I Deal Death and Give Life: Biblical Perspectives on Death 9781463218126

Citation preview

I Deal Death and Give Life

I Deal Death and Give Life

Biblical Perspectives on Death

Shaul Bar



 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2010

‫ܐ‬



ISBN 978-1-60724-328-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bar, Shaul. I deal death and give life : biblical perspectives on death / by Shaul Bar ; translated by Lenn Schramm. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Death in the Bible. 2. Death--Biblical teaching. I. Title. BS1199.D34B37 2009 296.3'3--dc22 2009042084 Printed in the United States of America

Dedicated with love to my Brother Samuel Bobrow and his family: Irit, Jacob, and Joab. 706)% 4 3!%)6 !%  63) ! !3 7!4!

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.....................................................................................v Acknowledgments ...................................................................................xi Abbreviations .........................................................................................xiii Introduction ..............................................................................................1 Why do we Die?........................................................................................7 “You Are Dust, and to Dust You Shall Return” (Gen. 3:19) ..........................................................................................9 Death and the Sin of Eating the Forbidden Fruit....................14 “You shall surely die”(Gen.2:17)........................................14 “In the day that you eat of it” (Gen. 2:17)........................15 The punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge .....................................................................17 The Tree of Life....................................................................20 Original Sin.....................................................................................24 Death as an Autonomous Force .................................................31 Jeremiah 9:20 .........................................................................33 Messengers of Death............................................................34 A Cruel Messenger ...............................................................35 Qeʞev ........................................................................................36 Reshef........................................................................................39 “Death’s first-born” .............................................................46 King of Terrors .....................................................................49 ÝAluqah ....................................................................................51 “Those who bring death”....................................................53 Mašʚit ......................................................................................54 Conclusion......................................................................................60 2 The Manner of Death...................................................................63 War .................................................................................................64 The Forms of Judicial Execution................................................70 Stoning (seqillah) Violations of Divine Law ......................71 Stoning as the Punishment for Social Transgressions..............................................................75 The Procedure.......................................................................79 v

vi

3

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE Hanging (or Impaling) (teliyyah) ..........................................81 Impaling (hoqaÝah)..................................................................85 Burning...................................................................................89 Burning the Bones of the Dead..........................................92 Strangulation..........................................................................94 The Sword ......................................................................................95 Excision (karet)...............................................................................98 Maggefah ‘Plague’ ..........................................................................102 ÝOfalim/ʞeʚorim ‘ulcers(?), tumors(?), hemorrhoids(?)’ ..........................................................105 ʙoli, maʚalah ‘disease’ .........................................................111 The Curse of Nonburial .............................................................115 Conclusion....................................................................................119 The Underworld ..........................................................................121 The Etymology of Sheol ............................................................122 Descriptions of Sheol .................................................................124 Location ...............................................................................124 The Entrance to the Underworld.....................................127 The Underworld as a Place of No Return ......................129 Dust ......................................................................................130 Water.....................................................................................132 Who Descends to the Underworld? ................................135 The Dead in the Underworld ...........................................139 Do the Dead Know the Living?.......................................143 An Entreaty that the Lord Deliver the Believer from the Underworld ................................................147 The Gods of the Underworld...........................................152 Sheol as the Grave..............................................................155 RefaÞim ............................................................................................159 RefaÞim ‘Shades’ ....................................................................160 RefaÞim ‘Giants’.....................................................................165 Summary ..............................................................................167 Other Names for Sheol ..............................................................168 ÞEreʜ ......................................................................................168 Bor ‘Pit’..................................................................................170 Šaʚat ‘Pit’ ..............................................................................171 ʝiʞ ha-yawen ...........................................................................174 Abaddon (Þavaddon)................................................................175 ʛalmawet ................................................................................176 Summary ..............................................................................180

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4

5

vii

Conclusion....................................................................................180 Nefeš, Nešamah, and Ruaʚ ............................................................183 Nešamah .........................................................................................184 The Vital Force ...................................................................184 The Nešamah and the Living Body ...................................187 The Departure of the Nešamah .........................................188 The Nešamah of Man ..........................................................189 The Nešamah of God ..........................................................191 Summary ..............................................................................191 Nefeš ...............................................................................................192 Nefeš as the Vital Force ......................................................195 The Nefeš of the Dead ........................................................197 Blood is the Nefeš ................................................................198 The Departure of the Nefeš ...............................................199 The Survival of the Nefeš ...................................................202 Ruaʚ ‘Wind, Spirit’.......................................................................205 The Ruaʚ as the Vital Force ..............................................208 The Departure of the Ruaʚ ...............................................212 Summary ..............................................................................216 Body and Soul ..............................................................................218 The Immortality of the Soul .............................................228 The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha...............................235 Conclusion....................................................................................241 Necromancy .................................................................................243 Mediums and Wizards (Þovot ve-yiddeÝonim) ................................244 Medium ................................................................................244 Spirits of the Dead..............................................................246 A technical device ...............................................................249 A pit ......................................................................................250 Images of the dead .............................................................252 A wine skin ..........................................................................252 ÞIʞʞim ......................................................................................254 Inquiring of the Dead ........................................................255 The Prohibition of Necromancy......................................258 Teraphim ................................................................................261 Sacrifices for the Dead ...............................................................265 Ba’al Pe’or ..............................................................................267 Family Sacrifice ...................................................................270 “You Shall Not Eat with the Blood”...............................274 Molech...........................................................................................278

viii

6

7

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE Other Passages that Refer to the Molech Cult...............284 Isaiah 57:3–10......................................................................284 Ezekiel 16:20–21.................................................................287 Psalms 106:37–39 ...............................................................289 Saul and the “Witch of Endor”.................................................290 Conclusion....................................................................................298 Mourning Customs .....................................................................301 Burial .............................................................................................301 Making a Bonfire ................................................................308 Cremation ............................................................................309 Qinah ‘Dirge’ ........................................................................312 Misped ‘Mourning, Lament, Eulogy’.................................316 Ma‫܈܈‬evah ‘Pillar, Tombstone’ ............................................318 The Impurity of the Dead..........................................................320 The High Priest...................................................................323 The Nazirite.........................................................................324 Rituals to Eliminate the Impurity of Death ............................326 The Red Heifer....................................................................326 The Decapitated Heifer .....................................................329 Summary ..............................................................................332 Mourning Customs .....................................................................332 Limits on Mourning Customs ..........................................346 Restrictions on Mourning by Priests ...............................351 The Beit Marzeaʚ...........................................................................353 Conclusion....................................................................................359 The Resurrection of the Dead...................................................361 Biblical Passages ..........................................................................362 “I deal death and give life” (Deut 32:9) ..........................362 Daniel 12:2–3.......................................................................365 Hosea 6:1–2 .........................................................................368 Isaiah 26:19 ..........................................................................371 Isaiah 53:8 ............................................................................374 Psalms 49:16; 73:23–24......................................................375 The Valley of the Dry Bones ............................................379 Rejection of the Doctrine of Resurrection .....................382 Ascent to the Heaven .................................................................384 Enoch ...................................................................................385 Elijah.....................................................................................389 Resurrection or Healing?............................................................391 Elisha ....................................................................................392

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

Elijah.....................................................................................395 Summary ..............................................................................399 The Apocrypha ............................................................................401 1 Enoch ................................................................................401 Ben Sira ................................................................................402 4 Esdras ................................................................................402 2 Baruch ...............................................................................403 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ..............................404 Sibylline Oracles..................................................................405 Testament of Job ................................................................405 Psalms of Solomon.............................................................406 Second Temple Judaism .............................................................407 2 Maccabees.........................................................................407 4 Maccabees.........................................................................408 Josephus ...............................................................................408 Qumran ................................................................................410 The Talmudic Sages ....................................................................414 Conclusion ...........................................................................420 Conclusion.............................................................................................423 Bibliography ..........................................................................................427 Index.......................................................................................................459

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To start with, I would like to thank some of my colleagues at the University of Memphis who read an early draft of the manuscript and offered many perceptive comments and insights: Dr Ralph Albanese, the Head of the Languages Department, Dr. Tom Neon, Vice Provost and Dr. Cosetta Gaudenzi. Appreciation for the resources and to the staff of the Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, where Librarian Don Meredith led me to materials, Associate Librarian Sheila Owen helped me with research, and Evelyn Meredith and Pat Hughes supported my research with great cheerfulness. I am grateful as well to Dr. Richard Oster who offered his insightful comments and to his assistant Mr. Wes Kuryluk. Special thanks to the Hebrew Union College Library in New York. Head Librarian Dr. Philip Miller provided me with all the necessary help and wisdom, and Librarian Tina Weiss helped me with research, in addition to the numerous difficult footnotes. I am grateful as well for the generosity and support of Mr. Bert Bornblum (till 120!) and the late Mr. David Bornblum, who established the Bornblum Judaic Studies Program at the University of Memphis. I would like to thank Lenn J. Schramm who translated my Hebrew manuscript with accuracy and style.

xi

xii

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

To recognize several friends who read the manuscript: Anna S. Chernak offered valuable advise and encouragement, the Renaissance man, Dr. Steve Wachtel who read part of it and offered his wisdom, Mr. Jeff Parchmann who suggested many changes. Thanks to Rabbi Joel Finkelstein from Anshei Sphard-Beth El Emeth at Memphis who helped me with the Talmudic questions. Finally, a special thank-you to Dr. Katie Stott, editor at Gorgias Press, for her devotion and expertise in transforming my manuscript into this book. Shaul Bar Memphis, Tennessee July 2009

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AFO AHw AJBI AJSL AnBib ANEP ANET AnOr AnSt AOAT AOS APOT ArOr ASV AV BA BASOR BDB BeO BethM BETL Bib

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 6 vols., New York 1992. Archiv für Orientforschung W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörtebuch, 3 vols., Wiesbaden, 1959–1981. Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta biblica The Ancient Near East in Pictures, ed. J.B. Pritchard, 1969 2ed. The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 3ed. Analecta orientalia Anatolian Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of The Old Testament, ed. R. H .Charles , 2 vols.,Oxford, 1913; repr.1978. Archiv orientální American Standard Version Authorized (King James) Version Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT, Oxford, 1907; repr. With corrections, 1953. Bibbia e oriente Beth Miqra Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica xiii

xiv BibOr BibRev BN BR BRA BT BZ BZAW CAD CBQ COS CT CTA DDD DNSI DOTE EA Emiqr EncJud ErIsr ExpTim Greg HALAT HSM HTR HUCA

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE Biblica et orientalia Bible Review Biblische Notizen Biblical Research Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums Bible Translator Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, 1956– Catholic Biblical Quarterly The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo, 3 vols., Leiden, 1997. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets A. Herdner, Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques Découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit I/II, Paris, 1963. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, Leiden, 1995. J.Hoftijzer and K.Jongeling, Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscription, 2 vols., Leiden, 1995. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, 5 vols., Michigan, 1997 J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln(=VAB 2); EA 359–379: A. Rainey, El Amarna Tablets 359–379 (=AOAT 8) Entsiqlopedia miqra’it-Encyclopardia biblica, 8 vols., Jerusalem, 1950–1982 Encyclopedia Judaica, 16 vols., Jerusalem, 1971–1972 Eretz Israel Expository Times Gregorianum Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament,ed. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, 5 vols., Leiden, 1967–1995 3ed Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual

ABBREVIATIONS HWb

xv

Adolf Erman und Herman Grapow, Äegyptisches Handworterbuch, Berlin, 1921 ICC International Critical Commentary IDB The interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, 4 vols., New York, 1962 IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IOS Israel Oriental Studies IRAQ IRAQ JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEOL Jaarbericht von het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap“Ex oriente lux” JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies KAI H. Donner and W. Rölling, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 3 vols., Wiesbaden, 1967–1969 2ed KJV King James (Authorized) Version KTU Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, I, ed. M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, AOAT 24, NeukirchenVluyn,1976 LexLingAeth A. Dillmann, Lexicon linguae aethiopicae, Leipzig, 1865. MSL Materialen zum sumerischen Lexikon, Rome, 1937– NBC The New Bible Commentary, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, London, 1970 3ed NCB New Century Bible (Commentary) NEB New English Bible NJPSV New Jewish Publication Society Version NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

xvi NIV NRSV OIP OR OrAnt OTL OTS PEQ POS PRU RA RB RHA RS RSV SBB SBLDS SBLMS Sem SJOT ST StOr StPB Syr SVT SVTP TDOT ThZ TGUOS TLOT TWOT TZ UBL UF UT VAB

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE New International Version New Revised Standard Version Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Oriens antiquus Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Palestine Exploration Quarterly Pretoria Oriental Series Le Palais royal d’Ugarit Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Revue biblique Revue hittite et asianique Ras Shamra Revised Standard Version Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Semitica Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studia theologica Studia Orientalia Studia post-biblica Syria: Revue d’art oriental et d’archéologie Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry, tr. J. T. Willis, Grand Rapids,1974– Theologische Zeitschrift Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, 3 vols. Eng.tr., Mass., 1997. Theological Wordbook of the Bible, ed. R. L. Harris et al., 2 vols., Chicago, 1980 Theologische Zeitschrift Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur Ugarit-Forschungen C. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr 38, Rome, 1965 Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, 7 vols., Leipzig, 1907–1916

ABBREVIATIONS VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUS ZAW ZDMG ZDPV

xvii

Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements World Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographein zum Alten und Neuen Testament J. Aistleinter, Wörterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der duetschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palätina-Vereins

INTRODUCTION For he who is reckoned among the living has something to look forward to—even a live dog is better than a dead lion—since the living know they will die. But the dead know nothing; they have no more recompense, for even the memory of them has died. Their loves, their hates, their jealousies have long since perished; and they have no more share till the end of time in all that goes on under the sun. (Eccles. 9:4–6).

Thus Ecclesiastes. Similarly, Egyptian texts view death as something negative and abnormal, but part of creation. According to one of the Pyramid texts, death did not exist in the primeval age, before the gods made the world and mankind.1 In the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh epic, “when the gods created mankind, death for mankind they set aside, life in their own hands retaining.” Elsewhere Gilgamesh says that human cannot scale heaven, because their days are numbered.2 According to what may be the most famous simile in the Iliad, the generation of leaves is like that of humanity: when the season of winter storms begins, leaves fall from the tree—and in the spring new leaves grow. In the same way, “one generation of men will grow while another dies.”3 Achilles’ shade tells Odysseus that “I would rather follow the plow as thrall to another man … than 1 For Egyptian views on death see: J. Zandee, Death as an Enemy according to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions (Leiden: Brill, 1960); L. V. Žabkar, A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); H. Brunner, Grundzüge der altägyptischen Religion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983). 2 J. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,1982), pp. 164–165. 3 Iliad 5:146–149 (trans. Lattimore).

1

2

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

be a king over all the dead.”4 For Euripides’ Iphigenia, about to be sacrificed, “it is better that we live ever so miserably than die in glory.”5 After Adam disobeyed the divine injunction and ate from the tree of knowledge, God punished him: “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). The same idea—that human beings come from the dust and ultimately return to the dust— recurs in later books of the Bible: e.g., in Job—“all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:15); in Ecclesiastes—“all go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again” (Eccles. 3:20).6 Human life is a journey from dust to dust, ending at the same point it begins, and death is the perpetual nothingness to which all revert when they return to dust. The question at the core of this book is whether death really is the final station of the human journey, from which there is no return, or whether the Bible alludes to some form of continuity after death. Because death awaits every human being and there is no escaping it, the philosophers and theologians of the nations and the sages of Israel have been discussing it since the dawn of history. The trenchant questions of why human beings must die and what happens to them after death have engaged and continue to engage many. In this book our focus is limited to the biblical (and immediate post-biblical) answers to these issues. Many important works have addressed this topic in recent years, including K. Spronk’s Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Theodore J. Lewis’ Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, Elizabeth Bloch-Smith’s Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, Brian Schmidt’s Israel’s Beneficent Dead, Alan F. Segal Life After Death, and Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel. All of them are limited to particular aspects of the topic. Here, by contrast, we shall attempt to spread the canvas wide and look at the subject from additional perspectives, including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the talmudic and midrashic corpus.

Odyssey 11: 489–91 (trans. Lattimore). Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis, lines 1253–54 (trans. Charles R. Walker). 6 See also Ps. 103:14 and 104:29. 4

5.

INTRODUCTION

3

The books now referred to as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were written by Jewish authors, most (but not all) of whom lived in the Land of Israel in the last two centuries BCE and the first century CE. These works, with their abundant attention to the immortality of the soul and resurrection of the dead, provide an important source of information about the beliefs of the early talmudic era. The Jews’ interactions with the surrounding peoples sharpened their interest in questions that the Bible more or less ignores, such as the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead. These topics were incorporated into the aggadic literature, which, as was the product of popular imagination, reflects the beliefs of the period. Aggadah is an integral part of the Mishnah, Tosefta, both Talmuds, and the midrashic corpus. It includes stories, beliefs and opinions, ethical doctrines, and encouragement for the future, some of which attempt to answer questions about God, the creation of human beings, the nature and purpose of human beings, and the thorny problem of the righteous and wicked and reward and punishment. The aggadic literature deals at length with the World to Come, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, the redemption of Israel, and the redemption of the world. The various sects and currents in Judaism left their mark on it; everything that Jews thought, during a period of more than a thousand years, can be found there. As noted, in this volume we shall investigate many issues not addressed in the important works listed above. In Chapter One, beginning at the beginning, we ask why human beings must die. Is death an intrinsic phenomenon of creation, considering that God created Adam from the dust and that he and his descendants return to dust (Gen. 2:7; 3:19)? Or is death the consequence of Adam and Eve’s eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, given that only after they do so does God expel them from the Garden of Eden, explicitly so as to keep them from eating from the Tree of Life and thereby living forever (Gen. 3:22–23). Another possibility is that death is a superhuman power independent of the deity. A close reading of the Bible reveals that Death has its own messengers: “a king’s wrath is a messenger of death” (Prov. 16:14); “a cruel messenger” (Prov. 17:11); “the firstborn of death” (Job 18:13); “the king of terrors” (Job 18:14); “dever and qetev” (e.g., Ps. 91:6); “the leech and her two daughters” (Prov.

4

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

30:15). Death also functions as metaphor for a lethal enemy: “Death has come up into our windows, it has entered our palaces” (Jer. 9:20 [21]). Death is depicted as an all-devouring monster that is never satisfied: the arrogant man “is as insatiable as Death” (Hab. 2:5); “Sheol has opened wide its gullet and parted its jaws in a measureless gape” (Isa. 5:14). Similarly, “like Sheol, let us swallow them alive; whole, like those who go down into the Pit” (Prov. 1:12). In Chapter Two we will consider the manner of death. According to Gersonides, “God devised schemes to kill human beings in various ways and by different causes, so that no one should be misled that he might escape death” (comm. on 2 Sam. 14:14). The question to be asked here, however, is whether there is any meaning to which of the diverse forms of death, natural or unnatural— war, judicial execution, excision, plague, and disease—a person succumbs to. On the one hand, the ultimate result is the same and the person is dead. On the other hand, perhaps the way in which a man or woman dies hints at the life beyond. Alternatively, perhaps this detail is provided only to satisfy the curiosity of readers, who want to know how a person died and whether he or she suffered. In Chapter Three we turn to what happens to human beings after death. According to the Bible the dead go down to Sheol, the underworld. We will investigate the many names attached to this domain—Þereʜ, bor šaʚat, ʞiʞ ha-yawen, Þavaddon, and ʜalmawet. Where is Sheol located? Are the grave and Sheol the same place? Do both the righteous and the wicked inhabit the underworld? Does it have its own ruler? Is their existence there a continuation of earthly life? Finally, do the dead know what is happening in the world of the living? In Chapter Four we will consider the nature of the soul that animates human beings. Does the Bible, like the Greeks, conceive of a dualism of body and soul? It certainly does in some places: as Elihu reminds Job, if God “but takes note [of a man], He can take back his spirit and breath; all flesh would at once expire, and man return to dust” (Job 34:14–15). That is, when a person dies the Lord resumes possession of the soul, while the body returns to the ground. Our investigation will focus on the three biblical terms nefeš, nešamah, and ruaʚ, all of which are generally rendered into English as “soul,” the vital force in human beings. We will clarify whether they really are synonyms. Then we will ask what happens

INTRODUCTION

5

to the vital force after a person dies. We will also consider the body-soul dualism of the talmudic sages, who were influenced by the Greek philosophers. Does the soul preexist the body? Which is punished after death, the body or the soul? To complete the picture we will also look at the Apocrypha, whose authors, deeply invested in the immortality of the soul, offered graphic descriptions of the world of souls and their punishment. In antiquity, human beings believed in a supreme deity who created heaven and earth; but they also feared the dark forces and sought to appease them. The Greeks, for example, sacrificed to the chthonic gods when they sought to consult with the dead in order to gain knowledge of the future (e.g., Odysseus’ raising Tiresias in the eleventh book of the Odyssey).7 That the dead know or can influence the future was a widespread belief in antiquity, including biblical Israel. The book of Samuel describes how Saul asked a medium to raise Samuel for him (1 Sam. 28:8, 11). Isaiah denounces those who consult with the dead, “who sit inside tombs and pass the night in secret places; who eat the flesh of swine, with broth of unclean things in their bowls” (Isa. 65:4). The Mishnah bans slaughtering “into the sea or into rivers,” lest this be seen as an offering to their spirits.8 The Talmud refers to those who sleep in the cemetery in order to overhear the conversations of the dead.9 Kohelet, on the other hand, must have dismissed such practices, since “the dead know nothing” (Eccles. 9:5). In Chapter Five we will ask a series of questions related to this topic: Was there a cult of the dead in ancient Israel? If so, was it part of the Jahwist cult? Did people consult with the dead, and how? Is there any evidence in the Bible of sacrifices to the dead? What is the biblical position on necromancy? How does the Bible view Saul’s desperate recourse to a medium? In Chapter Six we turn to mourning customs. In one sense this chapter is a direct continuation of Chapter Five, in that we must inquire whether mourning customs are related to the cult of the dead. We will try to determine what underlies the notion of the ritual impurity of the dead and the ban on coming into contact with Odyssey, 11: 24–26. M ʗullin 2:9. 9 B Ber. 18b; Sanh. 65b. 7 8

6

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

them. What are the implications of the customs of mourners’ rending their clothes, wearing sackcloth, and covering themselves with dirt or ashes? What about the laws against cutting the hair, destroying the beard, and scarifying the flesh? What underlies the various regulations concerning the dead themselves, such as burial, burning, dirges and laments, and erecting a monument? In the last chapter of our work we will consider the resurrection of the dead. Job does not seem to believe in it: “Remember that my life is a breath; my eye will never again see good. … As the cloud fades and vanishes, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up. He returns no more to his house, nor does his place know him any more” (Job 7:7–10).10 Elsewhere, though, does the Bible view death as final? Or does it uphold a belief in resurrection? We will review the verses that have been read as allusions to resurrection. We will also consider the evidence of the Apocrypha, the literature of the late Second Temple period, Josephus, the Qumran scrolls, and the opinions of the talmudic sages.

10

Thus the talmudic sage Rabbah (BB 16a).

WHY DO WE DIE? In the Bible, death is the proof of man’s nullity as compared to God and the forces of nature. Human beings are helpless in the face of death and cannot know the date of their death, for all that they would like to: “Lord, let me know my end, … let me know how fleeting my life is!” (Ps. 39:4[5]; cf. Gen. 27:2). The same passage raises a philosophical question as well: what is the purpose of life, since, as the psalmist goes on to say in the next verse, “every man stands as a mere breath! Why we must die is a question asked frequently in the Bible (Gen. 47:15, 19; Deut. 5:22; etc.). In Ezekiel we read, “I have no pleasure in the death of any one” (Ezek. 18:32). In the present chapter we will investigate why human beings are doomed to die. Is death an inevitable part of life, for, as Adam was told, “you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19)? Or, as Koheleth says, “a time to be born, and a time to die” (Eccles. 3:2). Indeed even though the dominant opinion among the tanna’im is that death is a punishment, it is also the way of the world and is inevitable. When God began creating the world, on the first day he created the Angel of Death as well.1 Death has been part of Nature since the Creation. When God completed His labors, we are told, “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31)—expounded by R. Meir to mean: “ ‘very good,’ that is, death.”2 According to him, death is an integral part of Nature, leading to the creation of new life and continuation of the cycle of creation. Death has been part of the natural order since the beginning; it is not a punishment or an evil decree. In short, death is the payment that must be made for new life. Another possibility is that death is the consequence of sin, for, as Adam was told, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 2:17). This idea can be traced back to Amoraic times: “there 1 2

Tanʘuma, Va-Yeshev 4. Gen. Rab. 9:5.

7

8

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

is no death without sin.”3 According to Koheleth, “there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Eccles. 7:20). Moses and Aaron died because of their transgressions.4 Another opinion, however, holds that death is the consequence of Adam’s sin and that we, his descendants, die because of it. According to Genesis Rabbah, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (mot tamut) (2:17): [this intimated] death for Adam, death for Eve, and death for his descendants.”5 Because the verb mwt is reduplicated, the Midrash interprets the verse to be referring to the death of Adam and Eve as well as the death of their descendants. If so, we are close to the Christian concept of original sin. In fact, we do find something similar in Sifrei Deuteronomy 3:23: “Their grapes are grapes of gall—you are the descendents of primeval Adam, for whom I decreed death, both for him and for his descendants who follow him, until the end of all generations their clusters are bitter (32:32).”6 The same Rabbi said: “Should a man ask you, If Adam had not sinned, and had eaten of that tree, would he have lived and endured forever? answer him, There was Elijah, who did not sin; he lives and endures forever.”7 Another possibility personifies Death as an entity independent of God. This means that God’s powers are limited and that death lies outside his domain. In this vein, the Bible refers to a “cruel messenger” (or angel) (Prov. 17:11), the “first-born of death” (Job 18:13), “the king of terrors” (Job 18:14), “pestilence” and “destruction” (Ps. 91:6), the leech and her two daughters (Prov. 30:15). If these terms refer to emissaries of the god Mot (see below), the Bible may retain remnants of the polytheistic belief that when God created Heaven and Earth He had to fight the forces of chaos, and that Death is a survivor of those forces, whom God was unable to B Shabbat 55a. But there are exceptions to the rule, including Elijah, who did not die. On this see Lev. Rab. 27:4; Eccles. Rab. 3:15. 5 Gen. Rab. 16.6 6 Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, trans. Reuven Hammer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), vol. 15, p.335. 7 Pesikta, ed. Buber f. 76; Tanʘuma, ed. Buber, Emor 12. 3 4

WHY DO WE DIE?

9

overcome. In Isaiah we read that the Lord will subdue His enemies and the enemies of Israel, and that “He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth” (Isa. 25:8). According to the verse, at the end of days Death itself will die so that humans no longer will. Until then, however, it is possible that death is an independent force beyond the control of God.

“YOU ARE DUST, AND TO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN” (GEN. 3:19) The Bible’s answer to the question of why human beings die is encapsulated in God’s decree to Adam: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). God created Adam from the dust of the earth; consequently his end is to return to the dust (Gen. 2:7). In other words, man comes from the earth, is nourished by it, and returns to it. There was good cause why the first man was named Adam: “It is fitting that I be called Adam, because I was created from the ground (adamah).”8 According to Gen. 2:7, “the Lord God formed man (adam) of dust from the ground (ha-adamah).” Thus the name Adam means something like “earthling.” Many scholars have noted that the words “from the ground” emphasize the link between Adam and adamah, but it is not certain that there is an etymological relationship here. In Hebrew, adam is both a collective noun that refers to the human species as a whole as well as a proper noun, the name of the first human being, who, when created, was unique.9 Some do associate adam with adamah, maintaining that both derive from edom ‘red,’ which is the color of human beings and the soil.10 Here, too, Gen. Rab. 17:4. Adam as a personal name can also be found in extra-biblical texts. In Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian texts we find A-da-mu, A-dam-u, and ÝA-da-mu. In a text from Ebla there is a reference to A-da-mu. In Ugaritic one of the titles of El is il ab adam, “El, the father of mankind.” See: M. Pope, “Adam,” EncJud 2: 235; M. J. Dahood, “Ebla, Ugarit and the Bible,” in The Archives of Ebla: An Empire Inscribed in Clay, ed. G.Pettinato (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), p.274. 10 In Akkadian, the word adamu is used for “blood,” adamatu for black blood, and the plural adamatu for “dark, red earth [used as dye]. See: CAD: A, p.94, s.v. adamu, 1:94–95. In Aramaic we find the form Þadam 8 9

10

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

however, we must be cautious; the etymology seems to be questionnable. But there can be no doubt that we are dealing with an intentional play on words, adam and adamah, as a literary device used by the author to emphasize that Adam and all human beings derive from adamah, ‘ground,’ ‘earth,’ ‘soil.’11 This play on words continues through the story of the flood and is emphasized in Gen. 4:11–12 and 5:29. Modern scholars, too, emphasize the connection between adam and adamah. In his commentary on Gen. 3:7, Benno Jacob writes that the substance from which Adam was created is mentioned here because his destiny is to till the soil and eventually to return to it, to his origins. The soil is his cradle, his home, and his tomb. This intimate link between Adam/man and the soil adamah is symbolized by the collocation of the two words, each supplementing the other. He adds that Man is dust and must accordingly return to his origins.12 Westermann also notes the connection with dust from the earth: “till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). He sees dust and earth as indications of the limitations of human existence.13 Gunkel, on verse 7, notes that “the life of the Adam is very closely related to this Adamah: he was created from the field,

‘blood.’ In Ugaritic, the verb Þadm is used in connection with cleaning and anointing the body and is translated “to rouge or redden.” 11 Rashi on this verse writes, “ ‘Dust of the ground.’ He gathered his dust from the entire earth, from the four corners, so that in whatever place he [man] may die, it [the earth] should receive him for burial (B Sanhedrin 38a). Another interpretation is, He took his dust from the place of which it is said (Ex. 20:21): ‘An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me,’ [i.e., from the spot where the Temple and altar were later to stand] to symbolize that it would be an atonement for him that he might be able to endure.” Here Rashi offers two interpretations, because the expression “dust from the ground” occurs twice. Rashi reconciles this by explaining that “from the ground” refers either to the entire earth or to the place of the altar, viz. the future site of the Temple. 12 B. Jacob, The First Book of The Bible, his commentary abridged, edited, and translated by Ernest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob (New York: Ktav, 1974), p.16. 13 Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987), p.206.

WHY DO WE DIE?

11

his profession is cultivating the field (v. 5; 3:23), he lives on the field (3:23), and he returns to the field when he dies (3:19).”14 When God tells Adam, “till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken” (Gen. 3:19), it is not a curse, but an explanation of why death is an intrinsic feature of existence. In other words, Adam must never forget that his body was created from the ground and that everything in nature returns to its source. The end of the verse, “you are dust, and to dust you shall return,” reiterates the first half. The reason for the duplication may be the use in Gen. 2:7 of the expression “dust from the ground”: since the first half of the verse refers only to the ground, dust must be mentioned as well. The emphasis on “dust” suggests the virtues of humility and modesty to which every person should aspire. As Abraham says, “I … am but dust and ashes” (Gen. 18:27). The idea that human beings come from the dust and ultimately return to the dust appears in the Bible elsewhere, in forms that recall the two halves of the verse in Genesis: “Take away their breath, they perish and turn again into dust” (Ps. 104:29). In other words, God is the source of life and implants His spirit in human beings (v. 30), but when He takes His spirit back they return to the ground. Again, “For He knows how we are formed; He is mindful that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14). This is an appeal to God. “As for man, his days are like grass” (Ps. 103:15): human life is short and death is certain, so we must pray to the Lord for His mercy. The expression “you are dust” is echoed in “All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again” (Eccles. 3:20). All creatures—both human beings and animals—are created from the dust, and the latter, too, return to dust (Ps. 104:29). But the salient difference between human beings and animals is that the human spirit returns above while the breath of animals descends and is swallowed up in the earth (Eccles. 3:21). Whereas, for human beings, their “dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccles. 12:7). The latter verse echoes Gen. 2:7 and 3:19, but with an inversion. If in Genesis the focus is creation, in Ecclesiastes it is death. In Genesis, man comes from

Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1997), p.6. 14

12

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the ground and God breathes His spirit into him; in Ecclesiastes, man returns to the ground and the Lord takes back His spirit. In Job too, we find the notion that human beings will ultimately return to the dust: “all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:15).15 This recalls the language of the flood story, “all flesh that stirred on earth perished” (Gen. 7:21). “All flesh” is synonymous with “every living thing” (Job 12:2, 28:21). In other words, all creatures will die and human beings will return to the dust. The idea that human beings ultimately return to the dust can also be found in the liturgy for the High Holy Days: “Man’s origin is from dust and his end is in dust.” These verses are evidence of human transience and nothingness. The idea that human beings come from the dust and ultimately return to the soil is also found in Ben Sira: “The Lord from the earth created humankind, and makes each person return to earth again. Limited days of life he gives them, with power over all things else on earth” (17:1–2). According to him, human beings are mortal as part of the original divine plan and return to the soil from which they derive after they complete their allotted span on Earth. In the Prophets and the Writings there are traces of a tradition of God creating humans out of clay. This tradition is similar to extra extra-biblical texts where human beings are created from clay, and the metaphor is usually of the creator as a potter.16 Thus in Job we read: “Consider that You fashioned me like clay; Will You then Here the Hebrew preposition Ýal, which normally means “on,” should simply be taken as a by-form of Þel ‘to.’ 16 In Egyptian art, the god Khnum is depicted sitting on his royal throne with a potter’s wheel in front of him, forming the prince Amenhotep and his ka. See ANEP, p.190 no. 569. In the wisdom literature of Amen-em-opert (chap. 35), it is stated that “man is clay and straw, and the god is his builder.” See John Wilson, “Egypt” in H. and H. Frankfort, et al., The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1977), p.64. In texts from Mesopotamia we also find a description of human beings as created from clay. In the epic of Gilgamesh the goddess Aruru is said to have created Enkiddu from clay. See: “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, Tablet I, ii, lines 34–35, p.74; See also the epic of Atrahasis: W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-hasĩs: The Babylonian Story of Úthe Flood (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p.59. 15

WHY DO WE DIE?

13

turn me back into dust?” (Job 10:9). This juxtaposition of the substance from which human beings were created and the dust that is their last station occurs elsewhere in the book, too (4:19 and 30:19). The description in the present verse draws on the account of the creation of Adam in Genesis. The reference to God’s creating Man from the clay, rather than dust is more metaphorical than literal, but it functions as a powerful symbol, emphasizing both the power of God the Creator and the transience of human beings. Similarly we read that Elihu said: “ I too was nipped from clay”(33:6). The root qrʜ ‘nip, pinch,’ is also found in the Mesopotamian creation story in the Epic of Gilgamesh: ti-ta-iktaris, “Pinched off clay.”17 The fact that humans were created from clay is also echoed in Isaiah: “Shall the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ ” (Isaiah 45:9); or “We are the clay, and You are the Potter, we are all the work of Your hands” (64:7). In contrast to Genesis we read in the Prophets and the Writings of God’s hands in the process of creation: “Your hands made me and fashioned me” (Ps 119:73); “Your hands shaped and fashioned me”(Job 10:8). The whole passage in Jeremiah 18:1–14 describes God as a potter and Israel as clay in his hands. As we have seen, the prophets borrowed ideas from the ancient pagan tradition and used them metaphorically. The Torah, by contrast, is more cautious and states quite simply that God created man from “dust from the ground.” The Torah offers no more detailed description of the creation of man; there is no mention of God’s hands, and the word Ýafar “dust” is used instead of “clay,” which is associated with the hands of the potter.18 The Torah also employs no mythological elements that include gods who are killed, contribute their blood to the creation of human beings, or beget human beings. Furthermore, the biblical tradition speaks of the creation of only one couple, whereas in Babylonian texts a multitude is created. As noted, the Torah uses the word “dust,” with its connotations of humility, and ties everything to the end of the story: “you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” 17 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, Tablet I, ii, line 34, p.74. 18 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, translated by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961) 1: 105.

14

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

DEATH AND THE SIN OF EATING THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT Genesis offers another explanation of why human beings must die: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 2:17). According to this verse, death entered the world as punishment for disobedience; that is, it was because of his transgression that Adam was condemned to return to the dust from which he came. Eating of this tree was the only thing that God forbade to Adam in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:17); only after he disobeyed did God expel him, so that he would not also eat of the Tree of Life and live forever (Gen. 3:22–23). In other words, it was on account of this sin that Adam lost the hope of eternal life. “You shall surely die”(Gen.2:17) Adam is enjoined not to eat of the tree of knowledge, “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). There are two major difficulties with this verse. Working backwards we note the expression “surely die,” mot tamut, with its reduplication of the root mwt. The Midrash understands this as connoting the death of Adam and Eve as well as the deaths of their descendants.19 A kabbalistic understanding of the verse is that by mot tamut the Torah means two deaths, one physical, of the body, and the other spiritual, of the soul. We find a similar repetition of the root mwt in the account of the deaths of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, “after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord and died” (Lev. 16:1). Another possibility is that mot tamut refers to two forms of death, natural death and unnatural and premature death. The best solution, however, is simply to accept the plain meaning of the text and understand the reduplication of the root mwt as a common biblical grammatical form—what the Talmudic sages had in mind when they said that “the Torah speaks in human language.”20

19 20

Gen. Rab. 16:6. B. Ber. 31b.

WHY DO WE DIE?

15

“In the day that you eat of it” (Gen. 2:17) The second problem with “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” is that Adam and Eve did not die the same day that they ate of the forbidden fruit. The Midrash accordingly glosses the word “day” as if it means a day on the Divine calendar, which is equivalent to a thousand years of human time. In order to maintain the veracity of the Lord’s word, when He created Adam He gave him one day of His days. Given that Adam was only 70 years short of a complete Divine day when he died, he died on the same day as he ate the fruit. According to Genesis Rabbah: “One day of God’s is a thousand years long, as it said, ‘A thousand years are in your sight as yesterday’(Ps 90:4).”21 Pesiqta Rabba offers something similar: “He [God] did not specify to Adam if it would be a day of his [own days] or a day of God’s, which lasts one thousand years, since ‘a thousand years in your [God’s] sight are like yesterday’ [Ps. 90:4].”22 We find the same idea in the Book of Jubilees: “Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he was first to be buried in the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years [that is, he died at age 930] for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of heavens [that is according to Psalm 90], and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: ‘On the day that you eat thereof, you shall die’ ” (Jub. 4:29–30). Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) solves the contradiction by suggesting that Adam was created on the sixth day (Friday) and died on a Friday. According to him, Adam merited death by his action; since, however, he repented on the very same day, the Lord mitigated the severity of the penalty. R. Bahya ben Asher (13th century) took a different approach. The meaning of the verse, he writes, is not that Adam will die the same day that he eats the forbidden fruit, but that he will become mortal; for, according to the talmudic sages, had he not sinned he would have lived forever, like the angels.23 He adds that, according Gen. Rab. 8:2. Pesiqta Rabbati, Baʚodesh ha-sheviÝi 40; cf. Gen. Rab. 19:8. 23 The Sages said that had Adam not sinned he would have lived forever (B. Avoda Zarah 5a). This statement is based on “I said you are divine beings, sons of the Most High, all of you” (Ps. 82:6). What is inter21 22

16

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

to the natural scientists, Adam would have died a natural death sooner or later even if he had never sinned. But when he sinned it was decreed that he die prematurely, at the hand of Heaven, rather than a random death. As we have seen already, “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” has been understood in various ways. All of them, according to Cassuto, are implausible. Where, for example, is it stated that the Lord decreased Adam’s life from a thousand years to only 930? It is hard to accept that the Bible attributes to the Lord a statement that has no direct tie to its actual meaning. Nowhere does the Bible state that the Lord mitigated Adam’s punishment because he repented. Nowhere does the Bible even hint that Adam was immortal before eating of the tree of knowledge. Rather, says Cassuto, it was when Adam ate from the tree of knowledge that he was forbidden to eat from the tree of life; in other words, that is when it was decreed that he not attain eternal life but would die one day. “You shall die” is a simplistic phrase, uttered before Adam ate of the tree of knowledge in simple language because Adam was like a simple child who could not understand a more sophisticated warning.24 Modern scholars have also wrestled with the words “for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 2:17). They too are bothered by “in the day,” since Adam did not die as soon as he ate the forbidden fruit. Th. C. Vriezen noted that “in the day” can have a number of significations, including “at the time when,” “at that time when,” or even “if.” He adds that in several places in the Bible “in the day” has a general sense (Gen. 2:4, 5:1; Ex. 6:28, 10:28, 32:34).25 What the phrase means is that death is not a direct consequence of eating the forbidden fruit; what is more, this is a formula that describes the punishment. Adam did not die the same day.

esting is that the Psalmist did not write like divine beings/sons of the Most High. See also B Shabbat 55b. 24 Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, p.125 25 TH. C. Vriezen, Onderzoek Naar De Paradijsvoor Stelling Bij De Oude Semietische Volken (H. Veenman & Zonen-Wageningen, 1937), pp.161– 162.

WHY DO WE DIE?

17

Vawter suggests rendering the verse, “the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die”26 and points out that capital punishment is not actually inflicted. Westermann does not accept the idea that “you shall surely die” means “you will become mortal” or “you will die some time later.”27 He supports Gunkel, who writes, “This threat is not carried out later: they do not die immediately. This circumstance cannot be explained, but must simply be acknowledged.”28 Gunkel maintains that the difficulty felt by modern commentators with the fact that the Lord’s word was not fulfilled at once did not bother the ancient narrator. Instead, he would have said, “God is and will be the Lord of his words; later he ‘regretted’ the statement.”29 For Gunkel, this is an example of Divine mercy. Evidently, then, “you shall surely die” does not mean that Adam would die at once, but rather that “you shall become a person who dies”; in other words, that he will become mortal. From this one may infer that the Lord’s intention, when He created Adam and Eve, was that they live a long life as long as they obeyed the Lord’s injunctions. However, as He warned them, as soon as they violated the prohibition they would become mortal. Once they did so, death hovered over them; the only question was when they would die. This is in fact what happened, for Adam and Eve continued to live after their disobedience but did die in the end. The punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge Modern scholars display a broad range of opinions about the association between eating the forbidden fruit and death. Some believe that death is not a consequence of eating the forbidden fruit. Skinner, for example, notes that the word “death” is not part of the punishment. As he writes, “the fact is referred to as part of the natural order of things—the inevitable ‘return’ of man to the

26 B. Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), p.73. 27 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, p.225. 28 Gunkel, Genesis, p.10. 29 Ibid.

18

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

ground whence he was taken.”30 For Vawter, “Death … is not viewed as part of man’s punishment. … Death is simply the termination of man’s life of toil.”31 For Benno Jacob, “the death of man is the consequence of his creation—every thing returns to the place from which it has been taken; life is only a temporary separate existence of a piece of soil . The sinner and the innocent both die; the difference between them is only when and for what reason.”32 Kohler, in his Theology of the Old Testament, emphasizes that, so far as this pericope is concerned, death is not a punishment: “It knows nothing of the idea that the death of man is punishment and a breach of Gods original order. The story of the Fall itself shows that man’s punishment consists in the laborious nature of his work. His toil shall last till he dies, Gen. 3:17–19.”33 Westermann also believes that vv. 17–19 are not an explanation of why men die. According to him, the second half of verse 19, “you are dust, and to dust you shall return” has “one function, to underline that the man’s work will be full of toil right up to his death; his whole existence will be stamped with it. The sentence that gives the reason, ‘for out of it you were taken,’ introduces a further nuance; the man’s return to the earth will close the lifespan begun with creation.”34 Some scholars look for a compromise. They include O. Procksch and G. von Rad, who say that the death was not pronounced against man in Gen. 3:19. Rather, Adam for the first time sensed what was going to happen to him. According to Procksch: “He now experiences the grim connection between Þadam and Þadamah from which he can never break free.”35 For von Rad, “man now learns something of his end; it is forced into his consciousness

30 John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), p.83. 31 Vawter, On Genesis, p.85. 32 Jacob, The First Book of the Bible, p.31. 33 Ludwig Koehler, Old Testament Theology, trans. A. S. Todd (London: Lutterworth Press, 1957), p.148. 34 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, p.267. 35 D. Otto Procksch, Die Genesis (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche, 1924), p.37.

WHY DO WE DIE?

19

and he must let this knowledge overshadow his entire life.”36 Nevertheless, he does believe that death contains an element of punishment and “therefore thematically it belongs with special emphasis to the penalty.”37 Dillmann accepts both opinions and sees no contradiction between them: “Death is presupposed as following of itself from the earthly origin of man. Nevertheless it is a punishment because God’s word (2:17) can be no vain threat.”38 For Holzinger, the punishment “is twofold; the relationship to the earth on which he lives is changed, and then he is under sentence of death.”39 The sentence imposed on Adam after he ate from the tree of knowledge is proclaimed in Gen. 3:17–19. In fact, there are five punishments: (1) “cursed is the ground because of you”; (2) “in toil you shall eat of it”; (3) “thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you”; (4) “you shall eat the plants of the field”; (5) “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”40 As noted previously, the Lord’s words to Adam—“till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return”—are not a curse, but merely the inexorable force of reality, because everything in nature returns to its source. The verb mwt does not appear here at all. It seems that these verses are trying to tell Adam what “you shall surely die” (2:17) means: man’s insignificance and impotence as compared to the eternity of God. Adam wanted to be like God, and God set him in his place. We are dealing with a play on words, which in essence repeats the message of the first part of the verse, “till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken.” Both verses allude to the beginning of the Eden pericope, “then the Lord God 36 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, revised edition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), p.95. 37 Ibid. 38 A. Dillmann, Genesis, Critically and Exegetical expounded, trans. Wm. B. Stevenson (Edinburgh: T&T. Clark, 1897), vol 1: 165. 39 H. Holzinger, Genesis ( Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1898), p.35. 40 This is in contrast to other biblical passages that speak of the dead as going down into the tomb and entering the region of dead (Isa. 14:9– 12; Ezek. 32:17–32; etc.).

20

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

formed man of dust from the ground (2:7). Adam must not forget that his body was created from the ground and that everything in Nature returns to its source. Death is inherent in the nature of human beings. The Tree of Life The conclusion “it was good” is not stated about the creation of man—unlike everything else—because he was given the choice to be good or bad. From the outset, however, he opted for evil. Adam lived a contented life in Eden; the only thing that God forbade him was to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, since this would put an end to his innocence, given that “in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow” (Eccles. 1:18). But Adam violated the divine prohibition, leading to his expulsion from Eden. Had he not disobeyed, he would have been able to eat from the tree of life, too, and live forever. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God was concerned “lest [the man] put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. 3:22). Evidently this means a tree whose fruit confers immortality on those who eat it. It is prefaced with the definite article, indicating that it is a specific tree. Without the definite article, the expression “tree of life” appears in Proverbs as a metaphor for something from which the life force stems: “It [i.e., wisdom] is a tree of life to those who lay hold of it; those who hold it fast are called happy.” (Prov. 3:18); “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life” (11:30); “a desire fulfilled is a tree of life” (13:12); “a gentle tongue is a tree of life” (15:4). It is not clear whether Adam would have attained immortality by tasting its fruit once, or whether he would have had to eat it repeatedly in order to live forever. The text suggests that Adam was made of perishable materials and was mortal, but that eternal life was within his grasp as long as the fruit of the Tree of Life was not forbidden him (Gen. 2:17). The Tree of Life motif is found in extra-biblical traditions as well. In ancient Egyptian literature it appears as a tall sycamore on which the gods sit, eating its fruits in order to enjoy eternal life. There is no explicit reference to a tree in Mesopotamian literature,

WHY DO WE DIE?

21

but we do encounter mê balĆʞi ‘the water of life,’ akl balĆʞi ‘the bread of life,’ and sammi balĆʞi ‘the plant of life.’41 In the Epic of Gilgamesh we read of a plant that rejuvenates old men, which is not necessarily the same as eternal life.42 Since Budde and Gunkel, modern scholars have conjectured that the biblical Tree of Life is a late addition to the story.43 Westermann concurs, holding that the original story had only one tree, in the middle of the Garden (3:3), which was the forbidden tree (3:11). Later, however, the text was expanded by the addition 41 Noted that in post-biblical Hebrew we find the expression “drug of life.” In Aramaic we have samma de-ʚayyei, which is identical with the Akkadian term. According to the Talmud: “R. Joshua b. Levi said: What is the meaning of the Scriptural verse: ‘And this is the law which Moses set [before the children of Israel]’ [Deut. 6:44]?—If he is meritorious it becomes for him a drug of life, if not, a deadly poison [lit. a drug of death]. That is what Rava [meant when he] said: If he uses it the right way it is a drug of life unto him; he who does not use it the right way, it is a deadly poison” (B Yoma 72b; see also B Qiddushin 30b. 42 266 I will disclose, O Gilgamesh, a hidden thing, 267 And [a secret of the gods I will] tell thee: 268 This plant, like the buckthorn is [its …] 269 It horns will pr[ick thy hands] just as the rose. 270 If thy hands obtain the plant, [thou wilt find new life]. 281 Its name shall be “Man Becomes Young in Old Age”: 282 I myself shall eat (it), and thus return to the state of my youth. See: “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, p.96. In the myth of Adapa the hero is offered the “food of life” and the “water of life” by the god Anu, but on the advice of Ea he refuses them, thinking that they are the bread and water of death. (“Adapa,” trans. E. A.Speiser, ANET, lines 67– 68, p.102). The “water of life” is also mentioned in the story of Isthar’s descent to the netherworld (“Descent of Isthar to the Nether World,” trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, lines 34, 38, p.107). 43 Budde, for example, argues that the original text spoke of only one tree (3:2, 3, 5, 11, 12), which is said to be within the Garden (3:3) and forbidden to eat of (3:11). On the other hand, the Tree of Life is mentioned in 2:9 and 3:22–24. Hence one can argue that the original story dealt with only one tree and that the story of the Tree of Life is an addition interpolated from what was originally a separate story. See: K. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gissen: J. Ricker, 1883), pp.46–88; Gunkel, Genesis, p.26; E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden city, New York: Doubleday. 1964), p.20.

22

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

of the familiar motif of the aspiration for eternal life. Knowledge/Tree of Knowledge, as well as Tree of Life/immortality, are divine attributes. The author of the story, wanting to highlight the difference between mortals and God, introduced the Tree of Life motif. Human beings acquired knowledge of good and evil, but eternal life pertains to God alone.44 Obbink, on the other hand, believes that the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life would provide perpetual vitality. Adam and Eve ate it in Eden. It was their ambrosia, the divine drug that prevents death. After their sin, however, the Lord expelled them from Eden so that they could no longer eat the fruit; in other words, he was effectively sentenced to die.45 The problem with this interpretation is the word “also” (“and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22), which seems to indicate that he had not yet eaten of it. A different interpretation is that One who would eat its fruit would benefit from greatly increased longevity but not live forever. R. Bahya ben Asher (2:17) points to philosophers who find it difficult to accept the idea that Adam, who comes from dust and whose end is dust, could have achieved immortality had he not sinned. Thus, he suggests, “and live for ever” does not mean eternal life; rather, Ýolam has the sense of long life, he quotes two verses in which le-Ýolam means a long period of time: “He shall serve him for life” (Ex. 21:6), where le-Ýolam does not mean “forever,” but rather “until the jubilee year” or “a long time.”46 His other example is from the book of Samuel, where Hannah says that her child will “remain there for good” (1 Sam. 1:22). Another possibility is that here “life” has the sense of healing, as reflected by the parallelism in Proverbs: “For they are life to him who finds them, and healing to all his flesh” (Prov. 4:22). As we have noted, the story in Genesis does not include a prohibition on eating from the Tree of Life, of the sort stated explicitly about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (2:17). Later, however, we read that God’s fear is “lest he put forth his Westermann, Genesis 1–11, pp.212–214. H. Th. Obbink, “The Tree of Life in Eden,” ExpTim 44 (1932– 33): 475. 46 Cf. David Kimʘi on 3:22. 44 45

WHY DO WE DIE?

23

hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22). In other words, He does not want Adam to eat the fruit of that tree. Rather, after he sinned by disobeying the prohibition against eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it was the Lord’s will that His decree of Adam’s premature death be fulfilled as punishment for the transgression; if he ate of the Tree of Life, this doom would be annulled. In addition, there is the explicit statement (2:16–17) that the Lord permitted Adam to eat the fruit of all the trees in the Garden except for the Tree of Knowledge. Modern scholars, as we have seen, did not notice this difficulty, ignored it, or maintained that the Tree of Life is a later addition. Evidently the reason for the prohibition is that had Adam never eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil he would not have desired the fruit of the Tree of Life, because he lacked the knowledge to distinguish ephemeral life from eternal life. After he sinned, however, the Lord decreed that he not eat of the Tree of Life and expelled him from Eden. The tree is called the Tree of Life because eating its fruit would protect Adam against death until his body disintegrated naturally. That is, the fruit conveyed immunity to an unnatural end, but not to natural death. In summary, the Bible mentions two trees: the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. With regard to eating the fruit of the former, the Serpent tells Eve that “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5). After Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, “the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (3:22). Thus the core of the story is Adam’s attempt to rebel against God and resemble Him. This is why God forbids him to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Eating it will increase both his knowledge and his pain, allowing him to distinguish between ephemeral joys and eternal life. The punishment decreed for eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge is that man die a premature, Heaven-sent death. He will “surely die”—not immediately, but nevertheless before the epoch that his perishable nature would have otherwise dictated. The Tree of Life would have protected Adam and kept him alive until the inevitable disintegration of his physical frame. For there is no escaping the fact that “you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19).

24

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

ORIGINAL SIN The idea that some original sin burdens all humanity and doomed all generations is foreign to the Bible. Human beings pay only for their own deeds. God offers human beings life and death, the blessing and the curse, and they can choose freely between them (Deut. 30:19; cf. 11:26). Because a man’s thoughts and desires are evil from his youth, however, the choice is difficult (Gen. 8:21); furthermore, “there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Eccles. 7:20; cf. Ps. 143:2). The Bible finds fault even with Moses and Aaron (Deut. 32:51 and elsewhere). As noted, making death the consequence of some original sin is alien to Judaism and is not supported by the Bible. There are, however, two talmudic passages that relate explicitly to this concept and seem to accept it: “Four died through the counsel of the serpent, namely, Benjamin son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David, and Kilab the son of David.”47 According to R. Johanan, “Why are idolaters lustful? Because they did not stand at Mount Sinai. For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected a lust into her: [as for] the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness departed; the idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness did not depart.”48 But even here Adam’s sin is considered to have carried fatal consequences only for four almost unknown persons, while Israel was redeemed from it by its acceptance of the Torah. Quite the opposite view is stated by R. ʗama bar ʗanina and R. Jonathan, contemporaries of R. Johanan; they held that Adam was punished by death because of the sins of future generations: “Adam deserved to be spared the experience of death. Why then was the penalty of death decreed against him? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that Nebuchadnezzar and Hiram would declare themselves gods; therefore was death decreed against him.”49 According to R. Johanan, “Why was death decreed against the wicked? Because as long as the wicked live they anger the Lord …; but when they die they cease to anger Him. … Why was death decreed against the righteous? Because as long as the righteous live they must fight against B Baba Batra 17a. B Shabbat 145b–146a. 49 Gen. Rab. 9:5. 47 48

WHY DO WE DIE?

25

their evil desires, but when they die they enjoy rest.”50 The Midrash continues with the statement by R. Simeon Ben Lakish: “[Death was decreed] in order to reward the righteous in double measure and to punish the wicked in double measure. To reward the righteous, who had not deserved to experience death, yet did accept the experience of death: ‘Therefore in their land they shall possess double’ (Isa. 56:); and to punish the wicked, since the righteous had not deserved death yet accepted it on their account; therefore, ‘and destroy them with double destruction’ (Jer. 17:18).”51 It is possible that death also served the righteous by cleansing them of their own sins.52 The talmudic sages famously stated that the wicked are considered to be dead even in their lifetimes, whereas the righteous are considered to be alive even after their death.53 According to R. Yosé, death is a punishment, but the cause was the sin of the golden calf. As we read in Exodus Rabbah: “Had Israel waited for Moses and not [made the Golden Calf], there would have been no exile, neither would the Angel of Death have had any power over them.”54 The gift of the Torah made it possible to choose life and banish death from the world, but after Israel sinned the decree of death was reconfirmed. Thus Israel’s experience recapitulated Adam’s: first the sin and then the decree of death. It was actually Paul in the Christian New Testament who brought original sin into the world: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam. … Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 4:12–19). Ibid. Ibid. 52 T Yoma 4:9. 53 B Berakhot 18a–b; Tanʘuma Berakhah 7. 54 Ex. Rab. 32:1. 50 51

26

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Paul’s dictum has stimulated theological debates within Christianity and has been interpreted variously by modern scholars. There is general agreement, however, that he believed that original sin affected all human beings and that Adam bequeathed to his descendants a physical nature corrupted by desires and impulses, dooming them to sin and death. Sin is innate to human beings, and so is death, which strikes all in punishment for their own sins, but is also the result of original sin. A broader concept of original sin can be found in the Apocrypha. According to Ben Sirach, “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die” (Ecclus. 25:24). But this is part of a misogynistic section that begins “Any wound, but not a wound of the heart! Any wickedness, but not the wickedness of a wife!” (v. 13). He concludes, we may note, on a more optimistic note: “A good wife is a great blessing; she will be granted among the blessings of the man who fears the Lord” (26:3). Although Ben Sirach states that both sin and death originated with a woman, he does not maintain the doctrine of original sin and an eternal decree.55 On the contrary, elsewhere he writes explicitly that “It was he who created man in the beginning, and left him in the power of his own inclination. If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your choice”(15:14–15). To him death is a sort of natural law: “Every product decays and ceases to exist, and the man who made it will pass away with it” (14:19). We have already mentioned Ben Sirach’s belief that human beings originated from the ground and ultimately return there (17:1–2). His view of death is expounded in 41:3–4: “Do not fear the sentence of death: remember your former days and the end of life; this is the decree from the Lord for all flesh, and how can you reject the good pleasure of the Most High? Whether life is for ten or a hundred or a thousand years there is no inquiry about it in Hades.” Death is final, for Ben Sirach, and the concept of resurrection is absent from his book. In addition, there 55 Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), p.421; J. J. Collins, “The Root of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom,” HTR 71 (1978): 179–85; idem, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster Press, 1997), pp.92–94.

WHY DO WE DIE?

27

are circumstances in which death should be accepted as a blessing: “O death, how welcome is your sentence to one who is in need and is failing in strength, very old and distracted over every thing; to one who is contrary, and has lost his patience!”(41:2). Or again, “Death is better than a miserable life, and eternal rest than chronic sickness” (30:17).56 The author of 4 Esdras says that Adam violated the commandment that had been given to him: “For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who descended from him”57 According to the author, an evil heart was implanted in Adam (3:21) and permanent in his offspring (3:22, 25–26; 7:63–72). In 4:30 he uses the different image of seed and sowing: “For a grain of evil seed was sown in Adam’s heart from the beginning.” Note that the author avoids attributing the creation of evil inclination to God, but does not make its origin clear.58 The Sages, on the other hand, maintained that God created the evil inclination, but also gave human beings the ability to overcome it. It appears that his heart of evil caused Adam’s sins, which brought death as its punishment, appointed immediately “for him and for his descendants” (3:7; 7:116–126). A similar view is found in the (Latin) Life of Adam and Eve: “And Adam said to Eve, ‘What have you done? You have brought upon us a great wound, transgression and sin in all our generations”(44:2). The author of the Syriac Baruch, too, was acquainted with the concept of original sin, but rejected it outright. “For, although Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not in his own time, yet each of them who has been born from him has prepared for himself the coming torment. … Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam” (2 Baruch 54:15–19).

See also: Tob. 3:6, 10, 13; Job 7:15; 1 Kings 19:4; Jonah 4:3. Cf. Sophocles: “For death is gain to him whose life, like mine, Is full of misery”(Antigone 464). 57 4 Esdras 3:21–22, 4:30–32, 7:48. 58 For more on this subject see Michael Edward Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), pp.63–64. 56

28

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

For the author of 1 Enoch, sin derives from Satan, who led the angels astray and made them his minions (1 Enoch 69:4–13). These angels in turn misled human beings by means of the “daughters of the people” (69:5; cf. Gen. 6:1–4). One of these angels “misled Eve” and “showed the children of people (how to make) the instruments of death” (1 Enoch 69:6). All sin is attributed to Azaz’el: “And the whole earth has been corrupted by Azaz’el’s teaching of his (own) action; and write upon him all sin”(10:8; cf.8:1ff). All this was contrary to the divine plan, “For indeed human beings were not created but to be like angels, permanently to maintain pure and righteous lives. Death, which destroys everything, would have not touched them, had it not been through their knowledge by which they shall perish; death is (now) eating us by means of this power”(69:11). On the other hand, Enoch advances a different position: Sin was sent neither by the Lord nor by Satan. Rather, its source is man himself, and it was not inherited from Adam. “neither has sin been exported into the world. It is the people who have themselves invented it” (98:4). The idea that human beings are responsible for their own actions, even though everything occurs according to the divine plan, is common in the literature of the ancient East. According to Ben Sirach: “Do not say, ‘Because of the Lord I left the right way’; for he will not do what he hates” (15:11). Similarly, we find in the Egyptian Coffin Texts: “ I did not command that they do evil, [but] it was their hearts which violated what I had said.”59 For Philo in Det. 122 says: “Moses does not say, as some impious people do, that God is the author of ills. Nay, he says that ‘our own hands’ cause them, figuratively describing in this way our own undertakings, and the spontaneous movement of our minds to what is wrong.” For the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, too, death is not part of the divine plan: “ For he created all things that they might exist, and the generative forces of the world are wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them; and the dominion of Hades is not on earth. For righteousness is immortal” (Wisdom 1:14–15). It appeared in the world as the result of Satan’s envy: “for God “All Man Created Equal in Opportunity,” trans. John A. Wilson, ANET, p.8. 59

WHY DO WE DIE?

29

created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it” (2:23–24).60 According to Winston, in light of the Platonic notion of the relationship between body and soul, expounded in 9:15, this refers to spiritual rather than physical death.61 He maintains that the rabbis, too, believed that the initial divine plan did not include death, but that, unlike the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, they did mean physical death.62 The author of that book thus understood the story of the serpent in Eden symbolically and associated the serpent with Satan, who brought death into the world. Some have sought evidence of original sin in the Psalmist’s plaint that “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:7 [5]). Augustine cited this verse as proof that not only the child, but even the fetus in the womb, is corrupted by sin.63 Much has been written about this verse, with the focus on whether it refers to individual sin or collective sin. Is the reference to hereditary sin, that is, every human being is born in sin, and there is no escaping it, because it is innate? R. Aʘa, in his homily on the verse, says, “Even if one be the most pious of the pious, it is impossible that he have no streak of iniquity in him. David said before the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘O Lord of the Universe! Did my father Jesse have the intention of bringing me into the world? Why, his intention was his own enjoyment’ ” (Lev. Rabbah 14:5). Note that in several passages the Bible does hint that human beings are fated to sin because they are impure from birth (Job 14:4, 15:14, 25:4); but this is not the dominant view. Kaufmann believed that the verse refers to the sin of the parents, not that of the fetus and child. The story in Genesis (2:4 and 4:26) reflects the idea that conception is not a divine blessing, as in Gen. 1:28, but the result of transgression. This, according to 60 With regard to Satan’s envy, according to the Life of Adam 12, God commanded the angels to show respect to Adam as the image of God. Because Satan did not comply he was banished from Heaven, and consequently developed his envy for Adam. 61 David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), p.107. 62 Ibid. 63 Samuel S. Cohon, “Original Sin,” HUCA 21 (1948): 293.

30

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Kaufmann, is what the Psalmist means by “in sin did my mother conceive me”—her sin. According to Kaufmann, “Man is created good but is born evil. … He views sexual intercourse as fundamentally sinful.”64 The problem with this reading is that the verse refers only to the mother and ignores the father. Rashi’s interpretation is similar to Kaufmann’s: “How can I not sin, when the root of my creation is through intercourse, which is responsible for so many transgressions.” The difference is that Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac, 1040– 1105) does not define sexual intercourse as fundamentally sinful, but only as liable to cause sin. In this view, the psalmist was confessing his own sins and those of his parents, who were full of sin when they conceived him. Ibn Ezra suggests that the psalmist is alluding to Adam’s transgression and the idea that Eve did not become pregnant until after she had eaten of the Tree of Knowledge. This is plausible according to the sequence of events in Genesis chapters 3 and 4. Note, however, that the talmudic sages (B Sanhedrin 38a) thought otherwise and said that Eve bore her sons before she sinned. The Talmudic sages wove a tale that David was conceived in what his father Jesse mistakenly believed to be particularly sinful circumstances. Some of the medieval commentators, including David Kimʘi (known as Radak 1160?-1235?), explain that the sin is the fact that during intercourse a man pursues his own pleasure and is not thinking about the embryo that may be produced. Others suggested that the sins referred to in the verse are not actual but only potential sins that a person is likely to commit because of the impurity that is liable to come shortly after intercourse.65 Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimʘi all explain that intercourse and birth, although not sinful per se, proceed from lust, which is apt to cause human beings to commit many sins. Kimʘi says, in his father’s same, that David was alluding to his sin with Bathsheba and trying to alleviate the severity of that deed by claiming that his transgression was the

Y. Kaufmann, Toledot ha-Þemunah ha-yisreÞelit (Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute & Dvir , 1937–1957), 2: 410. 65 B Niddah 31b. 64

WHY DO WE DIE?

