal clause. Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom, deserves the harsh Assyrian conquest because it ruled over Judah. This reading, however, compels us to omit the negation found in the verse and to read, “There shall come days upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such as those coming since the day Ephraim ruled over Judah.” And, indeed, this is the version found in the citation in CD. The identical subject of the Isaiah and Hosea verses as well as the harsh punishment promised to Ephraim in both (rage; the king of Assyria) enable the author to insert into his words a reference to the root ‫ סוג‬found in Hosea: the title ‫“ נסוגים‬backsliders” is embedded and assigned to Ephraim. Accordingly, “Ephraim” encompasses both the past kingdom and the present-day Pharisees. Not surprisingly, the author mentions that Ephraim was “turned over to the sword” ‫וכל הנסוגים הוסגרו לחרב‬, an adequate summary of what happened to the Northern Kingdom (at least according to the biblical account) but wishful thinking regarding contemporary Ephraim. The choice of a different binyan (niphal, not hiphil) might be explained by the desire to bring to mind the verse from Zephaniah cited earlier, “And those who have backslid away from the Lord. . . .” Indeed, blame of this sort is elsewhere directed by the Qumranites toward the “people of evil” (1QS 5:11). Like the first analogy, the current analogy discusses the fate of the righteous in addition to that of the sinners. The author attempts to draw parallels between the fate of Judah in the past and Judah in the present: both went into exile. Although Isa 7:17 includes no reference to Judah’s fate, the preceding verse can be interpreted as envisioning the total abandonment of the land of Israel and hence as addressing both Ephraim and Judah: “For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of the two kings you dread shall be abandoned” ‫כי בטרם ידע הנער מאס ברע ובחר בטוב תעזב האדמה אשר אתה קץ‬ ‫מפני שני מלכיה‬. Thus we can speculate that, in claiming that Isaiah envisioned an exile, the author of CD relied on Isa 7:16. Seen in this light, the remark by the Qumran author (no. 4), “But those who held firmly (to the covenant) fled to the land of the north” ‫והמחזיקים נמלטו לארץ צפון‬, is understandable. The use made of the root ‫ מלט‬may be intended to bring to mind another verse from Isaiah, 31:5, ‫ צבאות על ירושלם גנון והציל פסח והמליט‬′‫“ כצפרים עפות כן יגן ה‬Like birds hovering overhead, so the Lord of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it, he will spare and will assist it in fleeing.” However, it is not enough to declare that the exile to Babylon was expected and was envisioned in Isaiah 7. There is also an urgent need to depict it as a dignified experience. A verse from Amos is recruited for this purpose. Amos, preaching during a period of territorial expansion, when the boundaries of the Northern Kingdom were expanding toward Damascus, mocks the Israelites.

352

Cana Werman

He predicts the departure of the Israelites from their land, carrying not weapons but idols, heading not for another victory over Damascus but to exile in a land located beyond Damascus. The author of the third analogy transforms Amos into a prophecy of desired departure in two moves. First, he makes changes to the verse itself. Amos 5:26

Citation of Amos in CD

‫ונשאתם את סכות מלככם ואת כיון צלמיכם‬ ‫והגליתי את סכות מלככם ואת כיון צלמיכם‬ ‫כוכב אלהיכם אשר עשיתם לכם והגלתי אתכם‬ ‫מאהלי דמשק‬ ‫מהלאה לדמשק‬ And you shall carry off Sikkut, your I will expel Sikkut, your king, and kywn, king, and Kiyyun, the astral-deity images the images you made for yourselves [your you made for yourselves, as I expel you astral deity] from my tent to Damascus. beyond Damascus.

a.  In the MT version, the people of Israel are carrying the foreign deities while God expels them. In the CD version, God expels the deities. (The author of the CD skips over the phrase “your astral deity” in the citation. However, he refers to the phrase later.) b.  The words “beyond (‫ )מהלאה‬Damascus” are read as “from my tent (‫—מאהלי‬that is, God’s temple in Jerusalem) to Damascus,” thus focusing the verse on Judah, not Israel. The author’s second move is to explore new meanings for the biblical terms. Sikkut, the eastern deity designated “your king” in the original verse is reconstrued as “your king’s booth.” Further, by citing another verse from Amos (9:11) where the word “booth” is mentioned in a positive context—the revival of David’s House—the author lends new meaning to the term. “Your king’s booth” is reinterpreted as the books of the Torah. In addition, the term kywn is interpreted, without obvious justification, as the books of the prophets. Thus Judah in the past was worthy of departing from God’s temple to a place of refuge, “Damascus,” carrying spiritual treasures, the books of the Torah and the books of the prophets. Similarly, present-day Judah, the Jerusalemite priests, is worthy of departing from God’s temple to a place of refuge, Damascus, carrying spiritual treasures, the books of the Torah and the books of the prophets. As in the previous two analogies, the political situation to which the author is responding offers the best explanation for his reworking of Amos and Isaiah and his allusion to other books. He needs to explain and justify the communityinitiated exile following the Pharisees’ success in gaining political power in Jerusalem. The author wishes to make clear that the opponents of the Qumran community will disappear from the scene, whereas the members of the Qumran community, now in exile, will return, like their predecessors.

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

353

A quick glance at the rest of the text in this unit reveals that the remaining references are only to the present. Citing the word “star” from Amos, which he failed to cite earlier, the author (with the aid of a citation from Numbers, “a star stepped from Jacob and a staff arose out of Israel,” ‫דרך כוכב מיעקב וקם שבט‬ ‫ )מישראל‬identifies the star as the community’s leader, the interpreter of the Torah who also arrived in “Damascus” ‫הכוכב הוא דורש התורה הבא ארץ דמשק‬. Citing the verse in Numbers enables the author to add another leader, who will arrive in the near future, as Numbers’ “staff ” to be raised out of Israel. He is identified as “the prince of all the congregation” and, when he arises, “he will destroy all the sons of Seth” ‫השבט הוא נשיא כל העדה ובעמדו וקרקר את כל‬ ‫בני שית‬. As in unit 1, the awaited revenge will be carried out, not by God, but by a glorified human being. Canon and Scriptures in Light of CD’s Three Units We now return to the question of canon and scriptures. The previous discussion, in which the exegesis of the prophetic books during the first half of the 2nd century b.c.e. was presented, enables the following observations: 1. From the first literary unit, we learn that the Jerusalemite priests perceived the books of the prophets as scriptures. They cited them not only to deduce data about the past, but also to learn from them about the future, to prove that knowledge about the coming events was at hand. From the second analogy, we learn that words of the prophets (Hosea) are equal to the words of God (via the parallel citation of Deuteronomy 32). Note that, in the first analogy, verses from the second part of Zechariah, which was probably written at the beginning of the Hellenistic era, are used. It seems to me that this is a sign that the process of canonization had already begun before the Hellenistic conquest. The fact that about 100 years after its composition this later part of Zechariah (chs. 9–14) is regarded as authoritative and sacred in that it foretells the future indicates that there was an existing group of books that were regarded as authoritative and reliable. 2. From the third analogy, there emerges an acknowledgment that, while exiling themselves from the temple, the Qumran community’s members took with them both the book of the Torah and the books of the prophets. It is hard to tell whether we are witnessing in this statement an echo of real events—perhaps an indication of a looting of the temple library at the time of departure. It might also be interpreted as a theological statement, that is, despite leaving the temple, the exiled group has a way to communicate with God as he is found in his holy books: the Torah and the prophets. 22 There is no need for us to determine which option is more likely, since both explanations express a belief in a 22.  Compare with Carr, who sees it as a record of a historical event: D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 233–34.

354

Cana Werman

canon. The books of the Torah and the books of the prophets were regarded as essential to the self-definition of those who removed themselves. 3. Unit 3 is important from another perspective. A comparison between this unit and the continuous pesherim reveals that, despite promoting a sectarian assessment of mid-2nd-century b.c.e. events, the third unit’s author is trying to appeal to a broader audience. a.  While in the first analogy the author expects the coming of one Messiah, the Messiah of Aaron and Israel, the third analogy expresses a belief in dual leadership at the end of days: ‫ דורש התורה‬as well as ‫נשיא‬ ‫כל העדה‬. The inclusion of a representative of the House of David is a compromise that the priests were obliged to agree to while coping with the emergence of the Pharisees. 23 b.  While in the pesherim the verses cited overtly are from one prophet only, and the biblical verses from other books are integrated and hinted at without explicit reference, 24 in the third analogy the author presents all of his exegetical moves to the reader (note the comments “as it is written” and “as he says” inserted before the citation from Amos to prove the exegesis that the author is offering). We should assume, therefore, that the author had outside groups in mind when he created this unit. The clear conclusion is that the author assumed that these outside groups shared his belief in the scriptures and the canon. 4. Moreover, despite the status of the scriptures, the authors dare to effect changes in the prophetic verses that they cite (see, for example, the above discussions of Isaiah and Amos in the third unit). What were the authors thinking while manipulating the verses for their theological needs? Here, unit 2 is telling. The author of the second unit operates on two levels: on the surface, he is citing the known version; on the hidden level, he refers to the new version(s) he is creating, which is (are) the new nominal sentences made out of the construct phrase found in the biblical verse. We can assume that the author of the third unit also operated on two levels but in a reverse way: in the background is the known, accepted wording; in the foreground are his paraphrases and the exegesis that rely on them. Two levels are also evident in the double reading ‫ שרי‬and ‫סרי‬: here, one word denotes two meanings. Indeed, these detected exegetical devices display great similarities with parts of the exegetical process that we find in the pesherim. 23.  Thus, although there is only one eschatological leader in the Aramaic Levi, and he is from the seed of Levi, in later writings we find two. See C. Werman, “Eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World, ed. M. Kister et al. (Jerusalem: Yad ben Zvi, 2009), 529–49 [Heb.]. 24.  For this, see B. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judea (1QpHab) (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1986), 61–78 [Heb.].

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

355

5. We should reject as inaccurate the current, widely held assessment that throughout the 2nd century b.c.e. there was a significant decrease in the use of the RP genre and a gradual appearance of the commentary genre. 25 The Apocryphon of Jeremiah was current with the events referred to in units 1–2 above. Jubilees was written 40 years later, during the time that the first layer of Pesher Habakkuk was composed. 4Q390 is apparently from the beginning of the 1st century b.c.e. (the time of Pesher Isaiah?), while Pseudo-Ezekiel is from the Roman period, when Pesher Nahum (and maybe the second stratum of Pesher Habakkuk) was evolving. 26 The RP texts and the commentary genre were contemporaries, written by the same groups. The invalidation of the above assessment is also the invalidation of the conclusion drawn from it: that the canon only emerged in the 1st century b.c.e. The canon and scriptures were there long before. Canon and Scriptures: Evaluation of the Data As was noted at the outset, the above conclusion seems to be unacceptable in contemporary scholarship. Today’s scholars deny any fidelity to the Hebrew canon during the 3rd and 2nd centuries b.c.e., 27 basing their verdict on (1) the existence of the RP, which reformulated the biblical books; and (2) the fluidity of the biblical text, because the existence of the pre-SP (that is, the SP without the Samaritan additions) and the pre-LXX (the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX) are seen as competing with the proto-MT. Thus, it is necessary to reevaluate both the new and the old data. A definition of what may fall under the title RP is necessary at this point. To my mind, the list of compositions represented by this title is quite short 28 since I exclude all writings that were not composed in Hebrew. Thus, the Genesis Apocryphon (written in Aramaic), 1 Enoch and the Aramaic Levi Document (=  ALD, also written in Aramaic), Josephus’s Antiquities (written in Greek), and Pseudo-Philo (written in Latin) 29 are not included. Note that none of the above could present itself as “pentateuchal” or biblical; the use of a language other than Hebrew prevents them from being presented as scriptures. They can only be presented as authorized interpretations 25.  This assumption is stated in: A.  Lange, “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scripture in light of the Qumran Library,” in One Scripture or Many?: Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives, ed. C. Helmer and C. Landmesser (New York : Oxford University Press, 2004), 101. 26.  See: H. Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, trans. from Hebrew by D. Louvish and A. Amihay (Grand Rapids, MI; Jerusalem: Eerdmans, 2008), 151–61. 27.  For an exception, see: J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012). 28.  For a survey of previous scholarship, see: M. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96. 29.  See T. Ilan, “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome,” JSQ 16 (2009): 363–95.