31

result of inherent lust in human beings, which is in fact the same desire that caused his parents to produce him. Weiss reads the verse as highlighting individual responsibility. The “iniquity” and “sin” are not to those of his parents but of the psalmist himself.66 The psalmist is not stating that human nature is corrupt; rather, he is confessing his own sins. He strongly emphasizes his sin and the burden of his transgression to the point that they seem to have been with him not only from birth, but even from his conception—a hyperbolic expression of the power of that trait. According to the Bible, Adam did not bequeath his personality and nature to all his descendants in a fashion that determined their virtues and vices for all time. But there is a penalty that applies to his descendants because of the sin of the first couple, namely, the pain of toil and the pain of childbirth. This double anguish does not afflict the animals. But this first sin does not explain most of the travails of human life. The entire issue of the first human sin is of negligible weight in the Bible. Later biblical authors who consider why bad things happen to good people do not even allude to it.

DEATH AS AN AUTONOMOUS FORCE Another explanation for the human mortality is that death is an autonomous force beyond the dominion of God. It existed at the time of the creation, part of the primeval chaos, and God was unable to overcome and subdue it. The idea of an angel that is responsible for death or is the source of death goes back to the Canaanite conception of the god Mot. A reading of biblical passages that include the word 7 )‘ mawet discloses that sometimes the term is not a reference to the abstract concept of “death” but a proper noun, the name of a specific being like the Canaanite Mot. In these passages the biblical mawet coincides with the deity Mot who figures in Ugaritic literature of the second millennium BCE. This god aspires to kill everyone and everything, especially human beings. Inter alia we read how Mot tells Baal’s sister, the goddess Anat how he took away the souls of human beings: “I was going And roaming M. Weiss, The Bible and Modern Literary Theory (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1987), p.122. 66

32

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Every mountain to the midst of the earth Every hill to the midst of the fields. A soul was missing among man A soul of the multitudes of earth.”67 He also boasts that he will eventually kill his rival Baal and dispatch him to the underworld. His desire is to kill: “With both my hands I shall eat them My seven portions from the bowl.”68 Mot/Death is a destructive force that terminates many forms of life, killing animals and human beings and even gods, if he can. His role is to sever the thread of life and bring death. In the Bible, too, there are echoes of the idea that death is an autonomous power. In Psalm 49:15[14], Death is described as a shepherd, leading the flock of the dead. According to Isaiah (25:8), at the end of days God will destroy death forever. In rabbinic literature, the advent of the Messiah will be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead and the end of death, because the Messiah will destroy the Angel of Death.69 The same idea can be found in the New Testament: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:16).70 Similarly, according to Jubilees: “And they shall fulfill all their days in peace and joy, and shall live on since there will be no Satan and no evil to destroy them” (Jub. 23:29). In both of these passages the Angel of Death is identified with Satan. A reading of the Bible also suggests that Death has emissaries who are responsible for catastrophe and ruin. Even their names attest to their inherent evil: “messengers of death” (Prov. 16:14), “a cruel messenger” (Prov. 17:11), “the first-born of Death” (Job 18:13), “the king of terrors” (Job 18:14), “plague (dever) and destruction (qeʞev)” (Ps. 91:6), “the leech and her two daughters” (Prov. 30:15), which allude to the monsters of Sheol. In what follows we shall examine these emissaries of Death and whether Death is an independent power. KTU 1.6.ii.15–19; For translation see: Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1949), p.45; “Poems about Baal and Anath,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, I. AB ii15–19, p.140. 68 KTU 1.5.i.18–20.For translation see: Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature, p.39; J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), pp.68–69; U. Cassuto, Biblical and Canaanite Literatures, vol.1: 230. 69 Pesiqta Rabbati, ed. Friedman, 36:3, p.161b. 70 1 Cor. 15:26; cf. Heb. 2:14. 67

WHY DO WE DIE?

33

Jeremiah 9:20 The idea that death is an independent power beyond God’s control is also reflected in Jeremiah’s lament that “death has come up into our windows, it has entered our palaces, cutting off the children from the streets and the young men from the squares” (Jer. 9:20[21]). Many scholars have pointed out that these images are anchored in the traditional literature of the ancient Near East and may be a relic of the Ugaritic myth of Baal and Mot. According to Cassuto, the language here is reminiscent of the Ugaritic epic about the construction of Baal’s temple, in which Baal rejects the proposal of Kothar and Khasis to place windows in his sanctuary: “Do not place a chimney in the houses / a window in the temple.” No reason is offered for Baal’s reticence, but Cassuto conjectured that he was afraid that his rival Mot would enter by the windows to slay his wives.71 Only after he overcomes Mot does he allow people to cut windows in his palace: “Let him open a window in the houses / a chimney in the temples.”72 The idea that death may enter through the window is echoed in the Talmud: “In the time of an epidemic Rava used to keep the windows shut, as it is written, ‘For death is come up into our windows’ ” (B Baba Qama 60b).73 This link with the Baal saga has been rejected by more recent scholars, including Shalom M. Paul, William McKane, and M.

71 KTU 1.4; U. Cassuto, Biblical and Canaanite Literatures (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979),vol. 2:150 (Hebrew). 72 Ginsberg accepts Cassuto’s conjecture, but suggests emending the text of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah, window and palace are parallel, whereas in the Ugaritic text the terms are window and lattice, and that no fewer than six times. Hence he would read ba-Þarubotenu ‘through our lattices’ instead of the be-Þarmonotenu of the received text. Further support for his emendation is that a reference to “palaces” is out of place when the prophet is warning of a danger that threatens the entire nation. See H. L. Ginsberg, “The Ugaritic Texts and Textual Criticism,” JBL 62 (1943), p.114. But Ginsberg’s view was refuted by Lowenstamm in his entry “death” in EM, 4:756 (Hebrew). See also Shalom M. Paul, “Cuneiform Light on Jer 9,20,” Biblica 49 (1968): 374. In fact, the Hebrew word Þarmon is parallel to words like * %0- 42) 6+ !43 - 7!43 ) %! and should be rendered as “fortress” rather than as “palace.” 73. B Baba Qama 60b.

34

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Smith.74 They hold that the enemy referred to in KTU 1.4.vi.12 of the epic is Yam (the sea), not Mot. Instead, Paul adduces a Mesopotamian textual parallel that Holladay, McKane, and Lunbaum think plausible.75 According to him, the parallel to the biblical text is the Babylonian she-demon Lamaštu, who brings illness and pain to infants, children, young men, pregnant women, and female slaves. She enters houses by climbing over walls, through windows, and through cracks in the door.76 Note that the victims mentioned by Jeremiah are children and young men, whereas in the prophylactic oath to ward off demons and evil spirits found in a Phoenician text from Hadatha (Arslan Tash) in Syria, which states, with regard to strangling shedemons, “Do not enter the house of Abba or tread in the courtyard of Adrakh.”77 Messengers of Death As already noted, Death has his own messengers. Some scholars see Prov. 16:14—“a king’s wrath is messengers of death”78—as an allusion to the Ugaritic texts about two couriers, Gapan and Ugar (“Vine” and “Field”), who carry messages back and forth between

Paul, “Cuneiform Light on Jer. 9,20,” p.374; William McKane, Jeremiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), p.211; Mark S. Smith, “Death in Jer ix, 20,” UF 19 (1987): 289–290. 75 William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, ed. Paul D. Henson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p.314; McKane, Jeremiah, p.211; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (AB 21A ; New York: Doubleday, 1999), p.566. 76 Paul, “Cuneiform Light on Jer. 9,20,” pp.375–76. Smith, by contrast, says that both Lamastu and Mot, mentioned in Jeremiah 9:20, attack children and adults and enter through the window. He proposes, however, to make the identification, not with the demon Lamastu but with Mştu the god of death, who is parallel to the biblical mawet. This god was known to attack children and adults. The identity of the biblical Mot and the Mesopotamian Mştu extends beyond their demonic nature to their cognate names. See Smith, “Death in Jeremiah ix, 20,” p.290. 77 KAI, No. 27. 78 Most standard translations, rendering the sense in idiomatic English, have the singular “a messenger of death”; but the Hebrew is in fact the plural malÞakei mawet. 74

WHY DO WE DIE?

35

Baal and Mot, and then to El.79 Dahood claims that malÞakei is a dual rather than a plural and renders the text as “death’s two messengers.”80 Note that in the literature of the ancient Near East the gods frequently have two attendants. In Gilgamesh, for example, we read that Shullatand and Hanish precede Adad when he brings the flood.81 In the Bible we find Dever and Reshef (“Pestilence” and “Plague”) who escort the Lord (Hab. 3:5). See further below. It is possible, however, that the verse is saying that restraint and moderation are characteristics of a king’s rule. One must not provoke his anger, since in his wrath he is liable to decree a death sentence. If so, the messengers of death mentioned here are human messengers sent by the king to kill his enemies (1 Kings 2:25, 6:31– 33). Here we might compare Ahiqar 103–104: “When a royal command is given you, it is burning fire. Execute it at once, lest it flare up against you and singe your hands. But rather (let) the king’s command (be your) heart’s delight.” Considering, too, that the entire section in Proverbs (16:10–15) deals with the character and behavior of a king, especially the king as a righteous judge, it seems more likely that the messengers of death mentioned are in fact the human messengers sent to execute the sentence. A Cruel Messenger According to the Masoretic text of Proverbs 17:11, “An evil man seeks only rebellion, and a cruel messenger will be sent against him.” The Septuagint is slightly different: “Every bad man stirs up strife [reading merivah instead of meri]. But the Lord will send out a merciless messenger against him.” The Peshitta has: “A troublesome man seeks evil and a merciless messenger will be sent against him.” Ibn Ezra explains that “a cruel person who will not have mercy on him will be sent to kill him.” The verse refers to a man who defies the laws and precepts and is similar to the wayward son KTU 1.5.i.12. According to Dahood, the two messengers are servants of Mot and not of Baal, as Ginsberg had already noted. See: H. L. Ginsberg, “Baal’s Two Messengers,” BASOR 95 (1944): 29, n.20; Mitchell Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1963), p.36. 80 Ibid. 81 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, Tablet xi, line 98, p.94. 79

36

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

(Deut. 21:18). Because he rebels against the king and plans evil, a cruel messenger will be sent against him. The intensive form of “to send,” yešullaʚ, may be linked to “I will let loose (we-hišlaʚti) the wild beasts against you” (Lev. 26:22). The previous verse speaks of the fool, who is punished by flogging, whereas our verse deals with capital punishment. It is also possible that our verse should be read chiefly as a political adage: A rebel will be punished. Among modern scholars, McKane says that this cruel messenger should be assimilated to the messengers of death mentioned in Prov. 16:14.82 It is possible, however, that in the image of the cruel messenger the author was not thinking of the dispatch of executioners but was personifying disaster. We find something similar in: “He let loose on them his fierce anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels (or messengers)” (Ps. 78:49). Here the evil messengers are the Lord’s anger and wrath, manifested in the disasters that befall human beings.

Qeʞev We learn about the nature of the emissaries and messengers of death from Hosea’s question: “I will ransom them from the power of Sheol, redeem them from Death. O Death, where are your plagues (devareka)? O Sheol, where is your pestilence [or: destruction] (qoʞavka)?” (Hosea 13:14). Here Death and Sheol are paralleled twice, and two evils, dever and qeʞev, are the emissaries of Death and Sheol. It is possible that devareka has a double meaning, both dever ‘plague’ and davar ‘deed.’ The parallel term, qoʞev=qeʞev, is related to an Arabic root meaning “cut off.” Gesenius glosses it as “plague” or “pestilence.” In fact, as J. Blau demonstrated, the verse is personifying two fatal illnesses, plague and the disease known in Arabic as qatib, used in some Arabic dialects to refer to smallpox.83 In Deuteronomy, qeʞev is included among the dire punishments, personified as demonic forces, that will strike Israel: “Wasting famine, ravaging plague, deadly pestilence (qeʞev meriri)” (Deut. 32:24). In the first of these, “wasting” mezei is cognate with m.ʜ.ʜ 82

p.510.

William McKane, Proverbs (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970),

J. Blau, “Über Homonyme, und angeblich Homonyme Wurzeln II,” VT 7 (1957): 98. 83

WHY DO WE DIE?

37

‘suck.’ It appears in Phoenician in the first Arslan Tash inscription, in which mazeh means a bloodsucker. This is an echo of the belief in demons and ogre who suck their victims’ blood and marrow. The corresponding creature in Arabic is the ghul, a noun derived from a word that means “suck.”84 Reshef is the lord of pestilence, described in Ugaritic as a bow; we will expand on this below.85 The third demonic power is qeʞev meriri. Meriri means “bitter” or “venomous;” in Ugaritic it carried the sense of “strong.”86 Hence qeʞev meriri denotes a “poisonous plague” or “bitter destruction.” Thus we seem to have three terms for demonic forces associated with death.87 The traditional commentators glossed qeʞev as a demonic spirit. Rashi, for example, says that it is “destruction by the demon whose name is Meriri; the term [qeʞev] denotes destruction, as in Hosea 13:14.” He understands the word similarly in Job’s curse of the day of his conception: “May what blackens the day (merirei yom) terrify it” (Job 3:5)—“the demons who stalk by day.” The following description, in the Midrash, may be rooted in this demon’s fatal power: “R. Joseph said: ‘Keteb meriri’ is in form covered with scales, hairy all over, and full of eyes.”88 It is impossible to know whether this description draws on ancient mythology. We find a similar idea in Targum Onqelos on this verse: “[those who are like]

Theodor H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p.321. 85 KTU 1.82:3. 86 M. J. Dahood, “Qohelet and Recent Discoveries,” Bib 39 (1958): 309. Another possibility is “eclipse”; see M. H. Pope, Job (AB 15; New York: Doubleday, 1965), p.29. Gordis, on the other hand, says that “it seems highly reasonable to assume that Meriri is also a mythological term, probably representing a type of demon.” In Ezekiel 2:11, though, we find the word merirut, which is translated as “bitterness.” See R. Gordis, “The Asseverative kaph in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” JAOS 63 (1943): 178. 87 N. Wyatt, “Qeteb ʡʨʷ,” DDD, p.673. 88 Numbers Rabbah 12,3. A different description is found in B Pesaʘim 111b: “There are two Ketebs, one before noon and one after noon; the one before noon is called Keteb Meriri, and looks like a ladle turning in the jug kamka. That of the afternoon is called Keteb Yashud Zaharaim [‘Destruction that wasteth at noonday’]; it looks like a goat’s horn, and wings compass it about.” 84

38

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

people eaten by the fowl and afflicted with evil spirits.”89 Some have noted that this translation is based on an ancient tradition: the same rendering can be found in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran.90 R. Bahya ben Asher, following Ibn Ezra, says that it means bitterness in the air, i.e., noxious fumes that kill human beings in the middle of the day, and cites the same verse in Job, along with Psalms 91:6, “the destruction (qeʞev) that wastes at noonday,” to corroborate this. The latter verse refers to the foes from whom the Lord will deliver believers. They include qeʞev, which is parallel to dever (plague): “nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes (yašud) at noonday” (Ps. 91:6). Ibn Ezra and David Kimʘi, citing Midrash Shoʚer Tov, which links yašud with šed ‘demon,’ understand qeʞev to mean an evil spirit. It is possible, though, that here yašud refers to the action of qeʞev, who appears like a robber (šoded) in broad daylight, unlike pestilence, which acts in the dark of night. Here pestilence is personified as an independent and unstoppable force that works in the dark, whereas qeʞev is unexpected death that comes like a robber in broad daylight. According to the previous verse, “You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day” (Ps. 91:5). The Targum identifies this as the arrow shot by the Angel of Death, who fears no one and strikes men down even by day. The Midrash identified the “terror of the night” with demonic spirits. As noted previously, in the Bible rešef expresses the catastrophe associated with pestilence and an arrow and is used in parallel to qeʞev (Deut. 32:22). This suggests that the arrow mentioned here is an allusion to Reshef. Like an arrow, qeʞev strikes by day. Consequently this verse refers to diurnal demonic forces. Gaster conjectured that since the reference is to midday, qeʞev, the daytime demon, is sunstroke; he points out that the Alexandrian poet, Theocritus, identified this demon with the god Pan.91 89

p.281.

I. Drazin, Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy (New York: Ktav, 1982),

90 J. C. de Moor, “O Death, Where Is Thy Sting?” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craige, ed. Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor (JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), p.101, n.4. 91 Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, p.770.

WHY DO WE DIE?

39

Qeʞev is mentioned in Isaiah, too: “Behold, the Lord has one who is mighty and strong; like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest (œaÝar qaʞev)” (Isa. 28:2). Here œaÝar qaʞev is a storm that destroys and kills whatever it finds in its path, and qeʞev denotes death and slaughter. Kimʘi derives this meaning from the Aramaic verb q.ʞ.b ‘hew down’ (cognate with the Hebrew q.ʜ.b). As we have seen, the basic meaning of qeʞev is pestilence, which spreads quickly like a storm, and thus, metaphorically, a destructive tempest can be referred to as qeʞev. In Hosea, too, we find qeʞev with the sense of pestilence, in collocation with wind: “O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your pestilence (qoʞavka)? … The east wind, the wind of the Lord, shall come, rising from the wilderness; and his fountain shall dry up, his spring shall be parched” (Hosea 13:14–15). Isaiah uses qeʞev to represent a powerful nation that the Lord will dispatch, like a destructive storm, to punish Ephraim and lay waste to it, but which acts under His control. In verse 3, by contrast, the prophet employs a different image, which is Ephraim’s being trampled underfoot. As we have seen, the word qeʞev appears in the Bible four times, with the basic sense “destruction.” Scrutiny of these passages indicates that it also has other meanings. Thus both ancient and modern commentators understand it as meaning “plague” or “pestilence.” Because it is also used in parallel to rešef and dever, it is plausible that it refers to a demonic force acting in the service of the Lord.92

Reshef The god Reshef is mentioned in documents and appears as a theophoric element in personal names from the mid-third millennium until the end of the first century BCE. In the second millennium BCE the worship of Reshef was exported from Syria to Palestine and then to Egypt. In Ugaritic texts Reshef is the god or gatekeeper of the underworld, as well as the god of war and pestilence, which he spreads with his bow and arrow. He is mentioned twice in the epic of Keret. When the death of the king’s family is described, it is It bears note that in Ugaritic we find the word kzb, which may indicate a kinsman of Mot. But the text is fragmentary. See de Moor, “O Death, Where is Thy Sting,” pp.100–107. 92

40

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

written that mhmst yitsp ršp—“one fifth Rešep gathered unto himÚ self”—understood as a reference to plague or pestilence.93 Here Reshef is like Nergal, the Babylonian god of the underworld, who was a master of plagues. Later, Reshef is mentioned as one of the divine guests at the party that Keret hosts for the gods.94 In mythology he is described as the god of pestilence, who kills men and beasts by shooting his fiery arrows at them. This is evidently the source of the Ugaritic expression “Reshef, the lord of arrow.”95 A similar epithet can be found in a Phoenician inscription from Kition on Cyprus, which reads, rsp ʚʜ “Reshef of the arrow.”96 In another Phoenician inscription from Cyprus, dated to 363 BCE, Reshef is parallel to Apollo, known for his plague-bearing shafts.97 Some believe, however, that the association between Reshef and Apollo indicates that the former was a sun god and in charge of justice.98 Reshef was an important deity in the Aramaic pantheon of the eighth century. As indicated in the Panammu I inscription, in which the divine names Hadad and El are followed by Resheph.99 A Phoenician inscription from Karatepe, which mentions Baal and

93 KTU 1.14.i:18–19; “The Legend of King Keret,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, i.18, p.143. For the problem of the numbers see: J. Gray, The KRT Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1964), p.32; Joshua Finkel, “A Mathematical Conundrum in the Ugaritic Keret Poem,” HUCA 26 (1955): 109–149. 94 KTU 1.15.ii.6. 95 KTU 1.82:3. 96 KAI No. 32.3–4; W. J. Fulco, The Canaanite God Rešep (AOS 8; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1976), p.49. It should be noted, though, that some have interpreted the term differently, as “luck” and “outside street.” See, for example: S. Iwry, “New Evidence for Belomancy in Ancient Palestine and Phoenicia,” JAOS 81 (1961): 31; see also Albright who abandon his older position and followed Iwry: Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London: Athlone Press, 1968),p.121. As Fulco pointed out we cannot accept Iwry’s view since the word hs in Hebrew and Ugaritic has the meaning of arrow as a weapon. See further Fulco, The Canaanite God Rešep, p.51. 97 Iliad 1, 45. 98 D. Conrad, “Der Gott Reschef,” ZAW 83 (1971): 161–163. 99 KAI 214:2.

WHY DO WE DIE?

41

Reshef, is evidence of the cult of Reshef.100 Here ʜprm, which may mean “(Reshef) of the he-goats” or “(Reshef) of the birds” or perhaps “stag.”101 Albright believed that Nergal’s totem was a predatory bird; in fact, Nergal was represented by a lion-headed staff. He alleged a link between Reshef and birds from the phrase ršf ʜprm, but it is not clear whether the latter word means “birds” or “goats.”102 Vattioni conjectured that here ʜprm is in fact the location of a temple of Reshef.103 Note, however, that according to a fifthcentury inscription from Sidon of King Bodashtart a large district of the city was called the “land of the Reshephs.”104 In Egypt, until the end of the Middle Kingdom, Reshef is found only in foreign personal names. It was Amenophis II who adopted Reshef as a deity. Beginning with the Eighteenth Dynasty he was known as a war god; Pharaoh, as a warrior, was likened to him.105 We have no clue why Amenophis II selected a foreign deity as one of his patrons. After Amenophis II, there are few references to Reshef until the period of the Ramessids, when he became a popular deity. In the later period he is no longer the patron of Pharaoh but a deity of the common people. In magical texts, Reshef is a god of healing. Thus Reshef appears in two forms, as both a benevolent and generous deity and as a dangerous one. The Bible associates Reshef with calamity, and notably with pestilence, arrows, and fire. We can learn about the nature of Reshef from Habakkuk’s description of the Lord: “Pestilence (dever) marches before Him, and plague (rešef) comes forth at His heels”

100 KAI 26. A.ii.10–11; R. D. Barnett, J. Leveen, and C. Moss, “A Phoenician Inscription from Eastern Cilicia,” Iraq 10 (1948): 65, iii.8. 101 R. T. O’Callaghan, “An Approach to Some Religious Problems of Karatepe,” ArOr 18/2 (1950): 354–65, on 360; William Kelly Simpson, “New Light on the God Reshep,” JAOS 73 (1953): 88. 102 W. F. Albright, “ Mesopotamian Elements in Canaanite Eschatology,” in P. Haupt Anniversary Volume, ed. Cyrus Adler and Aaron Ember (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press , 1926), pp.146–150. 103 Francesco Vattioni, “Il dio Resheph,” Annali dell’ Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, n.s. 15(1965): 39–74. 104 KAI No.15. 105 ANEP, no. 473, 474, 476, pp.163–164; Fulco, The Canaanite God Resep, pp.31, 68–69.

42

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

(Hab. 3:5). This verse has two stichoi, with three words in each.106 The same pair, dever and rešef, may appear again in the Bible, although this is concealed by metathesis: “He gave their beasts over to hail (la-barad; instead of la-dever, to plague), their cattle to lightning bolts” (Ps. 78:48). Dever and Reshef are forces that serve the Lord and accompany Him when He is manifested as a warrior. Their function is to assault His enemies. One might say that Dever and Reshef are like the Lord’s horses and chariots or bow and arrows. It is not even clear whether they are considered to be two separate forces with similar functions. As we know, the Canaanites considered Reshef to be the god of pestilence and sometimes he is identified with the Babylonian Nergal and Greek Apollo, both of them deemed responsible for plagues.107 It bears mention that the Targum renders the first half of this verse, which refers to dever, “from before him was sent the angel of death”; the Peshitta reads “motha.” Just as Dever and Reshef appear as the Lord’s escorts, the mythologies of many nations describe two gods as accompanying the chief deity, whether in front, alongside, or behind him.108 Scholars such as Herbert and Patrick Miller have noted that in the Ancient Near East the war god is often depicted as assisted in battle by other gods.109 In Ugaritic literature this applies to important deities The words le-fanav and le-raglav are synonymous and the latter can mean “before him” (see Isa. 41:2). The verbs hlk and yʜÞ appear together several times in the Bible (e.g. Jer. 6:25). Finally, as we have seen, dever and rešef occur in tandem once (Ps. 78:48). 107 Yitzhaq Avishur, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994), pp.164. 108 On the other hand, Andersen, in his commentary on Habakkuk, believes that the Lord is surrounded by four quasi-divine beings. He maintains that those behind him and ahead of him are identified while those at His two sides are not. For the idea that the Lord is surrounded by four ministers, see at length in his book. It should be recalled, however, that in the Bible neither the number or order of appearance of the divine servitors is fixed. See Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk (AB 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp.300–307. 109 Theodore Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3 (HSM 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), p.93; Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp.8–63. 106

WHY DO WE DIE?

43

such as El, Baal, Anat, Yam, and Mot. Sometimes the gods are mentioned in pairs, as in the verse cited from Habakkuk. The biblical description is close to the appearance of Haddad the storm god in the epic of Gilgamesh: “With the first glow of dawn, a black cloud rose up from the horizon. Inside it Adad thunders, while Shullat and Hanish go in front, moving as heralds over hill and plain.”110 Ashurbanipal, describing his successful campaign against Elam, writes that it was achieved with the help of the gods Ashur and Nergal. He goes on to describe “Nergal, the august lord, who marches in front of me.”111 In the Phoenician Arslan Tash inscription we read that Baal went forth and that “Gal’an” and “Rib’an” marched before him as his squires. According to Psalms, “There He broke the fiery arrows of the bow (rišfei qešet), the shield and the sword of war” (Ps. 76:4 [RSV 3]). The verse refers to Jerusalem, where the Lord will destroy the enemies’ weapons. Rišfei qešet are the arrows shot from the bows. Breaking the enemy’s weapons is a metaphor for defeating him. The same trope is found in “He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow, and shatters the spear” (Ps. 46:10 [RSV 9]). The reference to the flying arrows derives from the mythological notion that lightning is a missile hurled by a deity. In addition, arrows shot from a bow somewhat resemble lightning bolts. It is possible that rišfei qešet actually refers to the sparks produced by the bow, since in Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic rešef means “spark.” Reshef also appears in parallel to other destructive forces, such as famine and qeʞev meriri (Deut. 32:24). In Deuteronomy, Reshef metamorphoses from the god who shoots arrows into an arrow in the hands of the Lord, Who uses this arrow to punish human beings: “I will sweep misfortunes on them, use up My arrows on them: Wasting famine, ravaging plague (leʚumei rešef), and deadly pestilence” (Deut. 32:23–24). Here leʚumei rešef can be understood as “consumed by fiery sparks or by the god Reshef.” The root lʚm in the sense of “eat” can be found in Proverbs (4:17) and in Ugaritic. It is implausible, however, that this is a reference to the god Reshef, even though qeʞev, which follows immediately, is also the “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, tablet, XI. 96–100, p.94. M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzen assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s (VAB; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916), 2:194–195. 110 111

44

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

name of a deity, because nowhere in the Bible is Reshef ever considered to be a divine being. Rashi explains both rešef and qeʞev in this verse as the names of demons. A similar approach was taken by Caquot, who maintained that qeʞev and rešef should be rendered as proper names and taken to be referring to demons.112 In some places rešef certainly refers to fire or sparks: “He gave their beasts over to hail, their cattle to lightning bolts (rešafim)” (Ps. 78:48). This verse, which is part of the description of the plagues in Egypt, refers to what the hail did to the livestock in the fields. “Their cattle to rešafim” means that the Lord delivered their cattle to fiery bolts—an allusion to the verse in Exodus, “fire flashing in the midst of the hail” (Ex. 9:24). David Kimʘi, Ibn Ezra, and the Aramaic Targum all understand the verse in this fashion. In addition to this plain meaning, Rashi also offers a midrashic gloss on rešafim as soaring birds (citing Job 5:7, “the sons of rešef fly upward”): “When the Egyptian saw that the mounds of hailstones prevented them from saving their flocks, they slaughtered some animals and tried to carry the carcasses home on their shoulders. Suddenly birds swooped from the sky and snatched the carcasses away.” But it is also possible that here rešef means plague or pestilence. If so, barad ‘hail’ is a corruption of dever.113 Support for this metathesis may be drawn from the description of the fifth plague, which struck “your livestock in the fields—the horses, the asses, the camels, the cattle, and the sheep” (Ex. 9:3). Furthermore, rešef and dever appear in parallel in Habakkuk: “Pestilence (dever) marches before Him, and plague (rešef) comes forth at His heels” (Hab. 3:5). On the other hand, pestilence is mentioned explicitly in verse 50, and it seems unlikely that the psalmist referred to it two verses earlier as well. According to the Song of Solomon, “love is fierce as death, passion is mighty as Sheol; its darts are darts of fire (rešafeha rišpei Þeš), a blazing flame” (Song of Solomon 8:6). This verse can be un112 A. Caquot, “Sur quelques démons de l’AT (Reshep, Qeteb, Deber),” Sem 6 (1956): 55. 113 Symmachus reads dbr (i.e., plague) for brd. The translators of the Jerusalem Bible read dbr. See also Caquot, “Sur quelques démons de l’AT,” p.61.

WHY DO WE DIE?

45

derstood in two ways. The rešafim may be darts or arrows; we have already seen Ugaritic texts in which the Lord Reshef is referred to as the “Lord of the Arrow” and a Phoenician inscription from Cyprus in which he is referred to as “Reshef at the arrow.” The other possibility is that rešafim means sparks—its sense in Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic, in which rešef is “fire.” By extension we obtain the sense of the fever caused by pestilence. Perhaps the poet had both senses in mind, given that the “arrows of love” is a common image and love is frequently compared to fire, too. We might also consider the mythological backdrop of the verse, which invokes the deities Sheol and Reshef. The former is a mythical figure who swallows up the dead and is never satisfied (Isa. 5:14), whereas Reshef, as we have seen, is the god of plague and pestilence. Finally, according to Eliphaz the Temanite, “the sons of rešef fly upward” (Job 5:7). Some render benei rešef as sparks (the “children of fire”) and understand Job’s friend to mean that just as sparks fly up into the air, human beings are born with an inclination to sin. Others render the expression to mean “soaring birds.” The Septuagint has ΑΉΓΗΗΓϠ Έξ ·ΙΔϲΖ ‘the vulture’s young’; the Peshitta has the generic benei ÝufaÞ ‘sons of birds.’ This may be an echo of an ancient tradition, reflected in a bilingual HittitePhoenician inscription from Karatepe that mentions “Resheph of the birds.” In Ben Sirach, too, Reshef has the sense of bird of prey.114 Albright believed that in this verse, as well as in Deut. 32:24, rešef means a bird of prey; he cites a Midrash on Ex. 9:22 to support his view.115 It is possible that the “sons of Reshef” are the malefic spirits whose proper place is Sheol. Sinners cause these spirits to rise up and harm them. Alternately, they are the various diseases that rise up from the underworld to sicken human beings.116 Ben Sirach 43:17. See Ex. Rab. 12,4; W. F. Albright, “ Mesopotamian Elements in Canaanite Eschatology,” p.150. 116 132. Conrad, “Der Gott Reschef,” ZAW 83 (1971) 157–183; Fulco, The Canaanite God Resep, pp.58–59; Caquot, “Sur quelques démons de l’AT,” p.60. A description of the suffering caused by forces from the netherworld is found in Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: 114 115

46

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Medieval commentators suggest something similar. According to Isaiah of Trani, “these are the spirits that fly through the air, and this is [the meaning of] leʚumei rešef veqeʞev meriri. It means: the spirits soar and fly high and do not suffer the pains of the world, but human beings were created to suffer according to their deeds.” Rashi, too, writes that they are angels and spirits. As we have seen, in all the documents from the Ancient Near East, rešef is the personal name of a deity. In the Bible, however, it has several meanings, including “pestilence,” “arrow,” and “fire:” in every occurrence, however, it bears a connotation of disaster. This disaster brings death, and is under the control of the Lord. It is probably the destructive power of Reshef that leads the Talmud to state that “rešef refers only to the demons.”117 “Death’s first-born” According to Bildad the Shuhite, the fate of the wicked is that “the tendons under his skin are consumed; Death’s first-born consumes his tendons” (Job 18:13). Some believe that “death’s first-born” is one of the emissaries of death. The talmudic sages, preceded by the Aramaic Targum, understood it as a reference to the Angel of Death. Rashi, too, took it to be the “prince (œar) of death,” as in “I will appoint him first-born, highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:28 [RSV 27]). In other words, “death’s first-born” is the foremost of the messengers of death. According to Nahmanides (Moses ben Nahman known as Ramban, 1194–1270), “The prince of death is the mightiest of all who kills; none can escape him.” Some modern scholars understand “death’s first-born” as a poetic term for “fatal disease,” “terrors of death,” or “one doomed to death.” Pope, for example, writes in his commentary on Job, that “the view commonly held that the expression is a metaphor Debilitating Disease is let loose upon me: An Evil Wind has blown [from the] horizon, Headache has sprung up from the surface of the underworld, An Evil Cough has left its Apsû, The irresistible [Ghost] left Ekur, [The lamaštu-demon came] down from the Mountain...”; “The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer,” in Bayblonian Wisdom Literature, edited by W.G. Lambert (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1960), tablet II, lines 50–55, p.41. 117 B Berakhot 5a.

WHY DO WE DIE?

47

for a deadly disease, or for the specific malady that afflicts Job … is probably correct.”118 On the other hand, Bailey understands “death’s first-born consuming one’s limbs” as a description of the disintegration of the body. According to him, Bildad “likely would not mean thereby what a Canaanite might mean, that the god Mot (‘Death’), a demonic, autonomous power, had seized the person.”119 “Death’s first-born” may be one of the demigods who represent or are associated with the god of death or with disease. Cassuto was one of the first to note that the epithet “death’s firstborn” can be traced back to the Canaanite god Mot, who is associated with disease and destruction and is the ruler of the Canaanite underworld. Several Ugaritic texts describe Mot as sitting on his throne in the bowels of the earth.120 According to Cassuto, “mawet is a distinct personality that has a first-born son, and this son is as it were the embodiment of diseases.”121 Sarna accepts Cassuto’s reading, but adds that in the Ugaritic myths about Baal, Death boasts that “with both my hands I eat.”122 He suggests that baddei and baddav should be read as bayad ‘with [his] hand’ and biyadav ‘with his [two] hands.’ Accordingly Sarna proposes that we read, “The first-born of Mot will devour his skin with two hands, yea with his two hands he will devour him.”123 That is, that Death’s first-born uses both hands to devour the skin of the evildoer. Sarna also compares the “king of terrors” in verse 14 with Mot, whose first-born son occupies “the same position in Canaan as did Namtar … the son of Ereshkigal in Babylonian mythology.”124 The problem with this idea is that no Ugaritic myth mentions the sons of Mot, although perhaps the demons of pestilence were considered to be such. Pope, Job, p.126. Lloyd R. Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p.41. 120 KTU 1.4.VIII.7–14; 1.5.II.14–16. 121 U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,1971), p.63. 122 Nahum M. Sarna, “The Mythological Background of Job 18,” JBL 82 (1963): 317. 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid., 316. 118 119

48

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Burns believes that the expression “Death’s first-born” derives from the Mesopotamian Namtar, the god of plague and pestilence. He is the vizier of the underworld and a descendant of Ereshkigal, the queen of the netherworld.125 Here too, though, we do not know of any text in which Namtar is described as the firstborn of Death or even of Ereshkigal. Another possibility is that Death’s first-born is Moth himself, considered to be the first-born son of El, the head of the Ugaritic pantheon. In the Ugaritic Baal myth, Mot is referred to as “Son of El” and “Beloved hero of El.”126 Whether he is El’s actual firstborn we do not know, but “first-born” is also a title that he might assume as king of netherworld.127 Nevertheless, it should be noted that although the Ugaritic text knows the concept of the first-born, it is never used with reference to Mot or any other god.128 On this point one can and should compare “Death’s firstborn” with “the sons of Reshef” (Job 5:7), discussed above. The latter, in one interpretation, are the demons or diseases that come from the underworld. Death’s first-born, too, is a demonic force and disease.129 In light of the problems of comparing biblical with extra-biblical material, we should probably assume that the biblical author meant “death’s first-born” to designate the cruelest form of death, that is, a hyperbole like “the first-born of the poor” (Isa. 14:30). In fact, Ibn Ezra maintains that “death’s first-born” means the strength or beginning of death, i.e., that death will come swiftly

John Barclay Burns, “The Identity of Death’s First Born (Job xviii 13),” VT 37 (1987): 362–364. 126 Burns, for example, believes that here the phrase “Beloved of El” does not denote love but is rather “a euphemism for a feared and repulsive divinity” (Burns, “The Identity of Death’s First Born,” p.362). 127 W. L. Michel, “The Ugaritic Texts and the Mythological Expressions in the Book of Job,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1970, pp.99, 347no348; Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), p.287; Pope, Job, p.135. 128 KTU 1.13.28; 1.14 iii:40; 1.14 vi:25; T. J. Lewis, “First Born of Death,” DDD, p.335. 129 The “sons of Resheph” refers to the children of Resheph who, like their father, bring disease, or is a transformed biblical idiom for various forms of illness. See: Lewis, “First Born of Death,” p.333. 125

WHY DO WE DIE?

49

and strongly. There are also Midrashim that understand the expression to mean “a bitter death.”130 King of Terrors The phrase “king of terrors” (melekh ballahot) occurs only once in the Bible, in Job 18:14: “He is torn from the tent in which he trusted, and is brought to the king of terrors.” Ballahot is derived from the root blh; the singular ballahah is equivalent, by metathesis of letters, to behalah ‘terror.’ Ballahah, too, has the sense of fear and terror, as in “terrors (ballahot) frighten him on every side” (Job 18:11), where ballahot are terrifying phenomena such as the famine and pestilence mentioned in vv. 12 and 13. Rashi says that ballahot are demons that harm human beings. In Ezekiel 26:21, they are the demons that rule the underworld. Elsewhere in Job we find the expression “the terrors of deep darkness” (balhot ʜalmawet) (Job 24:17). Given that ʜalmawet is a synonym for Sheol, this verse too speaks of the demons or specters of the underworld. As for our verse, Rashi glosses “his tent” as a reference to his wife and explains that “he will be torn from the wife whose bastion he had been; she will walk him to the King of the Specters.” Another understanding is that the wicked man will be torn away from the tent in which he trusts and be brought before the Angel of Death, here called ballahot. Saadia Gaon (882–942), on the other hand, understood the expression to mean “the king of agonies” or chief of chastisements, invoking his conception of retribution in the afterlife. Some modern commentators would identify the King of Terrors with one of the deities of the underworld. Irwin, for example, believes that our verse is an allusion to Ereshkigal, the queen of the “Land of No Return.”131 Other scholars associate the King of Ter130 Lamentations Rabbah (ed. Buber, 3:64); Pesiqta deRav Kahana (ed. Mandelbaum, 3:6); Tanʘuma (ed. Buber) Ki Teʜe 10:10. 131 William A. Irwin, “Job’s Redeemer,” JBL 81 (1962): 222. He bases his conjecture on the form EŽ . 2‰ 7 ‰ we-taʜÝidehu, which is a thirdperson feminine singular, appropriate to the queen of the Underworld, i.e., Ereshkigal. Clines notes, however, that “a person of her status would hardly be doing the escorting” (David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20 [WBC 17; Word Books: Dallas, 1989], p.406). Sarna suggested that the word is the third-person masculine singular t-performative. Accordingly the subject of

50

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

rors with Death’s first-born. We should remember, however, the difficulty of finding a Mesopotamian or Canaanite parallel to “death’s first-born.” Sarna, as noted above, identifies Death’s firstborn with Mot and Mot with the King of Terrors. Wyatt accepts the identification of the King of Terrors with Mot.132 So does Pope, who says that “King of Terrors” is an epithet of Mot’s, who corresponds to the Mesopotamian Nergal and the Greek Pluto.133 In Sumerian texts Nergal is referred to as the “king of the Land of Terror.”134 We should also recall the Canaanite belief that Mot, the king of Sheol, ruled over a horde of demons who seized the spirits of the dead and brought them to his kingdom. A similar belief is found in Greek mythology, in the form of Hermes Psychopompus. The problem with associating the King of Terrors with the Canaanite Mot, as Sarna himself noted, is that no mention of the sons of Mot has yet turned up in Canaanite mythology.135 Burns, too, links Death’s first-born with the king of terrors, but in a Mesopotamian vein. According to him, the Mesopotamian Namtar, the god of plague and pestilence, is both Death’s firstborn and the King of Terrors. To support this theory he quotes the following: “The netherworld was filled with terror; before the prince lay utter sti[ll]ness. … With a fierce [c]ry he shrieked at me wrathfully like a fu[rio]us storm; the scepter, which befits his divinity one which is full of terror, like a viper.”136 The problem with this idea is that Namtar is never described as the first-born son of Ereshkigal. the verbs taʜÝidehu and *FP6‰ d tiškon (in the next verse) is the “first-born of death” (v. 13). See Sarna, “The Mythological Background of Job 18,” p.318. But Moran countered that there is insufficient support for a masculine singular *taqtul in Canaanite and proposed E!. 2‰ 7 ‰ʘ “they march him.”(W. L. Moran, “*taqtul- Third Masculine Singular,” Bib 45 (1964):80–82). On the problematic nature of the form we-taʜÝidehu, see further Clines, Job 1–20, p.406. 132 Nicolas Wyatt, “The Expression bekôr mĆwet in Job xviii 13 and its Mythological Background,” VT 40 (1990): 215. 133 Pope, Job, p.136. 134 CT 24.36.52; 47.10. 135 Sarna, “The Mythological Background of Job 18,” p.316 n.13. 136 “A Vision of the Nether World,” trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, p.110.

WHY DO WE DIE?

51

There may be an allusion to the King of Terrors in “Like sheep they are led (šatu) to Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd …” (Ps. 49:15). The metaphor is of those who were confident in their own power now being led to the underworld like sheep. In fact, šatu may imply descent, compare the Mishnaic Hebrew, “urine [lit. water] discharged itself (šotetin) upon his knees.”137 This may be an allusion to the blood that flows from the body when people die in battle. They are led to Sheol, where Mot is described as a shepherd. In the Egyptian Harris Papyrus, the chthonic deity Horon is called the “valiant shepherd.”138 In Ugaritic literature the “Land of Grazing” is part of Mot’s dominions.139 The Hebrew text of the next stich is corrupt. Instead of the Masoretic wa-yirdu ‘they ruled’ we should read we-yaredu ‘they went down.’ Vam yešarim should be read as a single word, be-meišarim, while boqer should be vocalized baqar, yielding: “and they will go down directly [like] cattle.” This description of descent undoubtedly recalls a passage from a Ugaritic text: “Indeed I shall go down into the throat of divine Mot.”140 Read in this fashion, this stich recapitulates the first one about going down to Sheol like sheep. The third stich of the verse describes their fate when they reach the underworld. Those who thought they would perpetuate themselves in their houses and mansions will discover that their form is worn away and corrupted. Ballot, from the root blh ‘wear out’ or ‘consume,’ is attested in Ugaritic nps blt ‘my life is wasted away’ and blym alpm ‘The oxen are worn out.’141 Another possibility is that levallot šeÞol alludes to the fearful demons and destroying angels who belong to the entourage of the angel of death ballot—a short form for ballahot (Job 18:14). ÝAluqah Another word for lethal force is Ýaluqah (Prov. 30:15). The word can also be found in other Semitic languages, including Syriac (ÝeB Sotah 44b. William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press:1942), p.80. 139 KTU 1.5.VI.6 140 KTU 1.5. I:6–7. 141 KTU 1.5.I.18; UT 2064:22–23. 137 138

52

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

laqtĆ), Arabic (Ýalaq) Ethiopic (Ýalaqt), and Akkadian (liqu). In all these languages it means “leech.” According to the verse in Proverbs, “the leech has two daughters; ‘Give, give (hav, hav),’ they cry” (Prov. 30:15). This translation is based on the meaning of hav in Aramaic. In the Septuagint, the leech has three beloved daughters, as if the text had some form of the root ʚbb. The talmudic sages believed that the reference was to “the voice of Hell crying and calling: ‘Bring me the two daughters who cry and call in this world, Bring, bring.’ ”142 That is, Ýaluqah is Sheol, which causes people to fall into it. Grincz thought that the two daughters are Sheol and Barren-Womb, mentioned in the next verse.143 In Arabic, the noun Ýalaq means “leech” but never “demon.” Some scholars have nevertheless noted a Phoenician amulet from Arslan Tash that bears a spell against a demon.144 According to the inscription, the demon is personified as a bloodsucker (lʚšt lmzh). The Phoenician mzh can be compared with the biblical mezei raÝav (Deut. 32:24). Even though the Phoenician demon is not identical with the Arabic Ýalaq, the spell does indicate that insects might be thought of as demons.145 As already noted, Ýaluqah means “leech” in various Semitic languages. This sense seems to suit our verse, because all of Proverbs 30 deals with insects—ants, locusts—and other animals. Consequently, says Hendel, it would be inappropriate to give the word here the sense of demon or vampire, on the basis of an inner Arabic semantic development.146 The leech is a parasitic worm of the class Hirudinea. It lives in water and attaches itself to human beings and animals who drink the water so that it can suck their blood. It adheres to its victims using its suckers, which are evidently the two daughters mentioned in our verse. Rabbenu Tam (Jacob Ben Meir,1100–1171), however, maintains that Ýaluqah is the name of the sage, like Itiel, who was the author of the maxims collected in B Avodah Zarah 17a. J. M. Grincz, Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History (Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1969), pp.357–359. 144 Ed. A. Caquot and R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “La seconde tablette ou ‘petite amulett’ d’Arslan-Tash,” Syria 48 (1971): 391–398; J. C. de Moor, “Demons in Canaan,” JEOL 27 (1981–1982): 110–112. 145 R. S. Hendel, “Vampire ʤʷʥʬʲ,” in DDD, p.887. 146 Ibid. 142 143

WHY DO WE DIE?

53

30:15–33; that is, la-Ýaluqah is a superscription indicating authorship—“by (or of) Aluqah—like the superscriptions of many psalms that attribute them to David or Solomon (e.g., Ps. 28:1, 72:1). “Those who bring death” According to Elihu the Buzite, “His soul draws near the Pit (šaʚat), and his life to those who bring death (la-memitim)” (Job 33:22). Who are “those who bring death”? They may be the angels who slay human beings, the minions of the “Angel of Death.” Ibn Ezra glossed “those who bring death” as the “angels who kill.” This seems to be a holdover of the mythical associates of Death whom the talmudic literature calls the “angels of destruction.”147 The Bible refers variously to a “cruel angel” (Prov. 17:11), the “destroying angel” (2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chron. 21:15), and “a company of destroying angels” (Ps. 78:49). In post-biblical literature we find “the angel of the Lord and Satan.”148 The most common expression, however, is the “Angel of Death.” Some scholars would associate memitim with the Assyrian mušmîtûti ‘those who kill,’ a category of infernal demons. Dhorme does not accept this meaning; human beings are going to die anyway, so there is no need for the intervention of demonic forces. What is more, nowhere do we find that the mušmîtûti have their abode in the world beyond.149 Pope would emend the Hebrew and read leme-mawet-mo ‘to the waters of death,’ since the motif of water frequently accompanies Sheol.150 Dahood notes that in Ugaritic mtm has the sense of death or the place of death. Some would emend la-memitim to la-memotim ‘death,’ on the basis of Jer. 16:4 and Ezek. 28:8.151 Another and more drastic emendation is limqom metim ‘the place of the dead.’ This is the view of Dhorme, who says that the text leads us to exB Ketubot 104a. Testament of Asher 6:4. 149 E. Dhorme, Job, trans. Harold Knight (London: Nelson, 1967), p.500. 150 Pope, Job, p.251 151 N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1957), p.471; Mitchell Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography V,” Bib 48 (1967): 435. 147 148

54

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

pect a word parallel to šaʚat, which refers to Sheol, and notes that the Septuagint renders la-memitim as Hades, the underworld. He maintains that our present text is the result of haplography, and the original reading was limqom metim.152 In fact, there is no good reason to emend the text. Rather, we are dealing with an echo of the mythical tradition of the demonic forces associated with death. Indeed, elsewhere the book of Job speaks of “the River of Death”(33:18), “the first-born of Mot” (18:13), and “the King of Terrors” (18:14).153

Mašʚit The angel who slays human beings is described by the Bible as mašʚit ‘destroying.’ The destroying angel appears in two places in the Bible—2 Samuel 24:16 and the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:15. The destroying angel is sent to strike Israel with pestilence, as punishment for the census conducted by David (2 Sam. 24:16). According to the account in the book of Samuel, the destructive angel “was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite” (2 Sam. 24:16). The parallel account in Chronicles provides a more extensive description of what happened. David looks up and sees the angel of the Lord “standing between earth and heaven, and in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem” (1 Chron. 21:16). This addition evidently is intended to “clarify” 2 Samuel 24:17, whose report that David saw the angel striking the people with pestilence seems to be incompatible with the Lord’s instructions to the angel to stay his hand (v. 16). The harmonizing version in Chronicles has David seeing the angel standing motionless between heaven and earth, drawn sword in hand. This description of the angel draws on earlier biblical literature—the story of Joshua before the conquest of Jericho (Josh. 5:13) or the angel who appears to Balaam and his ass (Num. 22:23 and 31). The angel hovering between heaven and earth has antecedents in Ezekiel 8:3 and Zechariah 5:9. Some modern scholars, including Fuss, Schmidt, and Rupprecht, believe that some non-Israelite deity

152 153

Dhorme, Job, p.500. Gordis, The Book of Job, pp.376–377.

WHY DO WE DIE?

55

stands behind the description of the angel.154 Schmidt suggests that it may be a plague deity like Reshef. But the consistent identification of the Lord with plague and pestilence, common throughout the Bible, makes this idea unnecessary. The first part of 2 Samuel 24:16 may be understood as implying that the angel acts independently. In the parallel account in Chronicles, however, it is the Lord who dispatches the angel to destroy Jerusalem (v. 15). The angel can do nothing of its own initiative but can only act in compliance with the will of the Lord, who sent it. Even in 2 Samuel, the second half of 24:16 reports that the Lord regretted His action and told the angel to halt (as in 1 Chron. 21:15). In Chronicles the conclusion of the story points in a different direction from Samuel. In the earlier account we read that, after David paid Araunah full price for the threshing floor he built an altar on which he offered sacrifices, and only then did the Lord halt the plague. In Chronicles, by contrast, the sacrifice is accompanied by prayer, after which fire comes down from heaven—a sign to David that the Lord had responded to his prayer.155 We are told that at the same time the Lord spoke to the angel, who returned his sword to the sheath. But what He said is not reported, but suggested by the angel’s action; namely, returning his sword to its sheath. This closes the circle: previously David had seen the angel with its sword in its hand, stretched over Jerusalem, but now he saw the angel returning the sword to its scabbard. The Psalmist’s account of the plagues of Egypt (Ps. 78:49) indicates that the plagues were perpetrated by mišlaʚat malÞakei raÝim, 154 W. Fuss, “II Samuel 24,” ZAW 74 (1962): 162–163; K. Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem. Gründung Salomons der jebusitisches Erbe? (BZAW 144; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), p.10; Herbert Schmid, “Der Tempelbau Salomons in religionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” in Archäologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling. Ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch (Tübingen: Mohr, 1970) ,p.246. 155 Something similar happened at the time of the dedication of the sanctuary in Sinai: “Fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat parts on the altar” (Lev. 9:24); and again at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple: “When Solomon finished praying, fire descended from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the House” (2 Chron. 7:1).

56

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

“a company of destroying [lit. evil] angels.” The Talmudic sages used mišlaʚat as the term for a band of destructive creatures, specifically a “wolf pack.”156 Duhm and after him Kraus believed that this “company of evil angels” does not refer to the “destroying angel (mašʚit)” associated with the last plague (Ex. 12:23) but rather to the demonic powers that were sent by the Lord in connection with every plague.157 It is possible that the action of the destroying angel is also alluded to in the description of the smiting of the first born (Ex. 12:12–13, 23). Even though it is stated explicitly that the Lord passed through Egypt to smite the firstborn, and the text of the Passover Haggadah expounds this to mean, “I and not an angel.” On the other hand, “the Lord will pass over the door and not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home” (Ex. 12:23; cf. v. 13). Here the Lord is accompanied by the destroying angel, whose nature is to strike down all he encounters, unless—as here—the Lord restrains him. This seems to be the intention of the Mekhilta on “none of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning” (v. 22): “This indicates that when the destroying angel is given permission to do harm it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked.”158 In Hebrews 11:28 the authors used the Greek ϳ ϴΏΓΌΕΉϾΝΑ, precisely the term used for mašʚit by the Septuagint in Ex. 12:23. It is not clear, however, whether the New Testament reference is to the Lord or an angel. On the other hand, in the Wisdom of Solomon, it is God personified as the Logos, described metaphorically as a relentless warrior who leaps from the divine God, holding God’s “unambiguous decree as a sharp sword.”159 According to Jubilees 49:2–4, the Egyptian firstborns died through the power of )‘ Ž 6‰ ) mastema. Given that the Logos is the Lord or one of His aspects, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon evidently believed that in the Tenth Plague the Lord did not rely on an angel or messenger.

M Baba MeʛiÝa 7:9. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150 A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), p.129. 158 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Bo 11. 159 Wisdom of Solomon, 18:15–16. 156 157

WHY DO WE DIE?

57

It seems, then, that we must distinguish the destroying angel from angels who are the emissaries of death and come to punish individuals only. By contrast, the Destroyer is sent by the Lord to slaughter multitudes through a plague. Unlike the emissaries of Death, who bring both natural and premature death, the Destroyer causes only a premature and painful death. Meier noted that although the culture of the Ancient Near East believed that almost any deity could destroy entire communities, there were specific gods whose main function was killing mortals.160 He cites the myth about Erra, described as motivated by an irrational lust to kill and destroy and delight in battle. In the end he is restrained only by his companion Ishum. Erra came to be identified with Nergal, the god of war and sudden death and the ruler of the realm of the dead. In the myth of Atrahasis, when Enlil, in conÚ sultation with the other gods, decides to send a plague to destroy humankind, it is Namtar who implements his decree. These gods do not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked and must be stopped before they wreak utter destruction on the world. Erra, referring to his own action, says: “Like one who plunders a country, I do not distinguish just from unjust, I fell (them both).”161 Namtar halts this plague after humans perform rituals to appease him.162 Another implicit allusion to the destroying angel can be found in “the wrath has gone forth from the Lord: the plague has begun” (Num. 17:11 [RSV 16:46]).163 Milgrom sees this wrath or anger as an independent entity, similar to the Destroyer, that acts on behalf 160 161

p.415. 162

p.407.

S. A. Meier, “Destroyer 7!6),” in DDD, p.241. Stephanie Dalley, “Erra and Ishum (1.113),” in COS, vol.1, V.10, W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, ATRA-HASĨS, I.viii:407–412,

163 Note that the word used by the Septuagint to render mašʚit in Exodus 12 and in 1 Chronicles 21 is used in the New Testament and the Apocrypha for the being that causes the plague in Numbers 17: “They were destroyed by the Destroyer” (ΦΔЏΏΓΑΘΓ ЀΔϲ ΘΓІ ϴΏΓΌΕΉΙΘΓІ) (1 Cor. 10:10); “the Destroyer” (ϴΏΉΟΕΉϾΝΑ) (Wisdom of Solomon 18:25). On the other hand, the Targum and Pseudo-Jonathan used the Aramaic meʚabbelaÞ ‘the destroyer’ in Numbers 17:11, the same word employed by the Aramaic translator for mašʚit in the other places.

58

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

of the Lord.164 According to Rashi, this plague is spread by the Angel of Death, who is also known as “the Anger before the Lord with the authority to kill.” For the talmudic sages, the Destroyer was an amoral force that could be overcome only through sacrificial blood, incense, or some other ritual.165 In the Ancient Near East, incense was burned for the gods to placate them and still their anger. Egyptian reliefs depict Canaanite priests standing on a high place and offering incense to Pharaoh, who is massacring the inhabitants of a city. In both of the biblical stories about the Destroyer (the Tenth Plague and the threshing floor of Araunah), the plague is halted by a ritual act (placing blood on the doorpost, building an altar, burning incense). In all three stories, no distinction is made between the righteous and the wicked, unless by the blood on the doorpost or by physical separation (Deut. 17:10). The destroying angel may also be alluded to in the story of Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35; Isa. 37:36; 2 Chron. 32:21), where we read that the angel of the Lord struck down the Assyrian camp at night, resulting in 185,000 corpses by daybreak. Trying to offer a rational explanation, some have suggested that the Assyrian host fell victim to plague. These explanations depend on a passage in Herodotus (2, 141), who refers to Sennacherib as “king of the Arabians and Assyrians.” His planned invasion of Egypt ground to a halt because rodents overran the Assyrian camp: “… and one night a multitude of field mice swarmed over the Assyrian camp and devoured their quivers and their bows and the handles of their shields likewise, insomuch that they fled the next day unarmed and many fell” (2,141 ed. Godley). This seems to be a legend intended to explain the deliverance of Jerusalem. As stated, the plague caused great mortality in the Assyrian camp, which is also mentioned by Ben Sirach: “He smote the camp of Assyria and wiped them out with a plague” (48:21). This is the text of the Hebrew from the Geniza but the Septuagint and Vulgate versions relate the destruction in the second part of the verse to “His angel.” Josephus, too, mentions the plague,166 but in 164. Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), p.142. 165. Milgrom, Numbers, p.142. 166 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, X:21

WHY DO WE DIE?

59

another place he refers to the angel of the Lord.167 In II Baruch 63:6–8, Ramael is the angel who “burned their bodies within.” As for postbiblical sources, according to the Zohar, the Destroyer is one of the three demonic forces in Gehinnom that punish those who sinned by idolatry, murder, and illicit sexual relations (the other two demonic forces are Þaf and ʚemah) (Ra’aya mehemana Numbers, Pineʚas 237a). In Midrash Tehillim, the Destroyer is one of the five angels who assailed Moses when he re-ascended Mt. Sinai after the sin of the Golden Calf (Midrash Shoher ʜov on Ps.7). Ultimately the notion of an angel with autonomous responsibility for death, like the Canaanite deity Mot, is anathema to the staunch monotheism of the Israelite faith, which holds that the Lord alone is responsible for both life and death. Nevertheless, death is strongly personified in the Bible. The Lord delegates some of His power to angels, which are not independent entities acting of their own volition. Nowhere does the Bible refer to some enduring power whose entire rationale is destruction and death. The recurrent personification of death as an independent force acting of its own accord is thus a relic of the polytheistic creeds that influenced the biblical literature and left their residues in it. Rabbinic texts do refer to the Angel of Death and similar baneful forces. Because such a belief in the Angel of Death, demons, and destructive angels constitutes a form of dualism, the talmudic sages put strict limits on the power and activity of the Angel of Death and placed Israel outside its domain: “When Israel stood at Mount Sinai … the Holy One, blessed be He, called the Angel of Death and said to him: ‘Even though I made you a universal ruler over earthly creatures, you have nothing to do with this nation.”168 After the affair of the golden calf, however, this exemption was revoked and Israel was again given over to his power.169 The Talmud identifies the Angel of Death with Satan and with the Evil Inclination. It represents the evil forces that caused Adam’s downfall; the same forces are still active against his de-

Josephus, Jewish War, V:388. Lev. Rab. 18:3. 169 Ex. Rab. 32:7. 167 168

60

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

scendants.170 According to Resh Lakish, “Satan, the Evil Inclination, and the Angel of Death are all the same.”171 Satan has a triune function: He “comes down to earth and seduces, then ascends to heaven and awakens wrath; permission is granted to him and he takes away the soul.”172 He is referred to as qaʞegor—the Accusing Angel—and the destroying Satan.173 The Angel of Death has assistants. The Talmud names six of them: Indignation [qeʜef], Anger [Þaf], Wrath [ʚemah], Destroyer [mašʚit], Breaker [mešabber] and Annihilator [mekalleh].174 The Angel of Death receives instructions from God (B Berakhot 62b). When he is given permission to take the souls of human beings he does not distinguish between the good and the wicked (B Baba Qama 60a). His role is to take men’s souls. Only a chosen few of the ancestors of the nations died by the Divine kiss and were not given into his power.175 He was created by God on the First Day of Creation, operates under His authority and performs His behest. Nevertheless, he has some degree of autonomy in his actions and choices176 and certain actions by human beings make him more likely to strike them.177

CONCLUSION The idea that an angel is responsible for death or is the source of death is equivalent to the Canaanite concept of the god Mot. This notion was rejected by Israelite monotheism. In the Bible, the Lord alone is the author of life and death. He is responsible for all the evil and disaster that strike human beings. Nevertheless, there are mass catastrophes that are caused by the angels, working alone or as attendants of the deity.178 The Bible repeatedly mentions harmful 170

2:953.

B Baba Batra 16a; Dov Noy, “Angel of Death,” EncJud, vol.

B Baba Batra 16a. Ibid. 173 Ex. Rab. 18:5; B Berakhot 16b. 174 B Shabbat 55a. Exodus Rabbah (41:7) has a different list with only five names: ÞAf (anger), ʗemah [hot displeasure], Qeʛef [wrath], Hašmed (destruction), and Hašʘet (annihilation). 175 B Baba Batra 17a. 176 B ʗagigah 4b–5a. 177 B Berakhot 51a; B Baba Qama 60b. 178 Gen. 18:16–19, 26; 2 Sam. 24:15–17; 2 Kings 19:35; Ezek. 9:1–8. 171 172

WHY DO WE DIE?

61

angels whose names or epithets attest to the fact that this is their intrinsic nature: cruel angel, Death’s first-born, those who consume the tendons under the skin, the King of Horrors, dever and qeʞev, the leech and her two daughters. Even though in some places these beings are described in ways that suggest autonomous entities, everything they do is at God’s behest and according to His will. We are dealing in all cases with metaphor and allegory, the result of polytheistic cultural influences on the Bible and its authors. Death is not the result of sin, for death was ordained from the start of Creation in the words that the Lord spoke to Adam, “you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). Natural death is not the outcome of Adam and Eve’s eating the forbidden fruit; that merely hastened its arrival. Consequently avoiding sin prevents human beings from dying prematurely and even makes it possible for them to live longer than their allotted time. In fact, the Mishnah in Avot stresses: “Those who are born will of necessity die. ... For perforce you were created, … born, … live, and perforce you will die.”(4:22) Sin accelerates death but is not its original cause. On the other hand, the avoidance of sin prevents human beings from dying prematurely and helps them live longer than their allotted time. In the Talmud (B Baba Batra 10a) we read that charity can save one from an unusual death but not from death itself.179 In other words if a person has lived out his allotted time and he must die, the merit of charity will prevent him from dying an abnormal death. However, if his time has not yet arrived but his life is still threatened, charity will rescue him from death and grant him life. Because death is intrinsic to life, we may wonder whether the form of one’s death has any significance, for ultimately every human being dies. In the next chapter we will describe the various forms of unnatural death and try to clarify whether they have significance or a link to the life beyond.