356

Cana Werman

(for example, Josephus and Pseudo-Philo) or as personal notebooks written by biblical heroes that throw light on the short and obscure biblical report (for example, Genesis Apocryphon, 1 Enoch, and ALD). Accordingly, we are left with Chronicles, Jubilees, the Temple Scroll (TS), and the RP found at Qumran: 4Q158 30 and 4Q364–67. 31 To simplify the discussion, we will first examine the Pentateuch and then the other one (or two) part(s) of the Bible. The Pentateuch as Canonical What can be said about the canonical status of the Pentateuch in light of Jubilees, the TS, 4Q158 and 4Q364–67, as well as the pre-SP and the preLXX—which were present in the Qumran caves? The pre-SP and the pre-LXX will be of help here. As has been shown by biblical scholars, the creation of the five books of Moses was a long process during which generations of scribes, who were probably situated in the Jerusalem temple during the first part of the Second Temple period, combined sources 32 and then inserted, deleted, changed, and clarified the given biblical text. 33 The editing was done because the five books were considered by the scribes, or by the priestly authority whom they represented, as important and holy. In the effort to sustain the Pentateuch’s status as a canon, its final form was (1) to reflect (also) their generation’s value, law, and historical circumstance (one temple and not many) as well as (2) to be cleared of overt contradictions. In terms of time frame, biblical scholarship has come to the conclusion that, “aside from one possible level of Pentateuchal harmonization that probably cannot be more precisely located in the late Persian / early Hellenistic period (. . .) there are few demonstrably Hellenistic-period additions to the Torah, a state of affairs that probably reflects a solidifying focus during this time on the Pentateuchal Torah” (emphasis mine). 34 We have two witnesses that indicate that from an early stage the Pentateuch existed to its current full extent, the whole five books. The pre-SP represents an example of a far-reaching effort at harmonization. It was an overall effort, 30. J. M. Allegro, “158: Biblical Paraphrase: Genesis, Exodus,” in Qumrân Cave 4, I, ed. J. M. Allegro, DJD 5 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 1–6. 31. E. Tov and S. White, “363–367: 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e and 365a: 4QTemple?” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, ed. H. Attridge et al., DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 187–351, 459–63. 32. J.  Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland: World Pub. Co., 1965). For a summary, see B. Y. Schwartz, “The Torah: Its Five Books and Four Documents,” in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies, ed. Z. Talshir, The Ancient Literature of Eretz Israel and Its World (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), 1.161–226 [Heb.]. 33.  Chapman, “How the Bible Canon Began,” 29–51. 34. D. M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 344.

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

357

from Genesis to Deuteronomy, and it seems that the same can be said about the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX: the translation of the five books was made at once—or at least it had to be presented this way one or two generations later, at most. Accordingly, I can add a few proofs to the proof mentioned above that is present in Talshir’s paper regarding the high status that was accorded to the crystallized Pentateuch (the references to ‫ ספר משה‬or ′‫ תורת ה‬found in Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah): the pre-SP offers an indication of a full-range Pentateuch and points to the restraint with which it was dealt. The changes inserted into the “original”—and in this case we must assume the “original” that the pre-SP was making an effort to improve—are not too blunt when compared with the proto-MT. Thus, the amount and degree of changes that were acceptable at the time of the editing were limited. The similarity to the original is the reason that the pre-SP version could still be accepted by a community that was situated not too far from Jerusalem. Indeed, the same can be said about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Pentateuch that is reflected in the LXX, despite the fact that in this case geography could play a role: the differences between the LXX and the MT are insignificant (so insignificant that scholars seem to refer to preLXX as a different form and not a different edition). 35 We can conclude that both the LXX and the SP prove the existence of a Pentateuch that was regarded as canon and its five books as scriptures. Can the RP overturn the conclusion that we just drew? If we consider the TS and Jubilees, the answer is no. The authors of both Jubilees and the TS had to articulate their status vis-à-vis the existing and well-defined Pentateuch; hence, both present themselves as the second Torah that was given on Sinai— in addition to the more widely known and accepted Torah. As I showed a few years ago, Jubilees hints at verses in Exodus and Deuteronomy that can be interpreted as testifying that two written Torot were given on the mountain. 36 Furthermore, throughout the book, Jubilees mentions the “first Torah,” pointing to the Pentateuch. As to the TS, a few words found in the (very torn) first column of the scroll point to the epiphany in the desert as the epic situation of the composition. The author’s aim is to convince the readers that what was given on the plain of Moab was not Moses’ own invention and initiative but 35.  See the observation/question posed by Talshir: “When do various text forms cease to be text forms and become different editions? And when do different editions cease to be different editions and become different compositions? It is my view that as long as the running biblical text is the main feature of the text under consideration, while the changes, expansions, and reordering are just occasional interventions, we should indeed speak of different editions rather than different compositions”; Z. Talshir, “Textual Criticism at the Service of Literary Criticism and the Question of an Eclectic Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books, ed. H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and J. Trebolle Barrera, BETL 246 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 35. 36. C. Werman “The Torah and Teuda Engraved on the Tablets,” DSD 9 (2002): 75–103.

358

Cana Werman

part of a full message given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Thus, here too the author assumes that the audience knows and accepts the holy status of the Pentateuch, and he must operate on this basis. One more note regarding Jubilees is of importance to the current discussion. While Jubilees operates with full assent that a closed Pentateuch already exists, the author nonetheless makes use of the three biblical versions available in his days—the pre-LXX, the pre-SP, and the proto-MT. 37 Two conclusions should be drawn from this fact: (1) The three textual versions were highly regarded, at least among the priestly endeavors of the 3rd and 2nd centuries b.c.e. (2) The differences among the three did not prevent the readers from seeing the three versions as three different forms only. The discussion becomes more complicated when we turn to 4Q158 and 4Q364–67. Interestingly, the scholarly world is not steady in its evaluation of these texts. Assuming first that 4Q158 and 4Q364–67 were not pentateuchal, the volume editors Tov and White labeled the manuscripts “Rewritten Pentateuch.” Later, however, Tov changed his mind. Joining with other scholars, 38 he now argues that these manuscripts contain pentateuchal editions that were unknown before. 39 We are obliged then to begin by confronting the question of whether these manuscripts are indeed biblical scrolls or whether we witness here the circular reasoning of scholars who are eager to find fluidity in the biblical text, which would allow them to redefine the RP as biblical and, in so doing, to enlarge and enhance the phenomenon they want to pursue. 40 1. As was noted by Tov, the additions that appear in 4Q364–67 are the outcome of a hermeneutic which set the text known to us from the MT, the SP and 37. R. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 64–71. 38. M.  Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 391–99; and, in a louder voice, Ulrich, in many of his publications. Ulrich states that “RP is . . . yet a third edition [other than the MT and SP] of the Pentateuch [which] was circulating within Judaism in the late Second Temple period. It is arguable that the so-called ‘4QRP’ (4Q364–367 plus 4Q158) is mislabeled and should be seen as simply another edition of the Pentateuch” (“The Qumran Biblical Scrolls: The Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. T. H. Lim et al. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000], 76). For the use of biblical text fluidity in a broader perspective, see P. Davis, In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’, JSOTSup 148 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Ancient examples of and a reaction to the tendency expressed in Davies’s book can be found in Josephus’s Against Apion. 39. See Tov’s “apologetic explanation” for changing his mind: E.  Tov, “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, ed. M. Popović, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 73–87. 40. See also Bernstein’s important paper: M.  J. Bernstein, “What Has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch,” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49.

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

359

the LXX as the object of reflection. This important feature first brought Tov to see the manuscripts as nonbiblical. In his “textual outlook of the 1990s there was no room for major post-MT exegetical expansions among the authoritative Scripture texts.” 41 The trigger that caused him to change his mind was his work on the LXX versions of 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel (especially Daniel 4–6), where post-MT exegetical expansions do exist. 42 We should question, however, whether books from outside the Pentateuch should be used to shed light on the evolution of books included in the Pentateuch. 2. As opposed to the MT, the pre-LXX and the pre-SP, 4Q158, and 4Q364– 67 do not contain a continuous text of the Pentateuch. 43 4Q158 does not pretend to be a full copy of the Pentateuch. In other words, neither the scribe of this piece nor the readers could perceive it as intending to compete with the Pentateuch. The same can be said regarding 4Q364–67: a.  4Q365/4Q365a 44 present a reworking of pentateuchal narratives and laws in a manner similar to the reworking found in Jubilees and the TS, including many additions that have no roots in the Pentateuch (note the description of the temple found in frg. 2 ii). It is hard to imagine that any reader would consider it a pentateuchal edition. The gap is so wide that we should instead posit that we are dealing here with a new composition. b.  4Q364 does not contain remnants of Exodus or Leviticus and thus should not be considered a pentateuchal manuscript. c.  4Q366 is a manuscript in which biblical laws are rearranged (e.g., the law of Sukkot is a combination of Deuteronomy 16 and Numbers 29) or omitted (the laws of the sabbatical and jubilee years and related laws found in the first part of Leviticus 25). Furthermore, there are other lines or paragraphs that Tov and White were unable to identify. Only if we assume that the unidentified lines are pentateuchal and that the omitted laws of Leviticus 25 appeared elsewhere in the manuscript are we entitled to call 4Q366 pentateuchal. 45 However, these two assumptions are unwarranted. 41.  Tov, “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch,” 76–77. 42.  Ibid., 79. 43.  Despite the first impression; note: “The manuscripts included long stretches of text unaltered by the author of 4QPP” (Tov, ibid., 74). This first impression brought Tov to the decision to change the name from Pentateuch Paraphrase (offered by Strugnell) to RP (p. 74) and then to the decision to consider them biblical. 44. See Bernstein, “What Has Happened?” 39–40. Bernstein points out the circular reasoning that brought J. Strugnell and others to see in 4Q365a an independent composition, despite the clear evidence that 4Q365 and 4Q365a are the same manuscript. 45.  Bernstein, ibid., 40–43.

360

Cana Werman

d.  Only Leviticus 11–27 appears in 4Q367, but it is with what Bernstein calls radical displacement. 46 Here too, the gap is too wide to conclude that this is a pentateuchal edition. In short, 4Q158 and 4Q364–67 cannot be considered equivalent to the preLXX, pre-SP, or proto-MT. For an accurate answer to what they are, we need to distinguish between 4Q365/5a and the rest. As noted, 4Q365/5a goes well beyond the Pentateuch in its inclusion of material with no biblical roots. A comparison with Jubilees and the TS results in the following observations: 1. The formula ‫ אל מושה לאמור‬′‫ וידבר ה‬found on line 4 of frg. 23 indicates that the author was not claiming the same authority as in Jubilees and the TS: the above formula is unnecessary in a composition that is presented as the “words of God” from beginning to end. 2. An evaluation of the wood-offering festival that is commanded both in 4Q365 and in the TS points to a clear difference between the two. 47 In 4Q365 the festival marks the date in the late summer when the annual supply of wood was brought to the Temple, evidently without any accompanying Temple ceremony. In contrast, the material preserved in the Temple Scroll delineates a Temple ceremony, where the wood brought by the representatives of the tribes is used on the festival itself to burn the fat from the male goats offered as sin-offerings and the flesh of the burnt offerings; this account includes no instructions regarding a year’s supply of wood for the Temple. 48

4Q365 and the TS chose different biblical models for the festivals that they wanted to invent. 4Q365 formulated the festival to reflect the tabernacle dedication described in Numbers 7, while the TS formulated it to reflect the biblical Firstfruits Festival combined with the Day of Atonement. Nonetheless, there are some similarities between the two writings. Like the author of 4Q365, the author of the TS wanted his readers to think that the priests and/or the leaders of the people brought freshly cut wood to the temple each summer. Furthermore, both aimed to provide the text that was supposedly referred to in Nehemiah’s words ‫ככתוב בתורה‬. We may speculate that both intended to refute the pharisaic claim that the custom of bringing wood was an ancestral tradition. We are compelled to conclude that 4Q365 was a collection of paragraphs in which reformulated biblical material was found as well as new material that 46.  Ibid., 43–44. Segal dares to characterize it as “excerpted text of Leviticus” (Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch,” 398). 47. C. Werman, “The Wood-Offering: The Convoluted Evolution of a Halakah in Qumran and Rabbinic Law,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts, ed. E. Chazon et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 151–82. 48.  Ibid., 162.

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

361

was created by scribes or temple authorities whose wish was to elevate the biblical text to the halakic and esthetic principles that the authors found right and necessary. The absence of a claim to authority such as is known to us from Jubilees and the TS, which we expect here because of the gap between the pentateuchal Vorlage and the content of 4Q365, is explained by the scope of the current endeavor: those paragraphs or chapters were of diverse character and did not (yet?) represent a continuous text. 4Q158, 4Q364, and 4Q366–67 should be described differently. They are gatherings of paragraphs that were of interest for the authors’ hermeneutic. Support for this description may be found in a study of 4Q251 made by She­ mesh. 49 As shown by Shemesh, halakic texts found at Qumran convey a mixture of two genres: first commentary, where a clear citation is followed by an explanation, clarification, or elaboration; second rewriting, where the biblical law is paraphrased. The legal material, which should be grouped in the rewriting genre and is embedded in 4Q364 and 4Q366–67, may represent the first step in preparing the biblical laws for halakic presentation, similar to that found in 4Q251. Thus, as opposed to 4Q365, these manuscripts should be perceived as interpretation and exegesis of the (sacred) pentateuchal text. Interestingly, the freedom with which the sacred text is rephrased in 4Q251 as well as in 4Q158, 4Q364, and 4Q366–67 should remind us of the way the prophetic texts were used in CD (as well in the pesherim). Despite the canonical status of the prophets, the authors did not insist on quoting the verses from the prophetic books verbatim. Rather, they manipulated the verses for their own needs. The awareness of the fixed text gives later generations the freedom to play with it in the process of interpretation or exegesis, whether in the genre of commentary or of rewriting. Indeed, this is the claim we should make at this point: 4Q158 and 4Q364–67 assumed a fixed text of the Pentateuch that deserved exegesis and interpretation. 4Q158 and 4Q364–67 do not shake the “old” assumption that scriptures and canon were present in 3rd–2nd-century b.c.e. Judea but actually prove it. The Prophets as Canonical We turn now to the book of the prophets. We will examine whether the new data from the caves and the new critical approach indeed lead to the above statement regarding the lack of a fixed canon of scripture. At first glance, the answer is yes: in comparison with the Pentateuch, the gaps between the pre-LXX and proto-MT versions are much more noticeable both in what we call the former prophets (Samuel–Kings) and what we call the latter prophets (e.g., Jeremiah). In other words, the LXX and MT present clearly diverse editions of a few books. To make things even more complicated, another edition of Samuel has emerged from the caves, 4QSama. The 49. A. Shemesh, “4Q251: ‘Midrash Mishpatim’,” DSD 12 (2005): 280–302.

362

Cana Werman

caves show that the priests of the 3rd and 2nd century b.c.e. were familiar with three different editions of the books of Samuel. However, a second look calls for further evaluation of the claim that we witness here a “pluriformity of scriptural texts” and an “active role of successive scribes in shaping the texts they copied,” on which the lack of a fixed canon is founded. We will be aided by a few observations regarding Samuel–Kings. l. The four books of Samuel–Kings were composed during the Babylonian Exile. Later, during the Persian period, they went through an additional editing process. For our evaluation, the important fact is that there are no traces of Hellenistic influence in Samuel–Kings. 50 2. A comparison of the three editions of Samuel has brought scholars to the conclusion that the pre-LXX and proto-MT are earlier than the third edition:  51 4QSama is an effort to coat a “pre-LXX-like edition” 52 with “Nomistic Corrections.” 53 4QSama can be compared in its task and motive to the pre-SP in that it represents proof of the importance ascribed to the text that the scribes intended to “improve.” Still, even 4QSama does not carry us to the Hellenistic period. 3. Scribal errors are more frequent in Samuel–Kings than in the Pentateuch, and the transmission of these texts was carried out with less care and precision. A few of the differences between the two or three editions are the outcome of this fact. However, mistakes and small changes cannot be defined as “shaping a text” and should not fall under the rubric “pluriformity.” In short, even Samuel–Kings do not exemplify the “pluriformity of scriptural texts, the active role of successive scribes in shaping the texts they copied.” 54 50.  A new analysis dates the last layer of Kings to the Persian period and not later. See G. Darshan, “The Long Addition in LXX 1 Kings 2 (3 Kingdoms 35A–K, 46A–L) and Its Importance for the Question of the Literary History of 1 Kings 1–11,” Tarbiz 75 (2006): 37–50 [Heb.]. 51.  See, for example, A. Rofé, “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrence in 4QSama,” RevQ 54 (1989): 247–54. I accept here Talshir’s evaluation of 4QSama as a biblical edition in which late exegetical expansions are found (see Talshir, “Textual Criticism at the Service of Literary Criticism,” 43–56) and not as a different composition. Rofé is the advocate for the latter. See his latest word on the subject in A. Rofé, “A Scroll of Samuel or Midrash Samuel? The Transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem according to 4Q51,” Meghillot 5–6 (Devorah Dimant FS; 2008): 237–43 [Heb.]; idem, “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (So-Called 4QSama),” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker, VTSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 75–88. For a list of scholars who consider 4QSama to be an early, pre-MT version, see Talshir, “Textual Criticism at the Service of Literary Criticism,” 46. 52.  But see Talshir’s warning against the circular thinking that leads scholars who assume a close relationship between the pre-LXX and 4QSama to restore lacunae in 4QSama on the basis of the LXX (ibid., 51). 53.  Rofé, “The Nomistic Correction,” 247–54. 54.  See above, n. 4.

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

363

The borders and the content of the books were known in the 6th century b.c.e., and they have existed in their current form since the 4th century at the latest. The books were regarded highly, and an effort was made to preserve the two editions (in the case of “Kings”) and three editions (in the case of “Samuel”), despite their diversity. It is still justified to ask how the Qumranites regarded these texts, given that they held three different editions of “the same” book in their library. To reconstruct their attitude, Jubilees may help us. I mentioned above that the author of Jubilees, while writing the second Torah, used the proto-MT, the pre-LXX, and the pre-SP: all were considered sacred by him. The use that the author of Jubilees makes of the chronology offered by the pre-SP for the generations before the flood is significant at this point in the discussion: the divergence between the pre-SP, pre-LXX, and proto-MT in their account of the ten generations is similar to the divergence found among the three editions of Samuel. As far as we can tell, the author of Jubilees is not troubled by the three different sets of numbers, and he uses the data to his own end. 55 That the books of the prophets were considered scriptures at an early stage can be further supported by three more pieces of evidence. As mentioned at the outset, as opposed to the books of Samuel–Kings, Chronicles provides a claim of authority both for Samuel–Kings and for itself. 56 Chronicles claims that Samuel–Kings was written by “prophets” and hints that Chronicles itself was written by “prophets,” though a different set of prophets than those who wrote Samuel–Kings. This awareness of the question of authority (absent in Samuel–Kings) and the need for the status of “words of [a] prophet[s]” points to an era in which writings were being evaluated according to this criterion: what came from “prophets” was considered authoritative. The “canonized prophets” hinted at in Ben Sira offer another indication for the existence of a canon that included the prophets. Ben Sira mentions the 12 prophets as one unit (49:10)—a sign of steps taken in the 3rd century b.c.e., if not before, to assemble prophetic works, define their boundaries, and give them high value. In the same vein, the prologue to Ben Sira, written by Ben Sira’s grandson in the middle of the 2nd century b.c.e., considers the prophets to be part of the canon side by side with the Torah and “other books” of which his grandfather was knowledgeable. 57 The prologue’s “other books” evokes the third group of the Bible, Hagiographa. Prior to Mikṣat Maʿase ha-Torah, writing from the second part of the 1st century b.c.e., we do not find in the Qumran literature overt references to the 55.  See above, n. 37. 56.  Talshir, “Several Canon-Related Concepts,” 391–92. 57. S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden, CT : Archon, 1976), 29.

364

Cana Werman

triple partition of Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa. However, there is no way around the surmise that the Qumranites considered the books that are included in the Hagiographa today to be scriptures. For instance, the book of Daniel is quoted as scripture (11QMelchizedek and 4QFlorilegium); verses from the book of Psalms, the composition of which is ascribed to the spirit of God, 58 are used in the pesherim. In other words, the sectarian literature reflects the tri-part canon found in the prologue before it surfaces in one of its writings. Moreover, one of the earliest writings of the Qumran community, the War Scroll, from the third quarter of the 2nd century b.c.e., interprets Daniel 10–11, assuming it is prophecy, as words given by God, 59 while in this very same period (the third quarter of the 2nd century b.c.e.), the book of Daniel was still in the course of its own evolution. It seems that the book of Daniel forces us to reconsider the current common assumption mentioned at the beginning of this essay, because it demonstrates that fluidity does not deny or contradict sanctity. Instead of a Summary: Jubilees and Chronicles Prof. Talshir and I have devoted our time and effort to similar books: Jubilees does to Genesis and Exodus what Chronicles did to Samuel–Kings. Both books provide their readers with a claim to authority, though the claim provided by Chronicles is not nearly as overt as its Jubilean counterpart. And yet, for Chronicles, which is early, there is only one manuscript at Qumran, while Jubilees is one of the most popular writings in the caves—15 manuscripts of the book were found there. 60 There is no clear answer as to why Chronicles was not popular at Qumran. We can speculate that the book’s theology regarding rewards was rejected while the apocalyptic view of the after-death and eschaton-time rewards was adopted by the Qumranites. Maybe its removal occurred in a presectarian stage, in the Jerusalemite temple. Chronicles’ effort to close the gap between the glorious past and the authors’ present, its aim to blur the clear-cut differences between the First Temple period and the Second and to create a continuum that could sustain the hope for a smooth return to the desirable past was neither accurate nor relevant after the Hellenistic conquest. We should also remember that the 58.  ‫ כול אלה דבר בנבואה אשר נתן לו מלפני עליון‬. . . ‫ רוח נבונה ואורה ויכתוב תהילים‬′‫ויתן לו ה‬ “And God gave him (David) a discerning and enlightened spirit, and he wrote psalms. . . . All these [psalms] he spoke by prophesy which was given to him by the Most High” (11QPs 27:4, 11). 59. D. Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll,” Judaism of the Second Temple Period, vol. 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007), 140–58. 60.  Details regarding 14 are found in VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 73–77. For the 15th (4Q217), see its identification and reconstruction (made by E. Qimron and myself) in E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–13), 2.225.

Canonization of the HB in Light of Second Temple Literature

365

second part of Daniel testifies to the fact that the apocalyptic world view was welcomed by temple priestly circles in the time of Antiochus’s Decrees. We can speculate that the Qumranites never studied Chronicles and even that they were not familiar with the book. It is hard to explain their equation of the term Sons of Zadok with the term Sons of Aaron otherwise. This equation cannot be maintained if Chronicles is considered accurate: there, the name “Sons of Zadok” fits only a small group, the descendants of Zadok the priest in the time of David. Indeed, it might be suggested that the use made of “the Sons of Zadok” by the Sadducees party was a factor in Chronicles’ recovery of its status: it is the book from which the Sadducees’ name is derived. Chronicles is the only book from which the claim that the high priest came from the line of Zadok can be drawn, and the Sadducees intended to hint at this claim while struggling with the Hasmoneans’ decision to appoint themselves as high priests. 61 And while the Chronicler appears to have been a persona non grata at Qumran, it is clear that the Qumranites evaluated Jubilees as an important book, particularly as a tool to combat the Pharisees’ influence and the Hasmoneans’ positive attitude toward Hellenism. Contrary to Chronicles, Jubilees makes an effort to deepen the abyss between the First and the Second Temple periods. In the author’s view, God had exiled himself from his people from the end of the First Temple period up to the author’s era. Because of their sins, the people of Israel are under the influence of the angel of Mastema. Only a change of heart, to be initiated by God, can alter the course of history. It is then that God will reside on earth in the temple to be built by him (1:22–25; 29). But it is then that the book of Jubilees, as well as the other compositions written by the Qumran community, will no longer be needed. Jubilees’ importance is temporal, and herein lies the difference between canonical and extracanonical compositions: at the end of days, only the original canon will be valid. 61. C. Werman, “The Sons of Zadok and the Sons of Aaron,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: 50 Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997, ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Museum, 2000), 623–30.