In contrast see B. Shabbat 156b. There we read “Charity saves from death; and not just from unusual death, but even from death itself.” However, Urbach pointed out that in the ‘Talmudic legends’ and in the ‘Fountain of Jacob’ the text has: ‘and not from death itself but from violent death.’ For further study see: Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages Their Concepts and Beliefs, pp.264–266. 179

2 THE MANNER OF DEATH The Talmudic sages counted 903 different types of death. The worst of them, they said, is death from asthma or croup; the easiest, death by a Divine kiss, which is the lot of the righteous and is compared to removing a hair from milk.1 Six individuals are said to have died in this way—the three patriarchs, as well as Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.2 Great importance was assigned to the manner of a person’s death and day of death, because these were indicators of whether the deceased was good or bad. Death after an illness of five days was considered to be the norm. Death after four days was viewed as a reprimand, after three days a severe reproof, after two days precipitous, and after only one day of illness a sudden or apoplectic death.3 Elsewhere we read that it is a good omen when a person dies while laughing or on the eve of the Sabbath, whereas death while crying or at the conclusion of the Sabbath is a bad omen.4 Death from an intestinal ailment was considered to be a good omen, because the illness purged the patient of his or her sins.5 This is why so many of the righteous died of this malady.6 The age of the deceased is also significant: death before age 50 was considered to be karet ‘excision, extirpation’ (Lev. 18:29), death at 60 a ripe age, at 70 old age, and at 80 advanced age.7 Of the various forms of death that appear in the Bible, a natural death is the most common. But there are also various modes of unnatural death—premature death in war, by judicial execution B Berakhot 8a; B Baba Bathra 17a. B Baba Bathra 17a. 3 B MoÝed Qatan 28a. 4 B Ketubot 103b. 5 B Eruvin 41b. 6 B Shabbat 118b. 7 B MoÝed Qatan 28a. 1 2

63

64

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

(stoning, impaling, hanging, burning, decapitation, strangulation), or by excision, plague, or illness. The present chapter examines the various forms of unnatural death and their meaning. Ultimately, of course, the result is the same: the person is dead. Why, then, does the Bible attach such importance to describing the manner and cause of a person’s death?

WAR One category of unnatural death is death in war. Over the generations, the nature of Israelite wars changed. At first they were wars of conquest and settlement; later, under the judges, they were defensive wars against foreign invaders. Under the monarchy there were wars to expand and stabilize the borders of the kingdom, and, finally, the wars fought by the kings of Israel and Judah to fend off the imperial designs of the great empires. When the Bible refers to violent death or death on the battlefield it generally employs the root n.f.l ‘fall,’ which occurs 115 times in this sense.8 For example, we read that Eglon “was fallen to the ground dead” (nofel Þarʜah met) (Judg. 3:25; cf. 4:22; 2 Sam. 2:23). The root n.f.l may also occur alone, without a form of mwt, to indicate death: “thirty thousand foot soldiers of Israel fell there” (1 Sam. 4:10; cf. 31:8).9 Sometimes the Bible notes how a person “fell,” as in the expression “fell by the sword,”10 which occurs some 35 times.11

For more on this root see: M. Declor, “Quelques cas de survivances du vocabulaire nomade en hébreu biblique,” VT 25 (1975): 307–322, esp. 313ff; Jonas C. Greenfield, “Lexicographical Notes I,” HUCA 29 (1958): 215–217. 9 Cf.: Ex. 32:28; Judg. 12:6, 20:44; 1 Sam. 17:52; 2 Sam. 21:22; 1 Chron. 21:14; et passim. 10 The root n.f.l occurs in the hiphil in the sense of “cause to fall by the sword”; for example, “I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land” (2 Kings 19:7); cf. Isa. 37:7, Jer. 19:7, Ezek. 6:4, 32:12; 2 Chron. 32:21. This means that in such cases the Lord is the cause of death. The hiphil occurs frequently in 1 QM; for example, in the Isaiah scroll, “they fall by the sword of El” (1 QM 19:11). 11 See, e.g., Isa. 31:8; Num. 14:43; 2 Sam. 1:12; Lam. 2:21; 2 Chron. 29:9; Ps. 78:64; Jer. 20:4; Ezek. 32:23; et passim. 8

THE MANNER OF DEATH

65

Those who die on the field of battle are referred to as “those who fell”: “The total of those who fell that day … came to twelve thousand” (Josh. 8:25).12 In other passages, those who die on the battlefield are referred to as ʚalalim ‘the slain’—“Assyria is there with all her company, their graves round about, all of them slain, fallen by the sword” (Ezek. 32:22)13—or as ʚalelei ʚerev ‘those slain by the sword’ (Jer. 14:18; Lam. 4:9; et passim). The root ʚ.l.l in this sense occurs 91 times in the Bible.14 Still another idiom is the “dead of war” (Isa. 22:2). What was done with the bodies of dead soldiers who fell in battle? Were they buried? Or were the corpses left for scavenging beasts and birds? The Bible does not refer to the burial of soldiers killed in war, evidently because commoners do not rate such mention. There is a hint of their fate, however, in Deuteronomy: after Israel is vanquished by its enemies in punishment for its sins: “Your carcasses shall become food for all the birds of the sky and all the beasts of the earth, with none to frighten them off” (Deut. 28:26). The same description is found in Jer. 16:4 and 6 and 19:7. In Ezekiel’s prophecy about Gog and his host, the dead will be left to be eaten by carrion birds and wild beasts (Ezek. 39:4). This curse is discussed further below. In the prophetic literature, war is divine retribution for Israel’s transgressions. That is, death in war is the wages of sin. For the prophets, war was the consequence of insufficient fear of the Lord. Many of the references to war place it among the three canonical forms of unnatural death: sword, pestilence, and famine.15 See: Judg. 20:46; 2 Kings 25:11; Jer. 39:9; 52:15. Ezek. 32:24; 2 Sam. 1:19, 25, 27; 1 Chron. 10:8. 14 Abraham Even-Shoshan, ed., A New Concordance of The Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1980) 2:696. 15 In the prophetic literature the three-fold scheme of “sword, plague, and famine” is sometimes artificial. In Ezekiel 14:21 there are four “judgments”: sword, famine, wild beasts, and pestilence. See the discussion by H. G. Reventlow, Wächter über Israel: Ezechiel und seine Tradition (BZAW 82; Berlin: Topelmann, 1962), pp.38–42. Sometimes we also find a single element of the three, as in dying of hunger (Ex. 16:3; Isa. 14:30; Jer. 38:9). Closely related to death by famine is death by thirst, which appears both alone and in association with famine (Ex. 17:3; Judg. 15:18; 2 Chron. 32:11). Pestilence, too, sometimes appears alone (Ps. 78:50). 12 13

66

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

The imprecations in Leviticus 26:25–26 establish a three-fold scheme of sword, pestilence, and famine.16 This sword, which avenges the violation of the Covenant, is wielded by the enemies of Israel. Pestilence follows in the wake of the sword: those who take refuge in the cities in order to escape the sword will die of the plague there. (The same idea occurs in Deuteronomy 28:21.) In addition to the plague raging in the cities, the siege will create severe famine, and parents will become cannibals and eat their children (Lev. 26:29). This curse is recounted at much greater length in Deut. 28:53–57. The curse is fulfilled during the Aramean siege of Samaria, where we read of the woman who agreed with her friend to eat their children, only to be tricked by her (2 Kings 6:24–33). The prophets who announced the downfall of Judah, too, proclaimed this awful fate: “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and every one shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress” (Jer. 19:9, with an echo of Deut. 28:53 and 55); “parents shall eat their children in your midst, and children shall eat their parents” (Ezek. 5:10).17 Some believe that the passage in Deuteronomy, with its reference to siege and cannibalism, was added at a later period and reflects the conditions of the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the kingdom of Judah. But this assumption is unnecessary; similar curses can be found in the Assyrian covenant texts, where they are typological. The treaty between Ashurnirari V of Assyria and MatiÝlu of Arpad, includes the following: “May Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth, put an end to MatiÝlu, his land and the people of his land through hunger, want, and famine, so that they eat the flesh of their sons and daughters and it tastes as good to them as the flesh of spring lambs.”18 A treaty of Esarhaddon conOn the three-fold scheme see the comprehensive survey in Helga Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW 132; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973), pp.148–191. 17 Cf. also Lam. 4:10; Zech. 11:9; Isa. 9:19–20; 49:26. 18 “Treaty Between Ashurnirari V of Assyria and Mati’lu of Arpad,” trans. Erica Reiner, ANET, p.533. See also “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon,” trans. Erica Reiner, ANET, no. 440, 547, 570, pp.538–41. For a discussion of these texts see D. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), pp.62–63. 16

THE MANNER OF DEATH

67

tains a number of variations on this theme. “A mother [will close her door] against her own daughter. In your hunger eat the flesh of your sons. Let one eat the flesh of another, let one clothe himself with another skin (448–450).” “Just as this sheep is cut up and the flesh of her young is put in her mouth, so may he give to you to eat in your hunger [the flesh of your wives(?)], the flesh of your brothers, of your sons, and of your daughters” (547–550).19 The term dever, normally rendered as “pestilence” or “plague,” is not specific. It may denote an epidemic that strikes human beings (Jer. 27:13; Ezek. 33:27) or a murrain that afflicts domestic livestock (Ex. 9:3). The scanty details provided by the Bible do not allow us to identify it with a particular disease.20 Some scholars would link the word dever with the Akkadian dibiru ‘misfortune, calamity.’ But in fact the latter seems to be a Sumerian loan-word and has nothing to do with the Hebrew dever.21 In Ugaritic we find the form dbr pestilence[?].22 Arabic cognates are dabr ‘death’ and dabara ‘ulcer.’ Sometimes the Bible personifies dever or, as we saw in Chapter 1, relates to it as a demon or evil deity (Hab. 3:5; Ps. 91:3–6; Hos. 13:14). The formulaic “sword, famine, and pestilence” is the punishment for disobeying the Lord. Although it is directed chiefly against Israel, as retribution for violation of the Covenant with the Lord, foreign nations may also be targeted (Ex. 9:15; Ezek. 28:23). Sometimes only specific groups are attacked (Jer. 42:17, 22; 44:13). The formula is found chiefly in the prophetic literature.23 The id19 D. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, p.62. For cannibalism in Near Eastern documents, see: A. L. Oppenheim, “‘SiegeDocuments’ from Nippur,” Iraq XVII (1955):79 no. 34. 20 G. Mayer, “4 A debher,” TDOT 3:125–127; G. Del Olmo Lete, “Deber 4,” DDD, 231–232. 21 CAD, D:134–135. 22 G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), p.154b. Driver understands the Ugaritic word to mean “death.” 23 On the triad famine, pestilence, and sword in Jeremiah see: 21:7,9; 24:10; 27:13; 29:17–18; 32:24, 36; 34:17; 38:2; 42:17, 22; 44:13. See also Ezek. 5:12,17; 6:11–12; 7:15; 12:16; 14:21. Jeremiah and Ezekiel lived in the same generation and their writing depends on Leviticus and Deuter-

68

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

iom “sword, pestilence, and famine” describes the harshest and cruelest aspects of war.24 In Jeremiah we also find the double curse of sword and famine (5:12, 14:15, 16, 18; 15:2, 16:4, 44:27).25 Because this pair appears nowhere else in the Bible, and because of the multiple references to the sword-famine-pestilence triplet in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, some scholars believe that these prophets had the actual historical situation in mind and are referring to the catastrophe hanging over the Kingdom of Judah. “Sword,” of course, is a metonym for war, which will be followed by famine and epidemic that decimate the population. In other words, soldiers will die by the sword on the battlefield, while famine and plague strike the civilians in the besieged cities. Perhaps, then, the prophets employed these idioms because they were referring to an actual drought as well as to the military threat posed by the Babylonians.26 The death of a king in battle is described in 1 Kings 22:35. Ahab the king of Israel is mortally wounded and dies after losing much blood: “The king remained propped up in the chariot facing Aram; the blood from the wound ran down into the hollow of the chariot, and at dusk he died” (1 Kings 22:35). It is noteworthy that Ahab is said to have “slept with his fathers,” even though this for-

onomy. Jeremiah is more closely linked to Deuteronomy, so one should compare Jer. 16:4 with Deut. 28:21–26; Jer. 19:9 with Deut. 28:53–57; Jer. 21:7–9 with Deut. 30:19; Jer. 27:13 inverts Deut. 28:48. Ezek. 14:12–21 depends on Lev. 26:25–26; Ezek. 5:10 depends on Lev. 26:29. 24 The three-fold curse of pestilence, sword, and famine is also found outside the prophetic literature. According to 2 Sam. 24:13, Gad the prophet asked David to choose one of three punishments—famine, sword, or pestilence. The three-fold scheme recurs in Solomon’s prayer at the inauguration of the Temple, “Should Your people Israel be routed by an enemy … , if there is famine in the land …, if there is pestilence …” (1 Kings 8:33, 37), and again in Jehoshaphat’s prayer to the Lord: “Should misfortune befall us—the punishing sword, pestilence, or famine …” (2 Chron. 20:9) . 25 In two places sword and famine appear together with the word “death” (Jer. 11:22 and 44:12). 26 William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, ed. Paul D. Hanson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp.428, 434–435.

THE MANNER OF DEATH

69

mula is generally applied to kings who died peacefully but not to those who met a violent death.27 Because death in battle is unnatural, the Bible enacts regulations to avert it. The laws of warfare in Deuteronomy (chaps. 20– 21) provide for an exemption from conscription to allow men who have already begun the process to complete their realization of the principal goals of life before they face death on the battlefield. Consequently a man who has built a new house but not dedicated it, planted a vineyard but not yet brought in his first vintage, or betrothed a woman but not yet married her is sent back home (Deut. 20:5–7). What is more, “When a man has taken a bride, he shall not go out with the army or be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household, to give happiness to the woman he has married” (Deut. 24:5). The three categories of exemption mentioned in Deuteronomy 20 recur in 28:30, but in the form of a curse:28 a man betroths a woman but another man takes her to bed; he builds a house but never lives in it; he plants a vineyard but never eats of its fruits. Evidently these exemptions from military service were meant to prevent such tragedies in Israel and to avert the curse from the people.29 Was this law ever enforced? Nothing in the Bible provides evidence in either direction. In the Second Temple period, however, we know that Judah Maccabee followed it to the letter.30 The rules of war promulgated by the Judean Desert sect do not mention On the idiom “slept with one’s fathers” see: B. Alfrink, “L’expression !7‘ F‹ '. # 6” ‘ OTS 2 (1943): 106–118; Helmer Ringgren, “‘ ’Ćbh,” TDOT 1:10. 28 Cf. Job 31:8; Amos 5:11; Mic. 6:15; Zeph. 1:13. 29 In extra-biblical sources, too, there are echoes of the fact that certain people were exempt from military service. In the Ugaritic tale of Keret we read of the transfer of forces that included newly married men, widows, and even the infirm. This situation is clearly unusual, because even invalids were called to serve. It seems plausible, then, that in some cases grooms, widows, and the infirm were exempt from going to war. See: “The Legend of King Keret,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, A, ii, 100ff, pp.143–144; Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996), p.187. 30 1 Macc. 3:56. 27

70

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

it, even though the sect was generally meticulous about observing all Torah precepts. The talmudic sages, in their exegesis of biblical law, restricted its force: “To what does all the foregoing apply? To voluntary wars, but in the wars commanded by the Torah all go forth, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy. R. Judah says: To what does all the foregoing apply? To the wars commanded by the Torah; but in obligatory wars all go forth, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy.”31

THE FORMS OF JUDICIAL EXECUTION The Hebrew term for the judicial forms of execution, mitot beit din, comes from the Mishnah, where we read: “Four deaths were entrusted to the court: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation.”32 The Talmud then proceeds to enumerate the transgressions punishable by each of these forms and how they were implemented. Texts from the Ancient Near East rarely describe how the condemned were put to death. For example, when the Code of Hammurabi, prescribes death for those who commit a particular crime, the method of execution is not specified,33 except in a few cases that stipulate drowning,34 burning, etc.35 The Bible, too, generally employs the laconic mot yumat ‘he shall be put to death.’ We have definite knowledge of only two forms of execution: stoning (after which the corpse was suspended in public view) and burning. B Sotah 44b. From the Gemara on this Mishnah we learn that there is no difference between a war “commanded by the Torah” and an “obligatory” war. But the Amoraim differed about the meaning of these terms. According to Rava, all agree that Joshua’s wars of conquest were obligatory, and all agree that those of the Davidic house in pursuit of prosperity or security were optional. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, however, an obligatory war is one of defense, whereas an optional war is one of aggression (J. Sotah 8,7;23a). 32 M Sanhedrin 49b. 33 “The Code of Hammurabi,” trans. Theophile J. Meek, ANET, no.1–3, 6–11, 14–16, 19, 22, 26, 33, 109, 116, 130, 210, 229, 230, pp.166– 176. 34 Ibid, no. 108, 129, 143, pp.170–172. 35 Ibid, pp.167,170,172,177. §§no.25, 110, 157; he was tied to bulls who dragged him through the field (§256). 31

THE MANNER OF DEATH

71

Stoning (seqillah) Violations of Divine Law The transgressions punishable by stoning are in the domain of human relations with God. Persons liable to this penalty include those who seduce their fellows to idolatry (Deut. 13:11), those who actually engage in idolatry (Deut. 17:5), those who employ the Divine name in a curse (Lev. 24:16), those who offer their children to Molech (Lev. 20:2), the medium and necromancer (Leviticus 20:27), and—a specific case with which we begin—the man who gathered wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:35–36). That a meqošeš is one who gathers something can be inferred from “let them go and gather (we-qošešu) straw for themselves” (Ex. 5:7). Evidently the man was warned about the consequences of his action, since otherwise he would not have been subject to capital punishment prescribed by a human court. The wood-gatherer was brought before the elders, who sat in judgment with Moses and Aaron, after which he was kept under guard until his trial. His sentence was known in advance—“whoever does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death” (Ex. 31:15)—but the form of execution had never been stated. Only in the wake of this man’s action was stoning prescribed as the punishment for public desecration of the Sabbath. Some believe that this penalty was applied to all Sabbath desecrators—a view reinforced by a baraita: “It once happened that a man rode a horse on the Sabbath in the Greek period and he was brought before the Court and stoned.”36 Execution by stoning took place outside the camp (Lev. 24:14 and 23) or outside the city (1 Kings 21:10 and 13), in order to avoid the impurity caused by contact with a dead person or presence in the same tent as a corpse (Num. 19:11 and 14; cf. Ex. 19:13). Stoning is also specified when a brother, child, wife, or friend attempts to seduce a person to idolatry (Deut. 13:7 [6]). A person like that merits neither mercy nor pity. He must be stoned to death, struck down first by his intended victim, followed by the rest of the people (13:10 [9]). The text says “stone him that he die” (Deut. 13:11 [10]), because a barrage of stones is not necessarily fatal (see 2 Sam. 16:6); hence the appended “that he die (wa-met),” to require that the stoning continue until the condemned man is dead. The Masoretic text of v. 10 is harog tahargennu ‘kill him’—i.e., execution 36

B Sanhedrin 46a.

72

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

without trial. But the Septuagint has ΦΑ΅··νΏΏΝΑ ΦΑ΅··ΉΏΉϧΖ ΔΉΕϠ ΅ЁΘΓІ ‘report him [to the authorities],’ evidently reflecting a Hebrew text hagged taggidennu. On the basis of a number of verses (Lev. 5:1; Josh. 2:14 and 20; Jeremiah 20:10; Prov. 29:24) this is a plausible reading. Another passage about idolatry is Deuteronomy 17:2–7. Here it is the worship of foreign gods, or the sun, moon, or heavenly host. This deviation, an import from Assyria, was prevalent in Judah during the reign of Manasseh in the seventh century BCE and was denounced by the prophets of the age (Jer. 7:18, 19:13, 44:17; Zeph. 1:5). Here too transgressors are stoned to death. The death penalty for idolatry is also stipulated in Exodus (again without specification of the method): “Whoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone shall be proscribed” (Ex. 22:19 [20]). Those who blaspheme and pronounce the divine name, whether native-born or foreign, are to be stoned (Lev. 24:16). But the previous verse—“whoever curses his God shall bear his sin”— does not specify a punishment. Consequently, some of the sages understood that a person is not liable for the death penalty unless he or she utters the ineffable name; but R. Meir wrote that this refers specifically to the Tetragrammaton.37 It seems likely that the blasphemer, too, was to be stoned to death: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp … and let the whole community stone him” (Lev. 24:14). The man in question was punished because of the action reported in v. 11: “wa-yiqqov the Name and cursed.” The meaning of the verb here has been a matter of dispute at least since Talmudic times.38 Ibn Ezra offers two interpretations: first, that it derives from the root n.k.b. ‘utter, speak,’ as in “a new name that the mouth of the Lord will utter (yiqqovennu) (Isa. 62:2); or, in the nif’al, “Moses and Aaron took those men, who were designated (niqqevu) by name” (Num. 1:17). His second interpretation is that it comes from the root q.b.b ‘curse,’ as in the story of Balaam: “How can I curse (Þeqqov) whom God has not cursed?” (Num. 23:8). Ibn Ezra prefers the first derivation, namely, that the man first uttered the Divine name and then cursed. Rashi, by contrast, believes that vv. 37 38

B Sanhedrin 56a. Ibid.

THE MANNER OF DEATH

73

15–16 refer to a single sin of intentional blasphemy. When the text specifies that “whoever curses his God shall bear his sin,” the meaning is evidently that he will be stoned to death, as stated in v. 14, and as can be derived a fortiori from v. 16: if a person who utters the Divine name is to be put to death, a fortiori someone who utters the Divine name and also curses God merits the same punishment. The punishment of stoning for blasphemy is part of the story of Naboth the Jezreelite, who owned a vineyard that King Ahab coveted. When Naboth refused to sell the vineyard or to accept another plot in exchange for it, because it was his ancestral patrimony, Ahab’s wife Jezebel accused Naboth of cursing God and the king. Naboth was tried, found guilty and stoned to death (1 Kings 21:13). According to another tradition, Naboth’s sons, too, were executed (2 Kings 9:26). Blasphemy is also prohibited in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 22:27), which admonishes every person against cursing and showing disrespect for their superiors—specifically, God and the rulers of the people. (Cursing one’s parents is the subject of a separate prohibition [21:17; cf. Lev. 20:9].) The reference here to the naœiÞ suggests that this is an ancient law rooted in the tribal period. Later, under the monarchy, the standard idiom is “God and king” (1 Kings 21:10 [or “king and god”: Isa. 8:21]). That cursing the Lord is a capital offense can also be inferred from Job’s wife, who urges him to “curse God, and die” (Job 2:9). Blasphemy is also covered in extra-biblical texts, such as MAL Tablet A2, where we read that a women who speaks blasphemy “shall bear her punishment; [but] they shall not touch her husband, children or daughters.” But the text does not specify what that punishment is.39 By contrast, King Ashurbanipal reports that “I tore out the tongues of those whose slanderous mouths had uttered blasphemies against my god Ashur and had plotted against me, his god-fearing prince.”40 Incidentally, the Akkadian word šillatu is found in both texts. An Aramaic cognate appears in the book of Daniel (3:29), where Nebuchadnezzar decrees that anyone

Raymond Westbrook, “Punishments and Crimes,” ABD 5:549. “The Death of Sannacherib,” trans. A. Leo Oppenheim, ANET, iv 65–82, p.288. 39 40

74

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

who speaks šalu against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego will be torn limb from limb and his house will be razed.41 Stoning is also the penalty for one who dedicates (lit. gives) his children to Molech (Lev. 20:2). At first the verse states only that he must be put to death (mot yummat). The hof’al indicates that the reference is to death by human agency, i.e., execution. The second part of the verse specifies the form of execution—namely, that the people stone him. According to the medieval exegete Joseph Bekhor-Shor (12th century), his transgression is double, involving idolatry and murder. The Molech cult is tantamount to murder because the child offered as a sacrifice is burned to death (Ps. 106:38). Verse 3 states that, in addition to being stoned to death, the transgressor will suffer excision (karet; see below). The cult of Molech defiles the Sanctuary, whether by introducing ritual objects into it or placing them near it. It profanes the Divine name, as a consequence of a false oath, as well as through the improper sacrifice, neglect of purity, and practice of idolatry. In later literature we encounter the expression ʚillul ha-šem ‘desecration of the Divine name’ with reference to actions that bring disrepute on the Israelites or the Torah.42 The punishment of excision mentioned here strikes the malefactor’s family, too. According to the Sifra and Talmud, this is because the family will always attempt to protect its father.43 We should remember that the patriarchal family followed the father in ritual matters. Another possibility is that the penalty extended beyond the immediate transgressor because he sacrificed his son to Molech with his family’s knowledge. Another transgression to be punished by stoning is that of “a man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit” (Lev. 20:27). The location of this verse, at the very end of the chapter, is unexpected. Levine conjectures that it was inserted there because the punishment for having a ghost or familiar spirit is not mentioned in v. 6: “If any person turns to ghosts and familiar spirits and goes astray after them, I will set My face against that person and cut him 41 S. Paul, “Daniel 3:29: A Case Study of ‘Neglected’ Blasphemy,” JNES 42 (1983): 291–294. 42 Baruch Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p.128. 43 B Shevuot 39a.

THE MANNER OF DEATH

75

off from among his people.” He notes that vv. 2–4, which deal with a similar transgression, do make death by stoning explicit; perhaps, then, v. 6 is an abridged text.44 On the other hand, Daube, who studied ancient Roman law, notes that the Latin legislator, too, presented this law at the end of the code rather than in the expected place.45 More plausible, however, is Ibn Ezra’s explanation that v. 6 deals with calling up a ghost in private, without witnesses; hence the punishment is one meted out by God—excision. By contrast, verse 26, deals with a public séance, which is actionable by the court and for which the penalty is death by stoning. Another possible explanation for the presence of two separate laws is that the original chapter comprised only vv. 7–26; vv. 1–6 and 26 were added later, and, finally, v. 27. Stoning as the Punishment for Social Transgressions Stoning is also the penalty for some antisocial crimes. For example, it is the fate prescribed for the wayward and defiant son (Deut. 21:18–21), whose actions are accounted a capital offense in order to emphasize the gravity of disrespect for parents. R. Yosé explains that the wayward and defiant son is punished for his anticipated future: when he grows up and has no money to satisfy his appetites he will become a thief.46 To defend society against incorrigible criminals, the Torah prescribes the death penalty for him, in order to “purge the evil from your midst” (v. 21). The idea is that it is better for one person to die than many. Defiance of parental authority is also mentioned in the Sumerian family laws of the Old Babylonian period (nineteenth century BCE): “If a son says to his father, ‘you are not my father,’ he (the father) may shave him, may put the slave mark on him and sell him.”47 And “if a son says to his mother, ‘you are not my mother,’ they shall shave half his head, lead him around the city, and put him out of the house.”48 Levine, Leviticus, p.137. D. Daube, “Codes and Codas in the Pentateuch,” Juridical Review 53 (1941): 242–61. 46 Mishnah, Sanh. 8:5 47 David Marcus, “Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,” JANESCU 13 (1981): 39. 48 Ibid. 44 45

76

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

In the biblical perspective, severe disrespect for one’s parents is grounds for death by stoning; honoring them is rewarded by long life. Biblical law deprives the father of his independent authority to punish his son with death; that belongs to the public judicial domain overseen by the Elders. In addition, the father’s accusation must be seconded by the mother, so as to prevent a situation in which a father tries to keep his first-born son by an unloved wife from inheriting a double share of his estate. The juxtaposition of the passage about the wayward and defiant son with that about the sons of the loved and unloved wives can also be understood in light of the parallel in the Laws of Hammurabi: 168: If a seignior, having made up his mind to disinherit his son, has said to the judges, “I wish to disinherit my son,” the judges shall investigate his record, and if the son did not incur wrong grave (enough) to be disinherited, the father may not disinherit his son. 169: If he has incurred wrong against his father grave (enough) to be disinherited, they shall let him off the first time; if he has incurred grave wrong a second time, the father may disinherit his son.49

In Mesopotamia, thus, disrespect to one’s parents led to disinheritance or being sold into slavery, whereas in Israel it was a capital offense in extreme cases such as cursing of or striking parents. The Bible requires the parents to hand over their son to the Elders, who, after thorough investigation, decide his fate. The Torah transferred this authority from the father to the Elders because the latter would not reach a hasty verdict, unlike an angry father. All the inhabitants of the town took part in the execution of the sentence. Although the general rule was that the principal accuser threw the first stone, here the parents are not said to participate— because of the sensitivity of the matter, and also perhaps to indicate that parents do not have the power of life and death over their children. The Sages were of the opinion that this law had never been implemented and appears in the Torah only for the sake of “The Code of Hammurabi,” trans. Theophile J. Meek, ANET, nos.168, 169, p.173. 49

THE MANNER OF DEATH

77

instruction and edification; according to the Talmud: “It never happened and never will happen. Why then was this law written? — That you may study it and receive reward.” But Rabbi Jonathan disagreed: “I saw him and sat on his grave.”50 Stoning seems to have been the standard form of judicial execution. It applied, for instance, to an adulterous woman. If a husband alleged that his wife was not a virgin when they were married, and his charges were proven, she was to be stoned at the door of her father’s house (Deut. 22:21).51 If a virgin who was not betrothed is raped, she is not to be punished for the loss of her virginity (vv. 28–29). The rapist, too, suffers a less severe punishment than one who rapes a betrothed virgin, because he has not impaired the legal bond, which is considered to be tantamount to marriage, between the woman and her fiancé. In this situation, the Torah’s goal is to protect the victim and her father. The young woman’s prospects for marriage have been destroyed by the loss of her virginity; the father has lost the bride price he expected to receive when she married. Consequently the rapist must pay the father an amount equal to the bride price. He must also marry his victim and may never divorce her. Under the law code we are considering here, however, a virgin who lost her virginity before marriage is to be executed (v. 21). Perhaps she is deemed to have been promiscuous after her betrothal and her situation is equivalent to that of adultery by a betrothed virgin (vv. 23–24). Alternately, this harsh punishment is meted out to her because she deceived her future husband, who discovered the truth only after their marriage. Her loose behavior while still in her father’s house and under his authority is considered to be culpable—a severe offense against her father, just as adultery by a married woman is a severe offense against her husband. Another case is that of a betrothed virgin found lying with a man in the city (Deut. 22:23–24). Because the act took place in an inhabited area, she is assumed to have been a willing participant. Both the man and woman were to be taken to the city gate and B Sanhedrin 71a. For accusations of adultery in the Code of Hammurabi see ANET, nos. 131, 132, p.171. 50 51

78

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

stoned to death—the woman, because she did not resist, and the man, for having intercourse with another man’s affianced wife (v. 24). In this case, they are equal partners in a transgression that is both ritual and criminal. In the Code of Hammurabi as well as in the Middle Assyrian Laws (unlike the Bible), a husband has the right to forgive an adulterous wife and stipulate the punishment for her and her partner. According to the Code of Hammurabi, “If the wife of a seignior has been caught while lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the water. If the husband of the woman wishes to spare his wife, then the king in turn may spare his subject.”52 Under the Middle Assyrian Laws, If a seignior has caught a(nother) seignior with his wife, when they have prosecuted him (and) convicted him, they shall put both of them to death, with no liability attaching to him. If, upon catching (him), he has brought him either into the presence of the king or into the presence of the judges, when they have prosecuted him (and) convicted him, if the woman’s husband puts his wife to death, he shall also put the seignior to death, but if he cuts off his wife’s nose, he shall turn the seignior into a eunuch and they shall mutilate his whole face. However, if he let his wife go free, they shall let the seignior go free.53

Nevertheless, there may be an echo in the Bible of the idea of allowing the husband to decide the fate of an adulterous wife: “The fury of the husband will be passionate; He will show no pity on his day of vengeance. He will not have regard for any ransom; He will refuse your bribe, however great” (Prov. 6:34–35). In other words, the husband could have forgiven his wife, but did not do so. A similar situation is reflected in the historical case of David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), as well as in Jer. 3:8 and Hos. 4:5. Perhaps an adulterous wife was originally punished by divorce only and the death penalty was a later development.

The Code of Hammurabi, ANET, no. 129, p.171. “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” trans. Theophile J. Meek, ANET, no.15, p.181. 52 53

THE MANNER OF DEATH

79

On the other hand, Deuteronomy 22:25–27 refers to a betrothed woman discovered lying with a man in the field. In this case only the man is to be executed. She is not culpable, because, in the open countryside, even had she called out no one would have heard her. She is given the benefit of the doubt and it is assumed that she did cry out. How the man should be executed is not stated here, but it seems likely that it was by stoning.54 In the Assyrian Law, too, we find that the woman’s resistance is taken as an indication of her innocence: If, as a seignior’s wife passed along the street, a(nother) seignior has seized her, saying to her, “Let me lie with you,” since she would not consent (and) kept defending herself, but he has taken her by force (and) lain with her, whether they found him on the seignior’s wife or witnesses have charged him that he lay with the woman, they shall put the seignior to death, with no blame attaching to the woman.55

The Procedure Stoning was carried out in public. The stones were cast by the “people of the land” (Lev. 20:2), which here connotes all of the Israelites and not a particular institution or agency, as is shown by the parallels: “all the congregation” (Lev. 24:16, Num. 15:35); “all the men of his city” (Deut. 21:21). Two roots—r.g.m and s.q.l—are employed to express death by stoning, but there does not seem to be any significant difference between them. The verb r.g.m indicates how the stone was used, namely, that it was hurled or launched by a slingshot.56 The entire community was obligated to participate in a stoning because those who stoned the condemned person were thereby purifying themselves of the guilt that the malefactor had imposed on the community. This is indicated by Lev. 24:14, where we are told that those who had heard the man blaspheme were to lay their hands on his head—perhaps as method of positive identification 54 On adultery outside the Bible, see J .J. Finkelstein, “Sex Offenses in Sumerian Laws,” JAOS 86 (1966): 355–372. 55 The Middle Assyrian Laws, ANET, no. 12, p.181. 56 Lev. 24:14; Num. 15:35–36, 21:21.

80

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

before his execution. Placing one’s hands on the head of another generally signified a transfer of authority, but it may also have a ritual and legal significance, as in this verse.57 When the stoning was ordered by a court of law, the witnesses hurled the first stone (Deut. 17:7) followed by the rest of the people.58 In other words, the witnesses are responsible for the execution, and if their testimony was false they are murderers. The Mishnah records the warning given to witnesses in capital cases: “Know that capital cases are unlike monetary cases: in monetary cases a witness may pay money and make atonement but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [who is wrongfully condemned] and for the blood of his posterity.”59 The intention behind stoning seems to have been to remove the criminal from the camp and the city. This removal was not merely physical; it also bore significance for the dead man’s spirit. The ancients believed that a person left unburied could not rejoin his ancestors. The punishment of stoning prevented the burial of the corpse, since the broken fragments of the body were left to be eaten by the birds and beasts (as in the case of Naboth, 1 Kings 21:19, 23, 24, 22:38). A person whose body was eaten by wild beasts could not join his ancestors, because he was in the intestines of the animals. His spirit suffered torment because it could not be reunited with his ancestors. This is also the sense of the punishment of excision, in which “that soul [is] cut off from among his people” (Ex. 31:14 et passim). Note that many of the crimes punish-

57 David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956), p.227; D. Wright, “The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature,” JAOS 106 (1986): 433–446. In Hittite sources we read about the Ritual of Tunnawi, in which a woman touched the horn of a fertile cow in the hopes of transferring the animal’s fertility to herself. See Albrecht Goetze, The Hittite Ritual of Tunnawi (AOS 14; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1938), p.21 n.34. 58 According to M Sanhedrin 45a this law applied to all of those who were stoned, even though it is stated only about the idolator (Deut. 17:7) and one who incites to idolatry. In the latter case the first stone was to be hurled by the person who was incited (Deut. 13:10), since it is logical that that was also a witness at the trial. 59 M Sanhedrin 4:5.

THE MANNER OF DEATH

81

able by excision may also make the criminal liable to being stoned to death. In a later period the procedure for stoning was modified, as we find in the Mishnah: The place of stoning was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses knocked him down by the hips; if he turned over on his heart the witness turned him over again on his back. If he straightaway died that sufficed; but if not, the second witness took the stone and dropped it on his chest. If he straightaway died that sufficed; but if not, he was stoned by all Israel.60

According to Rashi, the stoning place must not be too high, to prevent horrible mutilation of the body; but neither should it be too low, so that death would be immediate. The change was evidently motivated by a desire to preserve the condemned man’s corpse. The talmudic sages may have been influenced by the story in 2 Chron. 25:12, which recounts that Amaziah had the Edomite captives hurled from the rock of Sela. They may also have been influenced by Roman, Syrian, or Greek law.61 Hanging (or Impaling) (teliyyah) Hanging is not one of the forms of judicial execution prescribed by Jewish law. The Bible does, however, mention the execution by hanging (or impaling) of non-Israelites, pursuant to the laws of those nations—the Egyptians (Gen. 40:22) and the Persians (Esth. 7:9). It is also mentioned as a foreign custom imported for use in Israel (Ezra 6:11) and as an extra-legal or extra-judicial measure (Josh. 8:29). In Deuteronomy, however, we read of hanging or impaling after execution of the death sentence: And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree [or: impale him M. Sanhedrin 6:4. Throwing from a rock as punishment is mentioned in The Tweleve Tables 8:15 “that slaves caught in the act of theft be whip scourges and be thrown from the rock.” See: Paul Robinson ColemanNorton, The Tweleve Tables, rev.ed. (Princeton: Princeton University, 1952), n.48; 2 Macc. 6:10. 60 61

82

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE on a stake], his body shall not remain all night upon the tree [or: you must not let his corpse remain on the stake overnight], but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man [or: an impaled body] is accursed by God [or: is an affront to God]; you shall not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess. (Deut. 21:22–23)

The sequence of actions in v. 22—the execution of the death sentence, followed by hanging or impaling—indicates that we are talking about the public display of the corpse of the executed man. According to the Mishnah, only the corpses of those stoned as blasphemers or idolators were hanged.62 Although the Sages interpreted the verse as a prohibition of the Roman practice of crucifixion,63 the Targum on Ruth 1:17, which enumerates the four forms of judicial execution, substitutes crucifixion for strangulation.64 11Q Temple, the Peshitta, and some manuscripts of the Septuagint vary from the Masoretic text of Deuteronomy and read, “hang him on wood so that he dies,” which might suggest crucifixion.65 But as Baumgarten pointed out crucifixion was viewed with horror by the Qumran sectarian as totally alien to Jewish tradition.66 There also seems to have been a custom to hang or impale the corpses of persons condemned by a court of law, enemy kings who fell in battle67 and those executed by order of the king.68 M. Sanhedrin 6:4. Sifre 221; B Sanhedrin 46b. 64 Joseph Heinemann, “The Targum of Exodus 22:4 and the Ancient Halakhah,” Tarbiz. 38 (1969): 295; E. Urbach, “The Sanhedrin of 23 and capital punishment,” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Judaic Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1972), p.44. 65 11QTemple 64:8, 10–11; Y. Yadin, Megillat Hamikdash (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977), 1: 286–288 (Hebrew). 66 Joseph M. Baumgarten, “ Does TLH in the Temple Scroll refer to Crucifixion?,” JBL 91 (1972):472–481; for further study see: M. Hengel, “Mors Turpissima Crucis: Die Kreuzigung in der antiken Welt und die ‘Torheit’ des ‘Wortes vom Kreuz’ ’’ in Rechtfertigung Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Johannes Friderich, Wolfgang Pöhlman und Peter Stuhlmacher (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1976), pp.125–184. 67 Josh. 8:29, 10:26–27; 1 Sam. 31:10. 68 2 Sam. 4:12. 62 63

THE MANNER OF DEATH

83

Deuteronomy 21:22 speaks of hanging the corpse on Ýeʜ, which can mean either a tree or a piece of wood, and thus does not necessarily denote impaling. According to the Mishnah, a gibbet was erected and the dead man’s hands were bound and slung over the beam. According to Tigay, the rendering “impale on a stake” is based on the Assyrian custom.69 It is possible that t.l.h means impaling in Esther (2:23, 5:14, 7:9). According to Herodotus, this was a standard method of execution in Achaemenid Persia.70 Although the Bible does not explain the concept behind hanging a corpse, once again it seems that the intention was to make the punishment more severe by denying burial to the malefactor. Another possibility is that the sight of the corpse was meant to frighten those who saw it. The fate of Pharaoh’s baker (Gen. 40:19) alludes to the Egyptian custom of hanging the corpse of an executed criminal for the birds to eat the flesh from the bones. One of the curses in Deuteronomy is that “your carcass shall become food for all the birds of the sky and all the beasts of the earth, with none to frighten them off” (Deut. 28:26).71 As noted above with regard to those who had been stoned, leaving a corpse unburied, to be eaten by birds and animals, was a curse, because the deceased could not find rest until his body was buried.72 Ancient peoples took great pains to avoid this. According to Homer, having one’s corpse eaten by animals was an evil as great as death itself.73 Ritzpa the daughter of Aya guarded the corpses of the sons of Saul, who had been hanged by the Gibeonites, to ward off the scavenger birds and animals, maintaining her vigil night and day from the start of the harvest season until water fell on them from Heaven (2 Sam. 21:10).74 Tobit risked his life to bury the dead (Tobit 2:4–8). PaTigay, Deuteronomy, p.198; “I caught the survivors and impaled (them) on stakes in front of their towns” see: “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” trans. A. Leo Oppenheim, ANET, pp.276, 288, 295, 300. 70 Herodotus III.125, 159; IV.43. 71 Cf. 1 Sam. 17:44, 46; Jer. 8:2, 16:4, 6, 25:33. 72 On the suffering of the unburied see Isa. 14:15, 19; for extrabiblical sources, see: “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, p.99. 73 Iliad 1, 4–6; 23, 72–74. 74 J Qiddushin 4a. 69

84

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

gans, Christians, and Jews would risk their lives in order to retrieve and bury the corpses of those who have been executed. Sometimes a large bribe was paid for permission to bury the corpse. When this was not possible, the relatives might attempt to steal it. The rabbis issued a stern prohibition against this practice, however, because of the attendant risk.75 The law in Deuteronomy is meant to guarantee that the criminal’s corpse will be buried—and quickly—on the day of execution itself. The idea that the dead body be displayed for only a limited time persisted until we find in the Mishnah that “And they undid him at once.”76 Some of the Sages limited the hanging of the corpse to men, exempting women, or to those executed for blasphemy or idolatry. The Mishnah cites our verse as the source for the rule that every person be buried on the day of death. A delay is permitted only for the sake of a more dignified burial.77 The reason for not leaving the corpse hanging overnight, according to the Bible, is that a hanged man is a Divine curse. Commentators have disputed the meaning of the Hebrew phrase qilelat Elohim talui: is the hanged body accursed by God or a sign of disrespect toward God?78 The talmudic Sages explained that the hanged man must be buried on the same day and his corpse not be abused because, even though he was a sinner, he was nevertheless created in the image of God: R. Meir used to say, “What is the meaning of the verse, ‘For a curse of God is a hanged one’? It is analogous to two twin brothers who looked very much alike; one ruled over the world, and the other went out to a life of crime. When the criminal was apprehended and hanged [or: crucified], all the passersby kept saying that it appeared as if the king was being hanged. Therefore Scriptures states, “For a curse of God is a hanged one.”(T. Sanh. 9:7) Semaʘot 2, 9. M. Sanhedrin 6:4. 77 “If he kept him overnight for the sake of his honor, to procure for him a coffin or a shroud, he does not transgress thereby” (B Sanhedrin 46b). 78 See at length Moshe J. Bernstein, “!%7 '!% 7%%3 !# (Deut. 21:23): A Study in Early Jewish Exegesis,” JQR 74 (1983): 21–45. 75 76

THE MANNER OF DEATH

85

If we understand qilelat Elohim as a curse against God, why was the body hanged in the first place? Furthermore, why is it a curse if the corpse remains hanging through the night, but not if it is hanging by the light of day? Tur-Sinai resolves this conundrum by taking elohim here to mean the “spirits of the dead” rather than the God of Israel. In support of this meaning he cites the story of Saul and the witch of Endor, who sees elohim rising from the ground (1 Sam. 28:13), as well as “for a people may inquire of its elohim—of the dead on behalf of the living” (Isa. 8:19). Tur-Sinai explains that the dead had to be buried before dark because the souls of the dead person circulate at night and visit the places they frequented in life. If the soul of a dead person saw its body hanging, its shame would lead it to curse and harm the living.79 Another reason why the hanged man must not be left unburied, according to the Bible, is to avoid defiling the land. An unburied body is a source of impurity, because birds and wild animals may scatter parts of the disintegrating corpse far and wide. Ezekiel describes the efforts made to bury the remnants of the bodies of Gog’s army in order to purify the land (Ezek. 39:11–16). David Kimʘi, in his commentary on v. 12, notes that “a dead person who has not been buried is the defilement of the land.” In order to prevent such impurity, the bodies of the Canaanite kings hanged by Joshua were buried at nightfall (Josh. 8:29 and 10:27). In his commentary on Josh. 8:29, Kimʘi observes that this precept applies to all who are hanged in the Land of Israel. Note, however, that the body of the king of Ai was “tossed” (wa-yašliku), which can hardly be called respectful treatment of a dead king. The same verb recurs, with regard to the five Canaanite kings, in Josh. 10:27, and again in reference to the body of Uriah the prophet, executed by order of Jehoiakim (Jer. 26:23). Impaling (hoqaÝah) The practice of impaling is mentioned for the first time in the Book of Numbers, in the story of the Israelites who worshiped Baal Peor at Shittim. The Lord instructs Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them in the sun [or: impale them] before the N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Language and the Book (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1955), 3:163 (Hebrew). 79

86

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Lord, so that the Lord’s wrath may turn away from Israel” (Num. 25:4).80 According to the next verse, however, Moses deviated from God’s instructions, instructing the Israelite judges to kill all those who had worshiped Baal Peor. Neither order is implemented, because Phinehas kills the transgressing couple in flagrante delicto and the plague comes to an abrupt end (v. 8).81 Impaling is also the fate of Saul’s sons and grandsons. According to 2 Sam. 21:1–9, David, to turn away the Divine wrath that had brought famine on the land (v. 1), handed over seven of Saul’s descendants to the Gibeonites to avenge the blood of their kinsmen killed by Saul. Here it is clear that the corpses were left hanging and not buried (see above). What precisely is hoqaÝah? That it had some sort of ritual aspect is indicated by the phrases “to the Lord” (2 Sam. 21:6 and Num. 25:4) and “before the Lord” (2 Sam. 21:9). Evidently the difference between the two expressions is that “before the Lord” means a ceremony conducted in the Tabernacle,82 whereas “to the Lord” refers to a consecration performed without a formal ceremony and outside the Tabernacle. Robertson-Smith understands impaling as a punishment that atones for sin. Ehrlich holds a similar view, adding that hoqaÝah is not merely judicial execution by hanging, because the Bible never speaks of killing or hanging someone “to the Lord,” but reserving this phrase instead for sacrificial victims ( Lev. 7:11). Hence the hoqaÝah in Numbers must be The incident of Baal Peor is mentioned in four other places in the Bible: Ps. 106:28–30; Hos. 9:10; Deut. 4:3; and Josh. 22:17. 81 The talmudic sages were somewhat uncomfortable with the fact that Phinehas killed the two persons without trial, so they said that he acted in God’s name and not at his own initiative. See J Sanhedrin 10:2:28d. 82 There was no need to be concerned that the corpses of those impaled might defile the Sanctuary, since this was an emergency situation (see Lev. 16:1, 21:11–12; Num. 19:13 and 20). Later, Saul’s sons were impaled before the altar in Gibeon. See: 2 Sam. 21:6 where the M.T. has ‘at Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of Yahweh.’ The RSV follows LXX and reads Gibeon which is a preferable reading and is supported by verse 9 below (cf.1 Kings 3:4); see also 1 Sam. 15:33; Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, p.213. 80

THE MANNER OF DEATH

87

intended as a sacrifice to the Lord. Those to be impaled are the leaders of the people, and not those who worship Baal Peor, because the latter, defiled by their idolatry, are ineligible to serve as a sacrifice to the Lord.83 The leaders, as fitting victims, were to be executed in order to atone for the people’s sin and to bring about the end of the plague. But there is no consensus among scholars and the translators on the meaning of the word.84 In Hebrew, the root y.q.Ý means “be separated” and is used for the dislocation of Jacob’s thigh (Gen. 32:26). Figuratively it means “be severed/alienated” (Jer. 6:8; Ezek. 23:17–18). Gesenius renders hoqaÝah as “to hang upon a stake, to fix to a stake, a punishment by which the limbs were dislocated: [Perhaps simply to hang, in which the neck is dislocated].”85 The Septuagint in Num 25:4 has ‘make an example of,’ in 2 Sam 21:6 it has ‘expose to the sun’ even though ‘in the face of the sun’ is part of the text in Numbers and not there. Peshitta opt for “exposure,” which is an incidental feature of impaling or crucifixion. Driver, however, objects that this cannot be the meaning of the Hebrew word.86 The Vulgate and Douay have “hang them up on gibbets” in Numbers, but “crucify” in 2 Samuel. Driver thinks that crucifixion is the punishment intended and evidently so pseudo-Jon. and Targ. Yerushalmi, “implying at least an unnatural extension of the limbs (Gen 32:26).”87 W. R. Smith, noting that in Arabic the verb wqÝ means “to fall,” suggested “cast them down,”88 i.e., hurling them from the top of a rock. He adds that in 2 Sam. 21:9 we read, of Saul’s descendants, wa-yippelu ševaÝtam, and says that here the verb nfl should be understood literally, as “they fell,” and not metaphorically (“they perished”). Arnold B. Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô (New York: Ktav, 1969), 1:294 (Hebrew). 84 R. Polzin, “HWQYÝ and Covenantal Institutions in Early Israel,” HTR 62 (1969): 227–240. 85 Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1957), p.363. 86 S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), p.351. 87. Ibid. 88 W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on The Religion of the Semites (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black , 1889), p.398 n.2. 83

88

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Against Smith’s theory, the only biblical passage that describes execution by being hurled from a rock (2 Chron. 25:12) does not use any form of y.q.Ý. Furthermore, in biblical language “falling” applies to any form of unnatural death. Finally, when the talmudic sages prescribed stoning, followed by display of the corpse, for idolators, they associated the law with the verse in Numbers we are discussing.89 Cheyne says that hoqiaÝ “seems to be a religious synonym for talah.90 Perhaps hoqaÝah was a particular form of hanging, or referred to a harsher form of execution, in light of the description of the treatment of Saul’s descendants, whose corpses were left hanging to be eaten by the birds and beasts (2 Sam. 21:10). HoqaÝah as a form of execution is also found in extra-biblical sources. Under the Code of Hammurabi, “If a seignior’s wife has brought about the death of her husband because of another man, they shall impale that woman on stakes.”91 The abuse of the corpse is mentioned in Assyrian law, in which the punishment for a women who aborts her fetus is that “they shall impale her on stakes without burying her.”92 The Persians seem to have taken over impaling from the Assyrians. The Lachish reliefs include a representation of an impaling.93 Impaling was the punishment for serious offenses such as rebellion and violation of a treaty oath. Darius’ letter in support of the Jews concludes with a royal edict mandating serious punishment for those who violate the king’s order and try to prevent the construction of the Temple: “whoever alters this decree shall have a beam removed from his house, and he shall be impaled on it” (Ezra 6:11). The same Darius warned a certain Arakha, who wanted to seize power, that he would suffer this fate: “This Arakha

B Sanhedrin 34b. T. K. Cheyne, “Critical Gleanings from 1 Samuel,” ExpTim 10 (1899): 522. 91 “The Code of Hammurabi,” ANET, no.153, p.172. 92 “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” ANET, no.53, p.185. 93 ANEP, p.131. 89 90

THE MANNER OF DEATH

89

and the nobles, his main followers, shall be impaled in Babylon.”94 Herodotus writes that Darius in fact impaled 3,000 of the rebels.95 Burning Execution by burning aims at the total obliteration of the evil. Biblical law specifies it as the punishment for two forms of illicit sex. The first is the case of a man who marries both a mother and daughter: “They shall be burned with fire, both he and they” (Lev. 20:14). The plain meaning is clearly that both women are to be burned. But of what is the first wife guilty? In a baraita we find a debate between R. Ishmael and R. Akiva: the former maintains that only the second wife is to be burned, but the latter insists that the punishment does apply to both.96 Furthermore, R. Akiva extends the prohibition to a third generation in each direction: the daughter, her mother, and her grandmother, as well as the mother, her daughter and her granddaughter.97 It seems that the first wife is culpable because it was considered to be inconceivable that a man would marry a woman and her mother had the first wife not given her consent to this ménage à trois, making her an accomplice to the transgression. That they are to be burned is an indication of the severity of their offense. In extra-biblical sources, too, burning is the punishment for illicit sex. Under the Code of Hammurabi, “If a seignior has lain in the bosom of his mother after [the death of] his father, they shall burn both of them.”98 In the second case, if the daughter of a priest is promiscuous, “it is her father whom she defiles; she shall be put to the fire” (Lev. 21:9). The plain meaning is that the daughter in question is unmarried; but the talmudic sages held that the provision applies only to a betrothed girl (R. Ishmael) or to a betrothed girl or married woman (R. Akiva and R. Simeon).99 She is liable to this severe punishment because her behavior resembles that of the sacred prostitutes of the Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (London: George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1966), p.341. 95 Herodotus, The Persian War 3:159. 96 B Sanhedrin 76b. 97 J Yevamot 11a. 98 “The Code of Hammurabi,” ANET, no. 157, p.172. 99 B Sanhedrin 50b, 51b. 94

90

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

pagan cults and because she profanes her father’s holiness. Here, too, exists a parallel in the Code of Hammurabi, which prescribes burning for a “cult prostitute or divine lady” who goes to a party and becomes intoxicated.100 In biblical law, the punishment for other forms of illicit sex is death (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22); when the mode of execution is specified, it is stoning (Deut. 22:21 and 24; Ezek. 16:40). Under ancient law, however, burning seems to have been the penalty imposed on any woman who had illicit sex, and not just the daughter of a priest. When Judah is informed that Tamar has acted lewdly and become pregnant, (although she is bound to his son by a levirate marriage), he reacts immediately: “Bring her out … and let her be burned” (Gen. 38:24). According to Nahmanides, the harshness of the punishment is determined by Judah’s high status. It may also reflect Canaanite custom. Finally, it is possible that the real meaning is that the corpse was to be burned after the miscreant had been stoned to death, as in the case of Achan (Josh. 7:15 and 25). In the story of Achan, set at the time of the conquest of Canaan, burning is the punishment for sacrilege, not forbidden sexual relations: “He who is taken with the devoted things shall be burned with fire” (Josh. 7:15). In fact, “all Israel pelted him with stones; they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones” (Josh. 7:25). According to v. 15, he is to be burned because, having stolen the “devoted things” ('4 Ž ʚerem), he has acquired that status himself; and the fate of “devoted things” is to be burned (see 6:24). By contrast, verse 25 refers to stoning, twice. Perhaps this is an example of the general and specific. Rashi explains that the language in v.15 is elliptical. He reads it as referring, not to the transgressor, but to his tent and movable property: as stated in v. 25, Achan was stoned to death rather than burned; only his inanimate possessions were burned.101 The plain meaning, however, is that Achan was sentenced to two punishments, burning and stoning. As we have noted, r.g.m and s.q.l are synonyms. After he was burned they stoned his charred corpse. The Talmudic Sages said that he was stoned because of when he committed the theft—on the Sabbath100 101

“The Code of Hammurabi,” ANET, no. 110, p.170. B Sanhedrin 44a.

THE MANNER OF DEATH

91

and the Sabbath desecrator is to be stoned; he was burned for what he stole—the “devoted things.”102 According to the text Achan’s sons and daughters, livestock, and all his possessions were burned with him (vv. 24–25). The Talmudic Sages asked how his family and possessions had sinned. Some replied that his family was not executed but taken to the execution site to witness their father’s punishment.103 Others maintained that his family members were judged as his accomplices because they did not protest against his action.104 Another possibility is that they were judged like Korah and his congregation, who were swallowed up along with all their possessions (Num. 16:26). Or, as Robinson says, we are dealing with the concept of community solidarity, in which case the transgressions of an individual are ascribed to the entire community.105 Another and more plausible interpretation has to do with the motif of sanctity. All of the spoil taken in war must be consecrated to the Lord and is considered to be holy (Josh. 6:19). The failure to do so created ritual defilement, and the camp had to be purified of all those who came into contact with the spoil.106 Burning was not only a punishment imposed by a court of law. We read that the Philistines, who pressured Samson’s wife to discover the answer to his riddle, threatened to burn her, and her father’s house (Judg. 14:15). Similarly, the Ephraimites in their fury threatened Jephthah that they would burn his house down on top of him (Judg. 12:1). The only report that a sentence of burning was carried out, after Achan, is post-biblical. The Mishnah states that the method was to drop a “wick” into the mouth of the condemned person.107 The

Num. Rab. 23:6. B Sanhedrin 44a. 104 Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer 38. 105 H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality,” Werden und Wesen des Alten Testament, ed. Paul Volz, Friedrich Stummer, and Johanes Hempel (BZAW 66; Berlin: Alfred Topelman, 1936), pp.49–62. (= idem, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964], pp.1–2). 106 J. R. Porter, “The Legal Aspects of the Concept of ‘Corporate Personality’ in the Old Testament,” VT 15 (1965): 368–372. 107 B Sanhedrin 52a. 102 103

92

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Babylonian Talmud says that this means a molten bar of lead.108 It explains that the corpse had to be preserved intact, so that the death would resemble that worked by God109 in the case of Aaron’s two sons (Lev. 10:2), whose souls were burned while their bodies remained untouched.110 To prevent any external injury to the condemned person, they buried him in dung up to his knees and tied two scarves (a rough one inside a soft one, to avoid a rope burn) around his neck; the two witnesses pulled on the scarves in opposite directions until he opened his mouth, into which they poured the molten lead, which would go straight down to his intestines.111 It should be noted that there is no evidence that this punishment was actually carried out, although there may be an allusion to it in the report by R. Eleazar b. Zadok that a priest’s daughter convicted of illicit sex was surrounded by faggots and burned.112 The Mishnah explains that the court in question consisted of Sadducees, leading some to conclude that this is the method meant by the Bible.113 According to the Talmud, the amora ʗama b. Tobiah adopted this method of burning but was rebuked for it.114 Burning the Bones of the Dead Thus far we have discussed burning as a form of judicial execution. But there are several cases in the Bible where the bones of the deceased person are burned. Cremation of the dead, including the corpse of a Gentile, is a sin for which there is no atonement: “Thus said the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, for four, I will not stay the punishment: because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime” (Amos 2:1). God will punish Moab for a misdeed that had nothing B Sanhedrin 52a; but cf. J Sanhedrin 7:2. Two contracts from Alalakh, dating from the end of the Hammurabi period, threaten the violator of the contract that molten lead will be poured into his mouth. See: D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (London: The British institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953), p.37 no. 8 line 32; p.49 no. 61 line 18. 109 B Sanhedrin 52a. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 52b. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid. 108

THE MANNER OF DEATH

93

to do with Israel. Here the Vulgate has “quod incenderit ossa regis Idumeae usque ad cinerem”—to ashes. The Aramaic Targum provides further details of the sin: “because he burned the bones of the King of Edom and used them to plaster his house.” This may be a reference to the war in which Jehoram king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah, in alliance with Edom, attacked Moab (2 Kings 3:4– 27).115 But this particular incident is not mentioned there. To understand why bones might be burned, we must remember the ancient belief in their power. This is manifested in Elisha’s posthumous miracle: the dead man who revives when his body comes into contact with the prophet’s bones (2 Kings 13:20–21). It is unlikely, though, that Amos believed this. More plausible is that he thought that even enemies deserve proper burial. What is more, burning the bones of the dead prevents the mourners from paying their last respects and does not allow the deceased to find rest. Another incident of burning the bones of the dead (this time recounted without blame) involves Josiah: “Josiah turned and saw the graves that were there on the hill; and he had the bones taken out of the graves and burned on the altar. Thus he defiled it, in fulfillment of the word of the Lord foretold by the man of God who foretold these happenings” (2 Kings 23:16).116 The reference is to 1 Kings 13:2, where, when Jeroboam offered incense on the altar at Bethel, the man of God from Judah prophesied that a future king of the house of David, Josiah by name, would burn human bones on the illegitimate altar. Note that Josiah does not seem to be aware of the prophecy. Only the bones of the man of God from Judah and of his host in Bethel (the “prophet who came from Samaria”) are spared the ignominy of cremation (v. 18).117

115

p.20.

A. H. van Zyl, The Moabites (POS 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960),

116 See the explanations for this verse in W. Boyd Barrick, “Burning Bones at Bethel: A Closer Look at 2 Kings 23, 16a,” SJOT 14(2000): 3–16. 117 Gray points out that according to 1 Kings 13 the prophet “came out of Judah” and that the reference to Samaria is anachronistic, since the city did not yet exist at the time of Jeroboam. In fact, here Samaria refers not to the city but to the Northern Kingdom; the prophet is the old prophet of Bethel of 1 Kings 13. See John Gray, I & II Kings (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), pp.672–673.

94

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

In this instance, the main reason for burning the bones seems to have been to profane the memory of the dead and to defile the altar (23:16). A human corpse is the ultimate source of impurity and can defile human beings as well as objects. According to Josephus, in the time of the Roman legate Coponius “some Samaritans defiled the altar and threw about dead men’s bones in the porticoes.”118 Removing a corpse from the grave and burning the bones was an atrocious deed meant to profane the dead person’s memory. Strangulation According to the Talmud, every judicial execution specified in the Torah without specification of the mode is by strangulation.119 Strangulation is supposed to be the most humane as well as the least mutilating form of death.120 According to the talmudic description, the condemned man was buried in dung up to his knees, two scarves were tied around his neck, and two men pulled them in opposite directions until he was strangled.121 According to the Talmud, “strangling is applied in six capital offenses.”122 But the Talmud offers no evidence that this mode of execution was ever used. What is more, this method is never explicitly mentioned in biblical law. On the other hand, the root ʚnq ‘strangle’ occurs twice. The first time is in the story of Achitophel, who is said to have “been strangled and died” (2 Sam. 17:23), evidently meaning that he hanged himself. The prophet Nahum, describing the Assyrians, known for their cruelty, mentions “the lion that tore victims for his cubs and strangled for his lionesses” (Nah. 2:13 [12]). In the postbiblical period we learn from Josephus that Herod condemned his sons to death by strangulation.123 Some scholars believe that stran-

Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.2. B Sanhedrin 52b, 84b, 89a. 120 B Sanhedrin 52b. 121 Ibid. 122 M Sanhedrin 11:1. 123 Josephus, Antiquities 16.394. 118 119

THE MANNER OF DEATH

95

gulation as a form of execution was practiced only in the Roman period.124 A comparison between the four talmudic modes of execution and those mentioned in the Bible reveals a notable difference: the Talmud gives great weight to keeping the body of the executed criminal as intact as possible. It derives this from the biblical injunction to “love your fellow as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). Thus, even condemned criminals deserve the most humane death possible.125 In addition, the mode of execution must be identical to the way in which the Lord takes human life. Because the body of the dead remains in the same condition when the Lord takes his life, the executioners must be careful about how they treat the corpse.126

THE SWORD The Torah prescribes that the residents of an idolatrous city be put to the sword (Deut. 13:16). Even the domestic livestock are to be slaughtered; the material contents of the city become ʚerem. Here, as previously with regard to one who seduces his fellows to idolatry (v. 10), the verb is doubled (hakkeh takkeh). According to the Sifrei, this means that if the specified punishment cannot be employed, the malefactor is to be killed in some other way.127 This severe punishment is deemed to be the only suitable response to mass idolatry. The city’s doom resembles that decreed for the pagan peoples of Canaan (20:16–18). The same law was applied to Achan (Josh. 7:24). Similar is the ʚerem on Amaleq (1 Samuel 15). The city must remain desolate and may never be rebuilt (as in the case of Jericho; see Josh. 6:18–19, 21, and 24). According to the Mishnah, the law of the idolatrous city applies only when a majority of the residents had become idolators and those who incite them are their fellow citizens. But if the inciters are from elsewhere, the guilt does not apply to the entire city and the idolaters among its residents are judged as individuals.128 There is no evidence that this law was ever Samuel Loewenstamm “Judicial forms of execution,” EMiqr 4:950. (Hebrew). 125 B Sanhedrin 45a, 52a; B Pesaʘim 75a; B Ketubot 37b. 126 B Sanhedrin52a. 127 Sifre 94. 128 M Sanhedrin 10, 4. 124

96

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

applied, and indeed, some of the talmudic sages insisted that such a case had never happened and never would.129 Several biblical narratives refer to persons put to the sword at the king’s orders. At Saul’s direction, Doeg the Edomite massacred the residents of the priestly city of Nob, the city of the priests— “men and women, children and infants, oxen, asses, and sheep” (1 Sam. 22:19). The description echoes the injunction to annihilate Amaleq, where Saul was enjoined to kill all, “men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses!” (1 Sam. 15:3). But the utter ʚerem that Saul refrained from applying to Amaleq was meted out to Nob and its priests. “By the sword” is stated twice in v. 19, to emphasize the magnitude of the atrocity perpetrated by Doeg. This phrase is frequently used in the context of a holy war (Josh. 10:28, 30, 32; Judg. 1:8 and 25). According to the Masoretic text, 85 priests were killed; the Septuagint reports 305, and Josephus 385.130 It is possible that Saul judged the town as if it were an idolatrous city, on the theory that rebelling against the Lord’s anointed is tantamount to rebelling against the Lord Himself. In any case, as Josephus notes, Saul was serving as the Lord’s instrument to fulfill the prophecy spoken to the high priest Eli.131 The Prophet Uriah the son of Shemaiah from Kiriath-jearim was extradited from Egypt by King Jehoiakim and put to the sword (Jer. 26:23) for seconding Jeremiah’s political opposition to the king’s anti-Babylonian policy.132 According to the second part of B Sanhedrin 71a. Josephus, Antiquities 6.260; in v.628 Josephus has 300. 131 Josephus, Antiquities 6.261. 132 There may be an allusion to this biblical passage in the Lachish Ostracon: “Thy servant Hoshaiah hath sent to inform my lord Yoash: May Yahweh cause my lord to hear tidings of peace! And now thou hast sent a letter, but my lord did not enlighten thy servant concerning the letter which thou didst send to thy servant yesterday evening, though the heart of thy servant hath been sick since thou didst write to thy servant... And it hath been reported to thy servant, saying “The commander of the host, Coniah son of Elnathan, hath come down in order to go into Egypt; and unto Hodaviah son of Ahijah and his men hath he sent to obtain…from him.” And as for the letter of Tobiah, servant of the king, which came to Shallum son of Jaddua through the prophet, saying, “Beware!,” thy ser129 130

THE MANNER OF DEATH

97

the verse, the unfortunate prophet’s corpse was tossed negligently (wayašlekh has the connotation of discarding something unwanted or repulsive) into a mass paupers’ grave. Jehoiakim did not allow Uriah to be buried in his ancestral tomb, thereby disgracing him after his death as well. Uriah was put to the sword, as prescribed by the law concerning those who defy the king. Ezekiel compares Jerusalem to an adulterous woman who is stoned and then mutilated: “They shall strip you of your clothing. … Then they shall assemble a mob against you to pelt you with stones and cut you to pieces [or pierce you] with their swords” (Ezek. 16:39–40).133 Here the punishment is stoning; the sword is added to the image because the tenor of the metaphor is the siege and conquest of Jerusalem. According to David Kimʘi, however, the stoning and mutilation with the sword are not fatal, because in v. 41 she is still alive. The punishment is rather one of disgrace and humiliation. Elsewhere the prophet speaks of putting an adulterous woman to the sword, with no mention of stoning (23:10). This verse is part of the prophecy of the impending destruction and exile— punishment for the diplomatic cabal with other nations and for idolatry, illicit sexual relations, and murder. None of these passages provides evidence that a person convicted by a court of law was executed by the sword. Nor is it clear that the idolatrous city was conquered in battle, like Canaanite cities. Capital punishment by direct order of the king is not the same as the public execution of a court verdict. As for Ezekiel’s metaphors, he seems to be conflating the execution of an adulteress with the capture of the city.134 According to the Talmud, death by the sword is the penalty for a free man who murders his slave (Ex. 21:20). The victim’s death must be avenged in this fashion, for, as we read elsewhere, “I vant hath sent it to my lord.” “Lachish Ostraca III,” trans. W. F. Albright, ANET, p.322. 133 The hapax bataq is cognate with the Akkadian batĆqu ‘to cut through, tear off’; see: CAD B:161–165; Jonas C. Greenfield, “Lexicographical Notes I,” HUCA 29(1958):220–222; For Arabic cognate see: Frederick E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew (Chico, California: Scholars Press,1984), pp.85,107no.42. 134 Samuel Loewenstamm, “Judicial forms of execution,” EMiqr 4:950 (Hebrew).