Index of Authors Abel, F. M.  79 Achenbach, R.  113, 114, 117, 124 Ackroyd, P. R.  30, 69 Adriaen, M.  215 Aejmelaeus, A.  103, 239, 264, 265 Agelli, A.  108 Aharoni, Y.  72 Aḥituv, S.  68, 70, 70 Aland, K.  331 Albeck, H.  104 Albertz, R.  126, 152, 197, 200 Allegro, J. M.  356 Allen, L.  199 Amama, S.  55 Amara, D.  128, 130, 143, 147, 129, 147 Amit, Y.  113 Andersen, F. I.  84 Aquila  3, 14, 15, 98 Aristotle 286 Assaf, S.  219 Assis, E.  190 Auld, G.  270, 271 Ávalos, H.  24 Avigad, N.  65, 79 Avinery, I.  217 Avioz, M.  64 Baden, J. S.  117, 124 Bähr, K.  55 Baillet, M.  79 Ball, C. J.  128, 129 Bar-On, S.  119 Barr, J.  111, 206, 111, 216 Barré, M. L.  205 Barth, C.  202 Barthélemy, A.  202 Barthélemy, D.  13, 55, 56, 59, 96 Barton, J.  268, 269, 281, 294 Baumgartner, J.  108

Baumgartner, W.  75 Bautch, R. J.  199 Becker, J.  325, 328, 330, 332 Beentjes, P. C.  108, 111 Beer, G.  118 Bell, R. H.  325, 326, 327, 328 Ben-David, E.  213 Ben-Dov, J.  143 Ben Ḥayyim, J.  300 Ben-Ḥayyim, Z.  4, 5, 120, 121, 206, 217, 221, 222 Ben-Yehuda, E.  206, 211 Benzinger, I.  54 Berger, K.  316 Berlin, A.  105, 174, 175, 183 Bernstein, M.  298, 355, 358, 359, 360 Bickerman, E.  261, 262 Billen, A. V.  18 Biram, A.  65 Blank, S. H.  179 Blasius, A.  257 Blau, J.  204, 205, 213 Blenkinsopp, J.  124, 199 Block, D. I.  95, 96, 179 Bloedhorn, H.  10, 11 Bludau, A.  126, 128, 150 Blum, E.  82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92 Boda, M. J.  189 Bodenheimer, F. S.  105 Bodenmann, R.  19 Bogaert, P.-M.  18, 21, 167 Bons, E.  173 Borges, J. L.  302 Born, A. van der  70, 74 Braulik, G.  120 Brenton, L. C. L.  107, 110 Bresciani, E.  77 Brock, S.  2, 6 Brockelmann, C.  87

367

368

Index of Authors

Brooke, A. E.  71, 218 Broshi, M.  343 Brüll, N.  128, 129 Bryce, G. E.  109, 252 Buck, A. de  252 Buhl, F.  63 Bühler, K.  175 Buis, P.  54 Burkitt, F. C.  19, 20 Burney, C. F.  54, 73 Busto Saiz, J. R.  71, 79 Campenhausen, H. von  329 Cappel, L.  299, 300 Carr, D. M.  114, 272, 275, 304, 305, 308, 353, 356 Cassuto, U.  65, 212 Ceulemans, R.  3 Chadwick, H.  322 Chapman, S. B.  338, 356 Charles, R. H.  52, 155, 172 Charlesworth, J. H.  256 Chavel, S.  117, 119 Childs, B. S.  67, 325, 329, 331 Clines, D. J. A.  87, 199, 218 Cogan, M.  54, 70, 78, 192 Cohen, D.  30 Collins, J. J.  125, 129, 131, 133, 137, 146, 150, 151, 162, 266 Cook, J.  103, 104, 107, 110 Cornill, C. H.  95, 96 Coseriu, E.  186 Coupland, N.  225 Crawford, S. W.  297, 298, 299 see also White, S. Crenshaw, J. L.  308, 317, 318, 320 Cross, F. M.  20, 70, 71, 265, 274 Crown, A. D.  2 Cruse, A.  176 Cyprian  19, 20 Dahood, M.  96 Danby, H.  220 Daniels, D. R.  82 Darshan, G.  362 Dathe, J. A.  54 Daubney, W. H.  126, 128, 133

Davidson, I.  219 Davies, P.  314, 315 Davies, W. T.  128 Davis, P.  358 Dayagi-Mendels, M.  65 Dearman, J. A.  69 De Bruyne, D.  19 Deines, R.  303, 304, 308, 314, 318, 319, 321, 323, 325, 327, 328 Deissmann, A.  322 Delitzsch, F.  106 De Vries, S. J.  54, 190 Dick, M. B.  112 Diessel, H.  175 Dieu, L.  19, 20 Di Lella, A. A.  106, 126, 152 Dillard, R. B.  191 Dillmann, A.  69 Dimant, D.  249, 254, 255, 256 Doering, L.  328, 329 Dorival, G.  259 Dozeman, T. B.  90, 92 Dozy, R.  202 Driver, G. R.  96 Driver, S. R.  20, 30, 65, 20, 30, 79, 224 Duggan, M. W.  199 Edmondson, W.  227, 228 Eggert, P.  292 Ego, B.  306, 319 Ehrlich, A. B.  55, 55, 174, 177, 178, 180 Eichhorn, J. G.  1, 127, 128 Eissfeldt, O.  69 Elizur, B.  311 Elliger, K.  67 Endres, J. C.  190 Engel, H.  128 Epiphanius  8, 13 Erichsen, V.  252 Erman, A.  252 Eshel, E.  310, 343, 355 Eskenazi, T. C.  199 Eusebius  3, 79 Evans, C. A.  329 Ewald, G. H. A. von  96

Index of Authors Fassberg, S. E.  207, 213 Faulkner, R. O.  253 Fernández Marcos, N.  2, 6, 9, 71, 79 Fiedrowicz, M.  321, 322 Field, F.  2, 4, 6 Fillmore, C. J.  176 Finke, R.  316 Fischer, B.  20 Fishbane, M.  319 Flannery, F.  316 Florentin, M.  4, 7, 11 Flusser, D.  364 Fohrer, G.  190, 253 Forti, T.  103, 106, 107, 109, 110 Foster, P.  333 Foucault, M.  283, 302 Fox, M. V.  103, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111 Fraenkel, D.  6 Freedman, D. N.  84 Frey, J.  325 Fritz, V.  54 Fritzsche, O. F.  127, 128 Fuller, R.  175 Furaiḥa, A.  202 Gabler, H.  292 Galling, K.  118 Ganzel, T.  178 Gaon, S.  14 García Martínez, F.  218 Garsiel, M.  189, 190 Gaster, M.  12, 13, 128 Gehman, H. S.  54 Geiger, A.  5, 6, 8, 12, 12, 13 Geissen, A.  19 Gelston, A.  181 Gemser, B.  106, 251 Genesius, W.  11 Gerleman, G.  107, 110 Gesenius, W.  1 Ginsberg, H. L.  65, 221 Ginsburg, C. D.  63, 300 Giqatilla, M.  208 Glatt-Gilad, D. A.  197 Glaue, P.  9, 10, 12 Glazier-McDonald, B.  179, 180

369

Goeje, M. J. de  224 Golan, D.  144 Goldman, L.  342, 345 Goldstein, R.  78, 79 Good, E. M.  206 Goodman, N.  284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 291, 299 Gordon, C. H.  64 Gordon, R. P.  177, 223 Grabbe, L. L.  199 Graham, M. P.  191, 192 Grapow, H.  252 Gray, G. B.  124 Gray, J.  54 Green, J.  63 Greenberg, M.  73, 75, 95, 106 Greenfield, J. C.  204 Greenspoon, L. J.  152 Greg, W. W.  287 Grelot, P.  152, 155, 161, 172 Gressman, H.  251 Grimes, J. E.  225 Grintz, Y. M.  133 Grossfeld, B.  179 Grotius 133 Gurtner, D.  256 Gwynn, J.  125 Haacker, K.  333 Haar Romeny, R. B. ter  3 HaCohen, M.  208 Hadjiev, T. S.  313 Haelewyck, J.-C.  19 Hagner, D. A.  333 Halpern, B.  193 Hamilton, G. J.  65 Hamonville, D. M. d’  103, 107, 108, 110 Hanson, P. D.  98 Haran, M.  114, 118, 119, 120, 124, 295 Harl, M.  104, 259 Harnack, A. von  331, 332 Harper, W. R.  261 Hartman, L. F.  152 Harviainen, T.  215 Haupert, R. S.  20 Hauspie, K.  98

370

Index of Authors

Hays, R. B.  328 Heckel, U.  330, 333 Heininger, B.  325 Heliodorus 98 Helmer, C.  304, 309 Hendel, R. S.  38, 41, 44, 49, 52, 283, 287, 295, 296, 301, 283 Hengel, M.  323, 325 Hentschel, G.  32 Hesichius 34 Hestrin, R.  65 Hill, A. E.  179 Hirschig, G. A.  98 Hoffmann, D.  120, 121 Holladay, W. I.  98 Holmes, S.  75 Holtz, T.  327, 328 Holzinger, H.  118 Horovitz, H. S.  74 Houtman, C.  77 Huang, Y.  224 Huehnergard, J.  219 Humbert, P.  253 Hüneburg, M.  324 Hurowitz, V. A.  251 Hurtado, L. W.  316 Hurvitz, A.  295 Hutchby, I.  227 Hyrcanus, J.  13, 15 Ibn Ezra  180, 182, 183, 208 Ignatius 332 Ilan, T.  355 Jackendoff, R.  176, 177 Jäger, J. G.  108, 110 Jahn, G.  96, 125 Japhet, S.  193, 195, 196, 200 Jastrow, M.  106 Jaworski, A.  225 Jeremias, J.  86, 87, 88, 89, 305, 307, 308, 309, 313, 318, 320 Jerome  3, 5, 21, 34, 35, 59, 74, 125, 149, 215, 216, 221 Johnstone, W.  113 Jones, G. H.  22 Jong, M. J. de  307

Joosten, J.  1, 5, 107, 184, 185, 202, 222, 265, 266 Josephus  15, 18, 28, 165, 355, 356, 358 Joüon, P.  123, 183, 215 Joyce, J.  285, 291, 292 Justin 19 Kadari, M. Z.  182, 183, 205, 209, 211, 213 Kamil, M.  77 Kant, I.  284, 285, 288, 289, 291, 299, 301 Kara, J.  55 Karl, Z.  259 Karrer, M.  22 Kartveit, M.  1, 1–16 Kaswalder, P. A.  71 Kaufmann, Y.  251 Keil, C. F.  55 Kellermann, U.  199 Kim, S.  325 Kislev, I.  114 Kister, M.  249, 250, 256, 342, 347 Kittel, R.  54, 69 Klein, M. L.  176, 179, 184, 185, 187 Klein, R. W.  22, 191, 199 Klostermann, A.  54 Knauf, E. A.  91, 92 Knohl, I.  311 Knoppers, G. N.  189, 190, 271 Koch, D.-A.  328 Koch, K.  127, 129, 133 Koch, P.  186 Kohn, S.  4, 6, 8, 12, 13 Kooij, G. van der  13, 310, 319 Kooten, G. H. van  329 Kottsieper, I.  203 Kraft, R.  337 Kratz, R. G.  114 Kraus, W.  22 Kruger, M. J.  321, 322, 324, 327, 329, 330, 332, 333 Kuenen, A.  65, 124 Kühner, R.  224, 240 Kutscher, E. Y.  215, 216, 217, 219 Lactantius  58, 59, 60

Index of Authors Lagarde, P. A. de  23, 34, 108, 110 Lambert, M.  213 Landsberger, B.  105 Lane, E. W.  202, 203, 206 Lange, A.  276, 355 Langlois, M.  53 Lanick, T.  199 Laplanche, F.  299 Le Déaut, R.  58 Lefebvre, G.  252 Lehmann, H.  3 Leibowitz, N.  240 Leiman, S. Z.  363 Lemaire, A.  205 Levi 236 Levin, C.  121, 124 Levin, Y.  72 Levine, B. A.  123, 124 Levinson, B. M.  76, 120, 121, 307, 308, 319 Levinson, S. C.  175, 176 Lichtheim, M.  251 Liddicoat, A. J.  227 Lietzmann, H.  323 Lifshitz, B.  236 Lim, T. H.  52, 295, 298 Lindars, B.  69 Lindemann, A.  331 Lipiński, E.  305 Loewenstamm, S. E.  70, 75, 203, 205, 206, 213 Lohfink, N.  120, 124 Longacre, R.  224, 225, 226 Longman, T., III  106 Loprieno, A.  257 Lucian  20, 22, 34 Lust, J.  99 Lux, R.  206 Luzzatto, S. D.  67, 184 Lyons, J.  176 Macuch, R.  13 Maisler (Mazar), B.  70 Marcovich, M.  322 Markon, I. D.  180 Marquis, G.  244, 260 Marti, K.  82

371

McCarter, P. K., Jr.  273 McCarthy, C.  63, 64, 174, 181 McClay, T.  135 McConville, J. G.  199 McDonald, L. M.  318 McKane, W.  175, 251, 313 McKenzie, S. L.  271 McLaverty, J.  285 McLay, T.  126, 129, 146, 147, 126, 150, 155, 163 McLean, N.  218 Meade, D. G.  324 Meshel, Z.  310 Mettinger, T. N. D.  184 Metzger, B.  127 Mey, J. L.  226 Mezzacasa, G.  108 Milgrom, J.  116, 123 Milik, J. T.  79 Milikowsky, C.  339 Millard, A. R.  69 Miller, C. L.  227 Mittmann, S.  120 Mizrahi, N.  207 Montfaucon, B. de  2, 8, 13 Montgomery, J. A.  22, 54, 125, 126, 150, 162 Moore, C. A.  126, 128, 129 Morag, S.  222 Moreno, A.  21 Morinus, P.  2 Mosis 191 Mulder, M. J.  54 Munnich, O.  3, 127, 147, 150, 151, 152, 155, 159, 161, 162, 167, 161 Muraoka, T.  99, 108, 123, 178, 183 Muratori 332 Murphy, R. E.  251 Naʾaman, N.  79 Naeh, S.  107 Nahmanides 240 Najman, H.  298 Nestle, E.  63, 65, 66, 78 Newsom, C.  207, 218 Nicholson, E.  114 Nickelsburg, G. W. E.  254, 255

372

Index of Authors

Nicklas, T.  324, 326, 330 Niebuhr, K.-W.  325, 328 Nihan, C.  114, 121 Nissinen, M.  307, 316 Nitzan, B.  354 Nobilius, F.  2 Norton, D.  288 Noth, M.  54, 81, 115, 116, 118 Notley, R. S.  79 Noy, D.  10, 11 Ochs, C.  303 Odell, M. S.  100 Oesterley, W. O. E.  126, 129 Ogden, G. S.  109 Olmo Lete, G. del  204 Olofsson, S.  259 Olyan, S. M.  203 Oppert, J.  52 Origen  2, 3, 8, 13, 17, 18, 34, 127, 128, 149, 152, 321, 322 Otto, E.  120, 121, 122, 243 Overbeck, F.  322 Pakkala, J.  199 Panayotov, A.  10, 11 Parker, S. B.  206 Parry, D. W.  265, 276 Payne Smith, R.  218 Peirce, C.  284, 288, 289, 299 Perles, F.  84 Perlitt, L.  67 Person, R. F.  227 Petersen, J. E.  124 Pietersma, A.  104 Piquer Otero, A.  17, 22, 23 Pisano, S.  72 Plöger, O.  127 Pokorný, P.  333 Polak, F. H.  223, 227, 228, 231, 243, 244, 247 Pope, M. H.  251 Porter, S. E.  329 Pozen, R. B.  183, 185 Pseudo-Philo  41, 355, 356 Puech, É.  38, 52 Pummer, R.  2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 15

Purvis, J. D.  1 Pury, A. de  87 Qimḥi  179, 180, 182, 183, 208 Qimron, E.  218, 311, 364 Quine, W. V.  289, 291 Qumsi, D. al-  180 Quodvultdeus 19 Rabin, I. A.  74 Rabinow, P.  283 Rad, G. von  81 Radak 55 Rahlfs, A.  9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29 Rappaport, U.  79 Rashbam  67, 207 Rashban (R. Shmuel bar Nahman)  236 Rashi  55, 76, 106, 208, 261, 262 Ratzaby Golub, M.  68 Reckendorf, H.  224 Redditt, P. L.  199 Regt, L. J. de  224, 225 Rehm, M.  32, 54 Renz, J.  312 Richards, E. R.  332, 334 Riede, P.  313 Riesner, R.  325 Riessler, P.  125 Rietz, H. W. L.  256 Robert, J.  58 Röcker, F. W.  333 Rodwell, J. M.  223 Rofé, A.  67, 78, 113, 138, 143, 68, 70, 71, 75, 78, 362 Römer, T. C.  113, 114, 116, 117, 270 Roth, M. T.  224 Rothstein, J. W.  129 Rudolph, W.  82, 84, 86, 179, 180, 182, 183, 185, 243 Runge, S. E.  225 Ruprecht, E.  32 Safrai, Z.  79 Saley, R.  265 Salvesen, A.  3, 13 Šanda, A.  54

Index of Authors Sanders, J. A.  329 Sanmartín, J.  204 Sarna, N. M.  209 Sayce, A. H.  52 Schaper, J.  120, 121, 305 Schenker, A.  2, 14 Schiffrin, D.  225 Schipper, B. U.  257 Schleusner, J. F.  96, 98 Schleussner 110 Schmitt, A.  126 Schmitt, H. C.  32 Schnelle, U.  326, 328, 332 Schniedewind, W. M.  305 Schorch, S.  4, 13 Schwally, F.  54 Schwartz, B. J.  114, 117, 118 Schwartz, D. R.  343, 346, 356 Schweitzer, S. J.  272 Schwemer, A. M.  326 Scott, R. B. Y.  251 Seeligmann, I. L.  63, 66, 67, 69, 78 Segal, M.  152, 162, 164, 167, 297, 358, 360 Segev, Y.  63, 72 Seidl, M.  75 Seow, C.-L.  54, 310, 312 Shantz, C.  316 Sharvit, S.  219 Shehadeh, H.  15 Shemesh, A.  347, 361 Shillingsburg, P. L.  285 Shipley, G.  144 Shupak, N.  251, 252 Sivan, D.  203, 204, 216 Skehan, P. W.  108 Skinner, J.  38 Smith, M. S.  66 Smith, W. R.  224 Soden, W. von  224 Sokoloff, M.  218 Sommer, B. D.  76, 184 Sperber, A.  108, 181 Spicq, C.  97 Stade, B.  54 Stanley, C. D.  328, 329 Stark, R.  306, 308, 316

373

Steiner, R.  222 Steins, G.  198, 200 Stone, M. E.  254 Strugnell, J.  359 Swete, H.  1 Symmachus  3, 8, 13, 78, 96, 98, 99 Tadmor, H.  70, 78 Tal, A.  2, 4, 7, 11, 13 Talmon, S.  76, 206 Talshir, D.  107, 152, 163 Talshir, Z.  103, 128, 130, 149, 150, 152, 164, 172, 173, 263, 271, 283, 337, 173, 337, 163, 357, 362 Tanselle, G. T.  294 Tauberschmidt, G.  110 Taves, A.  316 Tawil, H.  121 Tcherikover, V. A.  346 Tertulian 19 Thackeray, H. St. J.  99, 103, 218 Thenius, O.  54, 63 Theodor, J.  104 Theodoret of Cyrus  58 Theodotion  3, 14, 15, 96, 125, 126, 130, 134, 137, 145, 147, 149, 150, 152 Throntveit, M. A.  191 Tiemeyer, L. S.  179 Tigay, J. H.  68 Tigchelaar, E. J. C.  218 Toorn, K. van der  272, 273, 305, 310, 312, 313, 314, 315, 319, 320 Torijano, P.  22, 27 Torrey, C. C.  129 Tov, E.  1, 9, 10, 11, 18, 21, 28, 37, 38, 51, 52, 63, 103, 104, 112, 259, 264, 265, 283, 296, 297, 298, 299, 259, 297, 300, 358, 359 Trebolle Barrera, J.  18, 21, 22, 23 Tristram, H. B.  105 Trobisch, D.  331 Tropper, J.  84, 204 Troxel, R. L.  267 Tsevat, M.  30, 65 Tsumura, D. T.  120 Twelftree, G. H.  326

374

Index of Authors

Ulrich, E.  18, 19, 21, 44, 167, 265, 266, 283, 294, 295, 297, 300, 18, 358 Utzschneider, H.  178 Vandelanotte, L.  177, 178 VanderKam, J. C.  52, 254, 255, 255, 355 Van Leeuwen, R. C.  109 Van Seters, J.  273 Vaux, R. de  54, 79 Veltry, G.  260 Vercellone, C.  20, 21 Vianès, L.  180, 182, 185 Victorinus of Pettau  19 Volz, P.  243 Wace, H.  125, 129 Walcholder, B. Z.  52 Wallace, C. V.  213 Waltke, B. K.  105 Wasserstein, A.  260, 262 Wasserstein, D. J.  260, 262 Wasserstein, J.  2 Watson, F.  324 Wattebled (Vatablus)  55 Watts, P.  303 Weigold, M.  276 Weinfeld, M.  305 Weippert, H.  305, 310 Weisman, Z.  68 Weiss, R.  75 Weissert, D.  215 Wellhausen, J.  20, 63, 65, 223, 224, 265, 223 Wenham, G. J.  38, 41 Werline, R. A.  316 Werman, C.  343, 347, 354, 357, 360, 364, 365 Wetzel, L.  291, 292 Wevers, J. W.  6, 11, 95 Weyde, K. W.  174, 178, 179, 181 White, S.  298, 356, 358, 359 see also Crawford, S. W.