98

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

will bring a sword upon you, executing vengeance for the covenant” (Lev. 26:25). A scrutiny of the Bible, however, does not turn up any reference to the mode of execution of other murderers. It seems plausible that killers were executed by the method they employed to perform their crime.135 On the other hand, as we have seen, in the Bible there are accounts of kings who executed people by the sword and this seems to have been the punishment for rebellion in later periods too.136 Apparently the law evolved that the king could order the summary execution without trial of rebels, in which case they were always executed by the sword.137 The biblical verses seem to be referring to striking or piercing with the sword and not to decapitation. The mishnaic term for this form of death is hereg. But the Sages drew an inference from the decapitation of the heifer who is killed instead of the murderer (Deut. 21:4). Although the literal reading of that verse speaks of breaking its neck, they said that “just as the heifer is [killed] by decapitation, so all who shed blood are [executed] by decapitation.”138 Because decapitation was a Roman practice, the Sages debated whether this method of execution constituted a violation of the injunction “You shall not walk in their statutes” (Lev. 18:3).139 To avoid copying the Romans, one of the Sages suggested placing the condemned man’s head on a block and striking it off with a hatchet, but the other Sages rejected this and said that there was no more disgraceful death than this.140

EXCISION (KARET) “Excision” (or “extirpation”) is the mishnaic term for the punishment of those who violate any of several Torah precepts, such as desecrating the Sabbath, festivals and holy days; violating sexual taboos (incest and adultery); practicing idolatry; and eating leavened bread on Passover or certain forbidden foods. According to the Bible, those who transgress these precepts “will be cut off from Philo 7.3.182. Josephus, Antiquities,14.450, 464; Acts 12:2. 137 B Sanhedrin 49a; Rambam, Judges, Kings 3:8 138 MdRy Mishpatim 4. 139 B Sanhedrin 52b. 140 Ibid. 135 136

THE MANNER OF DEATH

99

their people.”141 Precisely what this denotes is a matter of debate among the commentators. According to Rashi, it means “being childless and dying prematurely.”142 The Talmud states that excision means death before the age of 60.143 The Tosafists (on Yebamoth 2a, s.v. “his brother’s wife”) cite the Jerusalem Talmud to the effect that excision means dying at 50, that death “at the hands of Heaven” means dying at 60, and that barrenness applies only to those who violate a sexual prohibition. Ibn Ezra on Gen. 17:14 says that a man is “cut off” when his offspring die, whereas those who have children are still alive, as it were, and their name is not cut off. The mode by which excision is implemented is never stated, which indicates that human agency is not involved. What is more, every threat of excision is spoken by the Lord and phrased in the passive—“he will be cut off”—denoting the result of the action without enjoining that someone perform it; or as a causative—“I will cause to be cut off”—indicating that it is the Lord who executes this punishment.144 The heaven-sent punishment of excision is prominent, as already noted, in those laws that carry the explicit warning that God will cut off the sinner; for example, “if any person turns to ghosts and familiar spirits and goes astray after them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from among his people” (Lev. 20:6). This Heaven-sent punishment might befall one liable to capital punishment by a human court if the court did not fulfill its duty, as in the case of one who offers his son to Molech: Anyone among the Israelites, or among the strangers residing in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt him with stones. And I will set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people. … And if the people of the land should shut their eyes to that man when he gives of his offspring to For a list of all places where excision is mentioned in the Torah see Milgrom, Numbers, p.406; see also the list in M Keritot 1:1. 142 Rashi on B Shabbat 25a. 143 B MoÝed Qatan 28a. 144 Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1999), p.54 n.10. 141

100

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE Molech, and should not put him to death, I Myself will set My face against that man and his kin, and will cut off from among their people both him and all who follow him in going astray after Molech. (Lev. 20:2–5)

All of the passages that mention excision refer to the violation of religious or ritual rather than civil law. In other words, these are transgressions between man and the Deity and not social crimes. According to the Priestly Code, transgressions against the Deity are to be punished by the Lord and not by human agency; i.e., excision is carried out by the Lord.145 Many scholars, however, including von Rad, dispute the traditional view that excision is implemented by Heaven. They maintain that it means ostracism of the transgressor—exile or deprivation of civil and ritual privileges. This idea is based on the biblical idiom, which is that the person will be cut off “from his people,” “from Israel” or “from the congregation.”146 This argument is not persuasive, however, because in the biblical worldview a man perpetuated his name by having offspring and a premature death without sons was tantamount to the eradication of a man’s name from his people (compare the complaint by Zelophehad’s daughters: “Why should the name of our father be taken away from his family, because he had no son?” [Num. 27:4]; and, in the matter of Levirate marriage, “that his name may not be blotted out in Israel” [Deut. 25:6]).147 Excision, then, indicates the criminal’s death at the hands of Heaven. In two passages in the Bible, however, the reference to excision is paralleled by mot yumat ‘shall be but to death.’ If the criminal is to suffer excision and also to be put to death, perhaps the two are not the same. With regard to Sabbath observance, we read: “He who profanes it shall be put to death: whoever does 145 Milgrom, Numbers, p.406; idem, “The Function of the HaʜʜaÞt Sacrifice” Tarbiz. 40 (1970): 5–8 (Hebrew). 146 G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper, 1962), 1:264 n.182; Samuel Loewenstamm, “Excision,” EMirq 4:330 (Hebrew); for a detailed list see Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation, p.54 n.11. Some Karaites also thought that karet denoted death by a human agent (Eshkol ha-kofer, no. 267). 147 Samuel Loewenstamm, “Excision,” EMiqr 4:330 (Hebrew).

THE MANNER OF DEATH

101

work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his kin…Whoever does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death” (Ex. 31:14–15). We have already seen that both may apply to the man who gives his son to Molech. Isaac Abravanel (1437–1508), in his commentary on Leviticus, writes that if the malefactor who gave his offspring to Molech is not put to death by human agency, he will be killed by God. Greenberg, Loewenstamm, and Levine follow the same path: if he is not executed by decision of a human court, his punishment will come from Heaven; that is, the Lord will cut him off.148 Levine adds that excision is a complex matter and can be understood both as a punishment from God and as an action performed by the community. According to him, both stages exist in the case of the devotee of Molech. First the community is enjoined to execute the sinner; should it fail to do so, the Lord will punish him. This, he says, follows from vv. 4–6.149 Nevertheless, the idea that the Lord will excise the criminal if the court fails to have him executed is implausible. This was noted by Schwartz, who remarks that there is no hint of any such distinction in Ex. 31:14–15. Leviticus 20, on the other hand, states explicitly that he should be stoned to death (v. 2) in addition to being cut off by the Lord (v. 3); only if the congregation ignores his crime will the man and his family be cut off (vv. 4–5).150 Thus excision is not just the death of the malefactor but also the extinction of his name. This is not the manner of excision, but its outcome—being cut off “from his people” or “from Israel.” In several passages what will be cut off is “the name of the dead man” (Isa. 48:19, 56:5; Jer. 11:19; Ruth 4:10). In other words, we are dealing with the obliteration of the line carried by one’s descendants. This is also the meaning of “Those blessed by Him shall inherit the land, but those cursed by Him shall be cut off” (Ps. 37:22). Excision totally obliterates the family name. This was considered to be an extremely severe punishment. It could be carried out 148 M. Greenberg, “Crimes and Punishments,” IDB 1:734–735; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Law,” in B. Mazar, ed., World History of the Jewish people. III, Judges (London: W. H. Allen, 1971), p.256; Levine, Leviticus, p.136. 149 Ibid. 150 Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation, p.55.

102

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

in a number of ways, such as premature death before the man had produced children, or, if he had already had children, their deaths as well. The threat of excision means that the criminal can expect to be removed from the world, along with his children. Hence it is not astonishing that the biblical author used the root k.r.t ‘cut,’ which, as employed in the Bible, is a final action that is not followed by regrowth: “only the trees which you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down” (Deut. 20:20). Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon known as Rambam, 1135– 1204) and Nahmanides, however, associate the penalty of excision with life in the world to come. According to Maimonides, “the punishment of the wicked is that they are not vouchsafed this life [of the world to come], but they suffer excision and die…And this is the excision written in the Torah.”151 This is the most severe punishment of all, because normal transgressors, after their term in Gehinnom, do live again in the world to come.152 Nahmanides, in his commentary on Leviticus 18:29, offers three glosses on the term excision: (1) death before the age of 60, but with a share of the world to come; (2) excision of the soul from the world of the souls, but with the possibility of a long life in this world; (3) excision of the soul in the world to come and of the body in this world.

MAGGEFAH ‘PLAGUE’ Another form of death is plague. Plague is epidemic, unlike other forms of death, which normally strike individuals. The Bible views it as a divine punishment of a sinful community. We find it in the pericope of the spies, who slandered the Land and “died by plague before the Lord” (Num. 14:37–38). The Bible does not indicate the nature of this plague. The spies’ death could have been due to an infection they contracted during their mission. Preuss suggests that it was lung cancer,153 but nothing in the biblical text seems to support this conjecture. Another plague is described in the Korah pericope, when, according to the Bible, 14,700 persons died (Num. 17:14 [RSV Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance 8:1. Ibid. 8:5. 153 Julius Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, trans. and ed. Fred Rosner (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1993), p.184. 151 152

THE MANNER OF DEATH

103

16:49]). This plague began after “wrath (qeʜef) [went] forth from the Lord” (v. 11 [RSV 16:46]). Like the mašʚit ‘destroyer’ (Ex. 12:23), this qeʜef is an autonomous force, a divine emissary whose goal is to annihilate (2 Chron. 19:2).154 The Sages explained the qeʜef in Numbers as a reference to the Angel of Death.155 Aaron, although forbidden as high priest from coming into contact with the dead, runs among the congregation and interposes his body as a barrier between the dead and the living in order to save the latter. This may be some kind of hygienic action; that is, Aaron separated the living from the dead in order to prevent contagion. According to Rashbam (1180–1250), “the destroyer did not pass the place where the incense was offered.” Targum Neofiti reports that “he stood among the dead requesting mercy for the living.” Although there are no solid grounds for knowing what kind of plague is meant here, it is possible, that we are dealing here with an outbreak of pestilence in the aftermath of an earthquake. The episode of the quail in the wilderness also leads to a plague.156 According to the Bible, “the meat was still between their teeth, nor yet chewed, when the anger of the Lord blazed forth against the people and the Lord struck the people with a very severe plague” (Num. 11:33). This incident is also described in Ps. 78:26–31, in greater detail and poetic language. Ibn Ezra writes that they died of overeating or perhaps choked on the meat (v. 33a). Another possibility is that they succumbed to some form of food poisoning. From vv. 32–33 we may infer that the Israelites fell on the freshly-slaughtered quail, ate it raw, and were taken ill almost immediately (see Onqelos and Rashi ad loc.). These people were buried, giving rise to the place name Qivrot ha-taÞavah ‘the graves of craving’ (v. 34). Interestingly enough, the root m.w.t does not appear here.

Milgrom, Numbers, p.142. B Shabbat 89a. 156 A reliable account of the migration of quail can be found in Josephus. According to him, quail “came flying over this stretch of the sea, and, alike wearied by their flight and withal accustomed more than other birds to skim the ground, settled in the Hebrews’ camp” (Antiquities 3.25). 154 155

104

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Another plague or pestilence is described in 2 Sam. 24:15, where the Lord strikes the people with pestilence because of the census conducted by David (vv. 1–9); 70,000 persons die. This plague ends after David, complying with the instructions of Gad the Seer, builds an altar and offers sacrifices. Why were the Israelites punished? There are two possibilities. One is that the Lord’s anger was kindled against them (v. 1); the second is that it was David himself who sinned. The statement of the first possibility is left hanging; Rashi confesses “I do not know for what.” According to David Kimʘi, “the Lord was again angry with Israel for their hidden sins; for had they been open, David would not have left them [unpunished].” The story does not explain why conducting a census is a transgression, but we seem to be dealing with the belief that counting human beings is intrinsically sinful. According to the Torah, when a census was to be conducted, those enumerated paid a half-shekel to atone for their souls, “that there be no plague among them when you number them” (Ex. 30:12). Perhaps David was punished, not for the census, but for failing to conduct purification rites during the census period. According to Rashi ad loc. however, “the evil eye has dominion over counting.” According to the Talmud, “blessing is not to be found in anything that has been already weighed or measured or numbered, but only in a thing hidden from sight.”157 The punishment is suspended because the Lord reconsiders and instructs the angel to stop killing the people (2 Sam. 24:16), and also because David builds the altar and offers sacrifices. Note that the Lord’s decision to punish the people precedes David’s sin and that His instruction to the Angel to stay its hand precedes David’s offering the sacrifices. In other words, human beings believe that they cause what happens to them, but it is the Lord who really determines their destinies.158 According to v. 1, the Lord incited David to conduct the census, which was not David’s own initiative. This raises a serious issue of theodicy: if the Lord incites a person to sin, why should the transgressor be punished? According to the parallel account in B TaÝanit 8b. Shimon Bar-Efrat, II Samuel, Introduction and Commentary (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1996), p.269. 157 158

THE MANNER OF DEATH

105

Chronicles, “Satan arose against Israel and incited David to number Israel” (1 Chron. 21:1); that is, the instigator was Satan, who had been sent by the Lord. According to David Kimʘi, though, “Satan” refers to David’s inner urge (yeʜer) to count them; and, as the Sages noted, “Satan, the evil prompter (yeʜer ha-raÝ), and the Angel of Death are all one.”159 In other words, the Lord gave David the idea of a census, but David was free to decide whether to conduct it or not. The same applied to his decision to purchase Arauna’s threshing floor and build an altar there. Because David decided to conduct the census, he is considered to bear responsibility for the sin.160 Another important issue raised by this story is that of collective punishment. David’s protest, “I have sinned and I have done wickedly (Þanoki ʚaʞaÞti we-Þanoki heÝeveti); but these sheep, what have they done?” (2 Sam. 24:17),161 is a vigorous rejection of collective punishment. ÝOfalim/ʞeʚorim ‘ulcers(?), tumors(?), hemorrhoids(?)’ After the Philistines captured the Ark of the Lord, they are struck by a plague of Ýofalim (kethib)/ʞeʚorim (qere) (1 Sam. 5:6, 9, 12). This happens three times, in Ashdod, in Gat, and finally in Ekron, to demonstrate that this is the Lord’s doing and not a coincidence. First, the people of Ashdod are struck by Ýofalim/ʞeʚorim (v. 6). This is the same ailment mentioned in the imprecations in Deuteronomy: “The Lord will smite you with the boils of Egypt, and with Ýofalim/ʞeʚorim and the scurvy and the itch, of which you cannot be healed” (Deut. 28:27). Evidently Ýofalim was deemed to be an impolite term, leading to the euphemistic qere ʞeʚorim. The former is the plural of Ýafal ‘swelling, protuberance,’ meaning a distension of the B Baba Bathra 16a. Bar-Efrat, II Samuel, p.269. 161 In Job, Elihu says something similar: “I have sinned(ʚaʞaÞti); I have perverted (heÝeveti) what was right” (Job 33:27). David’s repetition of the first-person pronoun is meant for emphasis, in contrast to “these sheep.” The reading of 4QSama, which, instead of Þanoki heÝeveti, has [Þa]noki ha-roÝeh hareÝoti ‘I, the shepherd, acted wickedly’ (found also in the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint and in Josephus) creates a contrast between the shepherd and his flock as well as a pun, roÝeh and hareÝoti. 159 160

106

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

rectum, whereas ʞeʚorim refers to a swelling of the anus.162 Rashi explains: “[Hebrew] ʚalʚolet ‘rectum’ [Aramaic] karkašaÞ ‘intestine’— an affliction of the anus: mice enter their anus and their intestines fall out and protrude.” Here the Septuagint adds: “and mice sprang up in the midst of their country and there was a great and indiscriminate mortality in the city”; similarly, it expands 6:1 with the detail that “their land brought forth swarms of mice”—picking up on 6:5, which refers to “your mice that ravage the land.” Josephus, in Antiquities, before noting that mice consumed the grain in the fields, writes that the Philistines “died of dysentery, a grievous malady and inflicting most rapid dissolution, or ever their soul by blessed death was parted from the body, for they brought up their entrails all consumed and in every way corrupted by the disease.”163 The terrified Ashdodites send the Ark of the Lord to Gat. The Lord strikes its residents with the same affliction, “both young and old”—i.e., the entire population. This causes “a great panic in the city” (v. 9)—perhaps the “panic of death” mentioned two verses later, meaning an epidemic that claimed many victims, or alternatively the loud cries of those afflicted. Here we have grounds for assuming that the ailment struck in an intimate place, as suggested by v. 9, where the hapax wa-yiœœateru ‘broke out(?)’ is a by-form of the root s.t.r ( œin for samekh); that is, the swelling was in an intimate place. David Kimʘi glosses the word to mean “that they were afflicted with hemorrhoids in a hidden place inside their body, which was more difficult for them than if it had been in an open place.” Ekron was the third station of the Ark. Its residents protested the moment it arrived, terrified that the Ark would kill them all (v. 11)—and with reason, since apparently many of them did succumb: “and the men who did not die were stricken with Ýofalim/ʞeʚorim. The outcry of the city went up to heaven” (1 Sam. 5:12). Evidently an epidemic broke out and claimed many victims. The presence of the Ark of the Lord caused some kind of epidemic to break out among the residents of the Philistine towns 162 Cf. “He beat His foes back (Þaʚor), dealing them lasting disgrace” (Ps. 78:66), which can also be read as “he smote them on their backside.” In fact, Targum Jonathan renders the verse “he smote his enemies with hemorrhoids in their backsides.” 163 Josephus, Antiquities 6.3.

THE MANNER OF DEATH

107

(6:4). Many scholars believed that this was plague—pneumonic or bubonic—which is transmitted to human beings from the fleas that live on rats. This disease is manifested as a visible swelling of the lymph nodes in the axilla and lower body, notably in the groin. According to the Masorah, the kethib is Ýofalim but the qere is ʞeʚorim. Various sources indicate that the latter refers to problems associated with defecation164 or to persistent constipation that causes prolapse of the rectum.165 The result is a network of varicose veins around the anus—hemorrhoids (the meaning of ʞeʚorim in modern Hebrew). This venous network can be inside the rectum or outside. According to the medical literature, the buboes of plague—the swollen lymph nodes—can cause severe difficulty in moving one’s bowels. The difference between Ýofalim and ʞeʚorim is that the former is the location of the disease while the latter are a symptom. This distinction was noted by David Kimʘi in his commentary on 1 Sam. 5:6: “The kethib is ‘with Ýofalim’ but the qere is ‘with ʞeʚorim.’ The written form refers to diseases of the lower body [taʚtoniyyot; cf. B Ketubot 10a et passim], because Ýofalim refers to height, as in ‘hill [Ýofel] and watchtower’ (Isa. 32:14), so this is a euphemism by inversion; and the form we read is the name of the disease.” This is reinforced by the fact that a bubonic plague is usually fatal, but hemorrhoids are not. The idea that the reference is to an outbreak of hemorrhoids is implausible, because hemorrhoids do not appear as an epidemic. What is more, the reference to mice may be a sign of an infectious disease. Preuss thinks it is bubonic plague.166 The word Ýofalim, which has been rendered in English as “emerods” or “tumors,” comes from the root Ý.p.l ‘swell.’ If the report here is reliable, the Philistines were afflicted by a lethal epidemic of swelling associated with mice. A plague of this sort, however, should mention rats, which carry the insect vectors of bubonic plague.167 Per-

B Shabbat 82a. Midrash Shmuel, edition, Salomon Buber (Kraku: Josep Fischer, 1893),11:6, p.80. 166 Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, pp.154–157. 167 James B. Wyngaarden and Llyod H. Smith, eds., Textbook of Medicine / Cecil, 18th ed.(Philadelphia: Saunders,1988), volume 2:1661–63. 164 165

108

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

haps the author did not know the difference between mice and rats. Plague is also mentioned in the story of Baal Peor (Numbers 25:1). The Israelite men had sexual relations with Moabite women and worshiped their god, Baal Peor (vv. 1–3), provoking the Lord’s wrath and a plague (v. 9).168 The Lord instructs Moses to take the “heads of the people” and hang (or impale) them. Milgrom believes that “heads of the people” indicates that only the guilty ringleaders of the bacchanal were to be punished. Taken literally, however, the phrase means “the leaders” (10:4, 13:3; Deut. 33:5 and 21); that is, all the leaders, guilty and innocent alike, were to be killed.169 On the other hand, Ehrlich says that Moses was to select only those leaders who were not guilty, because ritual expiation requires innocent victims.170 Rabbi Judah the Prince said that all the leaders were included and that they were guilty because they permitted the forbidden actions and did not protest.171 The plague killed 24,000 people.172 It ended, as we have seen, only after Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest took a spear and stabbed Zimri son of Salu, the prince of Simeon, and his paramour, the Midianite princess Cozbi. In his zealousness for the Lord, Phinehas was not afraid to attack a prince of the Simeonites and was not deterred by their anticipated revenge. The passage emphasizes that Phinehas acted out of religious fervor and without any personal interest, and that his action atoned for the Israelites (v. 13). His reward was the promise of a perpetual priesthood for him and his descendants.173 When Aaron and his sons

168 Cf. Numbers 17:11 and the reference to this episode in Num. 31:16 and Ps. 106:29. 169 Milgrom, Numbers, p.213. 170 Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki- Pheschutô, 1:294. 171 Num. Rab.20: 3. 172 This number seems to include those condemned to die in the wilderness (14:29), especially in light of the census conducted afterwards (26:64–65). See Dennis T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), p.160. 173 According to Judg. 20:28, Phinehas was still alive at the time of the incident of the concubine in Gibeah. According to Gen. Rab. 60:3 and

THE MANNER OF DEATH

109

were consecrated as priests (Exodus 29), Phinehas, as a member of the third generation, was not. Accordingly the talmudic Sages said that “Phinehas was not elevated to the priesthood until he slew Zimri.”174 Here, too, the Bible does not note the nature of the plague that caused so many deaths. At one time scholars thought it was syphilis. Because the Israelites were being punished for relations with Moabite women, they reasoned that the plague must have been a venereal disease.175 It seems implausible, however, that this was death as a result of sexual activity, or that 24,000 men died of syphilis. It is more likely that the epidemic was caused by a pathogen carried by the Moabites to which they, but not the Israelites, were immune. The prophet Zechariah describes the epidemic that will strike down the enemies who besiege Jerusalem at the end of days (Zech 14:12): their flesh, eyes, and tongue—their body, sight, and ability to speak and communicate—will all rot away. In other words, the destruction will be total. Their limbs will fall off one by one, as in Hansen’s Disease. The reference might also be to the biblical ʜaraÝat (“leprosy”), as maintained by Midrash Tanʘuma (TazriaÝ 11). There are other possibilities, such as a reminiscence of the epidemic that struck Sennacherib’s army176 or the equine disease glanders, which can be transmitted to human beings. Thucydides offers an identical description of the plague that struck Athens during the Peloponnesian War (2.47–59). The description in Zechariah is also very close to the symptoms of Asiatic cholera, but there is no credible evidence that this disease appeared in epidemic form before the nineteenth century. According to 2 Kings 19:35, the Angel of the Lord struck the Assyrian camp outside Jerusalem, killing 185,000 men overnight.177 the addendum in Targum Jonathan on Judg. 11:39, Phinehas was still alive in the time of Jephthah. According to M Eduyot 8:7, Elijah is Phinehas. 174 B Zevaʘim 101b. 175 Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, pp.499–500. 176 2 Kings 19:35; Isa. 37:36. 177 Some scholars doubt the large number of victims. Feigen, for example, claims that 185 men is meant; the Masoretic text, he holds, was corrupted by misreading the initial aleph of the word Þiš ‘men’ as the sym-

110

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

According to Ben Sirach (48:20–21) and Josephus (Antiquities 10.1), they fell victim to pestilence. In Herodotus’ account of Sennacherib’s retreat from Egypt, however, he mentions that Sennacherib king of the Arabs [sic] and Assyrians who came against Egypt with a large army. While encamped at Pelusium, one night, a multitude of field mice swarmed over the Assyrian camp and devoured their quiver and their bows and the handles of their shields likewise, insomuch that they fled the next day unarmed and many fell. And at this day a statue of the Egyptian king stands in Hephaestus’ temple, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect: “Look on me, and fear the gods.”178

Josephus noted Herodotus’ mistake in referring to Sennacherib as “king of the Arabs.”179 What is more, it was not Sennacherib who campaigned as far as the Egyptian frontier, but rather his son, Esarhaddon, who attacked Egypt in 674–673 BCE. Rofé believes that Herodotus’ description is an echo of the story of how the Angel of the Lord smote the Assyrian camp.180 He conjectures that the motif of the rout of Sennacherib’s army by the angel continued to develop in the literature of the Second Temple period. Jewish emigrants brought the story to Egypt, where it was re-cast to involve Egypt. In Greek folklore, the mouse was the symbol of plague; Apollo Smintheus (“mouse”) was the tutelary deity of plague and is depicted with a mouse in his hand.181 All of this suggests that Herodotus took the Egyptian story and added Greek elements to it.182

bol for thousands. See: Samuel Isaac. Feigen, Mi-sitrei Heavar (New York: Hebrew Publication Society of Palestine and America, 1943), pp.88–117. 178 Herodotus, ii.141. 179 Josephus, Antiquities 10.19. 180 Rofé, “Israelite Belief in Angels in the Pre-Exilic Period as Evidenced by the Biblical tradition.” Ph.D. diss., ( Hebrew University,1969), p.217. 181 James A. Montgomery, The Books of Kings (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), p.498. 182 Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1988), p.251; W. Baumgartner, “Herodots

THE MANNER OF DEATH

111

W. van Soden noted that Assyrian texts refer to plagues that broke out in army camps, delaying and disrupting military campaigns. But he too does not accept the astronomical number in the verse we are discussing.183 Herodotus’ description of the plague of mice brings to mind the plague in Philistine Ashdod—another sudden contagion that causes rapid death. The Bible uses the expression pegarim metim, normally rendered “dead corpses,” but which could also mean that they were not yet dead in the morning, but dying. The cause might be poisoning or severe bacillary dysentery. Epidemics of this sort were frequent in armies in antiquity, because of the poor hygienic and sanitary conditions in the field.184

ʙoli, maʚalah ‘disease’ Death may also be the result of disease. The Bible views disease as divine punishment for sin rather than as a natural phenomenon. It rarely describes symptoms and knows nothing of pathogens. Its outlook is summarized in “If you heed the Lord your God diligently … I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians, for I the Lord am your healer” (Ex. 15:26). In Egyptian and Babylonian literature, too, disease is a divine punishment. The deity punishes transgressors and can heal them as well. Several individuals are said to have been ill. In his old age, King Asa of Judah fell ill in his feet (1 Kings 15:23). Although the Bible provides no more information about his ailment, the fact that the very next verse notes that he lay with his fathers and was buried in the City of David suggests that he died of it. The Lucianic recension of the Septuagint interpolates “he did evil” before the mention of the disease, evidently by why of explaining his ailment. The parallel passage in Chronicles provides more information: “In the thirty-ninth year of his reign”—three years after his rebuke babylonische und assyrische Nachrichten,” in Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (Leiden: Brill, 1959), p.306. 183 Wolfram von Soden , “Sanherib vor Jerusalem 701 v.Chr,” in Festschrift H. E. Stier (Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1972), p.49. 184 James B. Wyngaarden and Llyod H. Smith, Cecil Textbook of Medicine, volume 2:1646–48.

112

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

by Hanani the seer led him to abuse that prophet and some of the people—“Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe; yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians” (2 Chron. 16:12). This is the only place in the Bible where consulting with physicians is deemed sinful. The Lord is frequently referred to as a healer, but consulting with physicians is considered to be a natural course of action (Gen. 50:2; Ex. 21:19; Jer. 8:22). Perhaps the author wrote rofeÞim ‘physicians’ but wanted his readers to understand refaÞim ‘spirit of the dead.’ The disease came on Asa in his old age. We should remember that old age itself makes one prone to illness. He was stricken in his feet and died within two years (2 Chron. 16:12). The Talmudic sages identified his complaint with podagra (“foot seizure” in Greek), meaning gout,185 but it is unclear how they reached this conclusion. It seems unlikely that gout could have killed Asa within two years, although he was elderly. More plausible is Wilson’s idea that he succumbed to some form of vascular disease or gangrene.186 Degeneration of the blood vessels in the extremities, leading to gangrene, is not uncommon in old people, especially those with diabetes. In that period this led inevitably to death.187 A similar problem with peripheral circulation may have struck David in his old age: “though they covered him with bedclothes, he never felt warm” (1 Kings 1:1). According to the book of Kings, Asa “was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father” (1 Kings 15:24). Chronicles, however, reports that “they buried him in the tomb which he had hewn out for himself in the city of David” (2 Chron. 16:14). Evi“For it is written, ‘only in the time of his age he was diseased in his feet’; concerning which R. Judah said in Rab’s name: He was afflicted with gout. Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman asked R. Nahman: What is it [this complaint] like? He answered: Like a needle in the raw flesh” (B Sanhedrin 48b; B Sotah 10a); Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, p.168. 186 J. V. Kinnier Wilson, “Medicine in the Land and Times of the Bible,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), p.364. 187 A. DeVries and A. Weinberger, “King Asa’s Presumed Gout: Twentieth-Century A.D. Discussion of Ninth-Century B.C. Biblical Patient,” NY State Journal of Medicine 75(1975):452–55. 185

THE MANNER OF DEATH

113

dently the prominent omission of “his fathers” was the Chronicler’s way of emphasizing that the sinful Asa was not buried in his ancestral tomb. Disease is also mentioned in the case of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:1; Isa. 38:1; 2 Chron. 32:24), who fell ill after he removed the gates of the Temple and sent them to the king of Assyria (2 Kings 18:16). The Talmudic sages indicted him for transgressions committed while he was preparing his revolt: “Six things King Hezekiah did; in three they [the Sages] agreed with him, and in three they did not agree with him … : He cut [the gold off] the doors of the Temple and sent them to the King of Assyria, …; he closed up the waters of Upper Gihon …; and he intercalated [the month of] Nisan in Nisan.”188 It is possible that Hezekiah’s malady was in some way connected with the epidemic that broke out in Sennacherib’s camp, which infected him as well. The idea that Hezekiah was infected by the Assyrian epidemic is implausible, because only he was affected. The Bible states that Hezekiah had a boil. This is probably some kind of abscess, which was treated with a poultice—“a cake of figs”—and cured (2 Kings 20:7). The ancients believed that dry figs had medicinal properties.189 The Hebrew word šeʚin ‘boil’ actually covers several categories of skin diseases. Here it evidently refers to pemphigus, whose symptom is severe blistering.190 It has two varieties: a boil on the epidermis, which can be cured (Lev. 13:18), and one that “appears deeper than the skin” (v. 20), which cannot be healed. The latter is one of the symptoms of leprosy. Job, too, was struck with boils (Job 2:7), an ailment then thought to be incurable (2:5). Ahaziah of Israel fell through the lattice in his upper chamber (2 Kings 1:2) and became ill. He sent emissaries to Baal-zebub the

B Pesaʘim 56a. J. Feliks, Plant World of the Bible (Tel Aviv: Masada, 1957), p.38 (Hebrew). For the Ugaritic parallel dblt ytnt wsmqm ytn[m], “an old plaster and old raisins,” see Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook, 2, 55:28; In Ugaritic dblt ‘fig cakes’ was used as a condiment and remedy. See: C. Cohen and D. Sivan, The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts: A Critical Edition (AOS 9; New Haven, Conn: American Oriental Society,1983),pp.40–41. 190 J. Leibovich, “ 04” EMiqr 7:421–22 (Hebrew). 188 189

114

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

god of Ekron to know whether he would recover.191 The Hebrew verb d.r.š used here is a technical term for inquiring of an oracle. The Bible does not tell us what form of oracular divination was employed, unlike the case in 1 Sam. 28:7. Nor does it offer any specifics about Ahaziah’s “disease,” though he must have broken multiple bones when he fell. The injury was severe enough that he never rose from his bed until he died (vv. 4, 6, 16). Josephus believed that the king tripped while descending the stairway from the rooftop.192 Jehoram of Judah died of an intestinal ailment. According to Chronicles, “his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony” (2 Chron. 21:19)—precisely the fate predicted for him by the prophet Elijah. The disease seems to be a prolapsed intestine, of which the final stage dragged on for two years. The report that Jehoram died of an intestinal disorder seems to be historically accurate, given that he died at the age of 40. A condition of this nature has a strong emotional effect on the patient because of its duration and the great pain. This may be the sense of the observation that “he departed with no regret” (2 Chron. 21:20). It may mean that he died young, despite having been ill for a long time. The talmudic literature considers intestinal ailments to be the most severe of all and accordingly expresses the wish that a man suffer “any disease—just not a disease of the bowels.”193 On the other hand, we are told that the most righteous persons die of this affliction, because through it they atone for the sins they have committed and remain without pains in the world to come.194 With regard to Jehoram’s burial, the Chronicler modified the conclusion of the parallel story in 2 Kings 8:23–24, according to which he “slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the City of David.” The changes emphasize that Jehoram died in We find a similar expression in King Hadad of Aram’s question to the prophet Elisha, conveyed by Hazael: “Will I recover from this illness?” (2 Kings 8:8). Jeroboam, too, sent to inquire of the Lord whether his son would get better (1 Kings 14:3). 192 Josephus, Antiquties 9.19. 193 B Shabbat 11a. 194 B Shabbat 118b. 191

THE MANNER OF DEATH

115

agony and did not merit being buried with royal honors. “His people did not make a fire for him like the fire for his fathers. … They buried him in the City of David, but not in the tombs of the kings” (2 Chron. 21:19–20). The prophet Elisha, too, suffered a mortal illness: “When Elisha had fallen sick with the illness of which he was to die” (2 Kings 13:14). Six verses later we read of his death and burial. Elisha and Samuel (1 Sam. 25:1) are the only prophets of whom this is reported. David Kimʘi, drawing on the Talmud, notes that “Elisha was afflicted with three illnesses: one because he stirred up the bears against the children, one because he thrust Gehazi away with both his hands, and one of which he died; as it is said: ‘Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died.’ ”195

THE CURSE OF NONBURIAL To remain unburied was a curse. Hillers showed that a curse of this sort comprised three elements: (1) the body remains unburied, (2) the corpse is eaten by birds and animals, and (3) the body is like dung on the earth.196 Precisely such a curse can be found in the Bible: “Your carcasses shall become food for all the birds of the sky and all the beasts of the earth, with none to frighten them off” (Deut. 28:26). As noted previously, non burial was worse than death, because the spirit of the dead could not find rest and would never reach the underworld. A similar expression spices the contest between David and Goliath. The Philistine curses David and promises he “will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field” (1 Sam. 17:44). Not to be outdone, David counters that “I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the carcasses of the Philistine camp to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth” (v. 46). In his curse of the house of Jeroboam, the prophet Ahijah promises that “Any one belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and any one who dies in the open country the birds of the air shall eat; for the Lord has spoken it” (1 Kings B Sotah 47a. Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, pp.68–69. 195 196

116

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

14:11). The implication is that the members of Jeroboam’s family will not be buried at all. Only Abijah will be buried, because there is something good in him (v. 13). Jeroboam, too, “slept with his fathers” (v. 20)—that is, he was buried in his ancestral tomb. On the other hand, according to Chronicles, “Jeroboam did not recover his power in the days of Abijah; and the Lord smote him, and he died” (2 Chron. 13:20), with no indication that he “slept with his fathers.” A generation later Jehu son of Hanani repeats the same curse, directed this time against the house of Baasha: “Any one belonging to Baasha who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and any one of his who dies in the field the birds of the air shall eat” (1 Kings 16:4). Again, his descendants will not be buried, but Baasha himself did “sleep with his fathers” (v. 6). Elijah lays the same curse on Ahab, Jezebel, and all their royal house: “In the very place where the dogs lapped up Naboth’s blood, the dogs will lap up your blood too” (1 Kings 21:19); “the dogs shall devour Jezebel in the field of Jezreel” (v. 23); “any one belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and any one of his who dies in the open country the birds of the air shall eat” (v. 24). All of these dooms are fulfilled. In the case of Ahab, “they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood, and the harlots washed themselves in it” (22:38). Elisha’s emissary enjoins Jehu that “the dogs shall devour Jezebel in the field of Jezreel, with none to bury her” (2 Kings 9:10). As the coup proceeds, we read that on Jehu’s orders Jezebel was thrown out of the window into the courtyard, where Jehu’s horses trampled her body (v. 33) and “when they went to bury her, all they found of her were the skull, the feet, and the hands” (v. 35). These remains seem not to have buried, for as Jehu explains to his courtiers, this is the realization of Elijah’s prophecy that “the dogs shall devour the flesh of Jezebel in the field of Jezreel” (v. 36). The continuation of the prophecy, as quoted here by Jehu—“the carcass of Jezebel shall be like dung on the ground, in the field of Jezreel, so that none will be able to say: ‘This was Jezebel’ ” (v. 37)—is not found in the original prophecy as we have it, and may represent a different tradition thereof. As for Ahab’s descendants, according to 2 Kings 10:7

THE MANNER OF DEATH

117

his seventy sons were massacred and their heads placed in cauldrons.197 The curse of non burial is also found in the prophetic literature: “The carcasses of this people shall be food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth, with none to frighten them off” (Jer. 7:33)—an echo of Deuteronomy 28:26. That there are none to frighten off the scavengers implies that there are no survivors or no one who pities them. Similar is “they shall die of deadly diseases. They shall not be lamented, nor shall they be buried; they shall be as dung on the surface of the ground. They shall perish by the sword and by famine, and their dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the air and for the beasts of the earth” (Jer. 16:4), where “deadly diseases” refers to the plagues that break out in the aftermath of war. Again, none survives to eulogize the dead, and, as Jeremiah threatens earlier, there will be “none to bury them” (14:16). The dead will be scattered on the ground like dung, food for the birds and beast (19:7). This is a description of war and its consequences. The image of the scavengers feasting on human corpses is very frequent in Jeremiah but rare elsewhere in the biblical prophecy.198 Jeremiah prophesies that Jehoiakim “shall have the burial of an ass, dragged out and left lying outside the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer. 22:19)—a burial without honor, without mourners, without the eulogies appropriate to those who die and are buried (v. 18). The tradition that Jehoiakim was given the burial of an ass is echoed in Josephus.199 Elsewhere Jeremiah prophesies of Jehoiakim that “his own corpse shall be left exposed to the heat by day and the cold by night” (36:30). The Lord will repay Jehoiakim as befits one who did not show respect for the Lord, disgracing his body by allowing it to be abandoned to the ravages of nature. Those executed at Jehoiakim’s orders were buried without honor, like Uriah the prophet, whose body was tossed negligently into a mass pau-

197 According to Targum Jonathan, in “baskets”; so too Josephus, in “woven baskets” (Antiquities 9.127). 198 Jer. 8:2, 9:21, 14:16, 16:6, 25:33, 34:20, 36:30; cf. Ezek. 39:17–20; Ps. 79:2–3, 83:11. 199 Josephus, Antiquities 10.97.

118

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

pers’ grave (26:23) and not allowed a decent burial in his family tomb—and the Lord will repay the king measure for measure. As for Jehoiakim’s end, Kings reports only that “Jehoiakim slept with his fathers” (2 Kings 24:6). According to the account in Chronicles, however, after the Chaldeans captured Jerusalem they bound Jehoiakim in chains to take him back to Babylon (II Chron. 36:6). The Lucianic recension interpolates that Jehoiakim “was buried in the garden of Uzzah with his ancestors” (2 Chron. 36:8)—which seems to be at variance with the ass’s burial promised by Jeremiah. The Midrash attempts to harmonize the discrepancy.200 Wright suggests that Jehoiakim may have been assassinated during the siege.201 Perhaps the author of the book of Kings, wanting to spare Jehoiakim disgrace, wrote that he “slept with his fathers” without providing details of the manner of his death or burial. The curse of nonburial is also found in extra-biblical sources. For example, in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon: “May Ninurta, leader of the gods, fell you with his fierce arrow, and fill the plain with your corpses, give your flesh to eagles and vultures to feed upon.”202 “Let dogs and pigs eat your flesh, and may your spirit have no one to take care of and pour libation to him.”203 “May the earth not receive your body for burial, may the bellies of the dogs and pigs be your burial place.”204 Clearly victorious kings treated their vanquished enemies savagely. The annals of Ashurbanipal report what he did to his foes: “I fed their corpses cut into small pieces, to dogs, pigs, zibu-birds, vultures, the birds of the sky and (also) to the fish of the ocean.”205 In the Epic of Gilgamesh, after Enkidu returns from the underworld, he is asked “Him whose

Lev. Rab. 19,6. John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), p.327. 202 “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” trans. Erica Reiner, ANET, p.538, no. 41. 203 Ibid, no. 47. 204 Ibid, p.539, no. 56. 205 “The Death of Sennacherib,” trans. A. Leo Oppenheim, ANET, iv 65–82, p.288. 200 201

THE MANNER OF DEATH

119

corpse was cast out upon the steppe hast thou seen?” and replies: “I have seen: His spirit finds no rest in the netherworld.”206

CONCLUSION As we have seen, the Bible mentions many different forms of unnatural death, including war, pestilence, famine and the sword, stoning, hanging, impaling, burning, execution by the sword, strangulation, excision, plague, and illness. Common to all of these is that they are viewed as punishment and usually cause premature death. In this they are identical to the fate of Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit and died before their time. These forms of death are cruel because they are unnatural and involve suffering. In most cases of unnatural death the deceased was not buried so that his punishment continued after his death. A comparison of the forms of judicial execution mentioned in the Bible with those in the Talmud indicates that the latter made an effort to preserve the body of an executed man. The difference may stem from the fact that in talmudic times the idea of resurrection was well developed. Note that pagans feared that the manner of death could influence whether or a not a man could be resurrected. As late as the tenth century the Jewish masses held similar views despite a contrary rabbinic view.207 According to Saul Lieberman, medieval literature intimated that nonburial was a bad omen for the deceased and a severe punishment, indicating that the man was a sinner.208 In the Bible, too, we find the belief that non-

“The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, xii 152–154, p.99. Saul Lieberman, “Some Aspects of After Life in Early Rabbinic Literature,” in Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965), vol 2:528 no 112; M. Stein, “Mother Earth in Old Hebrew Literature,” Tarbiz. 9 (1938): 272–274 (Hebrew). 208 He goes on to say, however, that the Sages also believed that the premature death of a normal sinner and nonburial served as atonement and helped the man acquire his share of the world to come. According to Lieberman, the Christians adopted a similar tradition; in the late Middle Ages some requested that their bodies be thrown into the fields or a river, like the carcasses of animals; but such abuse is contrary to the spirit of Judaism. See B Sanhedrin 46b and 104a; Lieberman, “Afterlife in Early Rabbinic Literature,” p.530. 206 207

120

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

burial means an end to continuity and the final extinction of the deceased, who had not been “gathered to his ancestors.” As for what happens to a person who dies a natural death and where his body goes, whether death is the end of life or there is a continuation after death—we shall turn to these and related questions in the next chapter, in which we consider the underworld.

3 THE UNDERWORLD According to Theodore Gaster, “The Old Testament offers no formal doctrine concerning the destination and fate of the dead; all that it says on the subject belongs to the domain of popular lore.”1 Oesterley, on the other hand, writes: “We find in the Old Testament a mass of antique conceptions regarding life beyond the grave which the Israelites shared with other peoples, and which had been handed down from immemorial.”2 Tromp, in Primitive Concepts of Death and Nether World in the Old Testament, points out that the Psalms contain numerous speculations about the afterlife: “The references to the hereafter in the Psalter are extraordinarily numerous and they seem to imply that the people’s conceptions of afterlife were not so elementary and primitive as is often believed. Even if this range of ideas was not originally popular, it must have become so through the Psalter.”3 Johnston, however, maintains that the concept of an underworld was not important to the biblical author. All of the biblical descriptions of Sheol—and they are not many—are in the first person, never in simple reportage or general description, and they speak of a dark and dreary place. According to Johnston, the biblical author was not particularly interested in the fate of the dead.4 Indeed, there does not seem to be an account of a descent to the underworld and return from it, of the sort familiar from Mesopotamian and Ugaritic literature, anywhere in the Bible, and certainly no detailed description of a descent to a place of judgment beneath the earth. Theodor Gaster, “Dead, Abode of The,” IDB 1:787. W. O. E. Oesterley, Immortality and the Unseen World (New York: Macmillan, 1921), p.2. 3 Nicholas J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), p.211. 4 Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2002), p.85. 1 2

121

122

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

In this chapter we will survey how the underworld is depicted in the Bible and examine whether the biblical author had a wellformed conception of the underworld and the fate of the dead. Where is it located? What motifs do the authors use to describe it? Is Sheol simply the grave? Who is found there? Is it the abode of the wicked and the righteous alike? Does life continue, in a manner of speaking, in the underworld? If so, do the dead know what is happening in the world of the living? We will describe what believers feel about the underworld. In addition we will review several bynames for the underworld, such as Þereʜ, bor šaʚat, ʞiʞ ha-yawen, Þavaddon, and ʜalmawet, and consider why the biblical authors felt the need to use these terms. First, however, we should consider the etymology and meaning of the word Sheol.

THE ETYMOLOGY OF SHEOL The word šeÞol is always in the feminine and, like all proper nouns, never takes the definitive article. It occurs 56 times in the Bible, with the sense of the “abode of the dead.” In 16 of these occurrences the Septuagint renders it by Hades; the Vulgate translates it (also 16 times) as infernum or inferi. Sheol is thus by far the most common designation for the underworld. It appears as a loanword in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Aramaic.5 A reference to Sheol in the Ebla text has been noted, but this requires further study.6 There have been many suggestions concerning its etymology, but no scholarly consensus has been achieved. Here we shall survey some of the most important suggestions.7 Some believe that the word Sheol derives from the verb šaÞal ‘ask, demand.’ Jastrow, citing Delitzsch, noted the Akkadian šuÞalû, which he says comes from the root š.Þ.l , so that in both Hebrew HALAT, 4:1369; TLOT, 3:1279; TDOT 14:240; One pre-rabbinic usage of %6 has been found in an Aramaic papyrus. See A. Cowley; Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), p.180, text 71, line 15. 6 Dahood, “Love and Death at Ebla and their Biblical Reflections, ” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good (Guilford, Connecticut: Four Quarters, 1987), p.97. 7 For a summary of the etymology of Sheol, see G. Gerleman, “%F6 ‰ e š ’ôl Realm of the Dead,” TLOT, 3: 1279–1282. 5

THE UNDERWORLD

123

and Akkadian Sheol can be understood as the “place of inquiry”8— which could mean the place where the dead are interrogated and placed on trial. Some scholars have accepted this idea, including Gaster, who says that š.Þ.l is a technical term for questioning a witness in a court of law.9 Eissfeldt says it is terminus technicus for conducting an investigation.10 Albright initially invoked the Akkadian šaÞĆlu ‘ask, decide,’ and consequently explained Sheol as the “place of decision.” Later Albright and W. Baumgartner suggested the Akkadian šuÞĆru, which refers to the place of Tammuz and the domain of the dead, as a parallel to Sheol.11 Finally, in yet another analysis of the word Sheol, Albright wrote that, etymologically, it is the “place of ordeal examination and then the underworld.”12 Nevertheless, we must agree with Tromp in rejecting this derivation, because the Bible never refers to the judgment of the dead in Sheol.13 We should note, though, that the verb šaÞal does appear in the Bible in the context of consulting the spirits of the dead (Deut. 18:11; 1 Chron. 10:13). There is also the story of Saul at Endor (1 Sam. 28:6), as well as consultation of the teraphim (Ezek. 21:26). Rosenberg emphasizes the forensic aspect of the 8 M. Jastrow, “The Babylonian Term Šu’âlu,” AJSL 14 (1897–1898): 165–170. 9 T. H. Gaster, “Short Notes,” VT 4 (1954): 73. 10 O. Eissfeldt, “The Alphabetical Cuneiform Texts from Rash Shamra Published in ‘Le Palais royal d’Ugarit,’ Vol. II, 1957,” JSS 5 (1960): 49. The term occurs in Deut. 8: 15 and in Aramaic Ezra 5:9–10. %6 is also found in the Elephantine papyri. See: Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p.51, text 16:3; p.58, text 20:8 ; G. R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954), 4:3, 7:9, 12:8. 11 W. F. Albright, “Mesopotamian Elements in Canaanite Eschatology,” in Oriental Studies, ed. C. Adler and A. Ember (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1926), pp.151–52; W. Baumgartner, “Zur Etymologie von sche’Ňl,” ThZ 2 (1946): 233–235. According to Albright, the word Sheol is borrowed from Babylonian, and the switch from resh to lamed took place before the word entered Hebrew (p.151). 12 W. F. Albright, “El in the Ugaritic Texts,” Review of Marvin H. Pope, JBL 75 (1956): 255–257. 13 Tromp, Primitive Conceptions, p.22; John Jarick, “Questioning Sheol,” in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp.22–32.

124

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

imagery associated with Sheol and proposes a semantic development inquire > call to account > punish. O. Rössler links Sheol with the Protosemitic *šuwĆl and compares it with šwl ‘skirts of a garment, lower part of the body, bottom, rim at the bottom of a vessel.’ Its Arabic derivatives are sawla ‘the lowest part of all’ and Þaswal ‘flaccidity, sagging belly, lax, flaccid, hanging down, sagging of belly.’14 If so, Sheol is the lowest place of all in the world; that is, the underworld. Another suggestion, extremely plausible, is that of L. Kohler. He suggests that the lamed is not radical but a morpheme, as in karmel ‘orchard.’ The ancient form, he says, was *še Þo, which, with suffix l, yields Sheol. Because we never encounter this root, he believes that Sheol derives from the root s.Þ.h , from which we have the nouns šaÞon ‘uproar,’ še Þiyyah ‘ruins,’ and šeÞt ‘devastation.’ That is, Sheol is a place of desolation or devastation—“No Land,” a place of shadow, decay, remoteness from God, and nothingness (Isa. 38:18; Ps. 6:6).15

DESCRIPTIONS OF SHEOL Location From the Epic of Baal we learn that the Canaanites believed that Sheol lies in the north, beyond the circumferential stream that encloses the earth. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero goes by way of Mount Mashu in order to reach the underworld.16 The Greeks located the underworld among the Cimmerians of Asia Minor, or among the Hyperboreans or in another northern region. In a later period, Christians believed that the entrance to the underworld was on the Lycian Olympus. The Talmud reports that Rabbi Elijah said that Gehinnom lies beyond the Mountains of Darkness. According 14 O. Rössler, cited by F. Stier, Das Buch Ijjob. Hebräisch und Deutsch (Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1954), p.233; Luis I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of The World (AnBib 39; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), p.166. 15 L. Koehler, “Alttestamentliche Wortforschung: sche’Ňl” in ThZ 2 (1946): 71–74; idem, “Problems in the Study of the Language of the Old Testament,” JSS 1 (1956): 9, 19–20. 16 ANET, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” Tab IX, ii, p.88.

THE UNDERWORLD

125

to the rabbis, the Mountains of Darkness were at the end of the world, in Africa. Gehinnom and Sheol were located there, beyond the gates of the earth.17 The idea that the world is surrounded by mountains can also be found in Islamic and Zoroastrian tradition as well as in Teutonic beliefs.18 Some think there is evidence in the Bible, too, for locating the entrance to the underworld adjacent to two mountains. This follows from an obscure verse in Job: “Surely there are mockers ('!% 7“ ‹ ) about me, and my eye dwells on their provocation.” (Job 17:2). Tromp and later Dahood read here as 'Rd  , referring to the two mounds at the edge of the underworld that mark the limits of the earth, as in the Palace of Baal.19 Tur-Sinai and the NED read '!%7   ௴ ‘mockers,’ as does the Targum, because of the plural suffix of '74). The medieval commentators, too—notably Rashi and Gersonides—understand the noun crux in the sense of “mockery.” The root of the word, t.l.l; appears in 1 Kings 18:27 in the pi’el, with a similar meaning. Human beings were believed to descend to Sheol when they died. Consequently, in biblical Hebrew, as well as Ugaritic, the root y.r.d is used to describe the journey there (Gen. 37:35; Isa. 14:15, 19; Ezek. 32:18–30; Job 7:9). People who do not live out their full span on earth or who die wretchedly are also described as going down or being sent down to Sheol: “Send his gray hair down to Sheol in blood” (1 Kings 2:9; cf. Gen. 42:38, 44:31; Isa. 38:10). To kill a person is to send him down to the underworld, whether the agent is another human being (Gen. 42:38, 44:29; 1 Kings 2:6) or God himself: “The Lord deals death and gives life, casts down into Sheol and raises up” (1 Sam. 2:6; cf. Ezek. 26:20). In the Bible we also find idioms that include the verb y.r.d: “all who go down to the dust” (Ps. 22:30 [RSV 29]); “any who go down into silence” (Ps. 115:17); “those who go down to the Pit” (Ezek. 32:29). Dahood cites Þereʜ yarden (Ps. 42:7), which he understands, not as the “land of Jordan,” but as the land of the descent (yeridah) into the underworld. He compares this idiom with tspr by idm arʜ, B Tamid 32a–b. Theodor Gaster, Thespis (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961), pp.198–199. 19 KTU 1.4, viii:4. 17 18

126

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

“be numbered among those who go down into the netherworld.”20 He holds that the reference to tehom in the next verse supports his reading that the poet sees himself as being in Sheol.21 Tromp accepts Dahood’s reading, but Malamat notes extra-biblical material that refers to the yaradu of the sons of Hannah and the sons of Numha, who are the ancestral spirits assembled by the new king to take part in his feast.22 But this Þereʜ yarden has nothing to do with the descent to Sheol. The psalmist locates himself somewhere in northern Israel, in a district known as the “land of Jordan and Hermon.” The etymology of “Jordan” is not clear. Rather than being Semitic, dn may derive from the Indo-Iranian don ‘river’ and yr from the IndoEuropean for year; thus yrdn would mean “perennial river.”23 On the other hand, Aldan understands yarden as “water judges,” a collocation of the Hurrian iar ‘water’ and the Hebrew dan ‘judge.’24 Another possibility is that yarden comes from yored mi-dan ‘descends from Dan.’ In the Talmud, R. ʗiyya bar Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan, “Why is it called Yarden? Because it descends from Dan.”25 It seems most likely, however, that the name is derived from the root y.r.d, that is, “the river that descends”; this is also how Philo explains the name.26 Later Jewish legends about Gehinnom, too, locate it beneath the earth. These legends draw on the biblical descriptions of Sheol as lower than the earth (Gen. 37:35; Deut. 32:22) or under the seabed (Jon. 2:3–4; Job 26:5). On the other hand, other traditions located Gehinnom in the heavens or beyond the Mountains of Darkness.27 In tractate Eruvin we find that it was taught in the KTU 1.4, viii:8–9. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1–50 (AB 16; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1965), p.258. 22 Abraham Malamat, Mari and Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), p.151(Hebrew). 23 S. Cohen, “Jordan,” IBD, 2: 973; Henry O. Thompson, “Jordan River,” ABD 3: 954. 24 R. Alden, “Jordan,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, edited by Merrill C.Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 3: 685. 25 B Bekoroth 55a. 26 Philo, Allegorical Interpretation II 89. 27 B Tamid 32b. 20 21

THE UNDERWORLD

127

school of R. Johanan ben Zakkai that one of the entrances to Gehinnom is the Hinnom Valley south of Jerusalem.28 It is clear, though, that the dominant biblical cosmology places Sheol at the lowest level of the earth. It is the abyss beneath the earth and has nothing to do with the dead or their destiny. For example: “For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol” (Deut. 32:22); “If they burrow down to Sheol, from there My hand shall take them; and if they ascend to heaven, from there I will bring them down” (Amos 9:2); and again, “If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I make by bed in Sheol, You are there too” (Ps. 139:8). A similar concept is found in one of the Amarna letters: “Should we go up into the sky, or should we go down into the netherworld, our head is in your hand.”29 Thus Sheol and heaven are paired to represent the uttermost limits of the world. They are both remote places, but not beyond the eyes of the Lord. In all of the texts we have cited thus far, Sheol is at the end of the world. But Zofar asks Job, “Higher than heaven—what can you do? Deeper than Sheol—what can you know?” (Job 11:8), evidently postulating the existence of regions beyond heaven and Sheol, but which are unknowable to human intelligence. Finally, Sheol is used as a metaphor to represent the utmost depths: “deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (Isa. 7:11) The Entrance to the Underworld The Mesopotamian epic of Ishtar’s Descent to the Underworld incorporates a description of the gates of the underworld and its guardians. When Ishtar, the goddess of love and fertility, descended to the underworld, she passed through seven gates, each of them watched over by a guard who instructed her to remove garments and jewels, until, finally, she was brought naked before her sister, the queen of the underworld.30 The gates of the underworld are mentioned in the Bible, too—“the gates of Sheol” (Isa. 38:10)—and are alluded to by “the B Eruvin 19a. Amarna Letter 264:11–19; W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992), p.313. 30 “Descent of Isthar to the Nether World,”ANET, pp.107–109. 28 29

128

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

gates of death” (Ps. 9:14 [RSV 13], 107:18; Job 38:17). In Job 38:17, the “gates of death” are paralleled by “the gates of ʜalmawet” or “deep darkness,” metaphorically the gates of the underworld. The dying are said to be at the gates of death. Note that the Bible never associates gates with the land of the living. In early post-biblical literature, too (3 Maccabees), we find the expression “the gates of Hades.”31 They are also mentioned in the Wisdom of Solomon: “For you have the power of life and death; you lead down to the gates of Hades and bring back up again” (16:13). An associated image is that of the bolt or bar that locks the gate: “I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me for ever”(Jon. 2:7[RSV 6]).32 In other words, the land of the underworld has bolted its gates and none can escape it. The expression brʚ Þereʜ is also found in the literature of Ugarit, but it is difficult to ascertain whether it means the “bars of the netherworld” or the “bars of the city gates.”33 In the Egyptian Book of the Dead we read how the dead man asks the guard at the gate of the netherworld to allow him to pass: “Open your road, open your bolts to me.”34 According to the book of Job, the Lord set up “bars and doors” to set limits for the sea” (Job 38:10). The description of the gated underworld suggests a prison. Consequently in Lamentations we read how the Lord has caused the “man who has seen affliction” to “dwell in darkness”—the abode of the dead: “He has walled me in and I cannot break out; He has weighed me down with chains. And when I cry and plead, He shuts out my prayer; He has walled in my ways with hewn blocks, He has made my paths a maze” (Lam. 3:7–9).35 The under-

3 Macc. 5:51. The word bariaʚ ‘bar, bolt’ in the Bible usually refers to a city or palace (Amos 1:5; 1 Sam. 23:7; Prov. 18:19; etc. ); here, though it relates to the Earth. 33 For the Ugaritic root, Gordon suggests three roots “to flee,” “evil,” “bar” see: C. H. Gordon, UT, 1001: rev. 8; and 19. 514–516. 34 J. Zandee, Death as an Enemy (Leiden: Brill, 1960), p.131,B.2.o. 35 It is possible that the suffering mentioned here is the result of illness rather than imprisonment and captivity. Job compares his suffering to chains (Job 13:27). In the Mesopotamian Ludel bel Nemaqi the righteous man describes his illness in metaphors of chains and imprisonment. See; 31 32

THE UNDERWORLD

129

world as a prison can also be found in Psalms: “I am shut in so that I cannot escape” (Ps. 88:9 [RSV 8]); “some sat in darkness and in gloom, prisoners in affliction and in irons” (Ps. 107:10). Because prisons in the ancient world tended to be murky dungeons, sitting in darkness and gloom is a metaphor for being in prison,36 as Isaiah states explicitly: “opening eyes deprived of light, rescuing prisoners from confinement, From the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Isa. 42:7). The Underworld as a Place of No Return Because the underworld has gates, it is not astonishing that there is no return from it. In the Sumerian and Akkadian myths of the descent of the goddess of fertility (respectively, Inanna and Ishtar) to the underworld, that place is referred to as the “land of the dead,” the “land of no return,” and “the house which none leave who have entered it, … the road from which there is no way back.”37 The concept of the netherworld as a place from which there is no return developed against the background of the fear that the shades of the dead, which must be fed, might try to come back from the underworld, usurping the place of the living and harming them. In the Akkadian version of the myth, Ishtar threatens the guardian of the underworld: “If thou openest not the gate so that I cannot enter, I will smash the door, I will shatter the bolt, I will smash the doorpost, I will move the doors, I will raise up the dead, eating the living, so that the dead will outnumber the living.”38 In the Bible, too, we find the idea, evidently derived from Mesopotamian mythology, that there is no return from the underworld. Job, for example, avers that none who descend to the underworld return: “As a cloud fades away, so whoever goes down to Sheol does not come up; he returns no more to his home; his place does not know him” (Job 7:9–10). The idea of no return is repeated: “Before I depart—never to return—for the land of deepest W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), pp.43–45, Table B, line 59–89. 36 See the reference to these and other verses in Tromp, Primitive Conceptions, pp.154–156. 37 ANET, “Descent of Ishtar to the Nether World,” p.107. 38 Ibid., lines 16–20.