Whitlock, J.  328 Whitman, W.  292, 293, 300, 301 Wildberger, H.  31 Williamson, H. G. M.  190, 191, 195, 199, 200, 271, 274, 301, 302 Wills, L. M.  131, 141 Wilsmore, S.  286, 287 Wilson, R. R.  306, 308 Wirth, R.  264 Wolff, H. W.  83, 84, 87, 88 Wollheim, R.  284, 289, 290, 299 Wolterstorff, N.  287 Wooffitt, R.  227 Woolf, V.  287 Woude, A. S. van der  218 Wright, B. G., III  266 Wright, J. L.  199 Wright, N. T.  324 Wright, W.  224 Würthwein, E.  32, 54, 74 Yadin, Y.  79 Yardeni, A.  311 Yaron, R.  224 Yeivin, I.  209 Yoel, I.  219 Yuditsky, A.  213, 215, 311 Zahn, M. M.  269, 297, 298, 338, 339 Zakovitch, Y.  49, 72 Zalewski, S.  190 Zatelli, I.  178 Zenger, E.  308, 309, 313 Zevit, Z.  71, 308, 310, 311, 318 Ziegfried, C.  215 Ziegler, J.  127, 150, 155 Zimmerli, W.  96 Zimmermann, F.  128 Zipor, M. A.  52, 175, 181, 259 Zökler, O.  127, 128 Zuntz, G.  331

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible

Genesis 1:1  259, 260, 261 1:3 304 1:7 244 2:4  296, 297 3:1 242 3:9–17 235 3:11 230 3:12 230 3:13 230 3:16 106 4:8 2 4:9 241 4:10 243 4:12 209 4:21 99 5  37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52 5:1 296 5:1–32  37, 38 5:8 49 5:11 49 5:14 49 5:17 49 5:20 49 5:25 5 5:26 5 5:27 49 5:31 49 5:32  38, 40, 48 7:6  40, 48 7:11 52 8:14 52 8:22 205 9:28 40 9:29  40, 49

Genesis (cont.) 11  37, 41, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52 11:10 48 11:10–32 37 11:11 49 11:13  48, 49, 51 11:15 49 11:17 49 11:19 49 11:21 49 11:23 49 11:25 49 11:31 49 11:32  48, 49 12:1 304 12:4 49 12:7 237 12:11 237 14:5 214 15:1 304 15:6 237 15:8 238 16:16 48 18:1 239 18:5  54, 226 18:9  226, 241 18:10 226 18:13 226 18:15 226 18:23–32 231 19:33 238 21:5  38, 48 21:28 212 21:29–30 212 21:30 238

375

Genesis (cont.) 22:1 241 22:7 241 23 231 24:18 241 24:56 241 24:57 241 24:58 241 24:65 241 25:7 48 25:26 237 25:27 86 25:29  229, 239 25:29–34 229 25:30 229 25:31 230 25:33 230 25:34 230 27:6–18 231 27:18 241 27:20 241 27:32 241 28:19 237 29:4–6 241 29:7 237 29:8 241 29:12 244 29:23 237 29:25 237 29:33 237 30 86 30:3 237 30:23 237 30:29 237 30:37 237 31:1 237

376

Index of Ancient Sources

Genesis (cont.) 31:26–31 231 31:31 242 31:34–35 235 31:36 242 31:44–54 87 31:46–52 37 31:43–48 231 32:9 237 32:27 241 32:28 241 32:29 83 33:1  234, 237 33:1–15 240 33:9 234 33:10 234 33:15  234, 240 34:31 241 35:8 237 35:9 243 35:29 244 36:12 278 37:3 12 37:3–4 11 37:8–9 11 37:16 241 38:11–22 235 38:16 237 38:16–18 241 38:17–18 241 38:29 241 39:8 241 39:11  236, 242 40:8  171, 241 40:17 56 41:17 231 41:33 244 42:1  244, 245 42:3 246 42:4  244, 246 42:7 241 42:10 241 42:13 241 42:14–17 244 42:17 244 42:18  242, 244

Genesis (cont.) 42:24 236 42:38 241 43:11 209 43:17 244 43:18 97 43:28 241 43:29 236 44:1 236 44:5  2, 4 44:7 241 44:10 241 44:15 2 44:17 236 46:2 241 46:17 72 46:21 65 46:28 3 46:29 239 47:3 241 47:22 236 47:30 241 48:7 209 48:9 237 48:17 236 49:18 226 49:23 5 49:27 107 50:19  4, 6 Exodus 2:2 245 2:8 241 2:10 225 2:14 241 2:18 241 2:19 241 2:20 241 2:22 237 3:1–12 67 3:2 67 3:3 67 3:4  67, 241, 304 3:12 67 3:22 5 4:2 241

Exodus (cont.) 4:13 237 5:9 111 8:6 241 8:14 9 10:6 237 10:18 237 11:8 237 12:42  5, 8 12:43–49 119 12:43–50 119 12:50 119 13:14–15 245 13:19 236 14:15 8 14:20  4, 6 15:2  203, 205, 206 15:24 11 15:25  237, 242 16:23 237 17:6 68 18:11 97 19:17 309 20:1–20 304 20:8–11 75 20:13 288 20:18–22 309 20:19–23:33 119 21–23 77 21:14 97 23:12–19 75 23:13  74, 75, 76 24:4 237 24:12 226 24:13 226 25:22 118 26:5  6, 9 26:12 72 26:13 72 28:4 9 29:42–43 118 32 92 32–33 231 32:7 231 32:18  4, 5 33:6 68

377

Index of Ancient Sources Exodus (cont.) 34:4 237 34:10–26 119 34:28 237 34:29 115 34:29–33 118 34:29–35 118 34:31–33 245 34:32 309 34:34–35  118, 119 35:1 309 35:4 119 35:29 115 36–40 18 38:26 5 Leviticus 2 126 4:5 7 7:38 117 8:5 119 8:9 9 8:12 237 8:14 237 8:16 237 8:18 237 8:19 237 8:22 237 8:24 237 8:28 237 8:36 115 9:2 237 9:23–24 194 10:11 115 10:12 231 10:16 237 10:19 231 11–27 360 11:22 7 13:8 5 13:51 4 13:52 4 14:15–16 245 14:24 245 14:34 123 15:15 298

Leviticus (cont.) 15:18 220 16:26 7 16:34 119 18:13 298 19 298 19:23 123 19:25 7 21:9 179 21:24 119 23;10 123 23:44 119 24:2 298 24:6 178 24:23 119 25 359 25:3–4 203 25:5 5 25:25 8 26:6 89 26:16 111 26:41 8 26:43 8 26:46  115, 116, 117, 122 27:34  116, 117, 122 Numbers 1:1–10:28 117 4 298 4:25  6, 8 4:37 115 4:45 115 4:49 115 5:4 119 6:22 11 6:22–27 10 6:27 11 7  298, 360 7:89 118 8:3 119 8:20 119 9:4 119 9:23 115 10:12 117 10:13 115

Numbers (cont.) 11–32 121 12:1 237 12:2 11 13:23 203 15:2 123 15:18 123 15:23 115 15:36 119 17:4 119 17:5 115 20:2 115 20:20 241 20:27–28 245 21:2 115 21:8 115 22:1  115, 117, 122 22:5 239 22:9 115 22:20 241 22:23 245 22:25 246 23:1 5 23:2  226, 245 23:4 226 24:17 350 25  90, 91, 92 26:3  115, 122 26:38 65 26:46 72 26:63  115, 122 27:6–7 119 27:23 115 28–29 124 28–30 124 29 359 29:35 9 30 124 30:1 119 30:14–15 245 31:4 119 31:12  115, 122 31:16 6 31:18 9 32 70 32:3 70

378

Index of Ancient Sources

Numbers (cont.) 32:29 4 32:31 4 32:37 214 32:38 69 33–36 121 33:1 115 33:48  115, 122 33:48–49 122 33:49  115, 122 33:50  115, 122 33:50–56 122 33:50–36:13 117 33:51 123 34:1–2 123 34:13 119 34:15 115 35:1  115, 122 35:1–8 122 35:9–10 123 36:5 119 36:13  115, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122

Deuteronomy (cont.) 13:1–5 317 16 359 18:15–22 317 18:16 67 25:17 278 25:19 278 26:19 56 27:2–3 310 27:4  4, 9, 10 27:8 120 27:26 4 28:1 56 28:65 111 28:69  67, 122 29:1–2 309 29:23 9 31:23 237 31:24–25 245 32 353 32:33  344, 345, 346 32:39 277 32:49 122 32:88 344 33:2 67 34:1 115 34:5 122 34:6  71, 122 34:8 115

Deuteronomy 1–3 121 1–30 67 1:1  122, 309 1:1–5 122 1:2 67 1:5  120, 121, 122 1:6 67 1:19 67 3:29 71 4:2 266 4:3 71 4:10 67 4:15 67 4:44 309 4:46 71 5:1  304, 309 5:2 67 5:18–6:1 119 5:22 138 7:5  66, 217 7:25 217 12:3  66, 217

Joshua 3:5 138 5:14 241 7 89 9:8 67 13  70, 71 13:19 214 13:20 70 13:32 115 14:2 115 15 71 15:9–10 71 15:29 71 15:60 71 16:1 115 16:5 56 18 71

Joshua (cont.) 18:14 71 19:50 72 20:8 115 21:31 209 21:36–37 300 21:42 72 22:24 111 23–24 309 23:7 75 24:11 71 24:29 72 24:30 74 24:31 72 Judges 2:9 72 3:3 68 3:19 217 3:20  232, 237 3:20–25 232 3:22 232 3:23 232 3:24 232 3:25  29, 31, 232 3:26 217 5:3 202 5:23 208 5:28 29 6:7–10 309 9 64 9:1 64 9:2 71 9:4 64 9:46 64 13:9 239 20:5 72 20:33  68, 79 1 Samuel 2:1 275 2:1–10 277 2:3 277 2:6 277 2:7  268, 275 2:7–8 277 2:8 275

379

Index of Ancient Sources 1 Samuel (cont.) 2:10 275 3:1 304 3:4–10 231 3:10 304 5:12 280 7:5–6 280 8:8 32 9  31, 231 9:15 304 9:24  27, 29 10:27  27, 28 12:3 268 13:4 30 13:14 274 14:6  279, 280 14:45 280 14:48 278 14:49 64 15 264 15:2 278 15:3  264, 265 15:8 264 15:9 264 15:10 304 15:15 264 15:18 264 15:20 264 15:21 264 15:22–23 309 15:24–27 231 15:27  223, 237, 238, 242 15:27–31 237 15:28  238, 274 15:30  238, 239 15:31 245 15:32–33 245 16  273, 274 16:1 273 16:1–11 274 16:13  225, 273 16:16 219 16:21 26 16:22 26 17  138, 144, 273 17:4 209

1 Samuel (cont.) 17:12–31 273 17:26  138, 145 17:34–37  106, 107, 108 17:36  138, 145 17:45 145 17:46–47 279 17:47 279 19:7 223 20:41 224 21:7 27 21:11 237 22:5 309 23:11 72 23:27 97 25 276 25:26 276 25:29 276 25:33 276 27:8 97 27:10 97 27:12 30 28:3 22 28:9 22 28:17 274 28:22 27 30:1 97 30:14 97 30:20 224 31 270 2 Samuel 1:18 286 2:8 64 2:20 233 2:20–23 233 2:21 233 2:22 233 2:23  233, 234 3:13 237 5:1–3 273 5:3 273 5:16 64 5:20  65, 69 5:21  65, 66, 78 5:25 69

2 Samuel (cont.) 6:2  71, 72 7:4 304 7:27 304 8:2 237 8:10 64 9:6  64, 234 10:6 30 11:13–14 235 11:15 120 11:21 64 12:3 212 12:4 212 12:5 237 12:7 309 12:19 223 12:20 27 12:22 237 13:23  68, 79 13:24 227 13:24–25 235 13:25  228, 229, 235 13:26  229, 235 13:27  229, 235 13:37 237 14:5 241 14:11 75 16:1–2 205 16:21  30, 31 17:8 109 18:9 239 18:17 213 19:6 29 20:5 237 20:17 241 21:12 72 23:1  210, 212 23:8 64 24 275 1 Kings 1:2 26 1:17 241 2 231 2:13 241 2:35–36 237 2:46  27, 28

380

Index of Ancient Sources

1 Kings (cont.) 3:1 237 4:7 237 5:1  27, 28 5:12 237 5:14 237 6:2 55 6:11 304 7:1 237 7:15 55 8:9 68 8:12–13 73 8:14 237 8:53  73, 115 8:56 115 8:64  27, 28 9:6–9 59 9:7 59 9:8  53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 9:24 237 10:8 26 10:25  27, 28 11:29  235, 239 11:29–30 235 11:30 236 12:6 26 12:8 26 12:10 26 12:22 304 12:32 26 13 231 13:20 304 16:1 304 17:1 26 17:2 304 17:5 237 17:8 304 17:10 237 17:11 237 17:19 237 17:20 237 18:1 304 18:8 237 18:15 26 18:18 237

1 Kings (cont.) 18:19 64 18:21 237 18:31 304 18:43 237 19:3 237 19:6 237 19:8 68 19:10 237 19:14 237 19:19 239 19:20 237 21:4 230 21:5 230 21:6 231 21:7 231 21:8 128 21:9 120 21:17 304 21:28 304 22 21 22:5–28 317 22:6 237 22:10 309 22:32 22 22:34 22 2 Kings 1 231 1:2  25, 78 1:2–17 78 1:3 25 1:6  25, 237 1:9 237 1:11 237 1:13 237 1:15 237 2:1 29 2:4 237 2:6 237 2:7 29 2:10 237 2:13 237 2:16 237 2:17  29, 31 2:18 237

2 Kings (cont.) 2:20 237 2:21 237 2:24  104, 105 3:4 21 3:13 25 3:14 26 4:2 241 4:3 25 4:7 25 4:12 26 4:13 241 4:16 241 4:23 241 4:25 25 4:26 241 4:28 241 4:29  25, 237 4:30 237 4:33 237 4:36 237 4:38 237 4:42  64, 68 5 231 5:3 241 5:5 25 5:16  26, 237 5:19  25, 237 5:26 237 6:2 25 6:3 25 6:13 25 6:16 237 6:19 25 6:22 27 7:2 237 7:4 25 7:9 25 7:14 25 7:17 237 7:19 237 8:1 25 8:5 237 8:8  25, 28 8:8–9 28 8:9  26, 28, 32

381

Index of Ancient Sources 2 Kings (cont.) 8:10  25, 32, 33 8:10–11  23, 32 8:11  26, 28, 29, 31, 32 8:11–13 32 8:13  32, 33 8:16–22 329 9:1 25 10:1 120 10:16 25 10:28 70 11:18 70 12:22 209 13:18 237 14:8 25 15:35 56 17:3 28 17:4 28 17:13 309 17:41 217 19 329 19:2 329 19:4 145 19:6  145, 329 19:9 329 19:9–10 329 19:14 329 19:15 144 19:15–19  138, 139 19:20 329 19:22 145 19:26 29 20:2 28 22:13 25 23:24 78 Isaiah 1:3–4 309 1:10 309 1:11–15 309 2 78 2:1 309 2:4 203 3:18 217 4:12–13 250 5:3 309

Isaiah (cont.) 5:6 203 5:7 309 5:9 304 5:12 31 6:1–8 308 6:8–9 304 6:9 309 7  350, 351 7:2 88 7:3 309 7:6 88 7:13 309 7:14 309 7:16 351 7:17  348, 349, 350, 351 8:1–2 309 8:1–3 309 9:18 208 10:7–8 311 10:10 217 11:6  107, 108 11:7  105, 107, 108, 111 12:2  203, 206 12:5 202 13:11 211 13:13 208 17:1 59 17:10 203 18:5 203 20:1–6 309 20:6 209 21:9 217 22:14 304 23:15 218 24:14–16 211 24:16  210, 215, 216 24:18 112 25:2–5 211 26:1 218 28:1–6 309 28:4 205 28:7–13 309 28:21 69

Isaiah (cont.) 29:8 106 30:9 309 30:9–10 309 30:22 217 30:31 311 31:2 209 31:5 351 33:4 106 34:3 31 37 329 38:1 309 38:4 304 38:9  309, 310 38:20  214, 219 40:12  250, 254 40:13 250 40:13–14 252 41:29 217 42:8  213, 217 46:1 69 48:1 75 49:1–6 326 51:3 212 52:5 179 52:14 54 57:19 180 59:3 178 59:11 106 63:3 178 65:25  105, 107 Jeremiah 1:2 304 1:4 304 1:5 326 1:6–9 308 1:9 304 1:10 330 1:11 304 1:13 304 2:6 213 2:25 241 3:21–4:2  66, 67 3:23 66 3:24 66

382

Index of Ancient Sources

Jeremiah (cont.) 3:25 66 4:30  97, 98 5 309 5:6 107 7:1–2 309 7:18 77 7:21–24 309 7:25 309 7:25–31 309 8:1–3 309 8:19 217 9:22–23 330 10:1–16  138, 139, 143, 144 10:3–5 139 10:6–8 143 10:10  139, 142, 143 10:11 143 10:12  139, 143 11:20 253 11:21 308 12:3 253 14:3 64 15:10 308 17:1 310 17:10 253 17:15–16 308 18:16 54 18:20 213 18:22 213 19:1–15 309 19:8 54 20:2 56 20:7  100, 308 20:12 253 23:36  138, 142, 143 24:6 330 25:2 309 26:5 309 26:8 309 26:15 77 26:18 59 27–28 317 27:1–2 309 28:1 309

Jeremiah (cont.) 28:8–9 317 29  328, 329 29:25–28 329 29:26–27 100 29:30–32 329 31:12 111 31:25 111 36:29 120 38:1 309 39:1 18 40:10 205 40:12 205 42:10 330 43:1 309 44 77 44:4–6 309 44:17 77 44:18 77 44:19 77 44:24 309 44:25 77 45:5 330 46:15 77 48:1 214 48:23  70, 214 48:24 214 48:44 112 49:1 77 49:17 54 49:23 111 50:2 77 50:38 217 51:17 77 51:18 77 51:19 77 51:25 77 51:34–35 129 51:44 129 51:47 217 51:52 217 51:60–62 310 Ezekiel 1:3 304 2:1 308

Ezekiel (cont.) 3:16 304 4:4–8 309 4:16 111 6:1 304 7:1 304 8–9 341 8:17 203 9:4 341 12:18 111 12:19 111 12:21–28 100 13:10 101 13:19 179 15:2 203 16:42 111 18:25 250 18:29 250 19:4 213 19:8 213 22:6 178 22:26 179 22:27 107 23  97, 98, 100 23:5  97, 98 23:7 97 23:9  97, 98 23:11  97, 100 23:12  97, 98 23:16 97 23:20 98 23:30 97 25:9 214 27:35 54 30:31–32 101 32 346 33  95, 100 33:1–9 100 33:17 250 33:20 250 33:30–33  95, 100 33:31  95, 97, 98, 100 33:31–32  98, 101 33:32  95, 96, 97, 99, 100 33:33 100

383

Index of Ancient Sources Ezekiel (cont.) 36 174 36:23–28 18 37–39 18 39:20 178 41:22 178 41:26 186 42:5 56 43:7 178 44:6–16 178 44:16  178, 186 Hosea 1 90 1:1 261 1:3–8 90 1:4 309 1:6 309 1:9 309 2 90 2:1 138 2:1–3 90 2:4–7 90 2:4–17 89 2:8–9 90 2:9 90 2:10 90 2:11–15 90 2:16–17  89, 90 2:16–25 65 2:17 89 2:18  65, 89 2:19  76, 89 2:20 89 2:21–22 89 2:23–25 89 2:24–25 89 3:1–5 90 3:5 90 4–11 91 4:1 309 4:11–14 92 5:1 309 5:9 346 5:10  343, 344, 346 5:11 88

Hosea (cont.) 5:15–6:4 90 6:5–6 85 6:14 84 9  91, 92 9:3 91 9:5 84 9:6 91 9:7 91 9:7–17 92 9:8 91 9:8–15 93 9:9 93 9:10  71, 82, 89, 90, 91, 92 9:14 93 9:16 91 9:16–17 94 9:17 93 10:11 89 11 90 11:1 89 11:2 217 11:3 89 11:4 89 11:8–11 90 11:11 90 12  82, 88, 89 12:3 85 12:3–5 83 12:3–15  82, 83 12:4–7 85 12:5 84 12:6 84 12:6–11 84 12:7  84, 85, 86, 88 12:8 85 12:8–11 85 12:9 86 12:10 89 12:10–11 88 12:11  85, 87 12:12  85, 86, 88, 309 12:12–14 85 12:12–15 85 12:13  86, 87, 88

Hosea (cont.) 12:14  86, 87, 88, 89, 92 12:15 85 13:4 89 13:5 89 13:5–6  89, 90 13:6 89 13:8  105, 106, 107, 110 14:2 309 Joel 1:2 309 1:20 106 2:16 309 2:20  29, 31 4:10 203 Amos 1–2 313 1:1–2 313 2:2 214 3:1 309 3:7 320 3:7–8 313 3:8 308 3:13 84 4:1 309 4:4–5  309, 320 4:10 31 4:13 313 5:1 309 5:19  105, 107 5:21–23 320 5:21–24 309 5:23  207, 209, 212, 218 5:25 320 5:26 352 5:26–27  348, 350 6:1 320 6:10 75 7–9 313 7:1 313 7:1–6 320

384

Index of Ancient Sources

Amos (cont.) 7:4 313 7:7 313 7:9 320 7:14 312 7:14–15 320 7:15  308, 313 7:15–16 309 7:15–17 320 8:1  205, 313 9:1 313 9:11  350, 352

Zephaniah 1 309 1:4 67 1:6 348 2:15 54 3:3 107

Obadiah 9 185 Jonah 1:1 304 1:8–9 247 1:11–12 247 3:1 304 3:4 309 3:6 247 4:8 247 4:9 247 Micah 1:7 217 3:1 309 3:5 101 3:12  59, 61 4:3 203 5:1 309 5:12 217 7:1 205 Nahum 2:3 203 2:5 106 Habakkuk 1:8 107 2:2  120, 309 2:3 318 2:17 185 3:19 214

Haggai 1:2–3 309 1:3 304 1:9  181, 182 2:21 309 2:23 128 Zechariah 1:1 304 4:8 304 5:4–5 309 6:9 304 9–14 353 11:11 342 13:2 76 13:7 341 13:9 253 Malachi 1–2 174 1:6 178 1:6–2:9 178 1:6–7  177, 178, 179, 184 1:6–14 177 1:7  174, 178, 180 1:11  180, 181, 184 1:11–12  177, 179, 180 1:12  178, 180 1:13 181 2:4 182 2:5  182, 184, 185 2:8 182 3:16 184 3:22 68 Psalms 1:14 202 4:1 214

Psalms (cont.) 4:8 261 6:1 214 7:10 253 7:16 112 7:18 184 9:16 213 10:2 110 16:5 208 16:6 208 17:3 252 21:12 110 26:2 253 30:13 203 34:18 155 37:7 110 42 144 42:3 138 42:11 138 44:27 209 50:16 76 51:19 182 54:1 214 55:1 214 55:23 111 57–59 310 57:7 213 60:13 209 61:1 214 62:10 253 63:8 209 67:1 214 68 219 68:5 66 68:26 219 68:35 211 69:13 214 74:12–17 74 75:4  250, 254 76:1 214 77:7 214 77:21 115 78:58 217 79:1  59, 61 81:3 212 83:18 56

385

Index of Ancient Sources Psalms (cont.) 84:3 138 88:10 111 89:6–14 74 89:21 274 89:27 56 90:15 261 92:2 184 94:17 209 95:2  210, 218 97:9 56 98:5 212 99:4 155 102:14 318 104:19 73 106:19 68 107:9 106 107:20 213 108:13 209 108:30 155 113:1 184 113:1–3 184 118 208 118:14  203, 206 119:54  210, 218 119:85 213 132:4 208 134:9 155 138:1 184 144:9 203 145:6 155 150:3 220 150:4 99 Job 2:10 241 6:2 253 11:18 111 21:12 99 21:25 240 23:10 253 28:25  250, 254 30:9 214 30:31 99 31:6 253 31:38–39 209

Job (cont.) 33:14–18 304 35:10 210 36:10–15 304 38:5 254 38:12 73 41:14 111 Proverbs 3:24 96 8:22–31 306 8:32–36 306 9:1 210 9:18 241 10:23 110 12:2 110 12:25 111 13:17 112 13:19 110 14:16 110 14:17 110 14:23 111 14:31 108 15:17 109 16:2  250, 252 16:4 251 16:14 105 17:1 109 17:3 252 17:12  104, 109 17:20 112 18:6 110 19:10 108 19:12 106 19:17 108 20:2 106 20:8 106 20:26 106 21:2 250 21:13 108 22:1 109 22:11 106 22:14 213 22:16 108 22:22 108 23:27 213