130

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

gloom” (Job 10:21). Because no man returns from the underworld, in Job we also find the idea that a person remains there forever, as implied by “so man lies down never to rise” (Job 14:12). Ezekiel, too, says that those who dwell in the netherworld and remain there forever (Ezek. 26:20–21). The verses from the book of Job should be compared to the description in Proverbs: “Her house sinks down to Death, and her course leads to the shades. All who go to her cannot return and find again the paths of life” (Prov. 2:18–19). That is, those who come to the house of the strange woman are doomed to destruction, because she takes them down to the netherworld. Unlike the references to the netherworld as a place from which there is no return, the book of Samuel seems to propound the opposite view: “The Lord deals death and gives life, casts down into Sheol and raises up” (1 Sam. 2:6). This expresses the hope that the Lord who casts the living down to the underworld will also bring them back. Deuteronomy entertains a similar idea: “I deal death and give life; I wounded and I will heal: None can deliver from My hand” (Deut. 32:39), as well as in Psalms: “O Lord, You brought up my soul from Sheol, restored me to life (ʘiyyitani) from among those gone down to the Pit” (Ps. 30:4 [RSV 3]). The talmudic sages cited this verse as evidence for the resurrection of the dead; so did medieval commentators such as David Kimʘi and Gersonides. In fact, it is not certain that this verse refers to the resurrection of the dead; an alternative rendering (e.g., NJPS) is “preserved me from going down into the Pit.” As such, it seems to be the entreaty of a man close to death, calling on the Lord to save him from death and descent to the underworld. Dust Dust is prominently associated with the underworld. The word Ýafar ‘dust’ appears 104 times in the Hebrew Bible. Of these, 14 occurrences are in the Wisdom books, in association with death.39 The dust is the abode of the dead. A dead person lies down in the dust and subsequently his body turns to dust. So when Isaiah addresses the dead he says, “Awake and shout for joy, you who dwell in the Ps. 7:6; 22:16, 30; 30:10; 104:29; Job 7:5, 21; 10:9; 17:16; 20:11; 21:26; 34:15; Eccles. 3:20; 12:7. 39

THE UNDERWORLD

131

dust!” (Isa. 26:19). In Psalms the dead are referred to as those “who go down to the dust” (Ps. 22:30 [RSV 29]); in Daniel, we encounter “those who sleep in the dust of the earth” (Dan. 12:2). “Can dust praise You? Can it declare Your faithfulness?” (Ps. 30:10 [9]), inquires the Psalmist.40 The underworld and dust are used in poetic parallelism in several passages (Job 17:16; Ps. 30:10). This is to be expected, since, as God told Adam, “you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). Ben Sira reiterates the point: “All [that came] from earth—to earth will it return” (40:11). The verse in Genesis means that human beings are created from the dust and after death return there—to “dust” as a specific place, as indicated by the use of the locative preposition “to.” Ridderbos, who noted the equivalence of “underworld” and “dust,” provided a list of verses that include the terms “dust,”41 “to dust,”42 and “those who live in dust.”43 Gunkel maintains that the “dry, fine crumbs of earth (dust) is a poetic synonym for the netherworld.”44 Similarly, Dhorme, in his comment on Job 7:21, says that “to lie down in the dust implies not only to be consigned to the earth, but also to go and rest in Sheol.”45 In extra-biblical sources, too, dust was identified with death and the underworld. The word Ýafar is found in Ugaritic, too, in association with death and in parallel with Þarʜ: nt’n barʜ iby wbÝpr qm ahk (“We have planted my foes in the nether world, and in the mud Ú (40-) those who rose up against your brother”).46 In Akkadian we find epru in bit epri ‘House of Dust’ used for “netherworld.”47 In the

40 On dust in the Bible, see Delbert R. Hillers, “Dust: Some Aspects of Old Testament Imagery,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East, pp.105–109. 41 Ps. 22:30; 30:11; Dan. 12.2. 42 Job 17:16; 19:25; 20:11; 21:26; 41:25. 43 Isa. 26:19; Dan 12:2. 44 N. H. Ridderbos, “40‘ .‘ als Staub des Totenortes,” OTS 5 (1948): 174–178; Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, p.167. 45 E. Dhorme, A Commentary on The Book of Job, trans. Harold Knight (London: Nelson, 1967), p.111. 46 KTU 1.10. ii:24–25. 47 CAD, E, p.246, s.v. epru.

132

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Epic of Gilgamesh we find ana É ep-ri ša ērubu anĆku = “in the House of Dust, which I entered.”48 Not only is the underworld identified with dust. In extrabiblical texts we find the motif that the dead eat mud and dirt in the netherworld and are always thirsty. In the Mesopotamian tale of Ishtar’s descent to the underworld, those who reside there are described as having “dust as their sustenance, mud as their food.” The Egyptians, too, described the denizens of the underworld as eating filth and drinking urine. Water Many scholars have noted the frequent association of the underworld with water motifs. In Jonah 2:3–6 (RSV 2–5) the netherworld is identified with the open sea, currents, breakers, waves, water, and the depths. Some have concluded that the reference is to the geographical location of the underworld: it is deep under the earth, close to the primeval waters on which the earth rests.49 Rosenberg noted this association of the underworld with water motifs in Jonah and elsewhere in the Bible (Jon. 2:3–6; Ps. 42:8, 59:1–2, 15–16, 88:7–8). Drawing on studies of the river ordeal by McCarter50 and Frymer-Kensky,51 Rosenberg proposed that the Bible links the motif of water with divine judgment and was not attempting to specify the location of the underworld. We should recall that in Mesopotamian texts the river is a place of trial and judgment. The accused was tossed into the river and had to withstand its waters in order to demonstrate guilt or innocence.52 Nev-

“The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, VII iv 45, p.87. Julius A. Bewer, Jonah (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), p.46. 50 P. K. McCarter, “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature,” HTR 66 (1973): 403–12; R. Rosenberg, “The Concept of Biblical Sheol Within the Context of ANE Beliefs,” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1980. 51 T. Frymer-Kensky, “The Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East,” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1977. 52 McCarter showed, on the basis of a number of biblical passages (Psalms 18; 2 Samuel 22; Psalm 66, 69, 88, 124, 144; Jonah 2), that there is a group of psalms that describes trial by water. See McCarter, “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature,” p.404. 48 49

THE UNDERWORLD

133

ertheless, there is no evidence in the Bible of a river ordeal in Israelite law. Another possibility is to see the water motif as a reference to the need to cross a stream in order to reach the underworld, found in ancient Near Eastern literature. In Mesopotamian traditions about the journey to the world of the dead the border river is referred to as Hubur. In Akkadian, we have the expression “man devouring river” and “river of the netherworld”; in Sumerian, “river that runs against Man.”53 In the Babylonian theodicy we read, “Our fathers in fact give up and go the way of death; It is an old saying that they cross the river Hubur.”54 In Greek cosmology, too, we read that Hades lies within the ocean, wrapped in clouds and mist. In order to reach Hades one must cross five rivers: Lethe, Styx, Phlegethon, Acheron, and Cocytus. The entrance is guarded by the fierce three-headed dog Cerberus, with snakes emerging from his neck. Rudman does not accept this theory.55 He holds that the biblical texts that refer to water and Sheol describe turbulent waters closing over an individual, not a stream that must be crossed in order to reach the underworld. Rudman offers a different conjecture; namely, that the water motif is metaphorical and that the description of human beings who are swallowed up by the primeval chaos water (cf. Gen. 1:2) refers to the human passage from “the realm of creation (life, earth), to that of noncreation (death, Sheol).”56 The believer’s description of the water that surrounds him in Sheol may be metaphorical; but it also is meant to describe the believer’s actual distress in this world. Here we should note the term naʚalei beliyyaÝal ‘torrents of Be57 lial,’ found in David’s song of thanksgiving after his delivery by H. D. Galter, “HUBUR,” DDD, 430. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, p.71: 16–17. 55 Dominic Rudman, “The Use of Water Imagery in Descriptions of Sheol,” ZAW 113 (2001): 243. 56 Ibid., p.244. According to Johnston, the various terms for water are images and metaphors for the underworld, but not names of the underworld (Johnston, Shades of Sheol, pp.123–124). 57 In the Bible, beliyyaÝal is always written as a single word, perhaps because several meanings have merged in it. For the various interpretations see, at length: Theodore J. Lewis, “Belial,” ABD 1: 654–656; N. H. 53 54

134

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the Lord from his enemies and from Saul (2 Sam. 22:5, Ps. 18:5 [4]). In 2 Samuel the expression can be understood as meaning “treacherous waters” and is parallel to mišberei mawet ‘breakers of death,’ i.e., deadly waves. In the next verse we read that “the cords of Sheol entangled me, the snares of death confronted me” (2 Sam. 22:6). In Psalms, the torrents of Belial are paralleled by the “cords of death,” and the next verse is identical with that in Samuel.58 Here the underworld is personified and appears along the mythological personages Death and Sheol. Thus Belial represents death and the waters of the primordial chaos. In the biblical worldview, the underworld and the chaotic abyss are identical.59 In post-biblical literature, and especially the books of the Pseudepigrapha, Belial is a satanic figure who seduces human beings to transgress and has dominion over sinners.60 In these texts Belial is equivalent to the devil, the adversary of God. The usual Tur-Sinai, “%-!%,” EMiqr 2: 132–133(Hebrew); R. Rosenberg, “The Concept of Biblical ‘Belial,’ ” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies 1 (Jerusalem, 1982): 35–40; S. D. Sperling, “Belial,” DDD, 169– 171; W. von Baudissin, “The Original Meaning of ‘Belial,’ ” ExpTim 9 (1897/1898): 4045; G. R. Driver, “Hebrew Notes, ” ZAW 52 (1934): 51– 56. 58 According to both passages, beliyyaÝal means beli yaÝal %. ! !% =‰ (place of) not coming up’; i.e., hell. This is the interpretation of both Cross and Friedman. Cf. “whoever goes down to Sheol does not come up” (Job 7:9). There is also the Akkadian idiom “the land of no return.” By contrast, Winton Thomas, Dahood, and Tromp, invoking the root b.l.Ý ‘swallow,’ explain that the underworld swallows up the living. They believe that the “torrent of Belial” is the same as Sheol, but disagree about the etymology of beliyyaÝal. Note that the two explanations describe different aspects of the underworld. Best, though, is the meaning “hell” or “underworld,” because, as the verses indicate, the “torrents of Belial” are parallel to “death” and “Sheol.” See: F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 = Psalms 18a,” JBL 72 (1953): 22 n.6; D. Winton Thomas, “ %. K% =‰ in the Old Testament,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, edited by J. Neville Birdsall and R. W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1963), pp.11–19; M. J. Dahood, Psalms 1– 50, p.105; Tromp, Primitive Conceptions, pp.125–128. 59 J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1954), vol. I–II, pp.466–470. 60 Bent Noack, Satanás und Sotería (Copenhagen: Gads, 1948), pp.31– 34, 44–49; Lewis, ABD 1:655.

THE UNDERWORLD

135

form is “Beliar” (and once [Testament of Levi 18:4’] “Belior”). Belior (= beli Þor ‘without light’) may be a cognomen for Satan the adversary, whose way is that of darkness, as opposed to the shining light of the Lord. Belial also figures in texts from Qumran, notably the War Scroll (1QM) and the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QH). In these works he is the prince of the kingdom of wickedness and stands at the head of the forces of darkness, who are designated the “army/troops or lot of Belial,” in their battle against the Children of Light or “the lot of God.”61 According to the scroll, the Lord Himself assigned this role to Belial.62 The current epoch of wickedness is meant to test the members of the community, but will not last long. In the very near future the Lord will intervene and destroy the forces of Belial.63 The eschatological battle will be fierce, with the pendulum swinging back and forth between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (the army of Belial). Ultimately the Hand of the Lord will destroy Belial and his forces.64 The only New Testament reference to Belial identifies it/him with darkness: “What partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Can light associate with darkness? What harmony has Christ with Beliar or a believer with unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15). These verses recall the Pseudepigrapha and Dead Sea Scrolls, in which Belial and the forces of darkness fight against the Lord and the forces of light. Who Descends to the Underworld? Thus far we have described the underworld. The question remains whether both righteous and wicked descend to the same place. Some scholars believe that, in the biblical scheme of all things, all human beings descend to Sheol.65 Others hold that it is reserved 61 1QM 1:1, 13; 11:8; 15:3; 1QS 2: 5; 1QHa ii.22 J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination:an Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984), p.127–132; Lewis, “Belial,” ABD 1: 655. 62 1QM 13:11. 63 1QM 11:18. 64 1QM 1:4–5, 13–16; 18: 1–3. 65 Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, vol. I–II, pp.461–462; R. Laird Harris, “The Meaning of the Word Sheol as Shown by Parallels in Poetic

136

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

for the wicked only. Heidel, for example, writes that “there is no passage which proves that Sheol was ever employed as a designation for the gathering place of the departed spirits of the godly.”66 Rosenberg suggests that Sheol is associated with premature death or “evil death,” which is not the same thing as the normal death of human beings. And, she adds, “natural death is accompanied by unification with kin, and Sheol is never mentioned” in these contexts. “Evil death … results in relegation to Sheol, which is never described as an ancestral meeting place.”67 Rosenberg admits that in some passages Sheol is the abode of all the dead (Ps. 89:49), but maintains that in principle it is the place of the wicked only. In fact, there are righteous individuals in the Bible who envision themselves in Sheol. In the Joseph stories, when Jacob receives the bitter news about his son, he expresses a desire to go down to Sheol (Gen. 37:35). Hezekiah of Judah imagined that he had been consigned to the gates of Sheol (Isa. 38:10). Job, too, imagines himself in Sheol (Job 17:13–16). There are many passages in the Bible in which believers asked God to deliver them from Sheol, because in Sheol they will not be able to praise and extol him. Johnston rightly noted that all of the loci mentioned above involve extreme trial, severe loss, and illness.68 Jacob, speaking many years later of his own death, does not use the term. In other words, when the righteous envision themselves in Sheol they are talking about premature death or divine punishment, never about a natural death and full life span.69 According to Job 3, after death all come to a place where all are equal, lying down and sleeping the eternal sleep; however, we have to stress that Job does not refer here to Sheol, but only to an unnamed realm of death. In his suffering, he views the dark world of death as a place where he can be released from his torment and find the longed-for rest. The statement that the righteous and Texts,” JETS 4 (1961): 129–35; John Gray, I and II Kings, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), p.102. 66 Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), p.186. 67 Rosenberg, “The Concept of Biblical Sheol,” pp.178–252. 68 Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.81. 69 Ibid., p.82.

THE UNDERWORLD

137

wicked are totally equal and in the same place (vv. 14–19) troubled the Aramaic translator, who accordingly rendered v. 17—“There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest”— as “there the wicked who have repented find surcease from the troubles of Gehinnom, and there the scholars who exhausted their strength in the Torah are at rest.” According to several passages in Psalms, only the wicked descend to Sheol. For example: “The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God” (Ps. 9:18 [17]); “let the wicked be disappointed; let them be silenced in Sheol” (Ps. 31:18 [17]). In the first of these verses, the descent of the wicked is referred to as returning (šwb). The same root is found in the Lord’s curse of Adam (Gen. 3:19). Perhaps the psalmist chose it here because the road to Sheol is the way with no return. Rashi, however, offers an interesting explanation that picks up on the irregular form li-šÞolah, with both the prefixed locative preposition l- and the locative suffix -ah. Rashi explains that this means that the wicked descend to the very lowest level of hell. First, when they die, they fall down into this fiery world. Later, when they are called to judgment, they will be found guilty and again be returned to the lowest circle of hell. It is not just that the wicked descend to Sheol. The most infamous among them do so while still alive (Ps. 55:16 [15]). Here the psalmist curses the enemies about whom he complained at the start of the psalm, wishing that they descend alive to Sheol. This recalls the fate of Korah and his cohorts (Num. 16:31). It is possible that this image represents the sudden and unexpected arrival of retribution, as if the earth had opened its mouth and swallowed them alive. It seems likely, however, that the poet is speaking metaphorically and does not really mean for the Lord to create something new, causing the maws of the earth to gape wide and swallow his enemies, as did happen to Korah. As opposed to the wicked, who descend to Sheol, the righteous rise up to heaven: “The wise man’s path leads upward (lemaÝlah ) to life, that he may avoid Sheol below (maʞʞah)” (Prov. 15:24).70 The wise man follows a course in life that leads upward, so as to avoid the path leading downward to Sheol. Every man may The “path of life” is eternal life in the presence of God, as may be inferred from Ps. 16:10–11. 70

138

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

take one of the two paths, the one that ascends, which is the path of the righteous, and the other that descends, which is the path of the wicked: “See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil” (Deut. 30:15). Scholars have wrestled with the use of maÝlah and maʞʞah in association with a concept of the hereafter. Many view the two as expressing the contrast between a heavenly paradise reserved for the righteous and an underworld reserved for the wicked. This concept, however, originated in a later period and is foreign to the Bible. Consequently, some assert that these adverbs do not belong to the original text but were interpolated when belief in the afterlife developed.71 They are indeed missing in the Septuagint, which reads, “The thoughts of the wise are ways of life, so that avoiding Hades he may be saved.” One can see that Sheol always has a negative connotation. It is the place of repose of the wicked. It is associated with unnatural and premature death. When mentioned in the context of the righteous it involves a premature death that is understood as a Divine punishment. Note that the Talmud employs the term Gehinnom for the underworld. According to the talmudic tradition, only the wicked go there, where they are punished. The fact that Sheol is the place of the wicked might reflect the existence of a doctrine of posthumous reward and punishment, because only the wicked descend there. Josephus offers a detailed description of Sheol,72 but says that it is the abode of both the righteous and wicked until the Lord restores them to life. In the underworld the Lord pays the righteous and wicked their just deserts. The righteous enter on the right side, where there is light and they can enjoy the things that they see. They do not have to work, there is neither excessive heat or piercing cold, nor are there any briars there. The wicked, by contrast, are sent to the left side, which is that of hell, where there is a perpetual 71 W. O. E. Oesterley, The Book of Proverbs (London: Methuen, 1929), p.123; André Barucq, Le Livre des Proverbes (Series Sources bibliques; Paris: J.Gabalda,1964), p.136; William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, pp.479–480. 72 Josephus, “An Extract out of Josephus’s discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades,” in The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston, new updated edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publisher, 1987), pp.813–814.

THE UNDERWORLD

139

fire, for the Day of Judgment. On the Day of Judgment, the verdict for the righteous is “an everlasting fruition; but allotting to the lovers of wicked works the eternal punishment.” After the Day of Judgment the wicked will be consigned to Sheol forever, in perpetual flames. The righteous, by contrast, will merit heaven and earth, enjoy the fruits of the earth and remain eternally young. In the Apocrypha, too, Sheol is divided into separate sections for the righteous and the wicked. Enoch 1:22 even speaks of three or four separate sections. The Dead in the Underworld Sheol is a void. There is no connection between the dead and the living, and the dead know nothing about the living. There is also a disconnection between the dead and the Lord, whom they cannot praise. In the biblical view, the dead are in a condition of utter silence in Sheol and cannot praise the Lord. An echo of this can be found in “If the Lord had not been my help, my soul would soon have dwelt in the land of silence” (Ps. 94:17). The psalmist begins with a counterfactual statement about the past. Here škn ‘dwell’ means die. Dumah ‘[land of] silence’ is also found in Psalms 115:17. Elsewhere in the Bible we find the roots d.w.m, d.m.m, and d.m.y.73 Sometimes the meaning is silence (Ps. 23:3, 83:2, 131:2, 39:3, 52:2; Job 4:17 and 30:27); sometimes, death (Isa. 15:1; Jer. 47:5–6). As the parallelism shows—“The dead cannot praise the Lord, nor any who go down into silence” (Ps. 115:17), those who go down into [the land of] silence means the dead, who lie mute and motionless in the underworld,74 where they cannot praise the Lord. 73 On the semantic shifts of the root d.m.m, which is close to d.m.y and d.w.m, see Josua Blau, “Über Homonyme und Angeblich Homonyme Wurzeln,” VT 6 (1956): 242–243. 74 The word dumah appears in the Bible with three different meanings. (1) Referring to persons, it has an ethnic meaning in Gen. 25:14 and 1 Chron. 1:30. Dumah is also one of the sons of Ishmael (H. Z. Hirschberg, “)EA,” ‘ EMiqr 2: 648). (2) As a place, Dumah is a city in or epithet for Edom (Isa. 21:11), a town in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:32), and a place settled by Caleb’s descendants by his concubine Maacah (1 Chron. 2:49). (3) In Psalm 94:17 and 115:17, Dumah is an epithet for Sheol. Dahood, by contrast, thinks it means “fortress” or “citadel.” He notes the Akkadian and Ugaritic dmt ‘tower, fortress’ (cf. the

140

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Here the psalmist seems to have used dumah intentionally to express the contrast between silence and songs of praise. The Egyptians, too, referred to the underworld as the “land of silence.” The Talmud refers to the angel who guards the dead by the name Dumah. The soul of one who passes away before his allotted time wanders about until his years are complete, at which time he is finally consigned to Dumah.75 The concept that the dead do not praise the Lord or extol his name recurs a number of times in the Bible. For example, “For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?” (Ps. 6:6 [5]). Here the worshiper urges the Lord to deliver him so that he may continue to render glory to His name, while expressing his fear of death, after which he will no longer be able to praise the Lord. The notion that the dead do not praise the Lord bothered later commentators, because it contradicts the belief in the survival of the soul. They suggested that the verses refer to praises spoken in the Temple. The dead are no longer part of the congregation of the Lord’s worshipers on earth, but it may be that their souls utter different devotions from those spoken in the world of the living. Again, “What profit is there in my blood [i.e., death], from my descent into the Pit? Can dust praise You? Can it declare Your faithfulness?” (Ps. 30:10 [9]). The worshiper underscores that there can be no benefit from his death. After death he will no longer be able to thank the Lord, whereas if he lives he will be able to continue to extol His wonders. This may allude to the idea that the deity requires the worship of human beings. Isaiah 38:9–20 is a lament in which Hezekiah pours out his grief before the Lord and expresses hope that he may recover from

Mari place name dumtan). Dahood cites Ezek. 37:32 and Ps. 115:17 to buttress his argument. Tromp, too, takes dumah to mean “fortress,” noting the Akkadian damtu. But this is implausible, because none of the many connotations of the Akkadian word has anything to do with death. See: Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II (51–100) (AB 17; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1968), pp.349–350; idem, “Accadian-Ugaritic dmt in Ezekiel 27, 32,” Bibl 45 (1964): 83–84; F. L. Moriarty, “The Lament over Tyre (Ez. 27),” Greg 46 (1965): 87; Tromp, Primitive Conceptions, p.76. 75 B ʗagigah 5a; B Berakhot 18b.

THE UNDERWORLD

141

his illness.76 Verses 10–11 juxtapose the land of the living with Sheol. Hezekiah laments that if he dies he will no longer be able to see the Lord, because He is visible only in the land of the living. The expression “to see [the face of] the Lord” appears in ritual contexts in prayers in the Temple (Ps. 17:15, 27:4 and 13). That is, after death he will he no longer be able to pray to the Lord because there is no connection to the deity in Sheol. Not only will he no longer see the Lord; he will never again look at human beings who reside in this world, referred to as yoševei ʚadel. ʙadel is a metathesis of ʚaled, which means life in this word (Job 11:17; Ps. 17:14). The noun ʚeled ‘lifetime, world’ has an Arabic cognate ʚuld ‘perpetual duration.’ According to Ibn Ezra, ʚedel and ʚeled both mean “life.” Another interpretation is that ʚadel derives from ʚdl ‘cease,’ and means rather Sheol, the place of the dead, because their lives have ceased.77 If so, the verse means that Hezekiah will no longer look at human beings because he is among the inhabitants of ʚadel = Sheol. Perhaps, in fact, the metathesis of ʚaled into ʚadel is not a corruption of the text but an intentional double-meaning. Another possibility is that Hezekiah is referring to his fear that he may cease to exist and used ʚadel to refer to the inhabitants of the world precisely because they are mortals who will soon cease to live in it. Verses 17–18 are a transition to the hopeful section of the psalm, namely, that the Lord will save him because “Sheol cannot thank You, death cannot praise You; those who go down to the Pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness” (Isa. 38:18). The denizens of Sheol cannot thank the Lord because His actions on earth do not touch them. The dead do not praise the Lord. Here death is parallel Both the RSV and NJPS of v.9 understand it to be what he said “when he recovered from the illness he had suffered”(JPS) mikhtav behaloto means the text he wrote when he was sick (be-haloto=be-holyato); and vayhi me-holyo is a parenthetical retrospective. 77 The word is not found in the Septuagint. According to BDB, p.293, ʚadel means “cessation.” Dahood says that it is “an authentic poetic name” for the underworld, parallel to Sheol. See Dahood, “ % ‘ ‘Cessation’ in Isaiah 38,11,” Bibl 52 (1971): 216. Calderone derives the noun from a different root, meaning “be wealthy or prosperous,” and translates the word as “fruitful land.” See Philip J. Calderone, “HDL-II in Poetic Texts,” CBQ 23 (1961): 451–460. 76

142

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

to Sheol; perhaps mawet is to be understood as the place of the dead, like Sheol. Other possibilities are that it means the Angel of Death or is an abstract noun with a collective sense (“the dead”). The dead, who have gone down to the Pit, cannot hope that the Lord will keep His promise and save them because these promises are given to the living and not to the dead, who have nothing to do with the land of the living. According to Ibn Ezra on this verse, “many are surprised to find here the prophet declaring such things, as if denying the truth of the resurrection of the dead; but the body has no power, no knowledge, when the soul has left it; and why should we be surprised at it? Man has sometimes no understanding when the soul is in the body, much less after his death.”78 In Psalm 88 we again encounter the notion that only the living can praise the Lord. This psalm is the entreaty of a person in distress and close to death and deals with the issue of death in detail. Many synonyms are employed to describe the condition and abode of the dead. These include “Sheol,” “the Pit,” “forsaken” (or “released”), “the dead,” “the slain,” “the grave,” “the darkest places,” “the depths,” “breakers,” “the shades,” “the place of perdition (Þavaddon),” “the darkness,” “the land of oblivion,” “fury,” and “terrors.” In vv. 11–13 the psalmist asks: “Do You work wonders for the dead? Do the shades rise to praise You? Selah. Is Your faithful care recounted in the grave, Your constancy in the place of perdition? Are Your wonders made known in the darkness, Your beneficent deeds in the land of oblivion?” The first in this string of rhetorical questions assumes that the Lord does not work wonders for the dead, who need nothing; hence, He must perform miracles and deliver a person while he is still alive. For the psalmist here, death is final and there is no future resurrection. The parallelism of the dead and the shades is found elsewhere, too (Isa. 26:14, 19). Similarly, v. 12 clearly posits an answer in the negative: none recite the mercies of the Lord from the grave or underworld. Human beings are duty-bound to “proclaim Your steadfast love at daybreak, Your faithfulness each night” (Ps. 92:3). But they cannot do so from the underworld. M. Friedländer, The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah (reprint by Philip Feldheim, New York: 1966), p.168 [first edition London,1873]. 78

THE UNDERWORLD

143

When the sequence is extended to a third question, David Kimʘi comments that the poet “repeated it a third time just as those who cry and wail repeat what they say several times.” He adds that “the land of oblivion” means “the grave, the place of oblivion where the dead are forgotten; as it says, ‘The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into silence” (Ps. 115:17). Nešiyyah ‘oblivion, forgetfulness’ is attested, for example, in “God has made me forget (naššani ) all my hardship” (Gen. 41:51), and corresponds to v. 6, “those whom You remember no more.” It is interesting that in Greek mythology those who drink of the River Lethe in Hades forget their past lives.79 From these passages we can see that the dead do not praise the Lord in Sheol, evidently because it is a void. The idea that the dead cannot praise the Lord is also found in post-biblical literature, for example, Ben Sira: “Who in the nether world can glorify the Most High in place of the living who offer their praise? No more can the dead give praise than those who ever lived; they glorify the Lord who are alive and well.”80 Do the Dead Know the Living? The story of Saul and the witch of Endor indicates that the dead are aware of the living and their circumstances, since Samuel tells Saul what will happen to him. In the ancient Near East, people offered sacrifices and libations to the dead to persuade the latter to help them. This may have been the situation among the ancient Israelites, too. But the book of Job, which dates from the fifth century BCE, suggests that there is no link between the dead and the living, or even between the dead and their own past, including their family: “You overpower him forever and he perishes; You alter his visage and dispatch him. His sons attain honor and he does not know it; They are humbled and he is not aware of it” (Job 14:20– 21). Apparently this argument is advanced to counter the belief that death is not so bad for a person who has died and left behind him many offspring, because his children perpetuate his name. But, according to Job, the deceased does not know whether his children are rich or numerous. Just as a dead person does not know what is 79 80

Dahood, Psalms II, p.306. Sir. 17:27–28.

144

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

happening to his children, so the children do not feel the pain of their dead father, who must bear his suffering alone. Job does believe, however, that the dead suffer pain and distress on their own account: “He feels only the pain of his flesh, And his spirit mourns in him” (v. 22). The talmudic sages expounded this verse as follows: “The worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living? … They know their own pain, they do not know the pain of others.”81 According to the Aramaic Targum, “his flesh indeed suffers from the worms and his soul mourns in the [heavenly] tribunal.” Or, according to another version, “his flesh indeed suffers until his grave is closed and his soul mourns for him in the cemetery for seven days.” This brings to mind: “R. Hisda said: A person’s soul mourns over him all of the seven days that follow his death.”82 According to the Talmud, the corpse also hears and understands what goes on in the house of mourning, and continues to have some power until it has been buried or disintegrated.83 This is the reason for the custom that one must not speak ill of the dead; for the same reason, mourning customs were followed so as not to arouse the anger of the dead spirit. The idea that a dead person can still feel pain after death is also found in post-biblical literature, in Judith 16:17: “And they”— meaning the wicked—“will wail forever alive to the pain.”84 Tur-Sinai understands the verse from Job to say precisely the opposite.85 He renders it as “Only with his flesh on him doth he feel pain, and while his soul with him doth he mourn.” To this we should compare “his soul in his life,” meaning “during his lifetime” (Ps. 49:19). Nahmanides, similarly, explains that “the pain and sorrow of approaching death is meant.” But this reading does not suit the context, which refers to what happens to a person after death and not during life. B Berakhot 18b. B Shabbat 152a. 83 B Shabbat 152b. 84 In addition to the verse from the book of Judith, Pope cites Isa. 66:24 and Job 18:13. But as Gordis noted, the verses “describe only the physical destruction of the sinners.” See: Robert Gordis, The Book of Job (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), p.152; Marvin H. Pope, Job, p.111. 85 N. H. Tur –Sinai, The Book of Job, p.244. 81 82

THE UNDERWORLD

145

In v. 22, nefeš ‘soul’ is parallel to baœar ‘flesh’; this is also found in “both soul and body” (Isa. 10:18) and “my soul thirsts for You, my body yearns for You” (Ps. 63:2 [1]). In these verses the nefeš is not the nešamah ‘soul,’ which survives after death, but the entire body. Because Job denies the resurrection of the dead—“man lies down never to rise” (14:12)—we may wonder how he can say that the dead feel? The answer is that the dead do have some degree of sensation, but not of a sort that can be considered to be “life.” As we have seen, Sheol is a void, a place of total disconnection between the living and the dead. The dead know nothing about the living. There is also no connection between the dead and the Lord, which is why they cannot praise Him. These images of the netherworld and of the powerlessness of the dead first emerged from Josiah’s reform in the seventh century, of which we read in the book of Kings: “Josiah also did away with the ghosts and familiar spirits, the idols and the fetishes—all the detestable things that were to be seen in the land of Judah and Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:24). Job, written in the fifth century, continues in this vein: the dead know nothing about the living. Hence it is not surprising that Job offers graphic descriptions of the netherworld as a dark and repulsive place. According to Psalms, as we have seen, the dead in the netherworld cannot praise the Lord. Lang holds that Josiah’s reform led to the decline in the importance of the netherworld and dead ancestors.86 From his time on the focus was on this world and the reward that human beings merit. Consequently it is in his lifetime, and not in the hereafter, that God gives Job double what he had had before, providing him with health, family, and wealth (Job 12:10). If the underworld is a void, human beings must enjoy this life: “Whatever it is in your power to do, do with all your might. For there is no action, no reasoning, no learning, no wisdom in Sheol, where you are going” (Eccles. 9:10). Qohelet counsels human beings to live an active and vigorous life because the property and wisdom that attend them in life do not exist in the netherworld. In vv. 7–10 he stresses the importance of enjoying life, which is all Bernhard Lang, “Afterlife: Ancient Israel’s Changing Vision of the World Beyond,” BibRev 4 (1988): 19. 86

146

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

there is; whereas, in death there is only void and emptiness. He enumerates five aspects of this enjoyment: food, drink, clothing, bathing and anointing the body, and married life. Elsewhere he castigates the pursuit of pleasure (2:1–12) and encourages human beings to fill their lives with enduring value. But a reading of 1:14– 15 and 3:1–11 suggests that he doubts whether human beings have the power to change anything, because all is preordained. The idea that one must enjoy life and live it to the fullest can also be found in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The innkeeper whom Gilgamesh encounters as he searches for the secret of immortality attempts to deter him from continuing his quest: Thou, Gilgamesh, let full be thy belly, Make thou merry by day and by night. Of each day make thou a feast of rejoicing, Day and night dance thou and play! Let thy garments be sparkling fresh, Thy head be washed; bathe thou in water. Pay heed to the little one that holds on to thy hand, Let thy spouse delight in thy bosom! For this is the task of [mankind]!87

The same five elements of the good life noted in Ecclesiastes appear here, too, and in the same order.88 The lesson for Gilgamesh is that human beings do not live forever and that the gods created human beings to be mortal. Hence they must enjoy life and extract the most from it because life is transitory. The Egyptian “Song of the Harpist,” too, calls on human beings to enjoy life until death arrives: Follow thy desire, as long as thou shalt live. Put myrrh upon thy head and clothing of the fine linen upon thee, Being anointed with genuine marvels of the god’s property. Set an increase to thy good things; Let not thy heart flag. Follow thy desire and thy good. Fulfill thy needs upon earth, after the

“The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, Tablet X, iii: 6–14, p.90. Seow mentions only four elements (1) feasting, (2) fresh clothing, (3) washing one’s head, and (4) family. See C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AB 18c; New York: Doubleday, 1997), p.306. 87 88

THE UNDERWORLD

147

command of thy heart, Until there come for thee that day of mourning.89

The inscription in a late Hellenistic-period tomb found in Jerusalem instructs the living to enjoy their life: “You who are living, enjoy!”90 An Entreaty that the Lord Deliver the Believer from the Underworld In Psalms there are frequent requests that God save the believer from the underworld: “For You will not abandon me to Sheol” (Ps. 16:10); “You brought me up from Sheol” (Ps. 30:4 [3]); “He will redeem my life from the clutches of Sheol” (Ps. 49:16 [15]); “You have saved me from the depths of Sheol” (Ps. 86:13); “What man can save himself from the clutches of Sheol?” (Ps. 89:49 [48]). A similar appeal is associated with šaʚat ‘the Pit’: “You saved my life from the pit of destruction” (Isa. 38:17); “He redeems your life from the Pit” (Ps. 103:4); “He spares him from the Pit” (Job 33:18); “He comes close to the Pit” (Job 33:22); “He redeemed him from passing into the Pit” (Job 33:28); “to bring him back from the Pit” (Job 33:30). In all of these passages God is entreated to keep the believer from descending to the Pit or Sheol or to raise him from Sheol. These psalms can be read as referring to those who are ill and near death, and thus on the verge of the netherworld.91 When the Lord heals the sick, He is thus also raising them up from the netherworld or, in another metaphor, delivering them from death.92

“A Song of the Harper,” trans. John A. Wilson, ANET, p.467b. On this and other harper’s songs, see Miriam Lichtheim, “The Songs of the Harpers,” JNES 4 (1945): 178–212. 90 P. Benoit, “L’Inscription grecque du tombeau de Jason,”IEJ 17 (1967): 112–113. 91 Indeed, Levenson points out that the Israelite saw a person who is gravely ill as dead. See: Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel (Yale University Press: New Haven, 2006), p.38. 92 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59, A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), p.354. 89

148

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Dahood, by contrast, believes that many of the Psalms do refer to resurrection and immortality.93 According to Ps. 49:16 [15]. “But God will redeem my life from the clutches of Sheol, for He will take me. Selah.” If this means that the Lord is delivering the poet from his enemies, there is no reference to the hope for life after death. This reading is buttressed by vv. 11–12 [10–11]: “For one sees that the wise die, that the foolish and ignorant both perish, leaving their wealth to others. Their grave is their eternal home, the dwelling-place for all generations of those once famous on earth.” Thus being redeemed from Sheol refers to length of days in this world. The righteous man need not fear the wicked and rich because they are doomed to die. It is also possible, however, that when the believer calls on the Lord to save him from Sheol he is expressing the hope of an afterlife. “He will take me (yiqqaʚeni)” (v. 16 [15]) echoes the stories of Enoch and Elijah, both of whom were “taken” by the Lord (Gen. 5:24; 2 Kings 2:3, 9–10). This may indicate that the Lord does not allow his devotees to descend to Sheol, but takes them to Himself. The verb lqʚ has a similar meaning in Ugaritic: wklhm bd rb tmtt lqʚt = “And I snatched all of them from the hand(s) of the Master of Death (Moth).”94 Returning to our verse in Psalms, Van Rad writes: “This statement can hardly be referred to anything other than life after death, for the thought of the whole psalms revolves, in the sense of the problem of theodicy, around the question of the grace of Jahweh in the life of the individual, and comes to the conclusion that the proud rich must remain in death.”95 According to Wolff, “The overcoming of death’s agony is not manifested in any elaborate hope of the beyond, but in the calm certainty that communion with Yahweh cannot be ended by death, because of his faithfulness.”96 In v. 11 [10] The Psalmist observes that the wise die along with the foolish and ignorant. That is, when it comes to death there M. Dahood, Psalms III (AB 17a; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1970), p.xlv. 94 Gordon, UT, 2059: 21–22. 95 Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: 406. 96 Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p.109. 93

THE UNDERWORLD

149

is no difference between the wise man and the fool. Human attempts to overcome death by means of wealth and to ransom their souls are foredoomed. Here exists an element of satire against the wealthy who trust in their riches and believe they will live forever. There is no reason to envy the rich man, says the Psalmist, because when he dies he will not take anything with him (v. 18 [17]). The idea that the wise die with the fools and ignorant posed a problem to the classical commentators. According to Ibn Ezra, “This psalm [49] is very important, because it speaks explicitly of the light of the world to come and of the soul of wisdom that will not die.” Rashi maintains that “die” used with regard to the wise means death in this world, whereas when the foolish and ignorant “perish” it refers to the world to come as well. Samuel David Luzzato wonders whether the soul of the wicked man perishes utterly when he dies. Yet a reading of v. 11 [10] reveals that both “die” and “perish” denote death from this world. Verse 16 [15] is the linchpin of Psalm 49. Without it, the focus of the Psalm is mockery of the rich who think they can attain eternal life, when in fact they will die like their ancestors (vv. 20–21 [19–20]). But v. 16 [15] totally recasts the tone, to the extent that it is not certain that it was originally part of the Psalm. What led the psalmist to believe that the Lord will redeem him from the netherworld? What is the meaning of “He will take me”? The verse could be a later addition that reflects the new concept of death and belief in the world to come that emerged among the Pharisees during the Second Temple period. In fact, the unity of the psalm is problematic: the transition from one form of speech to another and from the first to third person (vv. 6–7 [5–6]); the sudden irruption of three-clause stanzas (vv. 11, 12, 15 [10, 11, 14]); and the integration of vv. 8, 11, and 15 [7, 10, 14] with the rest of the Psalm. Clearly the original text was modified, whether by additions or corruption. Turning to Psalm 30, we read that “O Lord, You brought me up from Sheol, preserved me from going down into the Pit” (Ps. 30:4 [3]). The speaker, who has been in peril of death, prays for deliverance and thanks the Lord that it came. The reference does not seem to be to resurrection, because in v. 3 [2] the poet thanks the Lord for having healed him. As noted above, illness is compared to being in the underworld; hence recovery from illness is

150

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

like escaping from the underworld.97 Note, however, that the semantic field of “heal” extends to delivery from troubles: “Heal me, O Lord, and let me be healed; Save me, and let me be saved” (Jer. 17:14). Later in this psalm, the expression “You made [me] firm as a mighty mountain” (v. 8 [7]) is appropriate to someone assailed and besieged by an enemy. The concrete “you undid my sackcloth and girded me with joy” (v. 12 [11]) suggests that the man is in great distress and mourning, but neither sick people nor those under siege wear sackcloth and mourn. It seems, then, that the references to illness and siege are metaphors for the anxiety that grips the believer in a time of trouble. Finally, Psalm 103 refers to the Lord who “redeems your life from the Pit” (Ps. 103:4). Spronk, observing the metaphor of the eagle in verse 5 to denote the renewal of youthful strength, notes that in Egyptian literature the phoenix represents the triumph over death. According to him, the rejuvenation of the bird here also represents the victory over death.98 The fact that the Lord saves a person from death cannot be separated from belief in an afterlife. We do not believe, however, that this is a reference to life after death. Rather, the Psalm speaks of an ill person who has recovered his youthful vigor and health. According to v. 3, the Lord “forgives all your sins, heals all your diseases”: that is, when the Lord forgives a man’s sins, He also heals him. The eagle symbolizes the renewal of strength because the eagle’s feathers molt and grow back, as clearly indicated by “they who trust in the Lord shall renew their strength as eagles grow new plumes: They shall run and not grow weary, They shall march and not grow faint” (Isa. 40:31). Nowhere in the Bible is there a description of a person who descends to the netherworld and returns from it. We have only the unique case of Samuel, who is brought up from his grave by the medium (1 Sam. 28:3–25). The idea of a descent to the netherworld and return to the world of the living does appear in descriptions of imminent death followed by recovery. This is prominent, as we 97 A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (Greenwood, S.C.: Attic Press, 1972), 1: 241. 98 Klaas Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), p.287.

THE UNDERWORLD

151

have seen in Psalms, where we find many descriptions of mortals who reach the gates of Sheol (Ps. 107:18; Isa. 38:10) or Sheol itself (Ps. 88:4). In these cases, however, after the person reaches Sheol the Lord intervenes on his behalf and returns him to the land of the living (Ps. 9:13; 30:3; 86:13; Isa. 38:17). Sometimes the Psalmist compares himself to those who go down to the pit (Ps. 28:1; 143:7) or to the dead (Ps. 31:12; 143:3). As Johnston observed, the fact that the Psalmist is praying to be rescued from Sheol is evidence that he is alive. He is not yet in Sheol, which is the abode of the dead and a place from which there is no return.99 We are dealing, rather, with a poetic image100 that exemplifies the power of God, Who is omnipotent, rules the entire universe, and can deal death and restore life (Deut. 32:39). This is a stage of belief that precedes the notion of the resurrection of the dead. Note that descriptions identical to those in the Bible are found in Mesopotamian literature. In one text, a suffering man appeals to the deity and prays for help, asserting that he transgressed unwittingly, and in any case does not know which deity he affronted: “He is plunged into the waters of the swamp; take him by the hand. The sin which I have done turn into goodness.”101 In another text, a prayer to Ishtar, the supplicant describes his troubles and asks to be restored to his prior condition, so that he may praise and glorify Ishtar: “Where thou dost look, one who is dead lives; one who is sick rises up.”102 He entreats Ishtar that his sins transgressions and shameful deeds be forgotten and that she return him to the land of the living: “Guide my steps aright; radiantly like a hero let me enter the street with the living.”103

Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.87. But there are also scholars who take the description literally; see ibid., pp.86–97. 101 “Prayer to Every God,” trans. Ferris J. Stephens, ANET, line 54, p.392. 102 “Prayer of Lamentation to Ishtar,” trans. Ferris J. Stephens, ANET, line 40, p.384. 103 Ibid., line 84, p.385. 99

100

152

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

The Gods of the Underworld Was there a god who ruled the netherworld? Scholars have long noted several biblical passages that contain traces of such a deity. One is the name of the antediluvian patriarch Methuselah, who is said to have lived for 969 years, longer than any other man (Gen. 5:27). The two elements of the name are metu and šelaʚ. The first means “man”; the second may mean a weapon or canal, or it may be a divine name. The last of these is the most plausible, in light of early West Semitic names known from Ugarit and the Amarna letters.104 According to Tsevat, the Canaanite deity Salaʘ was a personification of the river of Sheol and the god of the underworld.105 He finds support for this idea in Job 33:18 and 36:12 and especially in “he keeps back his soul from the Pit, his life from crossing the Salaʘ (meÝavor ba-šalaʚ)” (Job 33:18; the last words instead of the conventional rendering, “perishing by the sword”)— that is, the river of the underworld, the crossing of which means to die.106 He alleges a parallel to this verse from Babylonian wisdom literature: “Our friends in fact give up and go to the way of death. It is an old saying that they cross the river Hubur.”107 He maintains Ú of the god Salaʘ. But that the name Methuselah denotes a devotee there does not seem to be any external support for his conjecture that there was an underworld deity named Salaʘ. 104 EA 255,3; 256,2, 5; PRU 3:205; RS 16.155.6; PRU 4:234; RS 17.112.6. See also D. Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th–13th c. B.C. from Canaan and Syria (AOAT 214; Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984), p.250; some scholars understand šlh as “sword” (e.g., H. L. Ginsberg, The Legend of King Keret, BASOR supp nos.2–3 (New Haven, Conn: American School of Oriental Research,1946), p.14 line 20; D. Leibel, “%6 4-,” Tarbiz. 33 (1964): 225–227, argues that šlʘ refers to the river of the Netherworld; Moshe Held, “Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew,” JANES 5 (1973): 174, n.12 says that etymologies for both meanings are problematic; O. Loretz, “Der Gott ŠALAʗ, He. ŠLʗ I und ŠLʗ II,” UF 7 (1975): 584–585 follows Tsevat’s claim that šelah is the god of the “infernal river” according to him šlʘ in KTU.1.14.I.20 is the divine name. 105 M. Tsevat, “The Canaanite God Šälaʘ,”VT 4 (1954): 41–49. 106 Ibid., p.43. 107 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, p.71, lines 16–17.

THE UNDERWORLD

153

On the other hand, if Tsevat’s thesis is true, the name Methuselah may be parallel to that of Methusael, great-great-grandson of Cain and father of Lemech. Two interpretations of the latter name have been offered. (1) Some break it down into metu-ša-Þel ‘the man of [the deity] El.’ Metu is a form of met ‘man,’ an archaic term which, though found in the singular in Ugaritic and Akkadian, survives in the Bible only in the plural (absolute metim [Deut. 2:24 et passim] and construct metei meÝaʞ and metei mispar [Gen. 34:30; Deut. 26:5]).108 The second element, ša ‘of,’ is known in Phoenician and Akkadian. This interpretation is problematic because there does not seem to be evidence of other Semitic names formed in this way. (2) Another possibility is metu-šaÞel, with the second element representing the verb šÞl ‘ask’ or the proper name “Sheol”: thus “man of request” or “man of Sheol.” Tsevat and Budde understand it, as “the man of [the god of] Sheol.109 This reading is supported by Tsevat’s proposal for Methuselah. According to Layton, however, the proper noun “Metusha’el is probably nothing more (or less) than a corrupt form of the [proper noun] Metushelah. Whatever the case may be, no meaning can be assigned to the second element of the [proper noun] Metusha’el as pointed by the Massoretes.”110 A recent theory is that the deity dšu-wa-la, mentioned in Akkadian texts of the late second millennium BCE, is the god of the underworld. De Moor identifies šu-wa-la with Ereshkigal, the queen of the underworld and wife of Nergal, and suggests that the biblical Sheol is a relic of a Canaanite goddess.111 Others, however, believe that šu-wa-la is a Hurrian deity who corresponds to Ninurta.112 Ac108 According to Gesenius, the w in mtw is a survival of the old nominative ending. See Friedrich Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, ed. and enlarged E. Kautzsch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), pp. 251–252, 90k. 109 Tsevat, “The Canaanite God Šälaʘ,” p.45; K. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.1–12,5) Untersucht von lic. (Gissen: Ricker,1883), pp.128– 129. 110 S. C. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), p.74. 111 J. C. de Moor, “Lovable Death in Ancient Near East,” UF 22 (1990): 239. 112 Akio Tsukimoto, “Emar and the Old Testament: Preliminary Remarks,” AJBI 15 (1989): 9.

154

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

cording to Johnston, the fact that šu-wa-la appears in the company of underworld deities links it to Sheol. He thinks it is a minor deity of the second millennium BCE, worshipped in the district of Emar but unknown elsewhere. This Akkadian name was transmuted into a Hebrew place name and lost all connection to divinity. He maintains that the biblical Sheol is not a divinity and is barely even personified.113 Nevertheless, some passages in the Bible certainly do personify Sheol as a lethal power, a demon or deity. In Isaiah, Sheol is an insatiable fanged monster: “Assuredly, Sheol has opened wide its gullet and parted its jaws in a measureless gape; and down into it shall go, that splendor and tumult, that din and revelry” (Isa. 5:14). Habakkuk, too, imagines the Babylonian enemy, whose appetite for conquering foreign lands could not be appeased, as Sheol, a ravenous beast that is never satisfied: “Who has made his maw as wide as Sheol, Who is as insatiable as Death” (Hab. 2:5). These descriptions of Sheol are reminiscent of the many descriptions of insatiable death.114 Sheol is also personified as a lethal force in the sinners’ imagined seduction of the son in Proverbs: “Like Sheol, let us swallow them alive; whole, like those who go down into the Pit” (Prov. 1:12). What is more, “Sheol and Abaddon cannot be satisfied, nor can the eyes of man be satisfied” (Prov. 27:20): just as Sheol will never stop swallowing up the dead, human eyes can never stop coveting. Some scholars believe that behind this image is the myth of the Canaanite god Mot, who descended to the underworld and sought to draw the dead after him.115 According to another passage from Proverbs, four things are never satisfied or say “enough”: “Sheol, a barren womb, earth that cannot get enough water, and fire which never says, ‘Enough!’ ” (Prov. 30:16). As Barstad noted, however, we do not have to read these passages from Proverbs in the light of Canaanite mythology. They are typical wisdom texts and expound nothing more than the notion that death kills many persons and people never stop dying.116 Moreover, the passages Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.79. KTU 1 5 i.19–20; ii.2–4. 115 William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, pp.617–618. 116 H. M. Barstad, “Sheol %6,” DDD, 768–769. 113 114

THE UNDERWORLD

155

that personify Sheol are poetic, making any attempt to identify their mythological background pure speculation. We must agree with Barr that it is difficult to accept such passages as evidence of ancient Hebrew beliefs about life and death.117 On the other hand, there are biblical passages in which Sheol does not act of its own volition but does the bidding of the Lord; such as: “You put out Your right hand, the earth swallowed them” (Ex. 15:12). This is more conspicuous in the story of Korah and his faction, where the mythological background is unmistakable: “The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up. … They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them” (Num. 16:32–33). The phenomenon is explicitly stated to be a new creation by the Lord (Num. 16:30); that is, Sheol was not acting in keeping with its own nature but at the specific behest of the Lord. Note also the alternate and demythologized wording in the previous verse, “the ground under them burst asunder” (Num. 16:31). That the Lord controls Sheol is clear also from “If they burrow down to Sheol, from there My hand shall take them; and if they ascend to heaven, from there I will bring them down” (Amos 9:2). No matter where a man may flee, the Lord, who is the master of the universe and controls its every corner, will reach him. In the Bible, thus, it is the Lord Himself who rules over the netherworld. The biblical netherworld does not have its own ruling deity; in fact, it has no god at all. This belief may be a reaction to paganism. Sheol as the Grave A reading of various Bible translations reveals that translators have had problems with the Hebrew word šeÞol. The AV, for example renders it “grave” 31 times, “hell” 30 times, and “pit” three times. The ASV and RSV render it “Sheol.” The NIV has “grave,” with a footnote reading “Sheol,” to allow readers to decide for themselves.118 Are Sheol and the grave the same? According to the de117 J. Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p.35. 118 R. Laird Harris, “Why Hebrew She’Ňl Was Translated ‘Grave,’ ” The NIV: The Making of a Conemporary Translation, ed. Kenneth L. Barker (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1986), p.58.

156

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

scription in the Bible, Sheol is deep underground, much deeper than a grave. It is possible, of course, that the original sense of šeÞol was indeed “grave” and that only later did it come to mean the netherworld. Note that in his comment on Gen. 37:35 Rashi says that the plain meaning of Sheol is grave, and that homiletically it is Gehinnom. It seems certain, however, that Sheol is associated with the grave, though precisely what this association may be is a matter of dispute. Harris, for example, considers them to be identical.119 Pedersen, on the other hand, says that Sheol is the netherworld, but that the ideas of the grave and of Sheol cannot be separated, “Sheol is the entirety into which all graves are merged. … Sheol should be the sum of the graves. All graves have certain common characteristics constituting the nature of the grave, and that is Sheol. The ‘Ur’graves we might call Sheol; it belongs deep down under the earth, but it manifests itself in every single grave. … Where there is grave, there is Sheol, and where there is Sheol, there is grave.120 Heidel, too, showed that Sheol refers to the underworld as well as to the grave.121 Rosenberg believes that Pedersen and others were excessively influenced by extra-biblical material that describes the grave as forming “a veritable continuum with the underworld.” “The concept of the grave and of the Sheol or its semantic equivalents,” says Rosenberg, “were consistently kept apart. … No concept of ‘Ur’ grave is attested in the Bible.”122 Sheol, according to Rosenberg is simply the underworld. We can learn something about the relationship between Sheol and the grave from a scrutiny of several biblical passages that use these terms. According to Ezekiel 31–32, for example, the king of Egypt will suffer a severe defeat. The prophet locates Assyria, Elam, Meshech, and Tubal in Sheol after all of them were defeated in battle (31:15, 16, 17; 32:21, 27). He also describes these nations as being in the grave (32:22, 23, 25, 26). Implicitly then, Sheol and the grave are the same place. In addition, bor ‘pit’ occurs eight times R. Laird Harris, “she’ôl,” TWOT 2: 892. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, I–II, p.462. 121 Heidel, Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, pp.170– 119 120

191.

122

Rosenberg, “The Concept of Biblical Sheol,” pp.168–169.

THE UNDERWORLD

157

in these chapters (31:14, 16; 32:18, 23, 24, 25, 29), and Þereʜ taʚtit ‘netherworld’ five times (31:14, 16, 18; 32:18, 24). Clearly here “pit” and “netherworld” are synonymous with Sheol and indicate the grave. On one occasion we even find that graves are located in the “uttermost parts of the Pit” (Ezek. 32:23). Also worth noting is that in 32:22–30, when the prophet mentions all the other nations whose warriors lie in Sheol, he alludes to the existence of a special circle that not everyone can reach (v. 27). When Isaiah rebukes the king of Babylon, who has been hauled down to Sheol (Isa. 14:11–20), the word again has the sense of “grave.” Both šeÞol and bor occur twice in this passage (vv. 11 and 15 and 15 and 19, respectively). After the descent of the king of Babylon to Sheol is described, the text states that he has been cast out of his grave (v. 19), which indicates that Sheol and the grave are the same place. Sheol is described as the place of worms and maggots, a typical description of the grave.123 Job 17:13–16, too, suggests that Sheol is the grave. Here Job describes Sheol as his home in the darkness. Job, like Isaiah, describes Sheol as a place of maggots and dust. In Job 24:19–20, too, there are maggots in Sheol. In Job 21:13 there is a description of the wicked who lived in wealth and died without pain. This is a problem for Job, whose life is agony. Both good and wicked lie down in the dust and are covered by maggots (v. 26). In other words, all go to the same place. Here the reference is undoubtedly to the grave. Several different terms are used in Psalm 88. In v. 4 (RSV 3), the believer declares that he is in (or near) Sheol. But in verses 5 and 7 he uses the terms yoredei bor ‘those who go down to the pit’ and bor taʚtiyyot ‘depths of the Pit.’ In vv. 6 and 12 he says that he wants to be kept from reaching the grave. His companions are “the dead” (vv. 6 and 11); in the latter verse they are also referred to as refaÞim ‘shades.’ In v. 12 “grave” is parallel to Abaddon (which, as Note that the accounts of the death of Antiochus IV (2 Macc. 9: 8–9) and of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:20–23) both feature worms. Death by worms as the appropriate end for cruel sinners is found in Greek literature; see Herodotus iv 205; Pausanias ix 7.24. See also Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees (AB41a; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983), pp.354–355. 123

158

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

NJPS renders it, is literally the “place of perdition”), and, as we shall see later, Abaddon refers to Sheol. In the psalm the believer asks, “Is Your faithful care recounted in the grave?” (v. 12)—a frequent refrain in Psalms; e.g., “in Sheol, who can acclaim You?” (6:6). We see that the grave and Sheol are described in identical terms. The assortment of terms in this psalm resembles that in Ezekiel 31–32.124 Sheol is identified with the grave in extra-biblical writings, too. An Aramaic papyrus from Elephantine contains the word šeÞol, apparently with reference to the grave. It mentions a certain Bar Puneš, who provided services to the king and accordingly was rewarded by the latter. The king addressed Bar Puneš as follows: "%%  %6 *7! % "!)4 "% (“in these, and thy bones shall not go down to Sheol, nor thy spirit).”125 It should be emphasized that the word šeÞol appears in this text only once, so we must be cautious when assigning meaning. According to Laird Harris, it is not clear whether the meaning is in fact Sheol, but the sense of “grave” is appropriate here.126 He also mentions the cover of an ossuary found in Jerusalem, with the letters %6 engraved on it. But as Rahmani notes, the ossuary also bears the Greek letters ̗̄̎̒̕̕, so he reads it as the name “Saul.”127 As we have seen, the identification of Sheol with grave is quite plausible in a number of verses. Nevertheless there is a problem because Sheol is also the abode of the wicked. If it is identical with the grave, where are the righteous? It is not surprising, then, that Josephus’ writings and the Book of Enoch refer to separate sections of Sheol for the righteous and for the wicked. On the other hand, when the Bible refers to the death of righteous persons it also locates their place of rest in the grave. Josiah will be gathered to his grave in peace (2 Kings 22:20; 2 Chron. 34:28); Samson, Asahel, and Josiah (again) are buried in the grave of their father or On these verses and others, see, at length, Harris, “The Meaning of the Word Sheol as showen by Parallels in Poetic Passages,” JETS 4 (1961): 129–135. 125 Cowley, Aramaic Papyri pp.179–182, No. 71:15. 126 Harris, “Why Hebrew Sheol was Translated ‘Grave,’ ” p.58. 127 L. Y. Rahmani, “Jerusalem Tomb Monuments on Jewish Ossuaries,” IEJ 18 (1968): 222. 124

THE UNDERWORLD

159

ancestors (Judg. 16:31; 2 Sam. 2:32; 2 Chron. 35:24). The wicked, however, are not mourned or buried (Jer. 25:33). But when the Bible speaks about the wicked, they lie in Sheol—the underworld. In some aspects this is similar to the grave, because it is the abode of the dead, but in principle it is different. It is only for the wicked, a place from which there is no return. When the biblical author uses the word šeÞol he has a bitter and premature death in mind. Sheol is the underworld, what later rabbinic literature calls Gehinnom, the place reserved for the wicked.

REFAÞIM In the Bible, the word refaÞim has two meanings. In the prophetic books the refaÞim are the dead who dwell in Sheol, normally rendered into English as “shades.” In the history books the refaÞim are an ancient race of giants or heroes. Scholars have debated extensively whether the two meanings existed side by side or one grew out of the other. Those who hold to the second opinion are themselves divided as to which was the original meaning, heroes or shades. The LXX uses gígantes (“giants”) both for the dead (Isa. 14:9; Job 26:5; Prov. 21:16) and for the aboriginal population (Gen. 14:5; Josh. 12:4; 13:12; 1Ch. 20:4; Dt. 2:11,20; 3:11,13: Raphaïn). Gordis maintained that refaÞim belongs to the class of words that designate both of two contraries.128 Most scholars believe that only one sense is original. Some believe that it refers to a legendary hero of antiquity who descended to the netherworld. Later, however, it became a designation for the dead. In support of this view, Aistleitner associated the noun refaÞim with *RBB/RBH, based on the Akkadian cognate rabû/rubû ‘prince, minister.’129 Another possibility is to understand it as related to the verb r.p.h 04 ‘become weak, relax,’ or to the root r.p.Þ 04 ‘heal.’ These ideas should be rejected, however, because we do not know of any text in which the noun refaÞim and its parallels in Phoenician and Ugaritic have a clear association with medicine or healing.130 In the Bible, the dead 128 Robert Gordis, “Studies in Hebrew Roots of Contrasted Meanings,” JQR 27 (1936/7): 55. 129 J. Aistleitner, WUS, p.295. 130 S. E. Loewenstamm, “Rephaim,” EMiqr 7: 406; Michael L. Brown, “Rephaim,” DOTE 3: 1174.

160

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

have no power to heal the ill, nor do the refaÞim. On the other hand, some have maintained that refaÞim originally referred to the dead in Sheol, who are considered to be deities (1 Sam. 28:13) and identified with the heroes of antiquity.

RefaÞim ‘Shades’ In some biblical passages the refaÞim ‘shades’ are the dead who reside in the underworld. In Isaiah 26 they are mentioned twice. (1) “They are dead, they will not live; they are shades, they will not arise” (v. 14). Given this parallel, refaÞim may be a poetic term for the dead. Another possibility is that the dead are referred to as metim when they die and as refaÞim when they are in the grave (cf. Ps. 88:11; Prov. 21:16). (2) “The earth will revive refaÞim” (Isa. 26:19). The supplicant is asking that the earth bring forth the refaÞim, the dead who are buried in it. The image (see v.17) is that of refaÞim who are buried or hidden in Sheol, like the fetus in the mother’s womb. It is also possible that the verse alludes to the resurrection of the dead.131 In Ps. 88:11, too, the dead and the shades are paralleled. The rhetorical question in this verse implies the poet’s notion that death is final and that God will not miraculously bring the dead back to life. The refaÞim, the spirits of the dead in the underworld, lie there doing nothing, unable to praise or thank the Lord. The dead and the refaÞim have no hope of resurrection. Spronk conjectured that the verse is a polemic against the Canaanite belief in the revival of the dead.132 In this verse, however, Rashi glosses refaÞim as derived from rafah ‘feeble.’ Indeed, according to David Kimʘi and the Targum, the Rephaim are the feeble dead whose bodies have decomposed in the grave. These weak corpses are unable to arise from their graves. In Proverbs there are three references to the refaÞim. (1) “For her house sinks down to death, and her paths to the shades; none who go to her come back nor do they regain the paths of life” (Prov. 2:18–19). In other words, all those who go to the house of the strange woman are doomed, because she causes them to deJohn F. A. Sawyer, “Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead,” VT 23(1973): 218–34. 132 Klaas Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.272. 131

THE UNDERWORLD

161

scend to the underworld. As we have seen, the motif of the descent to the underworld, from which there is no return, is well known in Akkadian literature. (2) “He does not know that the shades are there, that her guests are in the depths of Sheol” (9:18). In other words the house of the foolish women is Sheol. It is the land of the dead, inhabited by the refaÞim, the shades of the dead. They dwell in the depths of the netherworld.133 Some scholars note a parallel in Ugaritic literature to the foolish woman’s invitation to wayfarers to come and eat bread and water in her house. The god El invites the shades (rpum) to a feast in his palace. “[Come to] my [banq]uet. Set off to my house, O shades. [Into my house I b]id you, I beckon you [into] my [pal]ace.”134 The spirits come and feast for seven days. In Ugaritic literature the spirits are the dead heroes, whereas in the Bible they include all of the departed. In the Bible they are powerless, unlike their condition in Ugaritic literature.135 (3) A man who strays from the path of prudence will rest in the company of shades” (21:16). That is, a person who diverges from the path of wisdom and honesty will die prematurely and join the dead. Compare “For You, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost Pit—those murderous, treacherous men; they shall not live out half their days” (Ps. 55:24). The biblical usage of refaÞim as a synonym for the dead, describing the inhabitants of the netherworld, is also found in extrabiblical texts. A Phoenician inscription of the Sidonian kings Tabnit and his son Eshmunazar, found on a sarcophagus from the end of 133 Here the Peshitta renders refaÞim as “heroes.” The Septuagint and Peshitta have an expansion of v. 18 not found in the MT: “But turn away, do not remain in the place nor cast your eye toward her. For thus you will cross alien water and go over an alien river. Abstain from alien water and do not drink from an alien well, so that you may live a long time, and years of life be added to you.” This resembles 5:15, but the end of the verse is identical to v. 11. 134 KTU 1.21. ii.9–11, trans. Theodore Lewis, “Toward A Literary Translation of the Rapiuma Texts,” in Ugarit, Religion and Culture. FS John Gibson, ed. N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd, UBL, Bd 12 (Münster: Ugarit –Verlag, 1996), p.129; Michael Fox, Proverbs 1–9 (AB 18a; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p.303. 135 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, p.303.

162

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the sixth century BCE, warns against those who might desecrate the grave: “May there be no resting place for you with the Rephaim.”136 The first century CE bilingual (neo-Punic and Latin) dedicatory inscription of El-Amruni has the Latin D(is) M(anibus) as the equivalent of )04 [)+] %-% “to the gods of the Rephaim” or )04 [] + %-%% “to the gods [i.e.] the Rephaim.”137 Because the refaÞim ‘shades’ are dead, we would expect them to be powerless. As we have seen, some associate refaÞim with the root r.p.h ‘feeble.’ This view is espoused by the medieval commentators. As Brown observed, however, this raises the problem of explaining the switch from heh to aleph; he holds that we are dealing with an orthographic development in biblical Hebrew of a sort possible with final weak verbs. He adds, however, that the discovery of extra-biblical texts with an aleph makes it difficult to assume that one comes from the other.138 In Job we learn about the physical state of those who descend to the underworld; their “strength is spent” (Job 3:17). Similarly, according to the Psalmist, On the other hand, “I am reckoned among those who go down to the Pit; I am a man who has no strength” (Ps. 88:5 [4]).139 This rendering of the verse is supported by Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Dahood, citing the Ugaritic, understands it to mean “a strengthless man.” It is interesting that the Egyptians, too, spoke of their dead as “the weary of heart.”140 The Greeks referred to them as ‘the weary.” In the Odyssey, those in the underworld are described as “the dead without sense of feeling, phantoms of mortals whose weary days are done.”141 In Isaiah, when the inhabitants of the underworld mock the king of Babylon, they tell him: “You too have become as weak as KAI, 13, lines 7–8; for a similar curse see KAI 14, line 8. Ibid., 117, line 1. 138 Michael L. Brown, “Rephaim,” DOTE, 1174. 139 Here Þeyal ‘strength’ is a biblical hapax. Some (e.g., BDB, p.33) explain it as an Aramaic loan word meaning “assistance”; this is the reading of the Septuagint and Syriac, followed by the NEB. But Þeyal means “strength” and is related to Þeyaluti ‘my strength’ (Ps. 22:20 [19]). See Dahood, Psalms II, p.303. 140 Erman-Grapow, HWb, 38. 141 Odyssey xi 474. 136 137

THE UNDERWORLD

163

we are! You have become like us!” (Isa. 14:10). The king, who rules the entire world, will be deprived of his power, like the shades in the underworld. When Job in 14:10 complains, “when a man dies he is powerless (wayeʚelaš ),” we may well find this posthumous development astonishing. Nahmanides wrote: “They interpreted it to mean ‘grows weak (wayeʚelaš) and dies,’ for when he a man falls ill he weakens and then dies.” Along the same lines, David Kimʘi noted that sometimes a waw indicates the (past) perfect (“a man dies after having grown weak”). In Ugaritic literature of the second millennium, the refaÞim are an ancestral line of dead heroes and kings.142 The text (RS 34.126 = KTU.161) describes a ritual ceremony from the time of Ammurapi III, the last king of Ugarit, associated with or commemorating the death of his father, Niqmaddu III. It begins with an invitation to the king’s dead ancestors of the king and to the rpu to attend a celebratory meal. This is followed by lamentations for the dead king. The god Shapash is called on to find the royal dead in the underworld. Some scholars, relying on this text, associate refaÞim ‘shades’ with kings and heroes, just as in Isaiah’s description of Sheol’s “rousing for you the shades of all earth’s chieftains, raising from their thrones all the kings of nations” (Isa. 14:9).143 It should be emphasized, though, that verse 11 describes them as powerless. Their royalty is meaningless, because in death all are equal. According to Job 26:5, the refaÞim are “beneath the waters” of the deep, where nevertheless they “tremble” in fear of the Lord. (A passage of the Ugaritic Baal cycle, CTA 6.6.46–52, also juxtaposes the sea with the refaÞim in the netherworld.) Here, though, refaÞim may mean the primordial giants, because the passage relates the Wayne T. Pitard, “The Ugaritic Funerary Text RS 34.126,” BASOR 232 (1978): 65–75; B. A. Levine and J. M. de Tarragon, “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of Ugaritic Dynasty,” JAOS 104 (1984): 649– 659; P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, “Le Rituel funéraire ougaritique RS 34.126,” Syr 59 (1982): 121–128; John F. Healey, “The Last of the Rephaim,” in Back to the Sources: Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, ed. Kevin J. Cathcart and John F. Healey (Dublin: Glendale Press, 1989), p.38. Healey says that the Ugaritic rpÞum are the ancestral spirits of the royal families and its possible associated heroic figures. 143 Michael L. Brown, “Rephaim,” p.1178. 142

164

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

mighty works of the Creator. The Targum and Peshitta, in fact, render the word as “the mighty”; in the Septuagint, they are the giants, or those who, according to Symmachus, warred against God, who defeated them. Some have alleged a connection between refaÞim and the root r.p.Þ ‘heal,’ drawing on Isa. 26:14 and Ps. 88:11 [10], which the Septuagint translates as “the healers (iatroi) will not rise up.”144 The Samaritan Targum has a similar understanding of the references to the race of refaÞim in Deut. 2:20 and 3:13. De Moor believed that the refaÞim were the ruling aristocracy of the land, who functioned as savior-healers and worshiped Baal, rpÞu mlk Ýlm, “Savior, king of eternity.” After death they became deified royal ancestors but continued to play their role of savior-healers. Later, when Yahweh became the physician of Israel and ancestor worship was banned, the refaÞim became powerless. De Moor associates refaÞim with r.p.h ‘be weak,’ based on the collocation yelidei harafah (2 Sam. 21:16, 18). As we have seen, however, the biblical term refaÞim has nothing to do with healing. According to Sperling, the verb r.p.Þ is found in Ugaritic only in personal names. Some have attempted to explain the terms heal and gather or united, found in Semitic languages, as referring to the refaÞim. It should be emphasized, however, that in Ugaritic these words have nothing to do with the verb r.p.Þ. In Ugaritic “heal” is b.n.y.145 Consequently it seems preferable to understand the word as meaning the “powerless dead.”146 In 2 Chron. 16:12, the MT refers to physicians. When King Asa fell critically ill, rather than turning to the Lord he called in the physicians and placed his trust in them. At the start of his reign Asa was a steadfast adherent of the Lord and played a key role in the Some think that the Septuagint iatroi ‘healers’ is a mistake, and that the passage is a polemic against physicians. In Judaism, as noted, some believed the physician to be one of the seven with no share in the word to come. See: M. L. Brown, “ ‘I am the Lord Your Healer’ A Philological Study of the Root ‘RAPA’ in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East.” Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1985, pp.14–15, 134 –35. 145 David Sperling, “Rephaim,” EncJud 14: 80; for a similar view see: Brian B. Schmidt, Israel Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in the Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Winona, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996), p.268. 146 Ibid, p.268. 144

THE UNDERWORLD

165

people’s renewed compact with Him. But in his personal distress he refused to pray for divine succor. The portrayal of Asa’s consultation with physicians as sinful has no parallel in the Bible. Elsewhere human physicians are mentioned in connection with the embalming of Jacob and also in Job 13:4 and Jer. 8:22. Even though the Bible is cognizant of methods of practical healing, the biblical perspective is that healing is the province of God or his emissary the prophet (2 Kings 4:19–37; 20:7; Isa. 38:21). Jastrow believes that Asa did not consult with physicians but with the refaÞim, the shades or spirits of the dead, just as Saul, on the eve of his defeat at Gilboa, turned to the medium.147 That is, the Chronicler wrote rofeÞim ‘physicians’ but intended refaÞim ‘spirits of the dead.’

RefaÞim ‘Giants’ In the Bible the noun refaÞim is also the ethnic designation of an ancient and evidently titanic race. The Moabites called them Emim (Deut. 2:11); the Ammonites, Zamzummim (v. 20). At one point the Land of Ammon was part of the territory of the refaÞim (vv. 21– 22). The core of Bashan is also referred to as the Land of refaÞim (Deut. 3:13). The refaÞim are first mentioned in Genesis as part of the western campaign of Chedorlaomer and his allies, who smote the refaÞim in Ashteroth-karnaim (Gen. 14:5). In Genesis the refaÞim are also mentioned as one of the nations inhabiting Canaan (Gen. 15:10; Josh. 17:15). In several verses the refaÞim are said to have been giants (Deut. 2:11, 21; 3:11). One can infer their stature from the size of Og’s bed (Deut. 3:11), and from the weapons of their descendants (2 Sam. 21:16–22). The emphasis on their height and strength is what led the Septuagint to render the term as gigantes and titanes; the Peshitta has gabbare and gibbarayya. In the book of Jubilees we read that the refaÞim were nine or ten cubits tall (29:9).148 The refaÞim Giants were held to be the descendants of the Nephilim, the mighty men, the men of renown, the descendants of the sons of God, mentioned in Gen. 6:1–4. 147 M. Jastrow, “Rô’ēh and Hôzēh in the Old Testament,” JBL 28 (1909): 49, n.23. 148 John Gray, “The Rephaim,” PEQ 81 (1949): 127–139; G. Ernest Wright, “Troglodytes and Giants in Palestine,” JBL 57 (1938): 305–309.

166

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

In several passages the Bible refers to the towns of Ashtarot and Edrei as cities of Og the king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4; Josh. 12:4; 13:12). Og was the last of the refaÞim and Bashan is the land of refaÞim (Deut. 3:11, 13). A Ugaritic text (RS24.252=KTU1.108) refers to Rpu who lived in Ýttrt and ruled or was king over hdrÝy, which is a phonetic variant or scribal error for Edrei. These are evidently the towns mentioned in the Bible, Ashtarot and Edrei. According to the text, rpu mlk elm, “Rpu the eternal king.” He is also said to be gtr ‘mighty.’ Apparently rpu is mentioned together with r[pi] arʜ, evidently as their patron. Sperling believes that if we accept the hypothesis as to the meaning of refaÞim in light of Ugaritic literature, the biblical term means “mighty warriors”; the reference to their height added to the belief in their military prowess.149 According to Jewish tradition, Og was a survivor of the flood. According to Targum Ps.-Jonathan on Deut. 3:11, “only Og remained of the heroes who survived the flood.” According to Jewish legend he was a descendant of the Nephilim.150 He is also identified with the refugee who brought Abram the report of Lot’s capture (Gen. 14:13), and is referred to as “the refugee” because he was the only one of the refaÞim defeated by Chedarlaomer to escape, and this is why he was “left of the remaining Rephaim” (Deut. 3:11).151 The refaÞim may be a line of warriors, if we draw on the reference in 2 Sam. 21:16 and 18 to yelidei harafah. According to the parallel text in 1 Chron. 20:6 and 8, they were born to HarafaÞ.152 The Septuagint understood this word as the singular of refaÞim, with the prefixed definite article. The Lucianic recension of vv. 15–16 in 2 Sam 21 has “Dadou, son of Ioas, who was of the descendants of the giants.” The Targum reads “of the Giant”; the Peshitta, “David, Joab, and Abisai were terrified by a giant.” Targum Jonathan has “sons of the might man.” Clearly all the translators understood rafah as a form of refaÞim ‘giants.’ Sperling, “Rephaim,” EncJud 14: 79. B. Niddah 61a. 151 Deut. R. I.25 152 It is possible that here rafah is written with final heh because the author wanted to hint that the Philistine warriors were associated with one who became weak. 149 150

THE UNDERWORLD

167

L’Heureux (preceded by Willesen) conjectured that yelidei harafah does not refer to descendants but to a military caste in which membership was determined by birth.153 It seems more likely, however, that harafah is a proper noun. In 2 Sam. 21:15–22 we have a list of four Philistine heroes who were defeated by David’s heroes. The first three are said to be yelidei harafah and the fourth to have been born to Harafah. Summing up, the narrator tells us that “those four were descended from the Raphah in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his men” (2 Sam. 21:22). According to the parallel text in 1 Chron. 20:4–8, Sippai, who must be the Saph of 2 Sam. 21:18, was one of the descendants of the refaÞim. This suggests that the forms Harafah and rafaÞ are a collective term or eponym derived from the noun refaÞim. The Septuagint of 2 Samuel 21 and 1 Chron. 20:8 have ̔΅Κ΅, as a proper noun, but in 1 Chron. 20:6 it reads ΦΔϱ·ΓΑΓΖ ·΍·ΣΑΘΝΑ ‘of the race of the giants.’ In most places the Lucianic recension has “giants.” The Talmudic sages also seem to have believed that this was a proper name; they said that harafah might be the name of a Philistine of Gath or of a woman. We also find her identified her with Orpah, Ruth’s sister-in-law.154 Summary As we have seen, in the prophetic books the refaÞim are the dead who inhabit Sheol, but in the historical books they are an ancient race of giants or heroes.155 After Josiah’s reform in the seventh cenOn the basis of the studies by L’Heureux and Willesen, McCarter conjectures that the members of this military order were devoted to the god Rapha of Gath. Evidently the cult of this god was still active in David’s time. One of its centers was the Philistine city of Gath. See: Foker Willesen, “The Philistine Corps of Scimitar from Gath,” JSS 3 (1958): 328; idem, “The YĆlĩd in Hebrew Society,” ST 12 (1958): 210; C. E. L’Heureux, “The yelîdê hĆrĆpĆ’: A Cultic Association of Warriors,” BASOR 221 (1976): 83–85; idem, “The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim,” HTR 67 (1974): 265–74; P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1984), p.451. 154 B Sotah 42b; B Sanhedrin 95a. 155 Horwitz believes that this sense of the word was forgotten during the first millennium. See: W. Horwitz, “The Significance of Rephaim,” JNSL 7 (1979): 37–43; Mark S. Smith, “Rephaim,” ABD 5: 674–676. 153

168

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

tury and the campaign against the cult of the dead, which gained momentum in that period, the refaÞim were described as powerless. Consequently the prophets equated them with the dead. RefaÞim has the sense of dead heroes and kings in Isaiah 14:9. There is a similar description of the refaÞim as dead kings and heroes in a Ugaritic text of the second millennium BCE (RS34.126=KTU1.161). In other words, the Ugaritic notion of refaÞim as kings and heroes corresponds to the biblical view. But as Pitard rightly asserted, despite the link between the biblical refaÞim and the Ugaritic rpum, “there has been little consensus about what the relationship is.”156 What is more, we must remember that in death all are equal, so that Isaiah is mocking the dead heroes and kings, who are also powerless. Unlike Ugaritic literature, in the Bible refaÞim includes all the dead and not only heroes or kings.

OTHER NAMES FOR SHEOL The aggadic literature employs the term Gehinnom instead of Sheol to describe the abode of the dead. This comes from ge ben Hinnom ‘the valley of the son of Hinnom’ (Josh. 15:8; 18:16), a ravine south of Jerusalem in which the ancients sacrificed their sons to Molech. Jeremiah prophesied that the place would become a valley of slaughter and charnel house (Jer. 7:32). Over time Gehinnom became the designation for the place where the wicked are punished after death. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi listed seven different names to it, Sheol and six of its biblical synonyms: Þabaddon, beÞer šaʚat, bor, šeÞon, ʞiʞ ha-yawen, ʜalmawet, and Þereʜ taʚtit.157 Later these seven names were applied to the seven circles of Hell (Midrash Šoʘer ʜov on Ps. 11:6). Below we shall examine each of these terms. ÞEreʜ The biblical word Þereʜ has several meanings: “earth” as opposed to “heaven,” “land” as opposed to “sea,” “ground,” and “land” in the sense of sovereign territory. In several passages it means “underworld.” It was Gunkel, more than a century ago, who first noted Wayne T. Pitard, “A New Edition of the ‘RĆpi’şma’ Texts: KTU 1.20–22,” BASOR 285 (1992): 33. 157 B Eruvin 19a. 156

THE UNDERWORLD

169

this last meaning.158 Since then this usage has been found outside the Bible as well; for example, in the Akkadian erʜetu159 and the Ugaritic arʜ.160 In Aramaic, too, we find Þarq and ÞarÝ meaning “under the ground.”161 In Dan. 6:25, ÞarÝit means “bottom.” The biblical parallelism Þereʜ/Ýafar ‘earth/dust’ = netherworld also exists in Ugaritic. Like its Akkadian cognate erʜetu, Þereʜ can mean the netherworld. As such it is parallel to Sheol,162 a place of darkness (Ps. 143:3) and shadow (Job 10:21). This Þereʜ is in the uttermost depths.163 We also find Þereʜ ʞaʚtit ‘the underworld’ (Ezek. 31:14, 16, 18; 32:18, 24) and taʚtiyyot Þareʜ ‘the depths of the earth’ (Isa. 44:23; Ezek. 26:20; Ps. 63:10). Taʚtit is yoked to Sheol, too: “For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol” (Deut. 32:22); “You have saved me from the depths of Sheol” (Ps. 86:13). This has a parallel in the Akkadian Irûitu Šaplîtu ‘lower earth’; i.e., the netherworld.164 In Ps. 139:15 we find an echo of the mythological notion that human beings come from Mother earth: “I was shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth (betaʚtiyyot Þareʜ). There is also tehomot haÞareʜ ‘the depths of the [nether]-world’ (Ps. 71:20). As Dahood notes, this echoes the Ugaritic tant šmm Ým arʜ thmt Ýmn kbkbm ‘the meeting of heaven with the

Ex. 15:12; Ps. 63:9; 139:15; Eccles. 3:21; Isa. 14:12; 29:4; 44:23; Ezek. 26:20; 31:14, 16, 18; 32:18, 24. See H. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1895), pp.3– 120. 159 CAD, E, 310; AHw, 1: 245. 160 For the occurrences of arʜ in Ugaritic literature, see Richard E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp.37–39. 161 On the shift from qof to Ýayin see: W. Baumgartner, “Das Aramäische im Buch Daniel,” ZAW 45 (1927): 100–101; idem, Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (Leiden: Brill, 1959), p.88. 162 Ex. 15:12; 1 Sam. 28:13; Isa. 26:19; 29:4; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:7; Ps. 7:6; 18:8; 22:30; 63:10; 71:20; 95:4; 106:17; 141:7; 143:3; 147:6; 148:7; Job 10:21; 12:8; 15:29; Prov. 25:3. 163 Johnston lists all the passages in which scholars believe Þereʜ has the sense of netherworld (Shades of Sheol, p.100). 164 Knut Tallqvist, Sumerisch-Akkadische Namen der Totewelt (StOr V(4); Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1934), pp. 1–46, esp. pp.11–14. 158

170

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

netherworld, of the depths with the stars.’165 Although meʚqerei Þareʜ ‘the depths of the earth’ (Ps. 95:4) is a hapax, we do find ʚeqer tehom ‘the recesses of the deep’ (Job 38:16). In both verses, the noun derives from the root ʚ.q.r ‘search’ and refers to a part of the world that has yet to be explored. The Septuagint renders the term as “opposite sides/quarters,” evidently reading the Hebrew as merʚaqei ‘the distant parts of.’ But the verse in Psalms parallels meʚqerei Þareʜ with toÝafot harim ‘peaks of the mountains,’ a merism that links polar contraries to express totality: that the Lord’s power extends throughout creation. In the Bible we also find the expression Þereʜ neshyiyah ‘land of oblivion’ (Ps. 88:13 [12]). In Greek literature Lethe is a river in Hades whose waters caused those who drank from it to forget their previous lives. In Ps. 6:6 [5], one of the characteristics of Sheol is forgetfulness. Sheol may be the land of forgetfulness because its denizens are forgotten (Ps. 31:13 [12]). It is interesting that the Septuagint of Ps. 87:13 has πΑ ·Ϝ πΔ΍ΏΉΏ΋ΗΐνΑϙ ‘in a forgotten land’—forgotten by God—since God is with the living and the lower world is not under His influence. We should emphasize, however, that other verses indicate that the Lord is present in the netherworld (Ps. 89:31, Jon. 2:3), whose inhabitants know nothing (Job 14:21; Eccles. 9:5). Just as we find that the dead descend to Sheol, so too they descend to “the land” (Jon. 2:7). And just as for Sheol, there is anthropomorphization of Þereʜ, which opens up and swallows sinners (Ps. 106:17; Ex. 15:12). We have seen that although Þereʜ has many senses in the Bible, when joined with taʚtiyyot, ʚeqer, or nešiyyah, it refers to the netherworld; that is, the netherworld is the place of forgetfulness, deep in the bowels of the earth. As Johnston noted, Þereʜ is not Sheol per se but describes the location of the netherworld.166

Bor ‘Pit’ In the Bible the word bor has several meanings. In most occurrences it designates a hole in the ground or excavation in rock, in-

165 166

Gordon, UT, ‘nt: iii: 21–22; Dahood, Psalms II, p.176. Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.114.

THE UNDERWORLD

171

tended to collect rainwater.167 Sometimes it means “prison”168 or “grave.”169 It is cognate with the Akkadian bşru ‘pit, hole, well, pond, pool.’170 Bor also seems to be another name for the netherworld, because the darkness of the pit is characteristic of Sheol and the land of the dead. Bor, as an epithet for the underworld, is used in parallel to or associated with Sheol (Ps. 30:4; 88:4–5; Prov. 1:12) and maʚašakkim ‘dark places’ (Ps. 88:7).171 In Isa. 14:15, yarketei-bor ‘the bottom of the pit’ is used in parallelism with Sheol. This suggests that Sheol has the form of an underground pit.172 The expression yoredei-bor ’ ‘those who go down into the Pit” is very common; sometimes it is linked with Þereʜ taʚtiyyot ‘netherworld’ (Ezek. 26:20; 31:14; 32:23–31; Ps. 28:1) or Sheol (Isa. 38:18).173 The idiom can be assimilated to the Ugaritic yrdm arʜ ‘he goes down into the earth.’ The Psalmist frequently likens a person in distress to those who descend into the pit (cf. Ps. 143:7). In Lamentations, bor or bor taʚtiyyot is emblematic of misery (3:53, 55).

Šaʚat ‘Pit’ Still another synonym for Sheol is šaʚat, which occurs 21 times in the Bible.174 It is found 13 times in the Wisdom books, in the

167

etc.

Ex. 21:33; Deut. 6:11; 1 Sam 19:22; Jer. 2:13; Ps. 7:16; Neh. 9:25;

Gen. 40:15; Isa. 24:22; Jer. 37:16; 38:6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13; etc. Isa. 14:15, 19; 38:18; Ezek. 26:20; 31:14, 16; 32:18, 24, 25, 29, 30; Ps. 28:1; etc. 170 CAD B: 342; AHW, 1:141. 171 Here LXX reads, instead of 7%2), 7)%2 shadow of death, which is a better parallel to maʚašakkim. 172 Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Halet (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), p.70. According to Keel, bor in Isa. 14:19 denotes the grave. “Indeed, the grave can also be understood as a entrance to Sheol.” 173 Cf. also Psalm 88:7, bor taʚtiyyot. 174 Held believes that the occurrences in Ezek. 19:4, 8, should be removed from the list, but they derive from šaʘat II = “net.” See Moshe Held, “Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew,” JANES 5 (1973): 181–187. 168 169

172

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

context of death.175 The original meaning of šaʚat is an excavation in the ground (Prov. 26:27; Ps. 35:6; 94:13; Jer. 18:20), more or less synonymous with bor. Just as bor brings up associations with the grave, in Job 17:14 šaʚat is described as the place of the maggots that consume a dead body. The word never has positive connotations. It may be derived from the root š.w.ʚ 6, which means “sink down” in Hebrew and Aramaic.176 Several verses, in fact, speak of the descent to šaʚat (Ps. 30:10; 55:24; Job 33:18, 24, 28: Prov. 26:27). Some have noted the similarity between šaʚat/šuʚah (Jer. 18:20 and elsewhere) and the Akkadian haštu-šuttatu ‘pit, netherworld.’ Ú According to Held, though, despite the semantic identity, there is no firm ground for positing an etymological equation between them, because the etymology of šaʚat is problematic. As for the Ugaritic cognate, “the Ugaritic vocable šʚt is obscure and would seem to have no bearing on our problem.”177 In Ps. 55:24 we have the collocation beÞer šaʚt , which the RSV renders “the lowest pit.” The Septuagint, however, takes šaʚat here as a form of hašʚit ‘destroy,’ and translates the phrase as “pit of destruction [or ruin].”178 As noted above, šaʚat means pit, so that this construction is redundant—two epithets for Sheol conjoined to strengthen the idea. In the Bible, beÞer and bor are often used interchangeably (2 Sam. 23:15, 16, 20; Jer. 2:13) or in parallel: “Drink water from your own cistern (boreka), running water from your own well (beÞereka)” (Prov. 5:15). Another sense of šaʚat is found in Ezek. 19:4 and 8, where some (e.g., NJPS) understand bešaʚtam nitpaœ to mean “he was caught in their snare,” rather than “in their pit” (RSV). In v. 8 šaʚat Ps. 16:10; 30:10; 35:7; 49:10; 55:24; 103:4; Job 9:31; 17:14; 33:18, 22, 24, 28, 30. 176 BDB, p.1001; HALAT, 4:1438; Gordis, The Book of Job, p.184. In Arabic we find the verb sĆha(w) ‘sink down.’ Held disagrees; he maintains that šaʚat is not be derived from s.w.ʚ because that verb is not found in the Bible. See Held, “Pits and Pitfalls,” pp.173–190. 177 Ibid., p.176, n.38. 178 The piÝel form šiʚet means “destroy”; e.g., Gen. 13:10; 19:29, etc. The niphÝal means “be spoiled” (Jer. 13:7; 18:4, etc.); the hiphÝil form hisʚit ‘destroy’ is found in Deut. 31:29; Isa. 51:13, etc.; the hophÝal participle mošʚat ‘blemished, ruined,’ is found in Mal. 1:14 and Prov. 24:26. 175

THE UNDERWORLD

173

is used in parallel with rešet ‘net’; and it seems certain that šaʚat is a poetic synonym for “net.” Held observes that the identity between šaʚat and rešet is of the same order as that between rešet and meʜudah ‘snare’ (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20); rešet and ʚerem ‘dragnet, toils’ (Ezek. 32:3); and rešet and œevakah ‘pitfall, toils’ (Job 18:8). He adds that the verb employed in Ezek. 19:4 and 8 is t.p.œ, which is never found with šaʚat in the sense of “pit.” On the other hand, t.p.œ is found with meʜudah ‘snare’ (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20) in a context similar to the verse under discussion.179 Pope proposed another sense of šaʚat as “filth,” based on the sequence in Job 9:31: “You would dip me in ʜaʚat till my clothes abhor me.” He views this as a development from the fact that the underworld itself is described as a place of liquid filth. He observes that the city of Moth is called hrmy ‘miry or slushy’ and the realm over which he rules is the “infernal filth.”180 He bases this reading on the hapax mahamorot ‘pits’ (Ps. 140:11), which he assimilates to the Arabic hamara ‘pour rainwater’ and renders as “rain-filled pits.” But David Kimʘi, in his commentary on Psalms, observes that, morphologically, mahamorot must be a pit or grave and has nothing to do with rain or water. Ibn Ezra understands it to mean a “low place.”181 Thus šaʚat is the pit to which one descends, parallel to and an epithet for Sheol: “For You will not abandon me to Sheol, or let Your faithful one see the Pit” (Ps. 16:10). Isaiah writes, “You saved my life from the pit of destruction (šaʚat beli)” (Isa. 38:17), followed in the next verse by a reference to Sheol. There are many verses in which this meaning of šaʚat is unmistakable: “He redeems your life from the Pit” (Ps. 103:4); “He spares him from the Pit” (Job 33:18); “He redeemed him from passing into the Pit” (Job 33:28); “to bring him back from the Pit” (Job 33:30). All of these are remi179 Held, “Pits and Pitfalls,” 181–182. The sense “pit” is defended by Lang Bernhard, Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: Die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel, 2nd ed. (SBB; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978), pp.97–98. 180 Marvin H. Pope, “The Word 7 6  in Job 9: 31,” JBL 83 (1964): 277. 181 Among modern commentators, Held rejects the Arabic parallel for the sense of “pit” or “grave,” with no connection to water, and notes that in Ps 140:10 there is no reference to either water or the netherworld see: Held, “Pits and Pitfalls,” p.188.

174

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

niscent of psalms in which the believer thanks the Lord for saving him from Sheol, such as “What is to be gained from my death, from my descent into the Pit?” (Ps. 30:10 [9]). This question recalls many other passages in which the psalmist says that the dead in Sheol do not thank or praise the Lord (6:6; 30:10, etc.). In Ezek. 28:8, the judgment of the king of Tyre—“They shall bring you down to the Pit; in the heart of the sea you shall die the death of the slain—the equation of šaʚat and Sheol is evident. On the other hand, in Ps. 49:10 [9]—“Shall he live eternally, and never see the Pit?—it is equally clear that šaʚat designates the grave. Still, we must not forget that in some passages “grave” in fact designates the netherworld. The same holds for šaʚat in “if I say to the Pit, ‘You are my father,’ to the maggots, ‘Mother,’ ‘Sister’ ” (Job 17:14), where Job has referred specifically to Sheol in the previous verse.

ʝiʞ ha-yawen According to Psalms 40:2, “He drew me up from the roaring pit (bor šaÞon), from the ʞiʞ ha-yawen.” That the pit is full of noise we can infer from Isaiah 17:12, which refers to “the roar (seÞon) of nations, … the roaring of mighty waters” (Isa. 17:12). “Pit,” as we have seen, is a synonym for Sheol. The word yawen is obscure. It’s only other occurrence is in Psalm 69:3 [2]: “I sink in deep mire (bi-ywen meʜulah) where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me.” Drawing on the parallel stich, some understand yawen to mean water. Most commentators and lexicons, however, understand it to mean “slime” or “mire.”182 That is, ʞiʞ and yawen are synonyms. David Kimʘi understood the referent to be a mixture of solid mud and watery mire, and the construct collocation to be similar to Þadmat Ýafar, lit. “the soil of the dust” (Dan. 12:2), or Ýafar Þereʜ ‘soil of the ground’ (Amos 2:7; Job 14:19); Malbim (1809–1879) glossed ʞiʞ ha-yawen as “quicksand,” from which there is no escape. Perhaps this description is influenced by other descriptions of the netherworld from the Ancient East, which depict the realm of the dead as a place of mud and mire.

182

BDB, p.401, s.v. mire; HALAT, 2:402, s.v. mud.

THE UNDERWORLD

175

Abaddon (Þavaddon) The word Þavaddon occurs six times in the wisdom books of the Bible. It is derived from the root Þa.b.d ‘be lost, perish.’ It has cognates in Ugaritic and Aramaic; the Akkadian ÞabĆtu means ‘destroy.’ The Septuagint renders Þavaddon as apolleia ‘destruction’; the Vulgate has perditio ‘ruin, destruction’; and the corresponding term in the Peshitta means “destruction.” We see, then, that Abaddon is the place of destruction, i.e., the underworld.183 In three places the Bible used Abaddon as a parallel to Sheol (Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11; 27:20), and once as a parallel to qever ‘grave’ (Ps. 88:12 [11]). In his commentary on Psalms David Kimʘi explains that Abaddon is in fact the grave, where the body wastes away to nothing. Only once—“a fire which consumes unto Abaddon” (Job 31:12)—does the word appear without a parallel. This fire is reminiscent of the fire that “is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol” (Deut. 32:22). Thus Abaddon seems to be a toponym. It is found in this sense in the Dead Sea scrolls, where it is sometimes parallel to Sheol.184 In a text from Ebla, Abaddon refers to the place where the dead repose: “…fabrics for the dead in Abaddan.”185 It is well known that the Canaanites believed that the dead required food and drink; this text suggests that they needed garments as well. Even though Abaddon is a mysterious place and concealed from human sight, it is known to the Lord (Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11). In Job 28:22, Abaddon is parallel to Death. Abaddon and Death alone know where to seek wisdom. A text from Ebla contains the form mi-ti a-ba-da-nu, which combines the two roots.186 The verse in Job personifies Abaddon and Death, which speak and hear. This may be why the Targum translates here “the angel of death” instead of death. In conjunction with Sheol, Abaddon is 183 HALAT, 1:3; BDB, p.2: “Place of ruin in Sheol for lost or ruined dead, as development of earlier distinction of condition in sheol.” 184 1QH 3: 19, 32. 185 Mitchell Dahood, “Love and Death at Ebla and their Biblical Reflections,” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good (Guilford, Connecticut: Four Quarters Publishing Company, 1987), p.97. 186 Ibid.

176

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

assigned human traits: “Sheol and Abaddon cannot be satisfied” (Prov. 27:20); “Sheol is naked before Him; Abaddon has no covering” (Job 26:6). In this anthropomorphic guise it may refer to a demonic force similar to the Angel of Death. Personification of Abaddon can also be found in the New Testament: “They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon” (Rev. 9:11). Tromp is inclined to accept Sutcliffe’s proposal that Abaddon be understood as the power of destruction, based on how it is rendered in the New Testament.187 But this idea is untenable, given that the weight of the OT passages supports the reading that Abaddon is a place and not a demonic power.

ʛalmawet Another biblical name for the underworld is ʜalmawet. According to Job 10:21–22, the realm of the dead is “the land of gloom (ʚošek) and deep darkness (ʜalmawet).” The word occurs a total of 18 times in the Bible, always in a poetic context.188 ʛalmawet is an abstract noun formed from ʜalam II be dark.’189 In proto-Semitic, z.lm has the meaning ‘be blunt, be dark.’ In Akkadian we find ʜalĆmu ‘be/become black, dark,’ ʜalmu ‘black,’ and ʜulmu ‘blackness.’190 Ugaritic has the substantive ʜlmt (also gʾlmt, z.lmt) ‘darkness, gloom.’191 In Ugaritic literature, the divine messenger Gpn wUgr bears the title bn z.lmt, indicating that he is the heir of the god of the underworld.192 In Punic, too, ʜlmt means “darkness.”193 Other Semitic 187 Tromp, Primitive Conceptions, p.81; Edmund F. Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and The Future Life (Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, 1946), p.43. 188 Four times in prophetic books (Isa. 9:1; Jer. 2:6; 13:16; Amos 5:8); four times in Psalms (23:4; 44:20; 107:10, 14), and ten times in Job (3:5; 10:21, 22; 12:22; 16:16; 24:17; 28:3; 34:22; 38:17). 189 H. Nieher, “7 )‘ %‰ 2 ûalmĆwet,” TDOT 12: 396. 190 CAD, ú 16: 70–71, 77–78, 240–241; AHw, III: 1076, 1078, 1110– 11; TDOT 12: 396. 191 KTU 1.4, vii, 54–55; 1.8, ii, 7–8. 192 J. C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of BaÝlu According to the Version of Ilimiku (AOAT 16; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1971), p.172; 193 DNSI, II, 967.

THE UNDERWORLD

177

cognates are the Ethiopic ʜalmat ‘darkness, gloom’194 and the Arabic zalma ‘be gloomy, dark.’ ʛalmawet, then, should probably be ʜalmut, with vocalic rather than consonantal waw, an abstract noun with the suffix –ut, in the same pattern as Ýavdut ‘slavery,’ Þalmenut ‘widowhood,’ and kevedut ‘heaviness.’195 It is a poetic synonym for darkness and death.196 Despite the Masoretic vocalization, it is unlikely to be a compound word formed from ʜel ‘shadow’ and mawet ‘death.’ This, however, is how it was understood by most of the ancient translation, including the Septuagint (ΗΎ΍κΖ Ό΅ΑΣΘΓΙ), Targum Jonathan (ʞulaÞ [ʞuley] [de]motaÞ), the Peshitta (talelei demotaÞ), and the Vulgate (“umbra mortis”), in eleven occurrences.197 Jonah ibn Janah, Saadia Gaon, and David Kimʘi all agreed. This is certainly the popular or folk understanding of the term (most famously in Ps. 23:4: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil”) and the probable source of the vocalization ʜalmawet. In several passages, though, the translators treated ʜalmawet as a single word meaning “gloom” or “darkness”: The LXX in Job 16:16 ΗΎ΍Σ in Job 10:21 (·ΑΓΚΉΕΣΑ [an adjective modifying ·ϛΑ ‘earth,’ rather than a nomen rectum]) and Job 38:17 translates directly as Hades twice in Targum Jonathan (Jer. 13:16 and Amos 5:8), and twice in the Vulgate (“tenebra”).198 Menahem ben Saruq in his Maʚberet on Job 10:22, 12:22, and Ps. 23:4 agrees. So does Rashi in his commentary on Ps. 23:4: “Every ʜalmawet has the sense of darkness, as explained by Dunash ben Labrat.” LexLingAeth, 1259. On this suffix in the Bible and Akkadian see Harold R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), pp.79–80, n.170. For the construct ʜal from ʜel compare qan/qen (Deut. 22:6), mot/mawet, tok/tawek. 196 Tur Sinai, who agrees that it means “black,” cites an incantation against the demonesses of darkness found on a clay tablet discovered at Arslan-Tash in Syria. See: N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Language and the Book, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1954), vol.1:53–65 (Hebrew); idem, “A Hebrew Incantation Against Night Demons from Biblical Times,” JNES 6 (1947): 18–19. 197 Isa. 9:1; Jer. 13:16; Ps. 23:4; 44:20; 107:10, 14; Job 3:5; 20:22; 24:17a; 28:3; 34:22. 198 Amos 5:8; Job 24:17b. 194 195

178

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

On the other hand, Thomas, followed by Dahood, believed that the Masoretic vocalization is authentic evidence of a compound word, but that mawet plays the function of a superlative, so that ʜalmawet means “thick shadow” or “thick darkness.”199 Michel, too, holds that the Masoretic vocalization and the translation “shadow of death” or “shelter/Protection of Mot” are correct. The word is an epithet for the netherworld, a sense appropriate to all of its eighteen occurrences in the Bible.200 In many of these passages ʜalmawet is parallel to ʚošek ‘darkness’ (Job 3:5; 10:21; 12:22; 23:8; 34:22; Ps. 107:10, 14; Isa. 9:1);201 Þofel ‘darkness’ (Job 28:3); Ýarafel ‘fog, mist” (Jer. 13:16), which makes the day gloomy; and mawet ‘death’ (Job 38:17), which is of course represented by darkness. Similarly, in Ps. 23:4, where the psalmist is walking through “the valley of ʜalmawet,” the meaning is that the dark valley does not frighten him. We find that ʜalmawet is opposed to morning (Amos 5:8) and light (Jer. 13:16). It is also used to parallel ʜiyyah ‘drought’ (Jer. 2:6) and “the place of jackals” (Ps. 44:19), i.e., a desolate site. Thus ʜalmawet always has a negative connotation. The darkness to which it refers is one of the characteristics of the netherworld. Although there are passages in which “shadow of death” seems to suit the sense better (e.g., Job 38:17), “gloom” or “darkness” does seem to be the most general meaning.202

199 D. Winton Thomas, “7 )‘ %‰ 2 in the Old Testament,” JSS 7 (1962): 191–200; Dahood, Psalms 1–50, p.147. 200 Walter L. Michel, “Slmwt, ‘Deep Darkness’ or ‘Shadow of Death’?,” BR 29 (1984): 13. 201 There are three other passages in Psalms where it has been proposed to understand ʜalmawet and the root ʜ.l.m in the sense of “darkness.” In 39:7 [6], Joseph Kimʘi and Rashi proposed “man walks about in the darkness (be-ʜelem)” instead of “as a shadow.” In 68:15 [14], the Talmud (B Berakhot 15b) offers the homiletical reading “like a snowstorm in ʜalmawet” instead of “in Zalmon.” In 88:7 [6], the Septuagint and Peshitta reflect a Vorlage that must have read 7)%2 instead of the MT 7%2). 202 On why the sense “darkness” does not fit some biblical passages, see J. Barr, “Philology and Exegesis,” in C. Brekelmans, ed., Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament (BETL 33; Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1989): 50–55; Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology (SBLDS 34; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), esp. pp.27–29, 52–54.

THE UNDERWORLD

179

Another possibility is that ʜalmawet designates a geographical location, like ʚaʜarmawet (Gen. 10:26; 1 Chron. 1:20)—Yoqtan’s third son—and Ýazmawet, a settlement near Jerusalem (Ezra 2:24; Neh. 7:28; 12:29).203 These are theophoric names in which the second element refers to the Canaanite god Mot.204 If we accept the thesis that ʜalmawet is a toponym, it would designate the netherworld, a dark and gloomy place, as the Bible notes repeatedly: “If I look for Sheol as my house, if I spread my couch in darkness” (Job 17:13); “He is thrust from light into darkness, and driven out of the world” (Job 18:18). In Ps. 88:7 [6], too, where the underworld is referred to as bor taʚtiyyot, it is described as a dark region (maʚašakkim). Several verses later, where the term “land of oblivion” is used for the underworld, the Psalmist asks, “Are Your wonders known in the darkness?” (Ps. 88:13 [12]). In extra-biblical texts, too, Sheol is a dark place. The account of Ishtar’s descent to the netherworld refers to “the dark house, the abode of Irkal[la], … To the House wherein the entrants are bereft of li[ght], … (Where) they see no light, residing in darkness.”205 In the Epic of Gilgamesh the underworld is “the house wherein the dwellers are bereft of light, where dust is their fare and clay their food.”206 We also encounter the gloom of the underworld in 1 Enoch 10:4, 2 Enoch 109:2, and elsewhere. According to Josephus, the Essenes depicted the underworld as a cold and dark cave (Wars 2.8.11).Many texts, however, speak of the fires of the underworld.207 Some narratives combine the two elements, referring to a “fire causing darkness” or “the darkness of eternal fire” (1QS 4:11– 12; 20:4).

203 It is also a personal name: 2 Sam. 23:31; 1 Chron. 8:36; 9:42; 11:33; 12:3; 27:25. 204 U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anat, p.64, n.14. 205 “Descent of Ishtar to the Nether World,” ANET, lines 2–9, p.107. 206 ANET, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” Tab. VII, iv, line 38, p.87. 207 1 Enoch 90:26; 98:3; 108:3–6; Pesher Habakkuk 10:5; 10:12–13; B Pesaʘim 54a; B Bava MeʛiaÝ 85a.

180

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Summary Why did the biblical authors use so many different names for the underworld? Stadelmann believes the reason is that they preferred to employ a euphemism or wanted to use a term that would describe the underworld in a way compatible with their own beliefs about death and its consequences.208 Our survey does suggest that the various terms designate different aspects of the underworld: its geographical location (Þereʜ taʚtiyyyot, bor, šaʚat); its physical attributes (ʞiʞ ha-yawen, ʜalmawet); how the believer feels about it (Þavaddon, Þereʜ nešiyyah).209 The Talmudic sages seem to have shared this view, interpreting the various names on the basis of the verses in which they appear: Netherworld, since it is written in the Scripture, “out of the belly of the netherworld I cried, and You heard my voice” (Jonah 2:3); Destruction, for it is written in Scripture, “Shall Your mercy be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in destruction?” (Ps 88:12); Pit, for it is written in the Scripture, “For You will not abandon my soul to the netherworld; neither will You suffer Your godly one to see the pit” (Ps 16:10); Tumultuous Pit and Miry Clay, for it is written in Scripture, “He brought me up also out of the tumultuous pit, out of the miry clay” (Ps 40:3); Shadow of Death, for it is written in Scripture, “Such as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death” (Ps. 107:10); and the [name of] “Netherworld” is a tradition.210

CONCLUSION The biblical netherworld is a dark and foreboding place to which the dead descend. It has gates and bolts, so there is no return from it. It is described with watery motifs to depict the believer’s distress, and in association with dust, in allusion to the fact that huStadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, p.168. According to Levenson,: “Grave, pit, underworld, utmost bounds of the earth , engulfing waters, subterranean city, prison all these metaphors communicate mode of existence, one that in fact, characterizes people who have not “died” in our sense of the term at all.” See: Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel, p.45. 210 B Eruvin 19a. 208 209

THE UNDERWORLD

181

man beings are created from dust and return to dust. The underworld always has a negative connotation as the abode of the wicked. The underworld is a void; the dead cannot praise the Lord and do not know anything about the living. We frequently find the believer asking the Lord to save him from Sheol for this reason; but, as we have seen, the supplicant is a person who is seriously ill, close to death and the underworld. In several passages Sheol is identified with the grave. The Bible does not know of any specific god of the underworld; rather, it is the Lord who controls Sheol, which follows His command. The prophetic literature refers to the refaÞim ‘shades,’ who encompass all the dead, without distinction, and are powerless. This notion is a consequence of Josiah’s religious reform, which uprooted the cult of the dead. The underworld has several names, each referring to a different aspect thereof, such as its location, attributes, and the believer’s feelings about it. Even though the word Sheol does not occur frequently in the biblical literature, we must remember that the underworld is only one aspect of the authors’ beliefs about the dead. As we saw in Chapter Two, biblical authors are interested in the dead, noting significant details such as how they died and whether they were buried. As we shall see in future chapters, they are also interested in mourning customs and the cult of the dead, which in some contexts are imagined as powerful. The notion of the underworld as the final station of life, from which there is no return and which is utterly divorced from reward and punishment, came to represent too simplistic and too cruel a notion. It left no room for answering the thorny question of why evildoers prosper and the righteous suffer. Hence the biblical texts began asking questions about the underworld and the survival of the soul. As Ecclesiastes wondered: “Both go to the same place; both came from dust and both return to dust. Who knows if a man’s lifebreath does rise upward and if a beast’s breath does sink down into the earth?” (Eccles. 3:20–21). This same book, evidently written between 500 BCE and 100 CE, concludes: “And the dust returns to the ground as it was, and the lifebreath returns to God Who bestowed it” (Eccles. 12:7). This clearly reflects a belief in the immortality of the soul—the subject of our next chapter.

4 NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ The question of the immortality of the soul is discussed by Greek philosophy and religion at least as early as the sixth century BCE, and developed further in the writings of Plato in the first half of the fourth century. Plato’s ideas on the subject make their first appearance in the Phaedo, where Socrates welcomes death because he believes that the soul must be liberated from the body, which is its prison; only then will the soul be able to know the platonic forms or ideas, the ultimately true source of authentic knowledge. In addition to the Phaedo, Plato offers proofs of the soul’s survival after death in the Meno, the Republic, and the Phaedrus. In the Timaeus (69), Plato distinguishes between the transitory or ephemeral portion of the soul and some other, immortal part, and argues that the latter is the direct product of God. God created it and it is inconceivable that he would want to destroy what he has made. At the end of the Gorgias, Socrates states his understanding of death: Death, as it seems to me, is actually nothing but the disconnection of the two things, the soul and the body from each other. And so when they are disconnected from one another, each of them keeps its own condition very much as it was when the man was alive. … And so it seems to me that the same is the case with the soul too, Callicles: when a man’s soul is stripped bare of the body, all its natural gifts, and the experiences added to that soul as the result of his various pursuits, are manifest in it. (524).

Three different biblical terms—nefeš, nešamah, and ruaʚ—are generally rendered into English as “soul.” In the present chapter we shall examine these three words and try to discover whether they are in fact identical or in fact quite different. In the process we shall consider what happens to the human soul after death. Does the soul die with the human being or does it survive? Does the soul have a separate existence from the body? Are there any allusions in the Bible to the survival of the soul after death? At the very start of our inquiry we must remember that the Bible presents no well183

184

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

developed theory of the prenatal and posthumous existence of the soul. This is not the case with the Sages, who offer diverse views in the Talmud and midrashim. Influenced by the Greeks, the Sages wondered whether the soul and body are an integral whole or two separate entities. They asked whether the soul exists before the body. They also considered the survival of the soul after death, and, as a consequence, asked whether the body or the soul is punished for the offenses committed while the person was alive. They also considered the purpose of the soul. To make the picture as clear as possible we will also draw on the Apocrypha, in which we find graphic descriptions of the world of souls and their posthumous fate.

NEŠAMAH The Vital Force One of the words rendered “soul” is nešamah; it occurs 24 times in the Bible. Its underlying sense is “breath,” “wind,” “breath of life,” “living creature.”1 The original meaning is “breath”—the air that human beings breathe in and out. The transition from this sense to “the cause of vitality” appears clearly in several verses, notably Gen. 2:7—“He blew into his nostrils the breath of life (nišmat ʚayyim), and the man became a living being (nefeš ʚayyah)” (cf. Gen. 7:22)—and Isa. 2:22: “man, who has breath in his nostrils (nešamah be-Þappo)!” This original sense of “breath” also explains the closeness between nešamah and ruaʚ, as well as “To whom have you addressed words? Whose breath issued from you?” (Job 26:4). According to the Bible, it is the Lord who gives human beings a soul. Consequently, when the Lord creates Adam, “He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). That is, when the Lord caused the body to breathe, the dead body became a living soul or living being. Here nostrils stand by synecdoche for the entire body. This verse is echoed in Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones: “Come from the four winds, O breath (ruaʚ), and blow into these slain, that they may live” (Ezek. 37:9).

1

H. Lamberty- Zielinski, “ )‘ 6‘ ‰+ NešĆmâ,” TDOT 10:66.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

185

We see, then, that, as Rashi put it, God created Adam out of both lower [earthly] and upper [heavenly] matter, his body from the dust and his soul from the spirit. The account of Creation in Genesis 2 employs the verb y.ʜ.r instead of b.r.Þ. Instead of a creative statement we have an act of making or fashioning. The material from which human beings and animals are fashioned is “dust from the ground” (Gen. 2:7). In chapter 2, the man became a living being when the Lord “blew into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). This distinguishes human beings from the animals. Human beings were brought into being by the soul blown into them, whereas the other animals were turned from dead matter into living creatures (nefeš ʚayyah) by the Divine word (Gen. 1:20–21; 2:19). From a slightly different perspective, the nešamah was blown into the human body, which already existed in full; thus the nešamah comes to the body from an outside source, which means that soul and body are separate and independent entities that were fused by a Divine act. The notion that it is the Lord who gives man a soul also is found in “Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath (nešamah) to the people (Ýam) upon it and spirit (ruaʚ) to those who walk on it” (Isa. 42:5)” (Isa. 42:5). This verse enumerates three stages in the creation of the universe—the heavens, the earth, and the animals. To the last He gave breath and spirit—that is, life. Although Ýam is normally a collective term for many human beings, it can also refer to animals (Prov. 30:25–26). This leads, naturally, to the question of whether animals, too, have a soul. Rashi sees the verse in Isaiah as an allusion to the story of the creation of man, glossing nešamah as nišmat ʚayyim (as in Gen. 2:7). He glosses “those who walk on it (holekim bah)” as “those who walk before Him (mithallekim le-fanav),” that is, the hitpaÝel form of the verb h.l.k that is used in connection with Abraham, Enoch (Gen. 5:22), and Noah (Gen. 6:9). Ibn Ezra picks up on the words nešamah and ruaʚ: “He gives a soul to man, and they are the people who are upon it. The language ‘and a spirit’ he says to the beasts who walk. He says ‘upon it’ because they walk upright.” One can see that the medieval commentators believed that the nešamah is unique to human beings.

186

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

There is an echo of the Creation in another verse of Isaiah, too: “For from Me proceeds the spirit (ruaʚ), and I have made the breath of life (nešamot)” (Isa. 57:16). Here ruaʚ and nešamah are used in parallel. According to David Kimʘi “and the souls which I have made”—this is a repetition of ‘from before me.’ ” He says that the soul unlike the body has nothing of the physical. The body is a physical creation and it is drawn into sin. This will end when man will realize that the souls were created by God and there is nothing physical about them. Then the souls will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. All this will take place when God will bring the Israelite from exile and revive them from the death of the Diaspora. Targum Jonathan, on the other hand, reads the resurrection of the dead into this verse: “I am about to restore the spirits of the dead and the soul I have made.” In his reply to Job, Elihu says: “The spirit (ruaʚ) of God has made me, and the breath (nišmat) of Shaddai gives me life” (Job 33:4). This is an introduction to vv. 6–7, where Elihu insists that he is a creature just like Job, created by God from the same clay. Elihu is no stronger than Job, who consequently need not fear him. In v. 4 Elihu is saying that the ruaʚ and the nešamah that make him into a living being come from God. Here, too, ruaʚ and nešamah are used in parallel, though the first verb is in the perfect (past) and the second in the imperfect (future). The difference in tenses allows the reading that God’s spirit formed Elihu when he was created, and that now, in the present moment, His breath sustains him (the NJPS rendering). Some hold that Isa. 2:22 should be understood as “man, who has only a breath in his nostrils,” thus deprecating the nešamah, in opposition to Gen. 2:7, where it is a gift from the Lord.2 This is a misreading, however: the prophet’s meaning is that one should not put his trust in human beings, because they are unable to cancel divine decrees. Human beings are fragile and powerless, because the instant the soul departs they return to the dust. This is also how Rashi and David Kimʘi understand the verse. Rashi explains that TDOT 10:67–68; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, trans. H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991), pp.121–122: “breath, vapor, vanity.” 2

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

187

“who has breath in his nostrils” means that “all his vitality and power depend on the breath in his nostrils, which is a fleeting wind that is here today and leaves him tomorrow.” David Kimʘi writes, “For a human being is considered to be nothing; in a moment he dies because the nešamah is in his nostrils, that is, on the verge of leaving. … Thus his life is short and he is of no importance. So how is it possible to rely on him or fear him?” We see, then, that the commentators understood the nešamah to be the vital force. When it leaves the body the latter returns to the dust from which it came. The Nešamah and the Living Body The nešamah, as we have seen, is the vital force, the breath of life. Consequently a person without a nešamah is dead. In the laws of war in Deuteronomy we find, “you shall not let a single nešamah remain alive” (Deut. 20:16). Joshua followed this law in his war with the seven nations of Canaan: “ So Joshua defeated the whole land…; he … proscribed every nešamah—as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded” (Josh. 10:40); “the Israelites kept all the spoil and cattle of the rest of those cities as booty. But they cut down their populations with the sword until they exterminated them; they did not spare a single nešamah” (Josh. 11:14). When Ba’asha struck down Nadab the son of Jeroboam in the third year of Asa of Judea: “As soon as he became king, he struck down all the House of Jeroboam; he did not spare a single nešamah belonging to Jeroboam until he destroyed it” (1 Kings 15:29). (This an instance of the ancient custom whereby usurpers who seized power annihilated the previous royal house.3) All these verses suggest that the nešamah is the living body itself or the living being that contains the nešamah. In the story of Elijah and the widow from Zarefath we read that her son’s illness was so severe that “there was no nešamah left in him” (1 Kings 17:17; cf. Job 27:3; Dan. 10:17). Because a person who has stopped breathing is dead, we must understand this statement as hyperbole. Evidently the child is exhausted and on the verge of unconsciousness, no longer able to breathe normally. For the removal of political rivals see 1 Kings 16:12 and 2 Kings 10:1–10. 3

188

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Job swears that he will continue to fear the Lord, despite what his friends allege, he says, “as long as my nešamah is in me, and the spirit (ruaʚ) of God is in my nostril” (Job 27:3). Just as he has always spoken the truth, avers Job, so will he continue to do for the rest of his life, as long as he has nešamah and ruaʚ in him; once again these two words are used in parallel. The implication of Job’s words is that when the nešamah and ruaʚ are no longer in a person, he is dead. By attributing the ruaʚ to God, Job expresses his dependence on the Lord. When Daniel has his vision, he says, “no strength remains in me, and no nešamah is left in me” (Dan. 10:17).4 Again, a person who has stopped breathing, who has no nešamah, is dead, but here Daniel is speaking. This is the same hyperbole we encountered with the widow’s son: Daniel is exhausted and on the verge of fainting, and deathly afraid. Clearly nešamah is not just the life’s breath, but also the vital force. The Departure of the Nešamah When a person dies the Lord takes back his or her breath and soul: “If He but takes note of him (yaœim Þelaw libbo) [i.e., of a man], He can take back his spirit (ruaʚ) and nešamah; all flesh would at once expire, and man return to dust” (Job 34:14–15). This collocation of ruaʚ and nešamah is unique; elsewhere they are always parallel.5 The meaning is that the Lord takes back the life breath he imparted to an individual, which the latter returns to the Lord when he dies. It suffices for the Lord to take notice of a human being for his soul to be gathered back to God.6 God can kill a man with a thought. “All flesh would … expire” (yigwaÝ) refers to the death of human Cf. Rahab’s report to the spies in Jericho, about the panic that has gripped the townsfolk because of the approaching Israelites: “there was no ruaʘ left in any man” (Josh. 2:11). So too, when the Queen of Sheba is astonished by Solomon’s wisdom, “there was no more ruaʘ in her” (1 Kings 10:5). 5 See Job 4:9; 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; Isa. 42:5; 57:16. 6 Gordis, following the Septuagint and the kethib of the Oriental manuscripts, reads here yašiv ‘he takes back’ instead of yaœim ‘he considered.’ So too Tur-Sinai, who holds that this reading is preferable because it produces a parallel with the second half of the verse, yašiv/yeÞesof. See: N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, p.439; Robert Gordis, The Book of Job, p.388. 4

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

189

beings, who return to the dust from which they were created. Just as the Lord kills one man, he can destroy the human race.7 Mitchell believes that the ruaʚ and nešamah here belong to God.8 The NJPS translation concurs, rendering the verse, “If He but intends it, He can call back His spirit and breath.” (Job 34:14) But this removes the verse from its context, which refers to human beings, as well as the continuation in verse 15, which clearly states that human beings return to the dust (sc. after the Lord takes back their spirit). The Nešamah of Man In all of the passages cited thus far, nešamah refers to human beings. This leads to the question of whether possession of a “soul” distinguishes human beings from all other creatures, or whether animals, too, have a nešamah. According to the story of the Flood, “And all flesh died that moved (romeœ) upon the earth, among the birds, among the cattle, among the beasts, and among all the swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and all mankind; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was nišmat ruaʚ ʚayyim died” (Gen. 7:21–22). Rashi explains that here nišmat comes not from nešamah but from nešimah ‘breath, breathing’; that is, “the breath of [the spirit of] life,” or every breathing (= living) creature. Ibn Ezra disagrees; for him, the verse refers to human beings only, because nešamah applies only to them. David Kimʘi attempts to bridge these two, explains that “both nouns [i.e., nišmat and ruaʚ] are in the construct form, as if it said: ‘the nešamah of life’ and ‘the ruaʚ of life,’ the former referring to man, the latter to the other living creatures; or as if it read: ‘whatever had nešimat ruaʚ, the breath of spirit.’ ” A careful reading of the verse, however, indicates that human beings are not included in the category of “all flesh that moved (romeœ) upon the earth.” The prepositional bet, rendered above as 7 The expression “all flesh expired” also occurs in the account of the Flood (Gen. 7:21). The verse in Job considers the possibility of the extinction of all life. Compare the stories of the Flood in Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature, where it is also a case of the destruction of the entire human race. See: “Deliverance of Mankind from Destruction,” trans. John A. Wilson, ANET, pp.10–11; “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, Tablet XI, pp.93–95. 8 T. C. Mitchell, “The Old Testament Usage of NešĆmâ,” VT 11 (1961): 178–179.

190

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

“among,” is not used with kol ha-Þadam ‘all mankind’ (or ‘all human beings’), because there are no human sub-species. This is also how the cantillation marks punctuate the verse, with a strong pause (etnaʚta) on ha-Þareʜ ‘the earth,’ before “and all human beings.” Thus the phrase nišmat ruaʚ ʚayyim refers back only to “all human beings” at the end of the previous verse. Although this collocation is found only here, it echoes the creation of Adam (Gen. 2:7): “He blew into his nostrils the breath of life (nišmat ʚayyim).” Some modern commentators, too, including Mitchell, believe that “all human beings” at the end of v. 21 is detached from what comes before and should be connected to the following verse. If so, nišmat ruaʚ ʚayyim refers to human beings only. Skinner agrees.9 A hint that the nešamah is unique to human beings can also be found in Proverbs 20:27 “The spirit of man (nišmat Þadam) is the lamp of the Lord, searching all his innermost parts” (RSV) / “The lifebreath of man (nišmat Þadam) is the lamp of the Lord revealing all his inmost parts” (NJPS). Here the nešamah of a man is parallel to “lamp.” The verse says that the nešamah permeates the entire body and is not hidden from the Lord, Who illuminates the darkest recesses of the human psyche. Divine Providence penetrates human beings and sees their thoughts. The lamp is a symbol of illumination and of the human soul that comes from the Lord. It is interesting that in Babylonian documents and inscriptions on Mesopotamian boundary stones, the flickering torch represents the death of a man (see Prov. 20:20). It is also possible that here the lamp represents “human light, a God-given consciousness, or even conscience, by which we become aware of the most secret things in ourselves.”10 The French TOB translation offers a similar idea. It seems that the author understands “the life-giving breath” given by God to man, according to Gen 2.7 as a divine presence, which would be the light of conscience.”11 Ibid., p.181; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, 1930), p.165. 10 Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs (WBC 22; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p.154. 11 Traduction oecuménique de la Bible, (Paris: Alliance biblique universelle [et] Le Cerf, 1982, 2e éd); Robert G. Bratcher, “Biblical Words Describing Man: Breath, Life, Spirit,” BT 34 (1983): 202. 9

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

191

The Nešamah of God The word nešamah is not said of human beings or animals with the actual sense of breathing. In poetic anthropomorphism, however, it is applied to God’s strong and destructive “breath.” The expression nišmat ruaʚ Þappeka/Þappo ‘the blast of the breath of Your/His nostrils’ occurs in Ps. 18:16(15) and the parallel text in 2 Sam 22:16.12 A similar idea is found in Eliphaz’ description of the fate of sinners, who “perish by a blast from God (nišmat Þeloaĥ), are gone at the breath of His nostrils (ruaʚ Þappo)” (Job 4:9). The wicked persons alluded to in the previous verse will eventually be destroyed by the tempest caused by the God’s breath. The phrase “breath of his nostrils” may also echo the stormwind that caused the house to collapse on Job’s sons (1:19). In two other passages we encounter the expression nišmat Þel/YHWH. In his panegyric of God’s power, Elihu compares the north wind to the breath of God: “By the breath of God ice is formed, and the expanse of water becomes solid” (Job 37:10). Isaiah (30:33) speaks of “the breath of the Lord” that fans the flame of Tofet—the site near Jerusalem where idolaters burned their sons. (Later, “Tofet” became the name for any place of burning; in post-biblical Hebrew it designates hellfire.) We see, then, that, when referred to God, nešamah means a wind caused by the Lord that produces storms and tempests. Summary In general, then, in the Bible nešamah means the vital force of human beings. By synecdoche it comes to mean the living being itself, the creature endowed with a soul: “you shall not let a single nešamah remain alive” (Deut. 20:16; cf. Josh. 11:11 and 1 Kings 15:29); “Let every nešamah praise the Lord. Hallelujah” (Ps. 150:6). None of the other senses of nešamah are found in the Bible; in particular it does not refer to the seat of the emotions and appetites. God gives human beings their nešamah. A person without a nešamah is dead. When a person dies, the nešamah returns to God. The essence of 12 This chapter is also Psalm 18, mentioned above. Abravanel counts 74 variants between the two versions and believes that David revised his poem when he incorporated it into the Book of Psalms. The changes are already noted in Tractate Soferim, ch. 8.

192

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the nešamah exceeds human understanding. This is why the Torah does not speak of it explicitly but merely notes that it was God who blew the “soul of life” into Adam. The vital force of human beings does not come from the earth; no, it is a divine something that comes from God. And when a person dies his spirit does not return to the dust, but to God who gave it.