Proverbs (cont.) 24:8 110 24:12  250, 251 25:11–14 105 25:19–20 105 25:23 105 25:25–26 105 25:28 105 26:27  112, 213 27:5 109 28:14 112 28:15  104, 105, 106, 107, 108 29:2 109 29:4 106 29:12 106 29:14 106 30:21–22 108 Ruth 1:8–16 231 2:13 241 3:7 241 3:9 241 3:14 241 3:16 241 3:18 241 4:1–3 231 4:4 241 4:5–9 231 Song of Songs 2:12  203, 205, 212 5 19 5:12 19 5:13 19 5:14 19 5:15 19 8:6 128 Qohelet 3:18 208 4:17–5:1 309 5:1 76 5:6 309 8:16 110

386

Index of Ancient Sources

Qohelet (cont.) 10:1 29 10:5–7 109 10:8 112

Daniel (MT, cont.) 2:15–25 167 2:16 167 2:18 143 2:18–23 167 2:19  143, 152 2:19–23 152 2:21  152, 155 2:24–25 167 2:34 155 2:47 143 3  129, 149, 154, 155, 161, 164 3–4 171 3–6 172 3:1 171 3:22 132 3:23 126 3:24 126 3:25–28 156 3:29  145, 154 3:31  154, 156 3:31–33  155, 156 3:32 156 3:33 156 3:95 155 3:96 155 4  133, 141, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 166, 168, 170, 171, 172 4–5  141, 151, 160, 161, 167, 170, 171 4–6  126, 144, 150, 172, 359 4:1 154 4:2–14 154 4:5 151 4:5–6 151 4:6  151, 153 4:7 153 4:7–9  152, 153 4:8 153 4:9 153 4:13 185 4:14 160

Lamentations 3:10  105, 106, 107, 108 3:14  214, 218 4:14 178 4:20 213 5:14  214, 219 Esther 1:1 171 4:1 247 4:5–10 247 4:7 247 4:10 247 4:10–13 247 4:12–17 247 4:13 247 4:15 247 4:17 247 6:3 247 6:3–7 247 6:4–5 247 6:6 247 6:7 247 6:8 247 6:10–11 247 6:11 247 6:13 144 7:1–9 247 7:5–6 247 Daniel (MT) 1–3 126 1–4  167, 170 1–6 125 1:1–2:4 125 1:8 178 2  133, 152, 153, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171 2:5–7:28 125 2:13–24 152

Daniel (MT, cont.) 4:15 151 4:15–24 154 4:16 156 4:17 150 4:17–19  152, 153 4:17–20 153 4:18 153 4:19 153 4:22 139 4:24 158 4:25 166 4:25–33 154 4:26–33 154 4:27 139 4:28  160, 166 4:30  157, 158, 159 4:31  142, 143, 156, 159 4:33  157, 160 4:34  143, 154, 156 5  150, 151, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172 5–6  150, 161, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172 5:1–4 163 5:2 168 5:3 164 5:5  162, 310 5:7 167 5:12  166, 167 5:13 162 5:16 164 5:17  164, 165 5:18–22 162 5:19 161 5:23  140, 164 5:24 184 5:25  162, 168 5:25–28 162 5:26–28 162 5:27 253 5:28 168 5:29  164, 165

387

Index of Ancient Sources Daniel (MT, cont.) 5:30 168 5:31 168 6  129, 132, 134, 142, 150, 151, 152, 155, 165, 168, 169, 170 6:1  168, 171 6:8 170 6:12 170 6:13 170 6:14–15 134 6:15 170 6:18 128 6:21  140, 142 6:25 134 6:27  141, 142 7  152, 162, 169, 170 7–8  167, 170 7–12  125, 126, 152 7:5 105 8  152, 161, 162, 169, 170 8:1–12:13 125 8:19 318 9  152, 169, 170 9–12  167, 169, 170 9:6 309 9:27 78 10  162, 169 10–11 364 11  152, 162, 169 11:8 217 11:31 78 12:7  140, 143 12:11 78 Daniel (OG) 2 171 4 161 4–6 144 4:8–9 151 4:10–12 151 4:17 160 4:18 151 4:20–22 151 4:20–23 151

Daniel (OG, cont.) 4:21 151 4:22  139, 141, 151, 161 4:27  139, 158 4:28–31 156 4:30  157, 158, 159 4:31 160 4:33 157 4:34­  140, 156, 159 4:36 160 5 141 5:1 162 5:1–4 163 5:2 164 5:3 164 5:4  141, 162 5:5 162 5:7 165 5:8 165 5:17  164, 165 5:22–24 141 5:23  140, 141, 164 5:29 164 6  132, 134, 169 6:4  131, 165 6:5–6 137 6:12 170 6:14 170 6:14–15 134 6:21  141, 143 6:22 133 6:24–25 137 6:27 142 6:27–28 141 6:28 169 6:29 131 6:31–32 131 12:7  140, 143 Ezra 1–6 200 2:62 178 5:11 241 Nehemiah 3:31–32 72

Nehemiah (cont.) 5 199 6:7 309 7:64 178 8 301 8:14 115 8:18 247 9:14 115 10  197, 199, 200 10:2–28 199 10:29–40 199 10:30  115, 198 10:34 197 10:38  197, 198 10:40  197, 198 11:4 218 13:13 198 1 Chronicles 1:8 48 1:24 48 2:19 209 3:8 64 5:6 70 5:23 69 6:37 218 6:61 214 6:63 115 6:63–64 300 7:8  213, 217 7:30 72 8:1 65 8:21 209 8:33 64 8:36 64 9:22 196 9:26 196 9:38 64 9:40 64 10 270 11:3 273 11:11 64 12:5 65 13:2 192 13:3 192 13:5 72 13:6 71

388

Index of Ancient Sources

1 Chronicles (cont.) 14:7 64 14:11 69 14:12  65, 66, 78 14:16 69 16:2 191 17:25 304 18:10 64 19:6 30 22:7 193 25:1 194 28:2 193 28:19 190 29:17 252 29:29 272

2 Chronicles (cont.) 8:14  193, 196 8:16 195 9:4 72 9:10 237 9:13–20 191 9:29 272 14:1–3 192 14:19–20 309 16:11 272 18:4–27 317 18:31 22 20:34 272 21:12 120 21:12–15 329 23:18 193 24:16 194 24:26 209 25:15–16 247 25:26 272 25:27 97 27:7 272 28:24 192 28:26 272 29 192 29–31  189, 192 29:5 192 29:6–7 192 29:10 193 29:14–15 193 29:21 247 29:25–27 194 29:28–30 194 29:30 194 29:32–34 194 29:34 193 29:35 195

2 Chronicles 1:2 192 2:3 196 3:4  55, 57 3:15  55, 57 5:10 68 5:11 193 6:3 191 6:7 193 6:35 195 6:39 195 7:3 194 7:4–5 194 7:7 194 7:9 195 7:10 195 7:20 59 7:21  53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 8:5 56 8:13–14 196

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Bel and the Dragon 2–22 128 5 137 6  137, 147 7 145 8 145 8–22 145 9  136, 144

Bel, Dragon (cont.) 9–21 136 9–22 135 11–14 146 12  128, 136 13  128, 136 14 136 15  136, 146

2 Chronicles (cont.) 30  192, 195 30–31  192, 195 30:23 195 30:26  190, 195 30:27 195 31  192, 197, 200 31:2–3 196 31:3  196, 197, 208 31:4 198 31:5–6  197, 198 31:7–8 191 31:11–12  196, 197, 198 31:12  196, 198 31:14 196 31:21 198 32:27 191 32:32 272 33:8 115 33:19 217 33:22 217 34:3 217 34:4 217 34:7 217 34:12 196 34:14 115 35:1–2 247 35:4 193 35:6 115 35:16 195 35:19 78 35:20–21 247 35:27 272 36:8 272

Bel, Dragon (cont.) 16 128 17 128 19 136 21  128, 146 22 133 23–28 129 23–42 128

389

Index of Ancient Sources Bel, Dragon (cont.) 24 137 25  137, 144 27 147 28  133, 147 29–32 129 33 128 33–39 129 37  128, 147 39 128 40–42 129 41 144 1 Esdras 3:2 171 6:12 241 Jubilees 1:22–25 365 5:23 52 29 365 Judith 13:14 241 14:12 241 1 Maccabees 2:28–29 342

New Testament

1 Maccabees (cont.) 3:17–19 279 3:46–47 280 4:25 280 4:30 279 5:31 280 6:10 111 9:15 79 2 Maccabees 2:13 272 4–5 346 4:16 346 4:41 97 5:5 97 5:27 342 9:17 133 Sirach 7:11  268, 275, 277 11:1  275, 277 11:30  107, 111 13:13–36:10 19 25:17 111 27:3 111 27:26 112 28:17 111 30:24 111

Matthew 5:12 327 5:17 329 10:40–42 327 11:13–14 324 11:25–27 324 13:16–17 324 23:13 328 23:34–36 328

Luke (cont.) 11:49–51 328 16:16 324

Mark 1:10–11 325 4:41 325 12:1–9 328

Acts 1:15–26 332 1:21–22 335 2:14–36 331 2:16–36 324 2:32 335 3:12–26 331

Luke 10:21–22 324

John 1:1 322 1:1–4 324 1:10–18 324 2:22  329, 330

Sirach (cont.) 30:25–33:15 19 31:1 111 31:2 111 38:29 111 39:1–5 275 42:9 111 44:4 110 46:13  274, 275 46:19 268 47:1 275 47:3 106 47:11 275 49:10 363 50:26 15 Tobit 2:11 98 2:14 241 5:9 241 5:13 241 7:4–5 241 8:2 241 13:2  277, 278 Wisdom of Solomon 11:20 254 16:13 277 Acts (cont.) 3:13–26 324 3:15 335 6:1–2 332 7:1–2 240 7:2–53 331 7:52 328 8:1 325 8:28–36 331 9:1–7 315 10:36–43 324 10:39 335 10:41 335 13:2 332 13:15–41 331 13:23–41 324 13:31 335

390

Index of Ancient Sources

Acts (cont.) 15:21 331 15:22 332 15:24 317 15:28 332 16:9–10 315 17:2 331 17:11 331 18:4 331 18:9 315 18:15 331 22:3–16 315 22:15 335 26:12–18 315 28:23 331

2 Corinthians 3:1 317 3:6–4:6 324 10–13 330 10:8–11 330 12:1–7 315

Romans 1:1–2 329 1:1–5 324 1:5 333 15:4 331 16:26 333 1 Corinthians 1:18 322 1:25 327 2:4 327 5:4 332 5:9 333 9:1  325, 335 9:8 314 10:11 331 11:2 333 11:23 327 12:3–11 334 14:1 334 14:6 314 14:18–19 314 15:1–3 327 15:2 333 15:3 327 15:3–8 335 15:3–11 325 15:5–9 325 15:8 314

Galatians 1:6–12 333 1:9 327 1:11–15 326 1:12  314, 327 2:2 314 Ephesians 3:1–7 324 3:3 314 Philippians 3:1 333 4:9 333 Colossians 2:6–8 327 4:16  330, 333 1 Thessalonians 1:5  326, 327 1:8  326, 334 2:1–12 327 2:2 326 2:4 326 2:8–9 326 2:13  327, 334 2:14–16 328 2:15 327 2:16 328 3:2 326 4:1  327, 330 4:2 330 4:15  330, 334 4:15–17 330 4:18 330 5:19–20 334 5:21 334 5:27 330

2 Thessalonians 1:8 333 1:10 333 2:2  317, 334 2:5 334 2:14 334 2:15  333, 334 3:4–6 334 3:6 327 3:12 334 3:17 333 1 Timothy 3:16 324 2 Timothy 1:9–11 325 2:2 333 Hebrews 1:1–2 324 1 Peter 1:3–5 325 1:10–12 325 1:20–23 325 5:1 335 2 Peter 1:16–18 335 1:16–21 325 3:2  325, 335 3:16 332 1 John 1:1–3 335 1:1–4 325 5:10–11 325 Revelation 1:1–3 325 22:16–19 325