NEFEŠ There are more than 700 occurrences of the word nefeš in the Bible. From this numerical datum alone we might infer that the nefeš is at a lower level than the nešamah, since the lower is more common than the higher. Scholars long held that the basic sense of nefeš is “breath,” that is, the air in the nostrils of a living creature as long as it is alive. What is more, nfš, by metathesis, is nšf, which means an “exhalation of air.” This meaning is supported by verses such as “she who bore seven has languished; she has swooned away (nafaʚ nafšaĥ)” (Jer. 15:9); “His breath (nafšo) ignites coals” (Job 41:13 [23]). This is the explanation given by David Kimʘi in Sefer Hashorashim. We also have the root n.f.š as a deponent nif’al with the sense of “rest” (Ex. 23:12; 31:17; 2 Sam. 16:14), but this meaning is derived from that of exhaling. In any case one can say that the proofs for the sense “breath” are far from solid.13 The Septuagint uses psychē for nefeš.14 Many scholars, though, cannot accept the equation of the two, which they see as misleading and suggesting the Greek dualism of body and soul. According to Bratsiotis, however, this is not necessarily true of the prePlatonic use of the term, where, “the basic meaning of psyche is ‘breath’; it often occurs in the meaning ‘life’ and can indicate the seat of desire, of emotions, and the ‘center of religious expression’; … it can also stand for ‘person’ or in place of a pronoun.”15

Jacob Licht, “60+,” EMiqr 5:902(Hebrew). The LXX use of psyche to render nefeš has been studied by: Nikolaus Pan. Bratsiotis, “Nepheš-psychè, ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprache und der Theologie der Septuaginta,” SVT 15 (1966): 58–89; Daniel Lys, “The Israelite Soul according to the LXX,” VT 16 (1966): 181–228. 15 Claus Westermann, “60 + nepeš soul,” TLOT 2:759. 13 14

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

193

By contrast, R. Jacob Zevi Meklenburg, in his Ha-ketav ve-haqabbalah, writes: “The core of the root [of nefeš] is the two letters peh-šin, and this applies to something whose essence spreads and quantity increases, as in [Jer. 50:11, Mal. 3:20, and Hab. 1:8]— which Ibn Ezra interpreted as meaning ‘spread,’ like the verb p.œ.h—‘the disease has not spread on the skin’ (Lev. 13:5), taking the œin as equivalent to a šin. Because of the sense of ‘expansion’ in this word, the word nefeš is applied to the spiritual part, because by the nature of the nefeš there is no limit to the spiritual powers implanted in it, which expands greatly in thought and intellect, so that earthly matters can never satisfy the inner soul that yearns for them, whether the forces are used for good or the opposite.”16 Among the moderns, Durr was the first to suggest that the basic meaning of nefeš is “throat” or “neck.”17 Consequently nefeš refers to a man’s neck or throat, as we see in “For I will give the weary nefeš abundant drink and fill up every languishing nefeš” (Jer. 31:25)—that is, “I will ease the parched throat”; “the waters have reached my nefeš” (Ps. 69:2; cf. Jon. 2:6); “Sheol has opened wide its nefeš and parted its jaws in a measureless gape” (Isa. 5:14; cf. Hab. 2:5); “his feet were hurt with fetters, his nefeš was put in a collar of iron” (Ps. 105:18); and the idiom baÝal nefeš (Prov. 23:2) for a glutton (etymologically the same as gullet).18 Durr believed that “throat, neck” is the original meaning, from which all others derived, and noted that this clarifies collocations such as thirsty/hungry/sated nefeš (Ps. 107:9; Prov. 27:7) and nefeš ʚayyah.19 Lys tried to bridge the two explanations: the original sense is “breath,” which developed by metonymy into neck or

Jacob Zevi, Meklenburg, Haketav va-ha-qabbalah (New York:Om Publishing, 1946), p.54 on Ex. 23:12. 17 Lor Dürr, “Hebr. 60 + =akk. napištu=Gurgel,Kehle,” ZAW 43 (1925): 262; HALAT, 2:712. 18 UT, no 1681; KTU 1.5.I.7. also Ps. 27:12, Ex. 15:9, Isa. 3:20 (batei nefeš). 19 Lor Dürr, “Hebr. 60 + =akk. napištu=Gurgel,Kehle,” p., 262. This gloss of nefeš as “neck” or “throat” has been attributed to Durr, but Gruber noted that it can be traced back to the tenth century and Menahem Ibn Saruq’s Maʚberet. Mayer I. Gruber, “Hebrew da’ Ĉbôn nepeš ‘dryness of throat’: from symptom to literary convention,” VT 37 (1987): 365. 16

194

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

throat, the organ of breathing.20 Similarly, Murtonen holds that the original meaning of nefeš is the “agent of vitality” and that neck/throat is a secondary sense, because the throat is the seat of vitality.21 In biblical usage, the nefeš is also the seat of the emotions. Thus we find that it rejoices (Isa. 61:10; Ps. 86:4), loves (Songs 3:1), hates (Isa. 1:14), blesses (Gen. 27:4), and yearns (Ps. 42:2). Extreme grief is described as “a languishing nefeš (daÞavon nefeš)” (Deut. 28:65). The root d.Þ.b means “dry up” (cf. Jer. 31:12, 25); a dry throat is a symptom of grief and depression.22 Those who are desperate or distracted have a “bitter nefeš” (1 Sam. 22:20; 30:6; Judg. 18:25; Prov. 31:6).23 Those who are impatient are “short of nefeš” (Num. 21:4; Zech. 11:8). Fullness, hunger, and an appetite for food and drink are all referred to as the nefeš: “a ripe fig my nefeš desires” (Mic. 7:1); “my nefeš thirsts for God, the living God” (Ps. 42:3 [2]); “for He has satisfied the thirsty nefeš, filled the hungry nefeš with all good things” (Ps. 107:9);24 “I will feast the nefeš soul of the priests with abundance” (Jer. 31:14). Fasting is “afflicting the nefeš” (Lev. 16:31; Num. 30:14; Ps. 35:13; et passim). It is clear, then, that in the Bible the nefeš is the organ or seat of human emotions and appetites. But there are also passages that suggest that the nefeš is an entity independent of the body. In Psalms we find that a person can 20 D. Lys, Néphésh. Histoire de l’âme dans la révélation d’Israël au sein des religions proche orientales (Presses Universitaires de France, 1959), pp.119–122. 21 A. Murtonen, The Living Soul, a Study of the Meaning of the Word naefeš in the Old Testament Hebrew Language (StOr 23:1; Helsinki, 1958), pp.63–70. 22 Mayer I. Gruber, “Hebrew da’ Ĉbôn nepeš ‘dryness of throat’: From Symptom to Literary Convention,” p.367. 23 According to Spina, “bitter nefeš” is used for a reaction to social or political pressure. See Frank Anthony Spina, “The Dan Story Historically Reconsidered,” JSOT 4 (1977): 67. 24 In his commentary on Isa. 58:10, Hurowitz says that as in Akkadian, nefeš has the sense of “food” or “sustenance.” Accordingly he renders the verse: “You shall set out your food/sustenance for the poor.” See: Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “A Forgotten Meaning of Nepeš in Isaiah LVIII 10,” VT 47 (1997): 52.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

195

converse with and observe his own nefeš—“Why so downcast, my nefeš, why disquieted within me? … O my God, my nefeš is downcast; therefore I think of You” (Ps. 42:6–7 [5–6])—implying a distinction between “I” and “my nefeš.” This distinction can be traced to a person’s ability to think about and clarify his emotions; hence the nefeš is the object of such contemplation. According to Kirkpatrick, the reference is not to a dialogue between one’s true self and the weaker soul; rather, the psalmist is rebuking himself for being depressed.25 The invocation at the start of Psalm 104, “Bless the Lord, O my soul” (Ps. 104:1; also 103:1, 2, 22), treats the poet’s soul as if it were a separate entity with which he can have a dialogue. Dahood associated it with the literary genre known as “the dialogue of man with his soul” and noted other instances of this genre.26 The Bible frequently uses nefeš as a poetic substitute for guf ‘body’ (e.g., Isa. 46:2; Hos. 9:4; Amos 6:8; Ps. 119:25), and this may well be the sense here. In his commentary on Ps. 119:25, “my nefeš clings to the dust,” Ibn Ezra noted that “my nefeš” is equivalent to “I myself.” Among the moderns, Anderson believes that “Bless the Lord, O my soul” represents the worshiper’s urging himself to glorify the Lord, or an emphasis that the author of the Psalm must give thanks to the Lord.27 Weiss believes that the word nefeš expresses the individual aspect of a human being, “his very essence and being.”28 Thus when the psalmist says “Bless the Lord, O my soul” he does not mean “I will bless the Lord” or “Let me bless the Lord,” but is instead emphasizing that he will bless the Lord with every particle of his being.

Nefeš as the Vital Force The term nefeš can be applied to all sentient life, both human beings and animals. Animals are nefeš ʚayyah ‘living creatures’ (Gen. 1:20); the man became nefeš ʚayyah ‘a living being’ after God blew the A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), p.229. 26 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III, p.25. 27 A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, p.712. 28 M. Weiss, Scriptures in their own Light: Collected Essays (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1987), pp.220–221. 25

196

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

breath of life into his nostrils (Gen. 2:7). Nefeš may also mean “person” or “individual” when human beings are counted (seven times in Genesis 46). It is used as a collective noun for a group of persons: “Give me the nefeš, and take the possessions for yourself” (Gen. 14:21); for “some person”: “If a nefeš sins” (Lev. 4:2); even for a slave (Lev. 22:11). Like nešamah, nefeš can designate the vital force. But unlike the nešamah, the nefeš is the vital force in all creatures, human beings as well animals. There are two accounts of creation in Genesis. In Chapter 1, creation is effected by the Divine Word. The tanninim, marine creatures, and winged creatures are created from the water (Gen. 1:20–22).29 The other animals are created from the earth (vv. 24–27). In this account, all creatures, whether derived from water or earth, have a nefeš ʚayyah, implying that the nefeš is their vital force. According to Rashi, nefeš ʚayyah means a nefeš with vitality in it and refers to all living beings inasmuch as they are alive. In the second account of creation, in Chapter 2, God “blew into his nostrils the breath of life (nišmat ʚayyim), and the man became a nefeš ʚayyah” (Gen. 2:7). As we have already seen, the man became a nefeš ʚayyah, a living creature, only after God gave him the breath of life. Here and only here Onqelos renders nefeš ʚayyah as ruaʚ memalela ‘a talking ruaʚ.’ It became in man a Speaking Spirit thereby emphasizing the unique characteristic of human beings. As Rashi explains, “animals, too, are referred to as nefeš ʚayyah, but that of human beings is the most vital of all, because it has rational knowledge and speech added to it.” According to R. Baʘya ben Asher, nowhere in the account of Creation is the word vayhi ‘it was [= came into being], it became’ associated with a created entity, except for the light and the man; this stylistic echo is meant to suggest man’s uniqueness and destiny. According to Obadiah Sforno, “He breathed into him a vivifying soul ready to receive the image of God.” We see that nefeš ʚayyah means a vital force that is found in human beings and animals. Consequently “as long as my nefeš is in 29 In v. 21, the cantillation marks place the main pause on nefeš ʚayyah. This may be meant to suggest that birds were created from a different material from the marine creatures. According to the Talmud (ʗullin 27b), the birds were created from the alluvial mud.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

197

me” (2 Sam. 1:9) means “as long as I am alive”; “take my nefeš” (Jon. 4:3) means “slay me”; “placed my nefeš in my hand” (Judg. 12:3) and “threw his nefeš away” (Judg. 9:17) mean “risked one’s life”; and “the nefeš of my lord will be bound up in the bundle of life” (1 Sam. 25:29) means “have a long life.” The nefeš is what resides in human beings when they are alive, the bearer of their vitality, as in “who has placed our nefeš among the living” (Ps. 66:9). When the nefeš dies, so does the man: “Let my nefeš die with the Philistines” (Judg. 16:30). The Nefeš of the Dead Although nefeš denotes the vital force, it is also applied to the dead. A nefeš met ‘dead body/person’ ” (Num. 6:6) is the ultimate source of impurity (cf. Lev. 21:1, 11; Num. 5:2; 9:6–10; 19:11–13). ʝemeÞ nefeš means something that has become impure through contact with a corpse (Lev. 22:4; Hag. 2:13). This use of nefeš is interesting because the concept of nefeš, as we have seen, is associated with life. How, then, is it possible to call a corpse nefeš met, that is, the nefeš of (belonging to) the dead, rather than nefeš metah ‘a dead nefeš,’ meaning a living being that has died? Miriam Seligson argued that a nefeš met is a baneful shade, or, more precisely, the same force that was formerly in the living creature but that has now become destructive, because the creature is dead.30 Murtonen, by contrast, believes that a nefeš met is the dead creature that still has some tiny particle of vitality in it.31 These conjectures were influenced by the school of Pedersen, which refers to the life principle in the term nefeš. We are dealing with a sort of auto-antonym: this body, as long as it was alive, was referred to as a nefeš; now that it is dead but still unburied, though, it can also be referred to as a nefeš (or, to distinguish it from the living, as a nefeš met)—especially if we want to avoid terms like corpse and cadaver. Ibn Ezra (on Num. 6:6) agrees: in nefeš met, met is “an epithet for a soul or one who lacks a body.” That is, either met is an adjective and here nefeš is a masculine noun (as in Num. 31:28), or the collocation nefeš met is shorthand for “nefeš of a dead (sc. body).” M. Seligson, The Meaning of 7) 60+ in the Old Testament (Helsinki, 1951), pp.78–95. 31 Murtonen, The Living Soul, pp.26–38. 30

198

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Westermann follows a similar tack and says that nefeš, one of whose meanings is “person,” is employed here as a euphemism for “corpse.”32 Consequently he renders Lev. 21:11 as “he [the high priest] may not approach the ‘person’ of anyone.” As an aside, in talmudic language as well as in Jewish, Nabatean, Palmyran, and other grave inscriptions of the last centuries BCE, the word nefeš can mean a gravestone or mausoleum.33 The most ancient source for this use is the inscription on the Hasmonean-era Tomb of the priestly family of Bnei ʗezir in the Qidron Valley outside Jerusalem: “This is the grave (qever) and nefeš of Eleazar, Haniah …, priests [of the family] of the sons of ʗezir.” This use of nefeš is interesting in its own right, but probably is irrelevant to how the word was used in the biblical period.34 Blood is the Nefeš The nefeš is intimately associated with the blood: “For the nefeš of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your souls (nafšoteikem) upon the altar; it is the blood, as the nefeš, that effects expiation” (Lev. 17:11). This verse bans the eating of blood, a prohibition that is repeated several times in the Bible (Deut. 12:23; Gen. 9:5; Lev. 17:11, 14). The reason for the prohibition is that the blood is the seat of the nefeš and atones for one’s nefeš. The nefeš is the vital force, whereas the flesh is the living creature. When a living being loses its blood, it dies, because the blood is the seat of the life force. When the blood is spilled, life ends. Blood is essential for life and can therefore be referred to as the nefeš, that is, the cause of vitality; hence it is forbidden to eat it. This idea is also found in “only you shall not eat flesh with its nefeš, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4) and in “for the blood is the nefeš, and you shall not eat the nefeš with the flesh” (Deut. 12:23). Even though nefeš designates the concept of vitality, we should not infer that it was thought to be identical with the blood or located in the blood. The blood is a container or medium for the soul, as long as a person or animal is alive. The nefeš is active in an Claus Westermann, “60 + nepeš soul,” TLOT 2:756. M Sheqalim 2:5; M Ohalot 7:1; T Ohalot 10:7, and elsewhere. 34 N. Avigad, Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley (Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik,1954), pp.66–78 (Hebrew). 32 33

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

199

animal through its blood and the blood is the tangible expression of the soul.35 This is exemplified in Lev. 17:11, quoted above: “For the nefeš of the flesh is in the blood … ; it is the blood, as the nefeš, that effects expiation.” The NJPS translation renders nefeš as “life,” as does Snaith, who says that the Hebrew should be translated as “for your lives” (Hebrew nefeš, as before) or “for yourselves.” This has nothing to do with any idea of an immortal soul or even of a man having a soul as distinct from his body or his spirit.”36 Benno Jacob explains that because life ends with the loss of the blood, “life and soul are said to be in the blood (Lev. 17:11)”; but, he adds, “they are not identical with it, because the blood is matter, while life and soul are a force.”37 He admits that, for the sake of brevity, the nefeš is sometimes equated with blood (Lev. 17:14; Deut. 12:23). Because the nefeš is what lives in human beings, it can be parallel to ʚayyah ‘life, being, vitality,’ as in “the enemy has pursued my nefeš [i.e., my soul = my life]; he has crushed my life (ʚayyati) [i.e., the life force within me] to the ground” (Ps. 143:3; cf. Ps. 7:6).38 This is why nefeš is translated into various European languages by terms whose basic sense is life (e.g., German Leben). In biblical Hebrew, however, there is a clear distinction between the usage of the nefeš and ʚayyim ‘life’ and they are never used interchangeably. A person’s nefeš is his vital force, the living core of his being or what maintains his life; but life is simply the fact that he is alive and not dead. This is clear from Jonah’s supplication, “O Lord, take my nefeš from me, for my death were preferable to my life” (Jon. 4:3): take from me that which makes me a living being, because I prefer to be dead than to be alive. The Departure of the Nefeš The nefeš departs at death, as we read about Rachel: “And as her nefeš was departing (for she was dying)” (Gen. 35:18). According to Yaakov Hocherman, “The Theory of the Soul According to Biblical Sources, ” BethM 116 (1988), p.32 (Hebrew). 36 N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (London: Nelson, 1967), pp.120–121. 37 B. Jacob, The First Book of the Bible: Genesis, p.63. 38 Cf. Ps.78:50, Job.36:14. 35

200

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

R. Isacco Samuel Reggio (Italy, nineteenth century), the fact that the Torah refers to death as the departure of the nefeš/soul is proof that the soul survives after death, because departure indicates a transition from one location or situation to another, and not from being to nonbeing. The same idiom is found in the Song of Songs, “My nefeš departed when he spoke” (Songs 5:6); but there it has to do with grief and longing for the absent beloved, rather than with death or perhaps a feeling of faintness, which may resemble the sense of dying. We also learn about the existence of the nefeš outside the body in the story of Elijah’s revival of the son of the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:21–22). Elijah entreats the Lord, “let this child’s nefeš come into him (Ýal qirbo) again. … And the child’s nefeš came into him again and he lived” (1 Kings 17:21–22). Thus the nefeš returns to the child’s inner organs when he returns to life.39 At the beginning of the story we read that the child’s “illness was so severe that there was no nešamah left in him” (1 Kings 17:17), which seems to equate nešamah with nefeš. On the surface, these verses mean that the nefeš continues to exist outside the corpse and does not expire when a person dies. But the fact that the soul departs from the body at the moment of death is not an incontrovertible proof that it has an out-of-body existence.40 There was a folk belief that a person’s soul leaves the body during sleep. What people see in their dreams are the scenes experienced by the wandering soul. It was also believed that if the wandering soul was detained elsewhere, the person might die. It was forbidden to wake up someone suddenly, because the soul might not manage to return to the body. According to the folk belief, the soul leaves and returns to the body through the mouth, nostrils, or ears. So nose rings and earrings, which over time be-

We will discuss this story at length in Chapter 7. The analysis there suggests that he had not died but merely fainted. 40 Similar to the departure of the soul is the idiom mappaʚ nefeš ‘blowing out of the nefeš,’ as in Jer. 15:9; Job 11:20; 31:39. A closer reading of those verses, however, reveals that it denotes grief and disappointment. The biblical idiom mappaʚ nefeš is close to the talmudic peʚi nefeš (e.g., B Shabbat 127b). 39

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

201

came ornamental jewelry, were originally charms to keep the soul from leaving the body prematurely. Just as the soul departs, it can return: “He makes my nefeš return (yešovev)”(Ps 23:3). That the polel of the root š.w.b means “cause to return, restore” is attested by “to bring Jacob back (le-šovev) to him” (Isa. 49:5). Among the moderns, Safren suggests that šovev nefeš means “bring back life,” “revitalize,” and thus “revive and refresh.”41 Note that this restoration of the nefeš is associated with water and green pastures. The same idiom (though with the verb in the hiphil) is found in Lamentations 1:11: “All her people groan as they search for bread; they trade their treasures for food to restore their nefeš,” and again in v. 19. Both verses refer to food, which sustains and restores the nefeš. Elsewhere we find that the vital force is restored by cooling snow—“like the coldness of snow at harvest time is a trusty messenger to those who send him; he restores his master’s nefeš” (Prov. 25:13)—or by the word of the Lord: “The teaching of the Lord is perfect, restoring the nefeš” (Ps. 19:8).42 The women of Bethlehem tell Naomi that Ruth’s infant will “restore your nefeš” (Ruth 4:15), after her days of bereavement and mourning.43 In some of these verses we are dealing with exhaustion and faintness, which are remedied by food and water that “restore the nefeš.” None of them refer to the departure and return of the nefeš to the body. The word ruaʚ is used in a similar context, as we shall see below. Jonathan D. Safren, “‘He Restoreth My Soul’: A Biblical Expression and Its Mari Counterpart,” in Mari in Retrospect, ed. Gordon D. Young (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992), p.265. 42 In Midrash Tehillim the verse is understood as referring to the resurrection: “that is, at the resurrection of the dead, the Torah will stand up for a man, for restoring of his life, as is said, ‘It shall be unto thee a restorer of life’ (Ruth 4:15)” (The Midrash on Psalms, trans. William G. Braude [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959], p.283). 43 Safren, “‘He Restoreth My Soul,’ ” pp.268–269. It should be remembered, however, as Safren himself says, that three of the seven passages (Ps. 23:3; Lam. 1:11, 19) clearly indicate a link between the restoration of the nefeš and food and water. The other four (Ps. 19:8; Prov. 25:13; Lam. 1:16; Ruth 4:15) “are either figurative uses of the expression or can be reinterpreted as referring to the primary connotation (Lam 1:16; Ruth 4:15).” 41

202

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

The Survival of the Nefeš As mentioned previously, the nefeš of the Zarephath widow’s son leaves his body, only to return to it soon after. Are there biblical passages from which we may infer survival of the nefeš after death is irrevocable? There may be an allusion to this in Abigail’s blessing of David: “The nefeš of my lord will be bound up in the bundle of life in the care of the Lord your God” (1 Sam. 25:29). The talmudic sages saw this as evidence of the immortality of the soul: “Rabbi Eliezer says: The souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory, as it stated: ... ‘and my lord’s soul be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord.’ And the souls of the wicked are tossed about and roam from one end of the world to the other, and they have no rest.”44 It can be plausibly argued, however, that the idiom is in fact a metaphor for long life, because “the bundle of life” is another way of saying the “book of life,” as in “may they be erased from the book of life” (Ps. 69:29 [28]). The Book of Life is kept by the Lord: “ ‘Now, if You will forgive their sin [well and good]; but if not, erase me from the book that You have written!’ But the Lord said to Moses, ‘He who has sinned against Me, him only will I erase from My book’ ” (Ex. 32:32–33). Ezekiel (13:17–21) denounces women who make up prophecies and hunt souls, who “have announced the death of nefašot who will not die and the survival of nefašot who will not live, … nefašot [that are] like birds (poreʚot).” Frazer attributed to his friend W. Robertson Smith the idea that here the prophet is denouncing “attempts to catch stray souls in fillets and cloths, and so to kill some people by keeping their souls in durance vile, and to save the lives of others, probably of sick people, by capturing their vagabond souls and restoring them to their bodies.”45 Lys explains that Ezekiel is referring to “external souls.” The prophet did not believe that magical means could be employed to capture souls, which are external entities. Because he was fighting against ideas imported from Babylonian culture, however, Ezekiel

B Shab. 152b. Sir James G. Frazer, Folk-lore in the Old Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1919), 2:511. 44 45

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

203

used the terminology familiar to those who did believe in it.46 Lys also cites verses in Psalms that report how the psalmist’s enemies attempt to trap his soul using a net or snare (means appropriate to birds).47 These, he says, can also be explained as referring to the “external soul.” For example, “our nefeš has escaped from the fowler’s trap; the trap broke and we escaped” (Ps. 124:7). Saggas, continuing in this vein, says that souls are independent of the body. He compares Babylonian terms such as ilu, ištaru, lamassu, and šēdu ‘spiritual demons,’ which determine a man’s destiny and future. Accordingly the magician endeavors to gain control of these demons in order to control the destiny and future of mortals.48 Zimmerli, quoting Selbie, rejects Frazer’s idea: Ezekiel does not have in mind wandering souls that enchanters can trap; rather, nefeš simply means a man and his life.49 Greenberg and Brownlee agree that nefašot means “persons” or “living persons,” since, as noted above, nefeš is one designation for a human being and not a separate entity.50 Isaiah 3:18–23 lists items of jewelry worn by the women of Jerusalem, several of which served magical purposes. One of them (v. 20) is batei nefeš ‘soul houses/boxes.’ Are these boxes in which the soul was kept? According to Frazer, the ancient Hebrews believed that the nefeš/soul had an existence independent of the body and that it could be caught through magical means and stored in a safe place. Soul boxes “were amulets in which the soul of the wearer was supposed to lodge.”51 Some modern scholars follow the Vulgate’s olfactoriola and render the term as “perfume boxes” or “scent bottles.” If so, these would be small vials full of a restorative scent. 46 Daniel Lys, Néphésh. Histoire de l’âme dans la révélation d’Israël au sein des religions proche orientales, pp.161–162. 47 Ibid., pp.179–80. 48 H. W. F. Saggas, “‘External Souls’ in the Old Testament,” JSS 19 (1974): 7–12. 49 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, trans. Ronald E. Clements (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p.297; J. A. Selbie, “Ezek 13:18–21,” ExpTim 15 (1903/1904), p.75. 50 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983), p.240; William H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986), p.195. 51 Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, p.514

204

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Archaeological excavations have uncovered such vials that were worn. Kissane rejects the idea that batei nefeš are perfume bottles and says that they are a sort of talisman (perhaps like the phylacteries of a later era), that contained a magical spell formula.52 Van den Branden associates the “soul boxes” with “bundle of life” in which the nefeš is bound up (1 Sam. 25:29) and explains that they were containers meant to protect the soul of the wearer.53 Ibn Ezra glosses the term as “an ornament for the breast; the breast is called ‘soul’ because it is the seat of the soul and contains the heart.” This reading is influenced by the fact that the passage in question lists various types of jewelry. Another question is whether the many descriptions and expressions related to the underworld, discussed in the previous chapter—such as “You will not abandon my nefeš to Sheol” (Ps. 16:10); “You brought up my nefeš from Sheol” (Ps. 30:4 [3]); and “But God will redeem my nefeš from the clutches of Sheol” (Ps. 49:16 [15])—can be understood to suggest that the soul survives after death. As already stated, however, nefeš frequently has the sense of “person.” And, as we have seen, in the many passages in Psalms that call on God to save the believer from the underworld the supplicant is ill and close to death, and thus to the underworld, but is still alive. To sum up the biblical usage of nefeš, it is the individual life force or what exists in a living creature in so much as it is alive. The nefeš is the force that distinguishes the living from the dead. It is not immortal. It pertains to the living only while they are alive. It pertains both to human beings and animals. The nefeš is the seat of the emotions, the organ of consciousness, as it were; but it does not exist in isolation from the living body. The Bible employs nefeš for what we would call “consciousness,” alongside lev ‘heart’ and ruaʚ ‘spirit.’ Nefeš is used more commonly for the emotional facet of human life. That the nefeš departs at death is not to be taken as evidence that it exists outside the body. Rather, the verses that mention its departure are speaking metaphorically of death. 52 Edward J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, Ltd., 1960), p.45. 53 A. van den Branden, “I gioielli delle donne di Gerusalemme secondo Isaia 3, 18–21,” BeO 5 (1963): 91ff.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

205

RUAʙ ‘WIND, SPIRIT’ In the Bible, the ruaʚ ‘wind, spirit’ comes from God. Nevertheless, Amos 4:13 is the only passage that states explicitly that the Lord created it. In the account of Creation (Gen. 1:2) it is pre-existent. One of the senses of ruaʚ is associated with breathing. Consequently the associated verb appears in the hiphil with the meaning “smell” and the noun rêaʚ means “scent.” Ruaʚ represents the life principle in general and is frequently used in parallel to nešamah: “Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was nišmat ruaʚ ʚayyim died” (Gen. 7:22). When animals and human beings are deprived of their ruaʚ they die (Ps. 104:29; 146:4; Eccles. 12:7). The futility of idols is proven by the fact that they are devoid of ruaʚ, which means that they themselves are dead and lacking in vital force (Jer. 10:14; 51:17; Hab. 2:19; Ps. 135:17). The ruaʚ of both human beings and animals is in their nostrils (Gen. 2:7; 7:22), their mouth (Ps. 135:17), or their lips (Isa. 11:4). A human being or animal exhales ruaʚ; that is, breathes.54 Ruaʚ also denotes emotional states. In the Bible we find idioms such as “his ruaʚ was agitated” (Gen. 41:8; cf. Ps. 77:5; Dan. 2:1) and “the ruaʚ of their father Jacob revived” (Gen. 45:27). By contrast, astonishment and stupefaction are indicated by qamah ruaʚ or hayah ruaʚ. Rahab tells the two spies, “And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and no ruaʚ existed (or: stood up) any longer in any man, because of you” (Josh. 2:11).55 This is repeated by the narrator of the book of Joshua soon after: “their heart melted, and no ruaʚ existed any longer in them” (Josh. 5:1). Finally, impressed by the wealth and splendor of Solomon’s court, “there was no more ruaʚ in” the Queen of Sheba [NJPS: she was left breathless]” (1 Kings 10:5).

54 In Jeremiah we have the expression šaÞaf ruaʚ ‘snuffing the ruaʚ’ (2:24, 14:6), which means “inhaling forcibly.” The same tenor is found in Ps. 119:131, but there with the verb alone. 55 The meaning is that they had no courage left, their spirit stood no longer. According to David Kimʘi, “when a person is afraid, it is as if his spirit has fallen, as in “let no man’s heart fail (Þal yippol) him” (1 Sam. 17:32). Here in Joshua, Targum Jonathan renders lo qamah ‘does not stand up’ as lo ištarat ‘does not remain.’

206

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Impatience is expressed by shortness of (qoʜer) ruaʚ (Ex. 6:9; Job 21:4; Prov. 14:29). When people become calmer or stop being angry, their ruaʚ slackens (rafetah ruʚam, Judg. 8:3). Other idioms that employ ruaʚ to express mental states and emotions are “bitter of ruaʚ” (morat ruaʚ, Gen. 26:35); “grieved in spirit” (Ýaʜuvat ruaʚ, Isa. 54:6); “a woman with a hard ruaʚ (1 Sam. 1:15; RSV “sorely troubled”; NJPS “very unhappy”); “a broken ruaʚ” (Prov. 15:13); “a dark ruaʚ” ((Isa. 61:3); “a broken ruaʚ” (Isa. 65:14); “a ruaʚ of deep sleep” (Isa. 29:10); “a ruaʚ of jealousy” (Num. 5:14); “a ruaʚ of pity and compassion” (Zech. 12:10); etc. There are similar expressions with nefeš, including mar nefeš ‘bitter of soul’ (1 Sam. 22:2; Ezek. 27:31), nafši Ýoz ‘strong soul’(i.e., courage; Ps. 138:3), reʚav nefeš ‘greedy’ (Prov. 28:25); etc. All of these metaphors for emotional states are derived from the physiological action of breathing in and out, faster or slower, that accompanies them. Ruaʚ also refers to the natural phenomenon of wind, as in “they heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden in the breeze of the day (le-ruaʚ ha-yom)” (Gen. 3:8); “an east wind (ruaʚ qadim)” (Ex. 10:13; 14:1); “west wind (ruaʚ yam)” (Ex. 10:19). Sometimes an adjective is attached to it: a “great and strong wind” (1 Kings 19:11), a “fierce wind” (Isa. 27:8), and so on. The collocations of ruaʚ with east, north, south, and west lost the sense of wind and became geographical designations for the four cardinal directions (Ezek. 42:16; the two senses are conflated in Ezekiel 37:9). It is possible that the identification of ruaʚ with natural phenomena derives from the assumption in the ancient East that natural phenomena are manifestations of God. The wind is an instrument employed by God, as in “the Lord drove an east wind over the land” (Ex. 10:13); “the Lord cast a mighty wind upon the sea” (Jon. 1:4); “a wind from the Lord started up” (Num. 11:31); etc. Sometimes it is referred to explicitly as “the wind of the Lord” (Hos. 13:15); “a wind from God” (Gen. 1:2 [NJPS; RSV: “the Spirit of God”]). We also find expressions like “At the blast (ruaʚ) of Your nostrils the waters piled up” (Ex. 15:8); “at the blast of the breath of His nostrils (ruaʚ nišmat Þappo)” (2 Sam. 22:16); “by the breath of God they perish, and by the blast of his anger (ruaʚ Þappo) they are consumed” (Job 4:9); “You made Your wind blow” (Ex. 15:10); “He makes his wind blow” (Ps.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

207

147:18); etc.56 In many passages there is a link between the blast of the wind when the Lord breathes, as it were, and His emotional outbursts. A ruaʚ from God that comes over or enters a person denotes a specific mood or aptitude, such as enthusiasm, great wisdom, charismatic influence over the masses, and especially prophecy.57 In the case of the Judges, it is the “spirit of the Lord” that stirs them to perform their valiant deeds in times of national emergency. It should be noted, however, that in these contexts we do not find that the ruaʚ of the Lord brought with it the word of the Lord or a prophetic utterance. Furthermore, this ruaʚ given to the Judges was temporary. With the advent of the monarchy the tendency to institutionalize the ruaʚ increased, and it was seen as a permanent quality of Saul and later of David. The “spirit of the Lord” was the source of their authority. The motif of the “spirit of the Lord” is less prominent for the prophets with an individual vocation, although it is still found occasionally.58 The ruaʚ/spirit is replaced by the word (devar) of the Lord. In Isaiah we encounter a new departure in the use of the term; henceforth “spirit of the Lord” pertains to the ideal future king (Isa. 11:2).59 In Ezekiel, the expressions “spirit of the Lord” and “hand of the Lord” are employed to describe the mission imposed on the prophet.60 The zenith of the ruaʚ is the resurS. Tengström-H. J. Fabry, “ E4  rûah,” TDOT 13:382. The duality of flesh and spirit that is so prominent in the New Testament, which sees the flesh as the evil principle in human beings and the spirit as the good principle, cannot be found in the Hebrew Bible. Isaiah 31:3—“The Egyptians are men, not gods; and their horses are flesh, not spirit”—cannot be offered in evidence, because there the intention is to contrast flesh and blood, which is ephemeral and transient, with the spirit, which is an enduring, eternal, and superhuman element. 58 Hos. 9:7; Mic. 3:8. For further study see Benjamin Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1961), pp.67–68 (Hebrew). 59 Benjamin Uffenheimer, Classical Prophecy: The Prophetic Consciousness (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001), p.115 (Hebrew). 60 According to Mowinckel, in the time of Ezekiel there was a change, and one passage (Ezek. 11:5) cites the ruaʚ of the Lord as the source of prophecy: Sigmund Mowinckel, “‘The Spirit’ and the ‘Word’ in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets,” JBL 53 (1934): 202–203. 56. 57

208

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

rection of the dry bones (Ezekiel 37). The eschatological sense of the wind that will be the gift of the entire people in the future is expanded in Ezekiel (11:19; 18:31; 36:27; 39:29). The same idea can be found in Joel: “I will pour out My ruaʚ on all flesh and your sons and daughters shall prophesy; your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions” (Joel 3:1). Zechariah, too, refers to the spirit of the Lord through which Zerubbabel can triumph (4:6). Zechariah believed that, as a condition for the redemption at the end of days, the Lord would inspire the entire nation with His spirit.61 Thus it seems that when the belief that the ruaʚ of the Lord was present in certain human beings weakened, the prophets of the Babylonian exile and Return of Zion employed the term to denote an eschatological quality that would later apply to the redeemed nation as a whole—no longer to individuals but to everyone. The Ruaʚ as the Vital Force It is the Lord who provides human beings with their ruaʚ: “the Lord … stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed (yoʜer) the ruaʚ of man within him” (Zech. 12:1). As in Genesis 2, here too the creation of man is conveyed by the verb y.ʜ.r, with its associations with a potter. Here, however, we find “ruaʚ of man,” as opposed to the nišmat ʚayyim of Genesis 2:7. Furthermore, in Zechariah we find that the ruaʚ is formed within man. As Meyers notes, “within emphasizes that God breathed the first breath into the very corporeal existence of the first individual, who is the archetypal representative of all subsequent human beings.”62 Precisely the opposite is said of idols of wood and stone, which have no vitality: “it is overlaid with gold and silver but there is no ruaʚ in it at all” (Hab. 2:19); cf. Jer. 10:14; 51:17). According to Elihu, “The ruaʚ of God has made me, and the breath (nišmat) of Shaddai gives me life” (Job 33:4). In other words, the spirit of the Lord and the nešamah, both of which were given by God, are what turned me into a living body. We may also understand him to mean that he was created and animated by the Divine See Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah, pp.68–69. Carol L. Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp.80–81. 61 62

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

209

word and decree, as in “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the ruaʚ of His mouth” (Ps. 33:6). In the verse in Job, ruaʚ and nešamah are parallels; the equation of the two can be traced back to “everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was nišmat ruaʚ ʚayyim” (Gen. 7:22). Dhorme understands the verse in a similar fashion: “The divine workmanship consists in transforming man into a living being by imparting to him the divine breath of life.”63 Pope, by contrast, understands Elihu to mean a charismatic gift of divine wisdom that was lacking in Job’s friends, which is why they could not refute his arguments.64 This reading should be rejected, though, because v. 6 refers to the creation of human beings. On the other hand, Elihu goes on to say that “truly there is a ruaʚ in men, and the breath (nišmat) of Shaddai that gives them understanding” (Job 32:8). Here the ruaʚ is the divine spirit that has been breathed into him as well as the wisdom mentioned in the previous verse. Wisdom is compared to the ruaʚ that issues from the mouth of God and enters human beings. The motif of the divine spirit that provides wisdom and life is found elsewhere in the Bible as well (Gen. 41:38; Ex. 31:3; Dan. 5:11). Here Elihu is propounding that age and length of years, mentioned in v. 7, are not the root of wisdom; rather, a person’s intelligence comes from the divine ruaʚ and nešamah breathed into him. Elihu waited for his older colleagues to complete their arguments, in the belief that greater wisdom goes with greater age. Having seen that this is not the case, he realizes that wisdom is a spirit from the Lord that enters human beings. The Targum of v. 8 renders ruaʚ as ruaʚ nevuÞataÞ ‘the spirit of prophecy.’ Ruaʚ is the dominant motif in Ezekiel 37; in most verses there it designates the vital force. It is both the wind (or inspired imagination) that carries the prophet to the valley of dry bones as well as the force that blows life into the slain: “Prophesy to the ruaʚ, prophesy, … and say …: ‘Come from the four winds (ruʚot), O ruaʚ, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’ … And the ruaʚ entered them and they came to life and stood up on their feet.

63 64

E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, p.489. Marvin H. Pope, Job, p.216.

210

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

… ‘… And I will put my ruaʚ into you and you shall live …’ ” (Ezek. 37:9–14). Isaiah presents the ruaʚ as an element that vivifies human beings as well as nature: “until a ruaʚ is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest” (Isa. 32:15). The wilderness is dead and barren until the ruaʚ of the Lord makes it alive and fertile. Of course the very first appearance of ruaʚ in the Bible is in Gen. 1:2: “the ruaʚ of God was moving over the water” (Gen. 1:2). This is in fact a difficult verse, in which the word ruaʚ seems to have two separate but indistinguishable senses. On the one hand it refers to the tangible wind—moving air—that blows over the water. This notion of a storm wind rather than a divine phenomenon can be found in the Talmud (B ʗagigah 12a), which says that this ruaʚ is a physical object, one of the ten things created on the first day of creation.65 Many have shared this view, including Targum Onqelos. Saadia Gaon, in his Arabic Tafsir, rendered it in the plural and explained that the reference is to the element of air. Maimonides glossed ruaʚ in this verse as “air.”66 S. D. Luzzatto said that it means “a great and strong wind, as in ‘a ruaʚ of the Lord blows on it’ (Isa. 40:7).” Rashbam, David Kimʘi, and Gersonides concur. Modern commentators such as Benno Jacob and Orlinsky also accept the view that the meaning is simply “wind.” According to the latter, it was only through Hellenistic and later Christian influence that “spirit” began to replace “wind” here.67 But we can also understand the verse as referring to the vital force that animates all creatures. This was the view of D. Z. Hoffman, for whom the phrase “the ruaʚ of God …” stands as an introduction to the account of Creation that follows. The ruaʚ of the Lord breathes life into dead matter; it is by the Divine word that the created entities told of below come into being one after another.68 According to Martin Buber, “For a person contemporary B. ʗag. 12a. Guide of the Perplexed, 1,40:2, 30. 67 Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Plain Meaning of RUaʗ in Gen. 1.2,” JQR 48 (1957): 181. 68 D. Z. Hoffman, Genesis (Bene Beraq: Nezaʘ, 1969), pp.22–23 (Hebrew). 65 66

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

211

with the ancients in the Holy Scriptures, the image conveyed by this is not simply that of a blast of air, but also the spiritual element; that is, one thing that is spread out and divided into two aspects, one through nature and the other through spirit.”69 This verse is the only place in the Bible where ruaʚ is joined with the verb r.ʚ.p. The Bible uses various verbs when it wants to denote the movement of air.70 Does the biblical author ever attach this meaning to the root r.ʚ.p?71 In Deut. 32:11 we find that the vulture (nešer) guards its nest and flutters over or glides down to (yeraʚef) its fledglings. In Ugaritic, too, the verb r.ʚ.p is used for the motion of a bird, but not of air.72 The elements tohu, bohu, and darkness describe the cosmic situation before the Creation but play no role in Creation; they are lifeless. By contrast, the ruaʚ of the Lord “flutters.” Cassuto read the waw prefixed to ruaʚ as adversative and consequently explains the referent as neither a strong blast of wind nor the breath of God, but as His creative force, manifested in the injunctions, “God said, ‘let there be …’ .” The ruaʚ of God functions as a sort of introduction to “God said.” At all events, there certainly is a semantic link between the ruaʚ of God in Genesis 1:2 and the divine word by which, according to the Psalmist, the world was created: “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the ruaʚ of His mouth” (Ps. 33:6). The nomen rectum God linked to the ruaʚ sunders the biblical account of Creation from mythology. In the pagan world, the wind is an independent primordial element, one of those from which the universe is created, rather than ex nihilo. Josephus, influenced by or writing for that world, explains the ruaʚ of Gen. 1:2 as pre-existing primordial matter. According to him, the spirit of the Lord fluttered over the water: “the earth had not come into sight, but was Martin Buber, Darko šel miqraÞ, (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1964), pp.52–53 (Hebrew). 70 See: Ps. 147:18; Isa. 40:7; Ex. 10:13, 19; Gen. 8:1; Ezk.1:4; 8:3; Ps. 1:4. 71 On the question of ruaʚ Þelohim, see Tuvia Freedman, “And the Spirit of the Lord was Hovering over the Water,” BethM 83 (1980): 309– 312 (Hebrew). That the spirit of the Lord is a storm is noted by scholars who points to Enumah Elish: See Orlinsky, “The Plain Meaning of RUaʗ,” pp.177–178. 72 J. Aistleitner, WUS, p.292. 69

212

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

hidden in thick darkness, and a breath from above sped over it, when God commanded that there should be light.”73 Thus the reference is to uncreated hylic matter and not part of the act of Creation; the ruaʚ is not that of God, because it is one of the primordial elements which the created world was molded. In Psalms, too, the ruaʚ is the animating force of Creation: The same can be said of “send forth Your ruaʚ, they are created, and You renew the face of the earth” (Ps. 104:30). In other words, when God sends the ruaʚ of life over the land, new beings are created to replace those who perished when their ruaʚ was taken back (v. 29). According to David Kimʘi, at the moment of man’s death, God snatches the breath of life from him, but He will return it at the time of the resurrection of the dead. When the dead bodies are recreated, their souls will be restored. Rashi, too, understands the sending of the ruaʚ here as an allusion to the resurrection of the dead. In the Apocrypha, too, ruaʚ is the vital force. Enoch reports that “I saw the treasuries of all the winds: I saw how He had furnished with them the whole creation and the firm foundations of the earth” (1 Enoch 18:1–2 [trans. Charles]). When he journeys to the mountain in the west, Raphael explains to him that “these hollow places have been created for this very purpose, that the spirits of the souls of the dead should assemble therein”(22:3–4). Finally, the book of Jubilees associates the ruaʚ of Creation with the angels: “For on the first day He created the heavens which are above and the earth and the waters and all the spirits which serve before himthe angles of the presence,…” (Jub.2:2 [trans. Charles]). The Departure of the Ruaʚ Countervailing the original bestowal of the ruaʚ, the Lord takes back a person’s spirit when he dies: “[when] You hide Your face, they are terrified; [when] You take away (tosef) their ruaʚ, they perish and turn again into dust” (Ps. 104:29). The root Þ.s.p ‘gather, collect, take back’ (here with the initial alef elided) is frequently associated with death, as in the common idiom neÞesaf Þel Ýammav ‘be gather to one’s people’ (Num. 27:13 and many other passages). But tosef may also be derived from the root s.w.p ‘end’; that is, the Lord brings 73

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.27–28.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

213

their end, i.e., their death. When a person no longer exists physically and dies, the Lord takes back the spirit. Life is the conjunction of two elements, body (dust) and spirit (ruaʚ). When they are separated, life comes to an end.74 The idea that the animating ruaʚ returns to the Lord is also found in Ecclesiastes: “And the dust returns onto (Ýal) to the ground as it was, and the ruaʚ returns to God Who bestowed it” (Eccles. 12:7). The author of the book clearly knew the Torah, since this verse is based on Genesis 2:7 and 3:19.75 Here “dust” means the body, as the Targum reflects: 40- *) !47 "4, ‘Your body which was created from the dust.’ Note the use of Ýal = onto the ground rather than Þel = to, emphasizing the distinction that the body lies on the ground, as it were, whereas the ruaʚ returns to God. When God takes back the ruaʚ the creature dies. This is not a continuation of life but the disintegration of the creature’s body. The idea that when a person dies his soul ascends to heaven first appears in the Apocryphal texts of the last two centuries BCE (1 Enoch 104:2 and 4; 2 Baruch 30:1–5; Assumption of Moses 10:9). The idea seems to derive from Hellenistic folk religion, which believed that the human soul was made of the celestial ether and returned to its origins when a person dies. The Psalmist uses the departure of the ruaʚ as a synonym for death: “His ruaʚ departs; he returns to his earth (Þadmato) the dust; on that day his plans come to nothing” (Ps. 146:4). Dahood compares this biblical idiom to the Ugaritic tʜi km rʚ npšh, “let his life depart like breath,” which has the same meaning.76 The verse in Psalms is an expansion on the previous verse, which says that even high-ranking men cannot save their fellows: both are mortal; on the day of death the ruaʚ departs and the man returns to the earth. Dahood believes that here Þadmato ‘his earth’ refers to the netherworld, 74 Dahood, in his commentary on the verse, notes that the Lord is the source of life, an idea that he supports from Job 12:10, which he translates as follows: “That from his hand is the soul of every living being, And the spirit in all flesh is his gift.” See Mitchell Dahood, “Ugaritic ušn, Job 12,10 and 11QPsaPlea 3–4,” Bib 47 (1966): 107–108. 75 Robert Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and his World (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1951), p.338. 76 Dahood, Psalms III, p.341.

214

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

alleging Psalm 104:29 and 139:15 and Ecclesiastes 12:7 in support.77 According to Ps. 143:7, the ruaʚ can “faint” or “fail” (kaletah). This is the only place in the Bible where the verb k.l.h is attached to the noun ruaʚ; but the sense is evidently close to Ps. 84:3 [2], in which the nefeš longs (niksefah) and kaletah, variously understood as “faints” (most traditional versions and RSV) or “yearns” (NJPS). David Kimʘi’s gloss, “I almost died,” supports the rendering “my ruaʚ can endure no more” (NJPS). But kaletah can also be understood as meaning “come to an end,” which fits with the continuation of the verse, “I shall become like those who descend into the Pit” (Ps. 143:7); that is, when his ruaʚ departs or expires he is like those who have descended to the netherworld. A similar interpretation is offered by Obadiah Sforno: “When God ignores the prayers of a person in desperate need, it seems as if God averted His face from the supplicant and has cast his soul into the pit of Gehinnom (hell), where it is doomed to oblivion and suffering.” Another sense of ruaʚ is exemplified in Eliphaz’ rebuke of Job: “you turn your ruaʚ against God, and let such words go out of your mouth” (Job 15:13). Here ruaʚ can be understood in two different ways. It could mean “anger” or “passion” (cf. Judg. 8:3; Prov. 16:32; 25:28), as Ibn Ezra suggests; i.e., “you vent your anger on God” (NJPS). If so, Eliphaz is concluding in the same vein as he began: “Does a wise man answer with windy opinions (daÝat ruaʚ), … with words that are of no worth?” (Job 15:2–3). But ruaʚ here may also designate the vital spirit within Job. In that case, as Ehrlich suggests, Eliphaz has in mind the same idea found in Ecclesiastes 12:7: Job will return his ruaʚ to God, who gave it to him. It is also possible that both meanings are intended: if Job turns his angry spirit on God he will return his vital spirit to the Lord in an act of self-destruction.78 Just as the departure of the ruaʚ means death, its absence ab initio characterizes inanimate and inert idols: “it is overlaid with gold and silver but there is no ruaʚ in it at all” (Hab. 2:19). Idols lack a vital force; they are worthless and have no divine spirit in them. Mesopotamian texts about religious rituals and spells de77 78

Ibid. Norman Habel, The Book of Job, p.255.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

215

scribe the process for the animation of lifeless images. Among other things, they would wash the mouth of the idols and force them open. The rationale behind these actions does not seem to be invigorating the statues79 or infusing them with breath,80 but because the ancients viewed the just-crafted idol as if it were a newborn infant whose mouth had to be cleaned out so it could breathe. What turned the idol into a living body was not just opening the breathing passage, but the entire process that included reciting spells, opening its eyes, standing it to face the rising sun, and then placing it next to the altar or in the sanctuary.81 There are also several biblical passages about the return of the ruaʚ. But all of these refer to recuperation, not to resurrection. For example, Job complains that God “does not let me restore (hašev) my ruaʚ” (Job 9:18); i.e., does not let him catch his breath. When David and his men found an Egyptian in the field and fed him, “his ruaʚ returned to him” (1 Sam. 30:12). The same idiom is applied to Samson, parched and dying of thirst; after he drinks from the water that gushes forth from the depression split open by God, “his ruaʚ returned and he revived” (Judg. 15:19). Burney commented that this means “the return of animation and vigor after faintness.”82 When Jacob’s sons bring their father the news that Joseph is alive, his heart stops.83 But after they repeat Joseph’s message and Jacob sees the wagons sent by Joseph, “the ruaʚ of their father Jacob revived” (Gen. 45:27). 79 T. Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p.24; Edward L. Greenstein, “God’s Golem: The Creation of Human in Genesis 2”: in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, (JSOTSup 319; London: Sheffield, 2002), p.226. 80 E. Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 85.4; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1995), p.140. 81 Greenstein, “God’s Golem,” p.226. 82 C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges (New York: Ktav, 1970), p.374. 83 Redford explains wa-yafog libbo as meaning “to become numb.” Johnson glosses it as “being frozen or numbed, a condition of inability to function.” See: Donald B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Gen 37–50) (VTSup 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970), pp.63–64; Marshall D. Johnson, “The Paralysis of Torah in Habakkuk I 4,” VT 35 (1985): 259–60.

216

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Summary The conclusion to be drawn from all the foregoing is that there is some degree of identity among nefeš, ruaʚ, and nešamah. They are synonymous in some uses but not in all. Nefeš, the most common of the three terms, has other senses, such as “seat of human emotions” and “throat.” The nefeš, unlike the nešamah, pertains both to human beings and to animals. Nefeš denotes a living individual, in expressions like nefeš ʚayyah ‘a living being’ and “if a nefeš sins” (Lev. 4:2). Nefeš is more common in association with human feelings and emotions, while ruaʚ is associated with character traits. Ruaʚ, like nefeš, pertains to both human beings and animals. But there are varieties of ruaʚ that human beings may have at some times but not at others, such as the ruaʚ of wisdom and the ruaʚ of prophecy; not so for the nefeš. The ruaʚ does not have appetites and cannot be hungry or sated, as the nefeš can. One does not pursue a person’s ruaʚ to kill him, but rather his nefeš. Nešamah is not a common term in the Bible, and its field of reference is extremely limited. The nešamah is peculiar to human beings and God and is not found in animals. Nor is it the seat of appetites and emotions. What nefeš, ruaʚ, and nešamah have in common is that they designate the vital force and that they depart when a person dies. All three terms indicate a gust of air or human breath, whence the Israelite belief that the soul enters the body through the breath. All three terms refer to the vital force that is found in human beings when they are alive and breathing; that is, when the nešamah, nefeš, and ruaʚ are in them. But when a person dies the nešamah and ruaʚ are taken from him and return to God. Nowhere does the Bible say, however, that the nefeš returns to God. In many passages the three terms are, in fact, interchangeable.84 Bratcher emphasized that these terms are synonymous. He says that we should avoid the temptation of looking for differences among them, because that was not the intention of the biblical authors. Rather, when we look at biblical poetry we find that “breath” and “spirit,” “heart” and “soul,” and “spirit” and “soul” are used as parallel pairs of terms with essentially the same meanings. See Bratcher, “Biblical Words Describing Man,” p.201. 84

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

217

The same synonymy of nefeš, nešamah, and ruaʚ is found in the Talmud and midrashim. In the Mishnah, for example, nefeš and nešamah are interchangeable: compare “Evidence [of a man’s death] may be given only after his soul (nafšo) has departed” (M Yebamot 16:3)85 with “before he had time to finish his words his soul (nišmato) departed” (M Sheqalim 6:2).86 Genesis Rabbah, expounding Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 7:22, says that the soul has five different names: nefeš, nešamah, ʚayyah (“living”), ruaʚ, and yeʚidah (“unique”). These designate specific attributes of the soul rather than different parts thereof.87 According to the Zohar, however, the soul has three parts: nefeš, ruaʚ, and nešamah; the nefeš is inferior to the other two. It is illuminated by the ruaʚ and its function is to satisfy the body’s physical needs. The ruaʚ stands in the middle and has no independent function. The nešamah occupies the top of the scale, receiving the light and effusion from above, and bridges between a person’s life in this world and in the next.88 In kabbalistic literature, the nešamah is that part of the soul that contains the Divine spark and seeks only to know God. These three elements, nefeš, ruaʚ, and nešamah, do not have the same destiny after death. The nefeš hovers around the body for a while. The ruaʚ goes to the place determined by the man’s deeds. The nešamah returns to God. Only the ruaʚ and nefeš suffer punishment.

M Yebamot 16:3. M Sheqalim 6:2. 87 “Nefeš is the blood: ‘For the blood is the nefesh’ (Deut. 12:23). Ruaʚ: This is so called because it ascends and descends: thus it is written, “Who knows the ruaʚ of man whether it goes upwards, and the ruaʚ of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth” (Eccles. 3:21)? Nešamah is the breath; as people say, ‘his breathing is good.’ ʙayyah (lit. ‘living’): because all the limbs are mortal, whereas this is immortal in the body. Yeʚidah (‘unique’): because all the limbs are duplicated, whereas this is unique in the body.” What is interesting in this passage is the statement that the death of the body does not mean the death of the soul, a doctrine to which the Sages paid special attention. 88 Isaiah. Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts, trans. David Goldstein (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), vol. ii: 684–686. 85 86

218

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

This hierarchy, with the nešamah at the top and the nefeš at the bottom, can be explained from the biblical uses of the two terms. Only nefeš is associated with animals of all degrees: “every nefeš ʚayyah in the water [is] an abomination for you” (Lev. 11:10); “this is the law pertaining to beasts and birds and every nefeš ʚayyah that moves through the waters and every nefeš that swarms upon the earth” (Lev. 11:46). In addition, nefeš is mentioned in the context of sin and impurity: “If a nefeš sins” (Lev. 5:1); ʞemeÞ nefeš ‘something made unclean by a corpse’ (Lev. 22:4). The word nešamah is never used in such contexts. On the contrary, it is associated with God: “He blew into his nostrils the breath of life (nišmat ʚayyim)” (Gen. 2:7); “Let every nešamah praise the Lord” (Ps. 150:6); “the nešamah of man is the lamp of the Lord” (Prov. 20:27) As for the ruaʚ, it has both a physical aspect, as the ruaʚ (i.e., breath) of life, and a spiritual aspect, as the ruaʚ of the Lord. In Ecclesiastes, though, the ruaʚ is common to human beings and animals, and whether it ascends or descends after death is a matter of doubt (Chapter 3). Thus it falls between the nefeš and nešamah and mediates between them.

BODY AND SOUL The Greek philosophers had two different notions of the essence of human beings. Plato distinguishes between the physical body and the unseen soul that animates it. He maintains that the soul has its own history that does not depend on the body and that the link between body and soul is transient. Aristotle, on the other hand, conceives of a monism in which the soul is a form of the body: it is the body that exists, with the soul as one of its functions. Ultimately body and soul perish together. Ephraim Urbach held that the biblical conception is monistic. Human beings do not consist of two elements, body and soul or flesh and spirit.89 As evidence he cites Gen. 2:7, “man became a living nefeš.” Here, he holds, nefeš clearly does not have the sense of the Latin anima or Greek psyche. Rather, the person in toto is a living

Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Belief, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), p.214. 89

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

219

being. Man was created in a single act.90 According to Urbach, dualism entered Israelite/Jewish thought only in the talmudic era, under the influence of Hellenistic ideas. But the verse that Urbach offers as evidence of biblical monism seems to demonstrate precisely the contrary: “The Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). Surely this means that the first man became a living being (nefeš) only after the Lord blew the breath of life (nišmat ʚayyim) into a lump of earth—a two-stage process. With regard to all other creatures we find “God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature (nefeš ʚayyah)’ ” (Gen. 1:24). To emphasize that human beings are unique, though, we are told that man was fashioned by God, Who then blew the breath of life into him. There are two distinct elements here, the body that comes from the earth and the nešamah that comes from God. A similar dualism is evident in “the Lord … formed the ruaʚ of man within him” (Zech. 12:1). In Ezekiel, the ruaʚ brings the dry bones back to life: “Come …, O ruaʚ, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’ … And the ruaʚ entered them and they came to life and stood up on their feet. … ‘… And I will put my ruaʚ into you and you shall live …’ ” (Ezek. 37:9–14). There are also several biblical passages that describe how God takes back the spiritual element while the body returns to the earth. For example, “He can take back his ruaʚ and nešamah; all flesh would at once expire, and man return to dust” (Job 34:14–15). That is, life is a compound of two elements, body (dust) and spirit. When a person dies they go their separate ways and life comes to an end. The same idea can be found in “the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit (ruaʚ) to God who gave it” (Eccles. 12:7). The idea that life consists of two elements, the celestial man and the earthly man, can also be found in Philo (20 BCE–50 CE),

90 Laurin agrees: “Man is not seen as an incarnate soul; he is a soul. Man does not have a body and soul, or a body, a soul, and a spirit. This is made clear in the Creation story” (Robert Laurin, “The Concept of Man as a Soul,” ExpTim 72 (1961): 131–132).

220

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

who was influenced by Platonic notions. In his commentary on Genesis 2:7 he writes: And god formed the man by taking clay from the earth, and breathed into his face a breath of life, and the man became a living soul”: There are two types of men; the one an heavenly man, the other an earthly. The heavenly man, being made after the image of God, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial substance; but the earthly one was compacted out of the matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls “clay.” For this reason he says that the heavenly man was not moulded, but was stamped with the image of God; while the earthly is a moulded work of the Artificer, but not His offspring. We must account the man made out of the earth to be mind mingling with, but not yet blended with, body. But this earthlike mind is in reality also corruptible, were not God to breathe into it a power of real life; when He does so, it does not any more undergo moulding, but becomes a soul, not an inefficient and imperfectly formed soul, but one endowed with mind and actually alive; for he says, “many became a living soul. ”91

Among the tanna’im of the first and second centuries CE we find the notion that human beings consist of different parts. Adam was created entirely by God, but his descendants are created by a partnership: Our Rabbis taught: There are three partners in man, the Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother. His father supplies the white substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, the brain in his head and the white in his eye; his mother supplies the red substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood and the black of his eye; and the Holy One, blessed be He, gives him the spirit and the breath, beauty of features, eyesight, the power of hearing and the ability to speak and to walk, understanding and discernment. When his time to depart from the world approaches the Philo, Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (Harvard University Press: Cambridge Massachusetts, 1929), I.12, pp.166–169. 91

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

221

Holy One, blessed be He, takes away his share and leaves the shares of his father and his mother with them.92

The idea of partnership and a tripartite human being necessarily assumes the separate existence of these parts. The only question is when the body and soul join forces. The Talmud and Midrash Rabbah record a dialogue on this subject between Rabbi Judah the Prince and the Emperor Antoninus: Antoninus also said to Rabbi [Judah the Prince], “When is the soul placed in man; as soon as it is decreed [that the sperm shall be male or female, etc.], or when [the embryo] is actually formed?” He replied, “From the moment of formation.”93 He objected: “Can a piece of meat be unsalted for three days without becoming putrid? But it must be from the moment that [God] decrees [its destiny].”94 Rabbi [Judah the Prince] said: “This thing Antoninus taught me, and Scripture supports him, for it is written, ‘your decree preserved my spirit [ruaʚ].’ ”95

The distinction between soul and body led to questions about the doctrine of posthumous reward and punishment. If a human being is twofold, which part is responsible for his actions and deserves to be rewarded or punished? A parable in the Babylonian Talmud deals with this: Antoninus said to Rabbi [Judah the Prince]: “The body and the soul can both free themselves from judgment. Thus, the body can plead: The soul has sinned, [the proof being] that from the day it left me I lie like a dumb stone in the grave [powerless to do anything]. While the soul can say: The body has sinned, [the proof being] that from the day I departed from it I fly about in the air like a bird [and commit no sin].” He replied, “I will tell you a parable. To what may this be compared? To a human B Niddah 31a; cf. J. Kil. 8:4; Eccles. Rab. 5:10. In Gen. Rab.: “When it leaves the mother’s womb or before it leaves its mother’s womb. He replied: When it leaves its mother’s womb.” 94 In Gen. Rab.: “Rabbi [Judah the Prince] agreed with him.” 95 B Sanh. 91b; Gen. Rab. 34:10. The latter version also cites Job 27:3, “as long as my nešamah is in me, and the spirit (ruaʚ) of God is in my nostril” (Job 27:3). 92 93

222

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE king who owned a beautiful orchard which contained splendid figs. Now, he appointed two watchmen there, one lame and the other blind. [One day] the lame man said to the blind, ‘I see beautiful figs in the orchard. Come and take me on your shoulders, that we may reach them and eat them.” So the lame man stood on the blind man, reached them and ate them. Some time after, the owner of the orchard came and inquired of them, “Where are those beautiful figs?” The lame man replied, “Have I feet to walk with?” The blind man replied, “Have I eyes to see with?” What did [the owner] do? He placed the lame man on the blind man and judged them together. So will the Holy One, blessed be He, bring the soul, [re]place it in the body, and judge them together, as it is written, ‘He calls to the heavens above and to the earth, that he may judge his people He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people’ (Ps. 50:4).”96

Leviticus Rabbah tells of a priest who had two wives, one the daughter of a priest and the other the daughter of an Israelite. He gave them a dough of terumah, which they made impure. When he asked which of them was responsible, each accused the other. The priest left the daughter of the Israelite alone and vented his rage on the priest’s daughter. When she asked why he left the daughter of the Israelite alone and was chastising only her, after giving the dough to both of them, he replied that having grown up in a priestly family she should know how to handle terumah; but her cowife had not been trained in this from childhood. So too in the Time to Come: The soul and the body will be standing for judgment. What will the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He will let the body alone, and take the soul to task. The latter will say before Him: “O Lord of the Universe, we have sinned both of us as one; B Sanh. 91a–b; cf. Lev. Rab. 4:5. The story can be found in the Ezekiel apocryphon. see: James R. Mueller, The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel (Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield England, 1994), pp.87–91; The Apocryphal Ezekiel, edited by, Michael E. Stone, Benjamin G. Wright, David Satran (Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, Georgia, 2000), pp.9–19. 96

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

223

why do You let the body alone, and take me to task?” He will answer: “The body is from the lower [earthly] regions, from a place where they sin, but you are from the upper [celestial] regions, from a place where they do not sin. Therefore I let the body alone and take you to task.”97

We saw from this that the Amoraim believed that the soul pre-exists the body (see further below). But their notion was not that of Greek philosophy and did not rest on a dualism of spirit and matter. The soul is not degraded when it unites with the body and does not change in any way. For the Sages, its prior existence means that it has comprehensive knowledge of God. Hence the soul bears the major responsibility for human actions, because it is loftier than the physical organs.98 The Bible contains no direct assertion that the soul pre-exists the body; however, one inconclusive allusion in Jeremiah 1 does allow for this as a possible interpretation. In God’s consecration address to Jeremiah he tells him, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (hiqdaštika); I appointed you (netattika) a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5). In other words, the Lord determined his prophetic vocation when he still had no physical existence. The use of the verbs hiqdiš and natan underscores the ritual nature of Jeremiah’s consecration to prophecy.99 In the Wisdom of Solomon (first century BCE), whose author was influenced by Stoic doctrine and perhaps also by Platonism, we read: “I was, indeed, a child well endowed, having had a noble soul fall to my lot, or rather being noble I entered an undefiled body” (8:19–20). This clearly assumes that the soul pre-exists the body.100

Lev. Rab. 4:5. Urbach, The Sages, pp.241–242. 99 These verbs are also found in the account of the consecration of the Levites (Num. 8:16–17) and in the description of the sanctification of their property (Lev. 27:22–23). See also the Phoenician consecration descriptions to Melkart of Tyre, KAI 43:9. 100 David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, p.198. Winston rejects Urbach’s stance that does not accept here the existence of the soul before the body. See his bibliography. See also Hans Clemens Caesarius Cavallin, 97 98

224

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

In the Apocryphal book of 2 Enoch, we read that “all souls are prepared for eternity, before the formation of the world” (23:4–5). Josephus, describing the doctrines of the Essenes and their scorn for the body, says that they believed that “but that the souls are immortal, and continue forever; and that they come out of the most subtle air, and are united to their bodies as in prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement.”101 According to Urbach, the Tanna’im never refer to the soul as pre-existing the body. They do refer to the “treasury of souls,” but this is the abode of souls after death. What concerned them was the fate of the souls of the righteous and the wicked. Only from the second half of the third century do we find Amoraim of Eretz Israel who believe that the soul pre-exists the body. For example, all souls to be born in the future were present at Mount Sinai, before their bodies were created.102 Here is Rabbi Levi’s homily on “Let us make man” (Gen. 2:26): He took counsel with the souls of the righteous, as it is written, “These were the makers (yoʜerim) and those that dwelt among plantations and hedges (netaÝim and gederah: probably place names in the original); there they dwelt with the king in his work” (1 Chron. 4:23). “These were the makers”: they are so termed on account of the verse, “Then the Lord God made (wa-yiʜʜer) man …” (Gen. 2:7); “And those that dwelt among plantations” corresponds to “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east” (v. 8); “And hedges” corresponds to “I placed the sand as the bound of the sea” (Jer. 5:22); ‘There they dwelt with the king in his work”: with the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, sat the souls of the righteous with whom He took counsel before creating the world.103

There is an interesting description of the soul’s pre-existence in Midrash Tanʘuma. The Lord determines whether an individual Life After Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor 15 (Lund, Sweden: Gleerup, 1974), p.131 n.26. 101 Jewish Wars 2.8.154.(trans. William Whiston). 102 Tanʘuma Niʛʛavim 3; cf. B Yebamot 62a, B Avodah Zarah 5a. 103 Gen. Rab. 8:7.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

225

will be male or female, strong or weak, and other qualities. But whether a person will be righteous or wicked is left to his own free will and decided by the soul. The Holy One, blessed be he, motions to the angel in charge of the souls (ruʚot) and tells him, “Bring me this certain soul, which is in the Garden of Eden, whose name is Such-and-So, and whose appearance is such-and such.” For all of the souls that were ever to be created, all of them were created on the day that [God] created the world. Before the world will come to an end, they will be assigned [specific] people, as it is written [Eccles. 6:10]: “Whatever will come to be has already been named.” Immediately, the angel goes and brings the soul before the Holy One, blessed be he. And when it comes immediately it bends down and bows its knees before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be he. Then the Holy One, blessed be he, says to that soul, “Enter into this drop [of semen] of so-and so!” The soul opens its mouth and says to him: “Master of the universe! The world in which I have lived from the day on which you created me is good enough for me! Why do you wish to place me in that decaying drop, for I am holy and pure, and I have been hewn from your glory.” Immediately, the Holy One, blessed be he says to his soul (nešamah), “The world into which I am going to place you is better for you than the one in which you have lived until one. And, at the time at which I created you, I created you only for this [particular] drop!” Immediately, the Holy One, blessed be he, places it there against its will, and then the angel goes and places the soul in the womb of its mother. And they call upon two [other] angels, which watch over [the soul], so that it does not leave there and so that it does not miscarry. And the place there a lit candle on its head as Scripture states [Job29:3], “Oh that I were as in the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me; when his lamp shone upon my head [and by his light I walked through darkness].” And [by that candle’s light] it can look and see from one end of the world to the other. The angel takes it from there and brings it to the Garden of Eden, and shows it the righteous sitting in the glory with their crowns on their head, and the angel says to that soul, “Do you know who these are?” The soul says to him, “No, my

226

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE Lord.” So the angel continues and says, “Those whom you see were created in the beginning just like you, within the wombs of their mothers, and they went out into the world and observed the Torah and the commandments. Therefore, they were deemed worthy and this good that you see came to them. Know, that you are destined to leave the world, and if you are worthy and observe the Torah and the commandments of the Holy One, blessed be he, you will be worthy of this and of the same place they have [earned]. But if not, know and realize that you will be worthy of different place.” (Exodus Pequdei 3)

The passage goes on to describe how the soul, which is inside the growing embryo, is shown the entire world and the options of doing good or doing evil. We should note, though, that although the soul existed before the body and is eternal, it has no meaningful existence outside the body. Before it enters the body and after death the soul can be neither good nor bad. It is judged for the actions of the body, which was its abode.104 Even though the soul comes from God, it is in fact the embodiment of the human being for good or evil; everything depends on his actions in daily life. The soul is critical to a person’s life, because it keeps him from dying. The Sages did not agree about how this happens, however: Thus it is written, “If He set His heart upon man, if He gather unto Himself ruʚo (his spirit) and nišmato (his soul), all flesh shall perish together, and man shall return to the dust” (Job 34:14). R. Joshua b. R. Nehemiah and the Rabbis discussed this. R. Joshua b. R. Nehemiah interpreted it: “If God set His heart upon any man, his spirit (ruʚo) is already in His hand; and if He gather his soul (nišmato) unto him” [to the man], which means into his body, then all men had already perished; but when man is sleeping the soul (nešamah) warms the body so that it should not waste and die. The Rabbis interpret: “If God set His heart upon him,” i.e. upon any man, his spirit (ruʚo) is Alan J. Avery-Peck, “Soul in Judaism,” in The Encyclopedia of Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, William Scott Green (New York: Continuum, 1999), 3: 1345. 104

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

227

already in His hand, “And if He gather his soul (nišmato) unto Himself” above, then all men had already perished, but that when man sleeps the soul (nešamah) warms man that he should not grow cold and die. R. Bisni, R. Aʘa, and R. Joʘanan in R. Meir’s name said: The nešamah (soul) fills the body, and when man sleeps it ascends and draw life for him from above. R. Levi said in R. ʗanina’s name: It repeatedly ascends. For every breath which a man takes he must give praise to the Holy One, blessed be He. What is the reason? “Let every nešamah (breath) praise the Lord (Ps. 150:6),” which means, for every breath [let one praise Him].105

The soul is an integral part of a human being. It comes from God and makes a person alive. On the basis of the passage just quoted, without the soul the body is cold and doomed to die. Even though soul and body have different origins, during life they constitute a single unit. At death the soul returns to God, until the resurrection, at which time it will return to the original body for the final judgment by God. As noted above, all human souls were created during the six days of Creation and were present at the Revelation on Sinai. The Messiah will come when every soul has been born or when the Lord finishes creating all the souls He intended to create. According to the Babylonian Talmud: “The Son of David will only come when all the souls destined to [inhabit earthly] bodies have been exhausted, as it is said, ‘For I will not contend for ever, nor will I always be angry; for from me proceeds the ruaʚ and I have made the nešamot’ (Isa. 57:16).” (Av. Zar. 5a, Yeb. 62a, 63b). The same idea can be found in B ʗagigah 12b, which lists and discusses the seven firmaments: “Ýaravot (heavy cloud or darkness?): where there are Right, Judgment, Righteousness, the treasures of life and the treasures of peace and the treasures of blessing, the souls (nišmatan) of the righteous and the spirits and souls (ruʚot unešamot) that are yet to be born, and dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, will revive the dead in the future.”

105

Gen. Rab. 14:9.

228

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

The Immortality of the Soul The belief in the immortality of the soul can be traced back to primitive societies. From the very beginning of the Old Stone Age we find a concern for the fate of the dead, expressed in burial customs. A hint of the immortality of the soul can be found in the common biblical idioms “be gathered to one’s people,” “lie down with one’s fathers,” etc. (Gen. 25:8, 47:30; etc.). The story of Saul at Endor (1 Sam. 28:7) supports this belief. Job’s statement, “and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh I shall see God” (Job 19:26), may also allude to the survival of the soul after death. On the other hand, the Bible also says that when a person dies “his plans perish” (Ps. 146:4) and that the dead cannot give thanks to the Lord (Ps. 30:10, 6:6; 88:11)—which seems to indicate that death is final. Another place that seems to posit survival after death is the matriarch Rachel’s mourning for her children: A cry is heard in Ramah—wailing, bitter weeping—Rachel weeping for her children. She refuses to be comforted for her children, who are gone. Thus said the Lord: “Restrain your voice from weeping, your eyes from shedding tears; for there is a reward for your labor …: they shall return from the enemy’s land. And there is hope for your future …: your children shall return to their country.” (Jer. 31:15–17)

This means that the dead know what is taking place in the world of the living and react emotionally to events there. This is not conclusive, of course: Jeremiah may be using a metaphor only, not to be taken literally.106 David Kimʘi, for one, understood the passage in In the Midrash, when the Sages describe the patriarchs’ intervention on behalf of the exiled people of Jerusalem, we find details of Rachel’s plea. She argues before the Lord, “‘Why should You, a king who lives eternally and is merciful, be jealous of idolatry in which there is no reality, and exile my children and let them be slain by the sword, and their enemies have done with them as they wished!’ Forthwith the mercy of the Holy One, blessed be He, was stirred, and He said, ‘For your sake, Rachel, I will restore Israel to their place.’ And so it is written, ‘A cry is heard in Ramah—wailing, bitter weeping—Rachel weeping for her children. She refuses to be comforted for her children, who are gone.’ And further it is written: “Thus says the Lord, ‘Restrain your voice from weeping, your 106

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

229

this way.107 Duham suggests that there may have been a folk belief that a ghostly apparition of Rachel appeared regularly at her tomb, mourning for her children.108 Volz accepts Kimʘi’s explanation, while suggesting that Jeremiah may also have been influenced by such a “local saga.”109 Gaster, following Frazer, suggests that the “image of the mother weeping for her dead children may be an echo of the folk belief that women who died in childbirth haunt the earth in search of their babies.”110 The Sadducees rejected the immortality of the soul. According to Josephus, “as for the persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them.”111 This is why they lived luxuriously and did not fast or follow ascetic practices, as other Jews of the age did.112 Because they did not believe in the immortality of the soul, they hewed to the dictum “Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” (Isa. 22:13). The other two sects of the late Second Temple period, the Essenes and the Pharisees, did believe in the immortality of the soul. Josephus describes the Essenes’ reaction to torture: Smiling in their agonies and mildly deriding their tormentors, they cheerfully resigned their souls, confident that they would receive them back. For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent but eyes from shedding tears; for there is a reward for your labor …’ ” (Lam. Rab. Prologue 24). 107 Robert Carroll believes that Rachel weeping for her children is a strange metaphor and its precise meaning is not clear. The word Rachel may be understood as ‘ewe-lamb.’ Thus he says, the image refers to “a mother sheep lamenting on the highland the loss of her lambs.” See: Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (Westminster Press: Philadelphia, 1986), p.598. 108 According to Matt 2:18 and Zohar 2:29, Rachel is also weeping for later next generations of Israelites who are killed or banished. 109 Paul Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia, (Leipzig: A. Deichert ,1922),pp.289–290. 110 T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament, p.605. 111 Josephus, The Jewish Wars, II.8.165. 112 Faith and Piety in Early Judaism: texts and documents, ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg and Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p.32.

230

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE the soul is immortal and imperishable. Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison-house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the bonds of flesh, then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft.113

Unlike the Pharisees, who believed in the immortality of the soul and physical resurrection of the dead, the Essenes believed that the body decays but the soul is eternal. They held that the soul, which originates in the upper ether, pre-exists the body, which it entered unwillingly, and which it is happy to leave so as to return to its celestial source. After the body dies the souls of the righteous live beyond the ocean in the West, in a region that knows neither rain nor snow nor intense heat, but is “refreshed by the gentle breathing of a west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean.” The souls of the wicked they assign to “a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments.”114 Josephus notes that these beliefs are quite similar to those held by the Greeks. The Greeks, too, believed that after death the souls of heroes were conveyed to the Isles of the Blessed, while the souls of the wicked were punished in Hades. Josephus says that the Essenes’ main goal was to establish the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Their secondary goals were to influence individuals to do good deeds while alive, in the expectation of receiving their reward after death, and to admonish the wicked to fear eternal torments after death. The language of the Manual of Discipline from Qumran (1QS 4:7–8) is very close to Josephus’ account of the Essenes and their belief in the immortality of the soul. The righteous are promised everlasting joy in eternal life and a crown of glory and cloak of splendor, whereas the wicked will find perpetual shame and consignment to the fire of darkness (ibid., 8–9 and 13– 14). As for the Pharisees, Josephus says that they believed that the soul comes from a celestial source and that after death human beings return to their source. “Every soul, they maintain, is imperish113 114

Josephus, The Jewish War, II. 8. 153–154. Ibid., II.8.155.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

231

able, but the soul of the god alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment.”115 “Their souls, remaining spotless and obedient, are allotted the most holy place in heaven, whence, in the revolution of the ages they return to find chaste bodies a new habitation.”116 This is not metempsychosis, however. In addition to the immortality of the soul, these passages also speak of the resurrection of the dead, which we shall address in a later chapter. To judge by the speech he reports he delivered in the Galilee explaining why he did not commit suicide, Josephus himself believed in the immortality of the soul and resurrection of the dead.117 But in the oration he has Eleazar Ben Yair, the leader of the Zealots on Masada, deliver to his followers to persuade them to commit mass suicide, he speaks only of the immortality of the soul: For the laws of our country, and of God himself, have from ancient times, and as soon as ever we could use our reason, continually taught us, and our forefathers have corroborated the same doctrine by their actions, and by their bravery of mind, that it is life that is a calamity to men, and not death; for this last affords our souls their liberty, and sends them by a removal into their own place of purity, where they are to be insensible of all sorts of misery; for while souls are tied clown to a mortal body, they are partakers of its miseries; and really, to speak the truth, they are themselves dead; for the union of what is divine to what is mortal is disagreeable. It is true, the power of the soul is great, even when it is imprisoned in a mortal body; for by moving it after a way that is invisible, it makes the body a sensible instrument, and causes it to advance further in its actions than mortal nature could otherwise do. However, when it is freed from that weight which draws it down to the earth and is connected with it, it obtains its own proper place, and does then become a partaker of that blessed power, and those abilities, which are then every way incapable of being hindered in their operations. It continues invisible, in-

Ibid., II.8.163. Ibid., III. 374. 117 Ibid., III. 362–382. 115 116

232

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE deed, to the eyes of men, as does God himself; for certainly it is not itself seen while it is in the body; for it is there after an invisible manner, and when it is freed from it, it is still not seen. It is this soul which hath one nature, and that an incorruptible one also; but yet it is the cause of the change that is made in the body; for whatsoever it be which the soul touches, that lives and flourishes; and from whatsoever it is removed, that withers away and dies; such a degree is there in it of immortality.118

Eleazar’s words echo Philo in the idea that the soul is degraded by its contact with the body and that leaving the body is its release and liberation. This does not coincide with the view of the talmudic Sages, for whom the partnership of body and soul is positive and who maintain that human beings ascend not through the release of the soul from the body but by doing good deeds and fulfilling the precepts.119 Eleazar’s speech sounds like a quotation from a pagan philosopher. Josephus disassociates himself from the rebels, but nevertheless describes them in a fashion that would appeal to his readers, despite the headache they had caused Rome. They were not good Jews but won respect from their “fellow pagans.”120 According to Segal, the defenders of Masada would not have accepted the views that Josephus ascribed to them. Like all the nativist groups of the first century who believed in martyrdom, including the Christians, they believed in bodily resurrection and not immortality of the soul.121 The talmudic sages believed that the soul survives a person’s death but did not agree as to where it went then. One view was that after death a righteous person enters Paradise, or a special section thereof,122 whereas the wicked go to Gehinnom.123 On his deathbed, R. Johanan ben Zakkai told his disciples why he was disIbid., 7.8.7(tr. William Whiston). Urbach, The Sages, pp.222–223. 120 N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), p.180. 121 Alan F. Segal, Life After Death (New York: Doubleday, 2004), p.384. 122 B Shab. 152b; B BM 83b. 123 B ʗag. 15a; B Erub. 19a. 118 119

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

233

traught: “When there are two ways before me, one leading to Paradise and the other to Gehinnom, and I do not know by which I shall be taken, shall I not weep?”124 The implication is that a human being is judged immediately after death. But there is nothing here about bodily resurrection or a Judgment Day at the end of time.125 Another view says that when a person dies the soul is detached from the body and ascends to the “treasury” beneath “the throne of glory,”126 “where there are Right, Judgment, and Righteousness, the treasures of life and the treasures of peace and the treasures of blessings, the souls of the righteous and the spirits and souls that are yet to be born, and dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, will revive the dead in the future.”127 But the souls of the wicked will remain in their prison.128 One angel stands at one end of the world and another angel at the other end of the world, and they toss the souls back and forth between them: “He will fling away the lives of your enemies as from the hollow of a sling.”129 According to the Talmud, a person’s soul stays with the body for a certain period after death. Rabbi Levi says that the soul hovers above the corpse for three days, trying to return to it, and only when this proves impossible does it abandon the body.130 Rav ʗisda says that a person’s soul mourns him during the seven days of the mourning period.131 Elsewhere we read that the body survives for twelve months, during which the soul ascends and descends. After twelve months, when the body has wasted away, the soul ascends and does not come down again: A certain Sadducee said to R. Abbahu: “You maintain that the souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory: B Ber. 28b. Neusner noted that this part of the account of the death of R. Johanan ben Zakkai is a later addition to what was originally a shorter story, and that its author was R. Joshua Ben Levi: J. Neusner, Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (StPB16; Brill: Leiden, 1970), p.224. 126 B Shab. 152b. 127 B ʗag. 12b. 128 B. Shab. 152b. 129 Ibid. 130 J MoÝed Qaʜan 3:5 (82b); J Yeb. 16:3. 131 B Shab. 152a. 124 125

234

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE then how did the bone [practising] necromancer bring up Samuel by means of necromancy?” “There it was within twelve months [of death],” he replied. “For it was taught: For a full [twelve months] the body is in existence and the soul ascends and descends; after twelve months the body ceases to exist and the soul ascends but descends nevermore.”132

In other words, the soul resists the death of the body and hovers near it in an attempt to re-enter it. Eventually, after it abandons the body, it waits for the resurrection, when it will be united once again with the body and they will face judgment together.133 This is implied by the text of one of the preliminary blessings of the Morning Service: My God, the soul that You placed in me is pure; You formed it in me, You blew it into me, and You preserve it within my body; and in the future You will take it from me and restore it to me at the end of time. As long as the soul is within my body I give thanks to You, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, Master of the universe, Lord of all souls. Blessed be You, O Lord, who returns the soul to dead corpses.134

Human beings must return their souls to the Creator. According to Tractate Shabbat: Render it back to him as He gave it to thee, [viz.,] in purity, so do you [return it] in purity. This may be compared to a mortal king who distributed royal apparel to his servants. The wise among them folded it up and laid it away in a chest, whereas the fools among them went and did their work in them. After a time the king demanded his garments: the wise among them returned them to him immaculate, [but] the fools among them returned them soiled. The king was pleased with the wise but angry with the fools. Of the wise he said, “Let my robes be placed in my treasury and they can go home in peace”; while of the fools he said, “Let my robes be given to the fuller, and let them be confined in prison.” Thus too, with the Holy One, B Shab. 152b. B Sanh. 91. 134 B Ber. 60b. 132 133

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

235

blessed be He: concerning the bodies of the righteous He says, “He enters into peace, they rest in their beds” (Isa. 57:2); while concerning their souls He says, “yet the soul of my Lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life with the Lord thy God.” (1 Sam. 25:29) But concerning the bodies of the wicked He says, “There is no peace, says, the Lord, for the wicked”(Isa. 48:22); while concerning their souls He says, “He will fling away the lives of your enemies as from the hollow of a sling” (1 Sam. 25:29).135

There seem to have been two separate conceptions of the afterlife, which the rabbis merged (see at length below): the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul. According to the former, a dead person is dead, both body and soul, until after the coming of the Messiah, when the soul will be reunited with the body that has been raised from the dead. According to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the body dies forever, but the soul lives on eternally. These two beliefs were combined: after a person dies the soul lives on in Heaven until the epoch of the resurrections, when body and soul will be reunited. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha The doctrine of the immortality of the soul can be found extensively in the intertestamental literature of the last century BCE and first century CE. Here human beings are composed of two entities, body and soul. The soul pre-exists the body and leaves it at death. The body disintegrates in the grave, whereas the soul continues to exist for ever. Evidence of the immortality of the soul can be found in the later books of the Apocrypha.136 According to 1 Enoch 22, B Shab. 152b. In the earlier books of the Apocrypha, such as Tobias, Judith, and Ben Sira, there are no traces of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Tobias devotes himself diligently to burying the dead, but there is no hint of the immortality of the soul. Tobias and Sarah pray for death, but there is no hint of life after death. In Judith there is an allusion to the punishment of the wicked: “Woe to the nations which rise against my people! The Omnipatent Lord will take vengeance on them on the day of judgment; He will consign their flesh to fire and worms, And they will wail with pain forever” (Judith 16:17). But this verse is based on Isaiah 66:24, 135 136

236

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

all souls come to their final destination in the West, where they remain there until the great Judgment Day.137 Chapters 24–27 deal with the topic of judgment and its meaning for the righteous and the wicked. Chapter 22 distinguishes between the souls of the wicked and the souls of the righteous. The latter are in “four hollow places, deep and wide and very smooth” (v. 2), whereas the wicked are divided into two categories. One of them will not be tried on Judgment Day, because they have already been judged during their lives (v. 13). The other group of the wicked, mentioned in vv. 10–11, are those on whom judgment was not executed during their lifetimes, and whose souls will be punished “until the great day of judgment.” According to verse 2, the souls of the wicked are in a dark place. Unlike the wicked, the righteous have a special place, a “bright spring of water.” The image of light and life-giving water has biblical origins.138 Here it may allude to the belief that the dead need water, expressed in later midrashim and medieval kabbalistic works.139 According to the midrashim, the spirits of the dead are in a courtyard, in front of which there is a stream, in front of which there is a field. Every day the angel Duma brings the spirits out of the courtyard and they eat from the field and drink from the waters of the stream. Nickelsburg observed that the phrase “for this great torment” (v. 11) indicates that the wicked are already suffering. According to him, the distinction between here and there indicates that on the final Day of Judgment the souls of the wicked will descend to Gehinnom. He believed that the author of Enoch had some version “They shall go out and gaze on the corpses of the men who rebelled against Me: Their worms shall not die, nor their fire be quenched.” Ben Sira emphasizes that the appropriate thing for a man to do is to leave behind a good name: “The human body is a fleeting thing, but virtuous name will never be annihilated” (Sir. 41:11). 137 See the analysis of 1 Enoch 22 in George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp.134–137; idem, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), pp.300–309. 138 “For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we shall see light” (Ps 36:10 [9]). 139 Midrash Šoʘer ʝov 11.6.47–48.

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

237

of resurrection in mind, as indicated by the statement that the souls of the other category of the wicked “will not be raised from there” (v. 13): i.e., there will be a resurrection of the souls of the wicked, and their souls, not their bodies—will be punished (vv. 11 and 13).140 In 2 Esdras, written in the first century CE, there is a dialogue between an angel and Ezra. In Chapter 3 (chapter 1 of 4 Esdras in the Vulgate) Ezra recounts how he prayed to be allowed an insight into the ways of Divine Providence. First Ezra asks why the Temple was destroyed, when the nations are no more righteous than Israel. The angel who appears offers several parables whose burden is that human beings cannot understand the ways of God (4:5–21). In reply Ezra asks that human beings be allowed to understand the logic of their existence. The angel is compelled to explain to him the secrets of Creation. After this the dialogue shifts to details of the End of Days. In 4:35 there is a reference to the treasuries (or “chambers”) in which the souls of the righteous subsist after death (again in v. 41 and in 7:32, 80, 95). These treasuries are the abode of the righteous. In other verses the treasuries are the abode of all souls (7:32, 80). In 4:35 the souls ask, “How long are we to remain here? And when will come the harvest of our reward?” This verse can be understood as referring to an intermediate state between death and the resurrection. In v. 39 Ezra asks why the reward of the righteous has been postponed. In vv. 41–42 he receives an answer: “The underworld and the treasuries of the souls are like the womb. For just as a woman who is in travail makes haste to escape the pangs of birth, so also do these (places) hasten to give back those things that were committed to them from the beginning.” The fact that the souls have no rest in the treasuries indicates that they are not at peace with their situation; the only answer is resurrection, when then they will receive their reward.141 A more detailed description of the intermediate stage of the souls of the righteous and wicked can be found in 7:75–99. Here again there is a distinction between the souls of the wicked and of the righteous. The punishment of the wicked is that their souls wander and do not enter the treasuries. The souls of the righteous, 140 141

Nickelsburg, Resurrection, p.136; Cavallin, Life After Death, p.42. Cavallin, Life After Death, p.83.

238

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

by contrast, ascend. According to vv. 100–101, when they separate from the body after death the souls of the righteous are allowed to leave the treasures for a period of seven days, so that they can see “the thing that has been predicted,” after which they return to the treasuries. The fate of the souls is also discussed in the Testament of Abraham. The original Hebrew of this work evidently dates from the second century BCE to the second century CE. The book deals chiefly with the circumstances of Abraham’s death.142 It reports that the angel Michael was sent to bring Abraham’s soul, but Abraham refused to die (A 2–7). Abraham’s death would be the result of the soul’s departing the body and going to heaven (B 14). Abraham agrees to obey God’s will, but only on condition that he be allowed to see the entire inhabited world before he dies (A 8–9). This takes place while his soul is still in his body (A 9). The angel Michael takes him to the judgment place of souls, where Abraham sees the angels punishing sinful souls. The judge of the souls is Abel, who weighs their deeds and passes verdict accordingly. All of this is meant to show Abraham God’s attribute of mercy (A 11– 13). Next he sees a soul that requires one deed in order to be saved and intervenes on its behalf so that it is saved (A 14). He also intervenes on behalf of those whom he destroyed by his prayer. Thus the doctrine of the immortality of each soul and the judgment of souls is basic to this work. As for Abraham himself, his soul is taken to Paradise, to the tent that is the abode of the souls of the righteous (A 20), while his body is buried: “And they tended the body of the righteous Abraham with divine ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death. And they buried him in the promised land at the oak of Mamre.” Before Abraham’s death there is a miracle, the resurrection of his servants who had died from fear of death: “When Abraham saw them he prayed to the Lord, and he raised them”(B 14).

142 M. Declor, Le Testament d’Abraham (SVTP 2; Brill: Leiden:1973); M. E. Stone, The Testament of Abraham (Pseudepigrapha Series 2; Society of Biblical Literature: Missoula, MT, 1972); N. Turner, The Testament of Abraham, pp.392–421 in The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H. F. D. Sparks (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1984).

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

239

Another text that deals with the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is the Testament of Asher: “For if the soul departs troubled, it is tormented by the evil spirit, whom it also served in its desires and evil works. But if [it departs] quietly in joy, he [the man] has recognized the angel of peace, who will comfort him with life” (6:5–6). Once again the destinies of the righteous and wicked are distinguished. Death leads to the judgment of the soul: the souls of the righteous are redeemed, while the souls of the wicked are punished. Both types of souls survive death. The body is not mentioned here at all. When a human being dies, he is met by the angel who accompanied him throughout his life, who leads him to his eternal destiny. The angel, both accuser and the defender, advises God about the person’s deeds during life. The author’s focus is a person’s deeds and their consequences, so that his destiny is determined when he dies.143 The immortality of the soul is also emphasized in the first part of the Wisdom of Solomon, which dates from between 220 BCE and 50 CE. According to 2:22–23, “God created man for immortality, and made him an image of his own proper being; it was through the devil’s envy that Death entered into the cosmic order, and they who are his own experience him.” In other words, human beings were always destined for eternal life. Evidence of the immortality of the soul comes in Chapter 3, which speaks of the righteous man: “The souls of the just are in God’s hand, and torment shall in no way touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seem to be dead … but they are at peace. … Their hope is full of immortality” (3:1–3). This is the start of a passage (3:1–12) that teaches that the death of the righteous is the beginning of a better existence in which they live for ever, after a brief period of chastisement in which the Lord tests them. When and where this happens the author does not say. Some hold, though, that he shared the belief of the author of 1 Enoch that all souls are relegated to the underworld until the final Judgment Day. Another possibility is that the trial takes place immediately after death.144 For the author, rewarding the righteous does not require the resurrection of the For further analysis of the Testament of Asher see: Nickelsburg, Resurrection, pp.161–162; Cavallin, Life After Death, pp.55–56. 144 David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, p.125. 143

240

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

dead; in fact, that idea does not appear in the book at all. After death the righteous appear to be dead, but this is not really so: only their bodies are dead, whereas their souls are immortal and at peace. Further evidence of the immortality of the soul is found in 5:15: “But the just live for ever; their reward is the Lord, and the Most High has them in His care.” The significance of the immortality of the soul is that the righteous will be in the presence of the Lord: “But the just live forever; their reward is the Lord, and the Most High has them in his care. Therefore they will obtain majestic royalty and a resplendent diadem from the hand of the Lord, for he will shatter them with his right hand and with his arm he will shield them” (v.16). This description of the righteous in the presence of the Lord echoes a number of biblical passages (Ps. 16:5; 73:23–26). The eternal life of the righteous is also found in Philo: “In my judgment, no good man is dead, but will live for ever, proof against old age, with a soul immortal in its nature no longer fettered by the restraints of the body.”145 The idea of the immortality of the soul derives from platonic influence on the author. The book presents a dualism of body and soul (9:15)146 and a deprecation of the body: “For perishable body weighs down the soul, and this tent of clay encumbers a mind full of cares.” Plato referred to the body’s negative influence on the soul. “So long as we have the body, and the soul is contaminated by such an evil, we shall never attain completely what we desire, that is, the truth. For the body keeps us constantly busy by reason of its need for sustenance.”147 This idea that the body weighs down the soul can be found in many writings by Platonists and Roman Stoics. As Plato put it, “such a soul is weighed down by this and is dragged back into the sensible world” (Phaedo 81C). Philo says much the same: “But those which bear the burden of the flesh, oppressed by the grievous load, cannot look up to the heavens as they revolve, but with necks bowed downwards are constrained to

Philo, On Joseph, vol.6. 264. Phaedo 81c; John J. Collins, “The Root of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom,” HTR 71 (1978): 188, n.38. 147 Phaedo 66b. 145 146

NEFEŠ, NEŠAMAH, AND RUAʙ

241

stand rooted to the ground like four-footed beasts.”148 For Josephus, “it is not until, freed from the weight that drags it down to earth and clings about it, that the soul is restored to its proper sphere.”149 In the Wisdom of Solomon, the soul is the source of human values and of eternity. Its author draws from the Bible the idea that living righteously, and not philosophy, leads to eternal life. The death of a righteous person is not death at all, because the soul will live on in the presence of the Lord. A trenchant summary of the author’s ideas is 15:3: “For to know You is the sum of righteousness, and to recognize Your power is the root of immortality.” Nevertheless, the idea that death is to be accepted gladly and is a blessing is quite alien to the book.

CONCLUSION To sum up, the Bible employs three different terms, nefeš, ruaʚ, and nešamah. Although there is a significant overlap among them, none covers the exact same semantic field as the others. What is important for us is that, from the biblical perspective, God is the source of the nefeš, ruaʚ, and nešamah and they are the vital force in human beings. When a person dies, the nešamah and ruaʚ return to God, which means that they do not die. The nešamah is of a more sublime nature and is what distinguishes human beings, whereas the ruaʚ and the nefeš are possessed by animals as well. The notion of the duality of body and soul can be found in the Bible (Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:9–14; Zech. 12:1; Job 34:15; Eccles. 12:7). Nowhere does the Bible speak of the soul pre-existing the body. Nor does it offer any information about punishment, that is, whether the soul and body are punished together or separately and where the soul goes after death. These concepts seem to have developed later. The various sects of the Second Temple period entertained different views of the immortality of the soul. The Sadducees rejected the idea; the Pharisees and Essenes accepted it. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body and of the soul, whereas the Essenes believed that bodies disintegrate but souls are 148 149

Philo, On The Giants, 31. Josephus, Jewish Wars 7.346.

242

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

eternal (a view that makes them close to the Greeks). The Sages discussed the link between body and soul in the Talmud and midrashim. Initially they focused on the reward of the souls of the righteous and punishment of the wicked: the souls of the righteous go to Paradise while those of the wicket go to Gehinnom. Later the view emerged that the souls of the righteous are found in the “treasuries.” From the second half of the third century we find the notion that the soul is created before the human being, but that the body and soul are punished together. Later we find the idea that only the soul is punished, because it is superior to the physical body. There are detailed descriptions of the world of souls in the apocryphal literature, including Enoch, 2 Esdras, the Testament of Abraham, and the Wisdom of Solomon. In the Wisdom of Solomon and in Enoch we find the idea that the soul exists before the body. The idea of the immortality of the soul is also found in the Apocrypha, as is the distinction between the souls of the wicked and the souls of the righteous. The righteous and the wicked go to separate domains after death, and the souls of the wicked are punished. In 2 Esdras, for example, we read that the wicked are punished because their souls find no repose, whereas the souls of the righteous ascend to the treasuries—an image that is frequent in the rabbinic literature. We concluded this chapter with a discussion of the immortality of the soul. Continuing from this, in the next chapter we will inquire whether the Bible knows of a cult of the dead. That is, if the souls of the dead survive, did the living try to make contact with them?

5 NECROMANCY The Holiness Code in Leviticus (19:31) explicitly prohibits inquiring of mediums and wizards (or of the ghosts and familiar spirits with whom they communicate). Deuteronomy associates this ban with other forms of magic: “There shall not be found among you … any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer” (Deut. 18:10–11). Despite this prohibition, various biblical passages—of which the most famous is the story of Saul and the “Witch of Endor” (1 Sam. 28:8, 11)—indicate that the practice of necromancy continued for many generations. In this chapter we will examine these passages, seeking to determine what techniques and objects were used to make contact with the dead. We will also look into whether sacrifices were offered to the dead. There was a widespread belief in Antiquity that the dead had power in the world of the living; sacrifices were offered to appease them so that they would not abuse this power. Were necromancy and offerings to the dead an original element of the Israelite cult that were later rejected? Or were they always foreign to it? Early modern scholars rejected the notion that there was ever a cult of the dead in Israel. De Vaux, for example, maintained that there was no solid evidence for it: “We conclude that the dead were honored in a religious spirit, but that no cult was paid to them.”1 Similarly, Kaufmann denies that there are references to necromancy— because the Bible forbids it. Israelite society may have believed that the dead have mantic powers, but not that they could help the living.2 In recent years, however, a number of scholars have detected Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institution, trans. John McHugh (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961), p.61. 2 Y. Kaufmann, Toledot ha-‘emunah ha-yisre’elit, vol 2:377; 486–506. 1

243

244

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

traces of ancestor worship in the Bible.3 In this chapter and the next we will draw on their works and survey the evidence for and against the existence of a cult of the dead in ancient Israel. The bulk of our inquiry will involve a close reading of the biblical text itself. Although it is tendentious and was frequently emended, we will look between the lines for evidence of an Israelite belief in the power of the dead, such that the living consulted and offered sacrifices to them.

MEDIUMS AND WIZARDS (ÞOVOT VE-YIDDEÝONIM) One way to communicate with the dead was through a medium who consulted ghosts (Þov) or a wizard who had a familiar spirit (yiddeÝoni). The collocation of the two terms is a common Bible idiom that functions as a hendiadys of sort. Only in rare instances does the word Þov appear by itself (e.g., 1 Sam. 28:7–8; Isa. 29:4; 1 Chron. 10:13). Apparently the two designate the same concept or are near synonyms, and wherever Þov appears by itself it should be taken as a shorthand form of the compound expression. Scholars do not agree about the meaning of Þov, while three different interpretations have been attached to the expression Þov ve-yiddeÝoni. One glosses the terms as referring to the medium or wizard who makes contact with the spirits of the dead; the second, as the spirits of the dead themselves; the third, as the objects employed to achieve such contact—a pit or a container of wine (Job 32:19), or images of the dead. Medium A close reading of the Bible reveals that the word Þov can certainly be understood to designate a necromancer who calls forth the spirits to get information from them; in other words, a human being who was proficient in the craft of the spirits of the dead from the underworld and communicating with them. The story of Saul at These include works about the cult of the dead in Israel and the ancient world such as K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife; Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOTSup 123; England Sheffield, 1992); and Brian B. Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead. 3

NECROMANCY

245

Endor refers to Þešet baÝalat Þov (1 Sam. 28:7), “a woman who is the possessor of an Þov.” The Septuagint renders Þov as π··΅ΗΘΕϟΐΙΌΓΑ ‘one who speaks from the belly’ (i.e., a ventriloquist); in all passages except Isa. 29:4 where it is rendered by ….. “the ones calling out of the earth.” The Vulgate sometimes reads magus, “sorcerer” (1S. 28:3; Lev 19:31, 20:6) and sometimes python, “diviner” (Isa. 8:19; 29:4; 2K. 21:6; 23:24; Dt.18:11; Lev. 20:27). Onqelos translates Þovot as bidin ‘fakes, cheats.’ The talmudic sages considered those who possessed an Þov to be charlatans and fakes and dismissed them as ventriloquists: “The ob-practitioner is a Python [i.e., an oracle possessed of a spirit of divination] who speaks from his armpit and the yiddeoni is one who speaks from his mouth.”4 The word yiddeÝoni comes from the root y.d.Ý, in Ugaritic we find the form d‘t which is from the common Northwest Semitic root, yd‘ “to know.” A Ugaritic text includes the lines, “aphrm(9) kšpm dbbm ygrš ʚrn (10)ʚbrm wğln d‘tm,” which Avishur translated: “Forthwith(?) sorcerers, enemies! / Horon will expel the binders / And the Youth soothsayers.”5 In another Ugaritic text we read, “(49) ktrm. hbrk (50) whss. d‘tk,” which Smith translated: “Kothar is your spell-caster and Hasis your knower (one who knows ghosts or spirits).”6 Milgrom infers from this that a yiddeÝoni is the person who practices the art of divination through the spirits of the dead—a necromancer.7 The Septuagint agrees, rendering it variously as epaoidos ‘conjurer,’ gnôstês/gnôristes ‘(knowing) soothsayer,’ teratoskopos ‘diviner,’ and also engastrimythos ‘one who speaks from the belly’ as it generally translates Þov . The Vulgate has harioli, incantores, divini, divinationes, and haruspices. The Gemara expands on the tannaitic interpretation cited above (yiddeÝoni = “one who speaks from his mouth”): “a yiddeÝoni is one who places the bone of a yidoaÝ [variously glossed as an animal (Rashi) or a bird (Maimonides)] in his mouth and it speaks of itM Sanh 7:7. Y. Avishur, “The Ghost-Expelling Incantation from Ugarit (Ras Ibn Hani 78/20),” UF 13(1981):16, 22–23. 6 KTU 1.6 VI 49–50; Mark. S. Smith, “The Magic of Kothar, the Ugaritic Craftsman God, in KTU 1.6 VI 49–50,” RB 91 (1984): 377–80. 7 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, p.1769. 4 5

246

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

self.”8 Tur-Sinai suggested that the yiddeÝoni placed the trachea or a neck vertebra of this bird inside its mouth (where, because of its small size, it was practically invisible) and used it as a whistle.9 Spirits of the Dead In several passages Þov and yiddeÝoni seem to refer to the spirits of the dead themselves, rather than to the medium who communicates with them.10 Leviticus 19:31 and 20:6 both employ the expression panah Þel ‘turn to’ with Þov and yiddeÝoni as the object, which can clearly be understood as consulting the spirits directly. Similarly, the list of various practitioners of the black arts in Deuteronomy 18:10–11 includes šoÞel Þov ve-yiddeÝoni ‘one who inquires of the spirits,’ rather than baÝal Þov, a person who is the possessor of some technical means.11 When Isaiah refers to the Þovot and yiddeÝonim that “chirp and mutter” (Isa. 8:19) he seems to have in mind the spirits of the dead, given that the ancients believed that ghosts made chirping noises when they emerged from below the ground. What is more, the verse opposes consultation with them to inquiring of B Sanhedrin 65b; N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Language and The Book (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955), vol.1:161 (Hebrew). 9 Tur-Sinai, The Language and the Book, p.162. 10 Spronk argues that the Þov is both the spirit of the dead and the object that represents it—an idol or figurine. He cites the analogy of Asherah, which is both the name of a goddess as well as a ritual object associated with her cult. See K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.253. Rouillard and Tropper maintain that Þov refers mainly to the spirit or image. See H. Rouillard and J. Trooper, “Vom kanaanäischen Ahnenkult zur Zauberei. Eine Auslegungsgeschichte zu den hebräischen Begriffen Þwb und yd Ýny,” UF 19(1987):235–54. According to Arnold: “ Þov in the Hebrew Bible signifies, at first, the deified spirit of one’s ancestor, and subsequently the ancestral image.” See Bill T. Arnold, “Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel,” CBQ 66(2004):201. Schmidtke says that Hebrew Þov is equivalent to the Akkadian etemmu ‘spirit’ and can also refer to the necromancer (1 Sam. 28: 3, 9; 2 Kings 21:6); See: F. Schmidtke, “Träume, Orakel und Totegeister als Künder der Zunkunft in Israel und Babylonian,” BZ 11(1967):240–246. Schmidt says that Þov and yiddeÝoni are the ghost of the dead; see Brian B. Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, pp.153– 154. 11 This is the longest such list in the Torah; cf. Ex. 12:17; Lev. 18:21; 19:26, 31; 20:2–6, 27. 8

NECROMANCY

247

the Lord—another indication that the meaning is the spirits of the dead and not necromancers. Isaiah 19:3 mentions Þovot and yiddeÝonim along with idols and ghosts—the powers themselves, which are addressed by those seeking assistance. Milgrom while speaking of baÝalat Þov glosses the term as “master” of an Þov and cites a Sumerian-Akkadian parallel, in which we find the name of a necromancer “lùÞgidim-ma and ša etemmi ‘master/(master) of the spirit in the dead.’ ”12 He says that through metonymy the Þov originally the spirit of the dead, came to refer to the conjurer as well. This view is supported by “a man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit in them (ki yihyeh bahem)”…. (Lev. 20:27), which means a person who serves as the medium for the Þov or yiddeÝoni.13 If we accept the theory that at least in some occurrences Þov and yiddeÝoni mean the spirits of the dead themselves, the etymology of the latter term denotes one of their powers—knowledge of the hidden future and the ability to reveal it to the living who consult them. The spirits have the benefit of the knowledge they accumulated while alive, plus additional knowledge they acquired only in the afterworld. YiddeÝoni seems to be derived from the root y.d.Ý ‘know, be familiar with,’ whence the translation “familiar spirit,” namely, the spirit of a deceased relative or intimate.14 ÞOvot may be a corruption of Þavot ‘fathers’ and designate the ancestral spirits below ground to whom requests for assistance

12 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, p.1769; Civil Miguel, The series lú = sa and related texts (MSL 12; Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1969), pp.168: 356; 226: 148. 13 Rouillard and Tropper believed that this verse, tacked on at the end of the chapter, was added during the Hellenistic era, because, they assert, the belief in mediums did not exist before then. See H. Rouillard and J. Tropper, “Vom kanaänischen Ahnenkult zur Zauberei, Eine Auslegungsgeschichte zu den hebräischen Begriffen Þwb und yd Ýny” UF 19 (1987): 239. 14 HALAT, 2:393; Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, p.134; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.254 n.6. The form is the nominal form with the afformative -on plus the gentilic -i. Similar forms in the Bible are qadmoni, Þadmoni, and ʚakmoni.

248

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

were addressed.15 This idea is made attractive by the frequency in the Bible of the expressions “lie with one’s fathers,” “be buried with one’s fathers,” and “be gathered to one’s fathers.” The spirits of these ancestors reside in the netherworld and their voices rise up through the ground: “your voice shall come from the ground like an Þov, and your speech chirp from the dust” (Isa. 29:4). When Saul asks the woman to raise the spirit of Samuel, she reports that she sees Samuel’s ghost “coming up from the earth” (1 Sam. 28:13). But this derivation is unlikely, because nowhere in the Bible is Þovot associated with ancestors, nor is there any instance of a patriarch who prayed to an ancestral spirit.16 Tropper noted various instances in the ancient Near East of deified ancestral spirits who seem to be identical with the Þov in their form and content. He cites the Old Akkadian ilaba, and Ugaritic ilib, which are compounds of the elements Þel and Þav and can best be rendered as “deified ancestor.” Sacrifices were offered to the ilib, who is generally mentioned at the very start of catalogues of deities, even before the major gods of Ugarit. In the Aqhat epic, the cultic veneration of his father’s spirit is one of the most important duties a man must fulfill. Thus identification of the Ugaritic ilib with the Hebrew Þov is definitely possible.17 Still, as noted, the derivation of Þov from Þav is problematic, nor can we explain the loss of the first syllable Þel.18 Some would link Þov to the Arabic root ΎΑ΃ (Þaba) ‘return.’19 That is, the Þov is a ghost, the spirit of a dead person that returns to the land of the living (as in the English “revenant”). This notion is 15 See: J. Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” Studies in Prophecy (VTS 26; Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp.136–137; M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, “Ugaritisch ILIB und hebräisch ’(W)B ‘Totengeist,’ ” UF 6 (1974): 450f.; H. P. Müller, “Das Wort von den Totengeistern Jes. 8, 19f,” Die Welt des Orients 8 (1975): 70; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.253. Schmidt points out that the association of Þov with Þav ‘father’ is problematic, because that would imply that the woman at Endor was “the controller of the father.” See Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.151. 16 Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.163. 17 Tropper also cites the Eblaite dingir-a-mu but no Þel or Þav here. See: J. Tropper, “Spirit of the Dead ,” DDD, p.807. 18 Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.165. 19 BDB, p.15; Lust,” On Wizards and Prophets,” p.135 n.4.

NECROMANCY

249

unlikely, however, because nowhere in the Bible do we encounter the root a.w.b with the sense of return. The talmudic sages explained Þov as meaning both the spirit of the dead and the person in whom such a spirit has lodged. The Þov was the spirit or afflatus used to call up the dead in order to learn about the future (Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27). A man or woman in possession of such a supernatural power is a baÝalat Þov ‘possessor of an Þov.’ This is how we should understand “a man or a woman who has an Þov or yiddeÝoni” (Lev. 20:27). The spirit referred to as an Þov resided in the body of a man or woman and spoke from within them to convey the message of the dead to the living. The Þov spoke quietly, muttering or moaning (Isa. 8:19; 29:4). According to the Talmud, the actual ghost of the deceased person entered the necromancer and its voice spoke from the necromancer’s joints.20 This is why the Septuagint uses π··΅ΗΘΕϟΐΙΌΓΑ ‘one who speaks from the belly’ (i.e., a ventriloquist). A technical device Another possibility is that Þovot and yiddeÝonim are technical implements employed for ritual purposes. This is supported by the statement that, after Samuel’s death, Saul “removed (hesir) the Þovot and yiddeÝonim from the land” (1 Sam. 28:3). His request to the woman is to “divine for me by an Þov (ba-Þov)” (1 Sam. 28:8). According to the account in Chronicles, Saul was punished for “asking by [means of] an Þov (ba-Þov)” (1 Chron. 10:13). These verses may imply that the Þov was some object used to facilitate communication with the spirits of the dead. This is bolstered by the report that Josiah destroyed (biÝer) “the Þovot and the yiddeÝonim and the teraphim and the idols and all the abominations that were to be seen in the land of Judah and Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:24). Given that teraphim and idols are ritual objects, it fits the context for Þovot and yiddeÝonim to be devices of some sort for consulting the dead. Several have been suggested.

20

B Sanh. 65b.

250

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

A pit Hoffner suggested that the biblical term Þov means “pit.” He maintains that the Hittite a-a-bi, the Assyrian abu, and the Ugaritic (il)ib are all close to the Hebrew word, which has precisely this sense in the story of Saul at Endor.21 The “pit” is the fissure in the ground through which the living communicated with the spirits of the dead and made them offerings, and through which the spirit came up to the surface. According to a recently discovered text from Emar, on the 25th day of the month of Abî a sacrifice is made to the abû, which is also referred to as “at the gate of the grave.”22 The phenomenon of digging a pit in order to communicate with the dead is also found in the Gilgamesh Epic: Nergal, the valiant hero, [hearkened to Ea], Scarcely had he opened a hole in the earth, When the spirit of Enkidu, like a wind-puff, Issued forth from the nether world.23

There is a similar story in the Odyssey (book XI). A north wind carries Odysseus and his men to the land of the Cimmerians, where the Ocean stream empties into the sea. There, at the entrance of the passage that leads into the underworld he offers sacrifices to the dead. The dead are attracted to the blood; after drinking it, they are restored to consciousness, recognize the inquirer, and answer his questions. According to Hoffner, baÝal(at) Þov ‘possessor of an Þov’ refers to a person who owned a pit of the sort required to communicate Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. “Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew ÞÔB,” JBL 86 (1967): 385; Maurice Vieyra, “Les noms du ‘mundus’ en hittite et en assyrien et la pythonisse d’Endor,” RHA 69 (1961): 47–55; C. J. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), pp.88–89. Hoffner’s view was defended by Ebach and Rutersworden; who maintain that in 1 Sam. 28:8b the expression ba-Þov designates the means of conjuration. See: Jürgen Ebach and U. Rüterswöden, “Unterweltsbeschwörung in Alton Testament,” UF 9 (1977): 57–70; UF 12 (1980):205–220. 22 D. E. Fleming, “More Help from Syria: Introducing Emar to Biblical Study,” BA 58(1995): 146., idem, Time at Emar (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000), pp.175–189. 23 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, Tab. 12: 82–83, p.98. 21

NECROMANCY

251

with the dead, located in a favorable location. After the pit was dug various offerings—such as bread, cheese, butter, honey mixed with milk, wine, water, honey, oil, and beer—were set around its mouth or lowered into it, in order to attract the spirits of the dead.24 The ancients believed that the libation most welcome to the spirits of the dead was sacrificial blood. An animal was slaughtered alongside or in the pit so that its blood could drain directly into it. Alternatively, the blood might be collected in a vessel and placed on the edge of the pit to entice the spirit to emerge. Sometimes various items were lowered into the pit, such as clothes and metal (especially silver) objects—a silver earring or silver ladder. The earring symbolized the supplicants’ desire to hear the spirits of the dead and learn from them; the miniature ladder expressed the wish that the spirits come up to this world. All these were means to attract the spirits of the dead from their abode in the netherworld and lure them up to the surface, so that they could be consulted about the future.25 Hoffner’s idea that the biblical Þov is associated with the pit through which people communicated with the spirits of the dead has been subjected to severe criticism.26 Nowhere does the Bible use the noun Þov with reference to a pit. Even in the story of Saul at Endor there is nothing to suggest that the woman owned and employed a pit to raise Samuel. The normal biblical form is Þovot, in the plural; but no extrabiblical text on necromancy speaks of multiple 24 The biblical prohibition on offering honey on the altar (Lev. 2: 11) may be motivated by the fact that it was regularly offered to the dead. Maimonides (Guide 3,46) says that the ban on honey is a reaction to a pagan use thereof. 25 See the interview between the spirit of Enkidu and the god Nergal: “They embraced and kissed each other. They exchanged counsel, sighing at each other: ‘Tell me, my friend, tell me, my friend, tell me the order of the nether world which thou hast seen’ ” (“The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, tab. XII, 85–88, p.98). 26 Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” p.135; B. Margalit, “Studia Ugaritica II: Studies in Krt and Aqht,” UF 8 (1976): 146; J. F. Healey, “Death, Underworld and After Life in the Ugaritic Texts,” Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1977, pp.254–256; H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, pp.73–74 n.144; J. B. Burns, “Necromancy and Spirit of the Dead in the Old Testament,” TGUOS 26 (1979): 10.

252

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

pits.27 Nor is the assimilation of p and b in the Sumerian ab, Akkadian apu, and Hittite api clear. The link with the Sumerian ab is now discounted. The Hittite api does not seem to occur in accounts of necromancy. And, as mentioned above, the Ugaritic ilib is a “divine ancestor” and has nothing to do with a pit. Images of the dead Images of the dead are another technical device that has been suggested as the meaning of Þovot. Lust believed that the relevant passages refer to such images. ÞOv, he maintains, “not only stands for ‘ghost’ but also for images representing the ‘ghost,’ or any other object used in the practice of consulting the spirits.”28 He is led to the conclusion by the fact that Manasseh of Judah “made” (Ýaœah) an Þov and yiddeÝonim (2 Kings 21:6 and 2 Chron. 33:6). But as Lust himself noted, the verb Ý.œ.h can also have the sense of “acquire,” as in “the persons that they had acquired in Haran” (Gen. 12:5).29 Schmidt adds other examples, citing in particular the case of Jeroboam, who “appointed (va-yaÝaœ) priests” (1 Kings 12:31; cf. 13:33; 2 Kings 17:32; 2 Chron. 2:17.30 The statute in Leviticus 20:27, which speaks of a man or woman who has an Þov or yiddeÝoni in them, also causes problems for Lust’s theory, since we can hardly say that the reference is to individuals who have images of the dead inside them. A wine skin Job complains that “my belly is like wine not yet opened, like new wineskins (Þovot) ready to burst” (Job 32:19). This use of Þov is cognate to the Arabic ΐΎϴԾ , which is a container for water.31

See Hoffner, “Second Millennium Antecedents,” p.401. Lust “On Wizards and Prophets,” p.137. See also: George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), p.250 n.506; H. Rouillard and J. Tropper, “Vom kanaanäischen Ahnenkult zur Zauberei. Eine Auslegungsgeschichte zu den hebräischen Begriffen ’wb und yd Ýny,” UF 19 (1987), p.236. 29 Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” p.137 n.6. 30 Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.152. 31 BDB, p.15. 27 28

NECROMANCY

253

The association may be that the water of life revives the spirit of the dead. It is also possible that the skin contained sacrificial blood, the carrier of life and the soul. In either case, the idea is that providing the spirits of the dead with water or sacrificial blood will animate them and attract them to the surface.32 In the story of Ishtar’s descent to the underworld we read that the gods and men were saddened by the goddess’ absence. The gods created a handsome young man, Asushu-namir, and sent him to Ereshkigal, the queen of the underworld, with the following instructions: “Let her utter the oath of the great gods. (Then) lift up thy head, paying mind to the life-water bag: ‘Pray, Lady, let them give me the lifewater bag that water therefrom I may drink.’ ”33 As the story proceeds this life-water is poured onto Ishtar, who is thereby brought back from the underworld. It may be, then, that the conjurers poured wine from wineskins to attract the souls of the dead to drink the liquid, return to life as it were, and answer the inquirer’s questions. On the other hand, the word in this sense is a biblical hapax legomenon. It is most plausible that the text is corrupt and that we should read 7+ instead of (the graphically similar) 7#. It is possible that Þovot entered the text later under the influence of the expression “the wind in my belly” in the previous verse. Tur-Sinai agrees that Job’s Þov is a leather bag, but not a wineskin. Among his reasons is that nowhere in the talmudic corpus is there a reference to consulting the dead by such means. Instead, he adopts the Septuagint’s ΚΙΗ΋ΘχΕ Λ΅ΏΎνΝΖ ‘a brazier’s bellows’: “that is to say: the wind pressing in my belly bursts forth as from the bellows of smiths.”34 He cites the various talmudic traditions, Theodor Noldeke, “Ein zweiter syrischer Julianusroman,” ZDMG 28 (1874), 667; Tur-Sinai, “ %- ,” EMiqr 1: 135–137(Hebrew); Harry A. Hoffner, “ ௴ Þôbh,” TDOT 1:131. 33 “The Descent of Ishtar to the Nether World,” ANET, lines 14– 15, p.108. 34 Cf. the smith and his bellows in Isa. 54:16. The Septuagint’s evident reading harašim is preferable to the MT ʚadašim, which was apparently influenced by Josh. 9:13, nodot ʚadašim ‘new wineskins.’ The interchange of daled and resh is common in the Bible; e.g., dodanim (Gen. 10:4) and rodanim (1 Chron. 1:7); va-yêdeÞ (Ps. 18:11) and va-yeraÞ (2 Sam. 22:11). See N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, pp.462–463. 32

254

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

according to which “the ob-practitioner is a ventriloquist who speaks from his armpit”35 or “a baÝal-Þov is one who speaks from between the joints of his body and his elbow joints.”36 The medium placed a small leather bag in his armpit and worked it as a bellows by moving his arms, forcing air through a whistle in its mouth to produce the chirping sound of the dead.37 Clearly Tur-Sinai was influenced by these talmudic aggadot, which have no anchor in the biblical texts. If we stick close to the biblical verses, however, the terms Þovot and yiddeÝonim can almost always be understood as referring to the spirits of dead ancestors. It was only the early translations and Talmud that took them to mean the soothsayer or magician himself. ÞIʞʞim Isaiah uses another term in the context of necromancy: “They will consult the idols and the Þiʞʞim and the Þovot and the yiddeÝonim” (Isa. 19:3). Two meanings have been offered for Þiʞʞim: “images,” a contextual conjecture based on the previous word, “idols” (thus the Septuagint); and “wizards” (Targum Jonathan, Peshitta, David Kimʘi).38 Ibn Ezra says that it is related to “he [Ahab] went about Þaʞ” (1 Kings 21:27)—“actions they practice in secret.”39 Ibn Janach (first half 11th century) interpreted it on the basis of the Arabic word aʞiʞ (EM), which means a camel’s grunt or snort, and suggested that it refers to people who make strange noises in order to contact the dead. The word is found in Ugaritic documents in the form utm (AB I*, line 5), but the sense there is not clear. Cassuto insists that it means “idols,” because of the parallelism in the verse in Isaiah; In M Sanh. 7:7 T Sanh. 10, 6; cf. the baraita in B Sanh. 65b. 37 Tur-Sinai, The Language and The Book, 1:161. 38 S. Yevin, “ '!J ,”  EMiqr 1: 237 (Hebrew). 39 Most translations and commentators understand Þaʞ in 1 Kings 21:27 as related to leÞaʞ ‘slow,’ which may be expanded to “dejectedly” (RSV) or “subdued” (NJPS). Rashi, following Targum Jonathan, glosses it as “barefoot.” Gersonides, however, supports Ibn Ezra: “He [Ahab] had been walking about in a hidden place so that people would not seem him as mourning and excommunicated.” 35 36

NECROMANCY

255

the Ugaritic inscription it is parallel to ephod and evidently refers to some kind of image.40 Cassuto also cites approvingly Rashi’s comment (on Isa. 19:3) that Þiʞʞim is the term for a form of idol worship. Another possibility is that it means ghosts that moan and whistle, like snakes, or wizards who practice necromancy. The most likely explanation, though, is that the hapax Þiʞʞim is related to the Akkadian eʞemmu ‘ghost of the dead,’41 which is found in first-millennium BCE Mesopotamian texts on necromancy. These include references to appealing to the family manes (eʞem kimti) to help the living. In addition, one of the terms for a necromancer seems to be mušelĩ eʞemmi. Inquiring of the Dead “Inquiring of the dead” appears in the list of magical practices condemned by the Bible (Deut. 18:11). Rashi, citing the Sifrei (also found in T Sanh. 10), explains that this refers to raising the shades of the dead by means of his zakkur (a form of magic) or by inquiring of a skull. Ibn Ezra provides information on the practice: “He goes to the cemetery and takes the bone of a dead person; in his wild imagination, whether dreaming or awake, he sees shapes and figures.” Nahmanides says that “inquiring of the dead” covers “one who performs necromancy by any other means” than those already listed in the verse. Isaiah may be referring to this practice when he condemns those “who sit inside tombs and pass the night in secret places” (Isa. 65:4). Apparently sitting inside a tomb was part of the rite to raise the spirits of the dead by means of an Þov. The purpose, according to Rashi, was to enable “the defiling spirit of demons to

M. D. Cassuto, “The Death of BaÝal (Table I* AB from RasShamra),” Tarbiz. 12 (1941): 172–173 (Hebrew); idem, Biblical and Canaanite Literatures (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983), 1: 233 (Hebrew); N. H. TurSinai, “Inquiring of the Dead in the Biblical Period,” in Minʚah le-David (Jerusalem: Reuben Mass, 1934 ), p.76 (Hebrew); S. Yevin, “The Palestino-Sinaitic Inscriptions,” PEQ 69 (1937): 190; B. Maisler, “Zur Urgeschichte de Phöonizisch-Hebräischen Alphabets,” JPOS 18 (1938): 290. 41 Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.158 n.106; T. Abusch, “Etemmu ʭʩʨʠ,” DDD, pp.309–312. 40

256

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

rest upon them.” Similarly, Ibn Ezra glosses the phrase as meaning “to inquire of the dead and to listen to the spirits.” As for “passing the night in secret places” ('!42+), we should perhaps prefer, along with Dahood, the reading of the Septuagint and the Peshitta, which reflects a Vorlage '!42 *! ‘between rocks.’42 Others, though, cite the Akkadian niʜirtu, cognate to the Hebrew nÝʜur, and designating hiding places where tombs may be found.43 Ibn Ezra and David Kimʘi understood the word to mean “ruins.” The latter adds, “they stay over night in ruins, where they believe the demons will appear to them, because baneful spirits appear in ruins to those who believe in them.” The Talmud warns against entering ruins, because demons frequent them.44 According to Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah, the reference is to the practice of incubation, that is, sleeping in a tomb or temple in order to obtain an oracular dream: “ubi stratis pellibus hostiarum incubare soliti erant, ut somniis future cognosceret.” “...where they had been accustomed to lie on ‘spread fleeces’ of sacrificial victims so that they might know the future by dreams.” The Septuagint, too, understands the verse as a reference to incubation, interpolating here Έ΍ πΑϾΔΑ΍΅ ‘for the sake of dreams’; that is, they sought to commune with the dead in their dreams. The second half of the verse refers to those “who eat the flesh of swine and broth of desecrated sacrifices is in their vessels.” This may refer to some form of totemism—a rite in which the people of Judah sometimes ate the flesh of prohibited animals in order to establish a link with the chthonian powers. The consumption of a totem animal links the eater with the ancestors symbolized by the totem.45 The pig was sacred to many peoples. The Egyptians, for Mitchell Dahood, “Textual Problems in Isaia,” CBQ 22 (1960): 408–409. 43 For further discussion see Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.260 n.544. 44 B Ber. 3a. 45 We find echoes of totemism in the Bible, too, notably in persons who bear animal names, such as Rachel ‘ewe,’ Caleb ‘dog,’ Huldah ‘weasel,’ Laish ‘lion,’ Eglon ‘heifer,’ Achbor ‘mouse,’ Hezir ‘swine.’ See: G. A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (London: Macmillan, 1902), pp.35, 36; G. W. Wade, The Book of The Prophet Isaiah, 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1929), p.407. 42

NECROMANCY

257

example, sacrificed pigs to the moon god, and later to Dionysus, and then ate the flesh of the animal even though it was considered to be impure and otherwise they would not touch it.46 Among the Greeks, too, the Argives and Cyprians sacrificed pigs.47 The Bible, of course, prohibits eating swine (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8), which was denigrated as an abomination practiced by the nations. It is possible that the biblical prohibition is some distant echo of totemism. Is there any difference between an Þov and yiddeÝoni and necromancer? The difference seems to be that the former terms also have the sense of spirits of the dead, which one of course cannot say of the latter.48 Perhaps the necromancers’ practice included recourse to Þovot and yiddeÝonim. The Talmud (B Sanh. 65b) explains that “inquiring of the dead” refers to a person who fasts and then goes to spend the night in the cemetery, “so that an unclean spirit [a demon] may rest upon him” and tell him the future. Significantly, according to Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 11:13), the punishment for communicating with the dead in the cemetery is flogging only, whereas one who divines by means of human remains is liable to capital punishment. According to the Talmud there were two principal modes of communicating with the dead: calling up a dead person by name and inquiring by means of a skull. Sometimes incantations were recited by the tomb. Others went to the tomb by night, burned incense, and waited for a voice from the grave to answer their questions. Another common method, which lasted until the Medieval period was to call the name of the dead person along with angels: “Stand before the grave and recite the names of the angels of the fifth camp of the first firmament, and hold in your hand a mixture of oil and honey in a new glass bowl and say ‘I conjure you, spirit of the grave, Neʘinah, who rests in the grave upon the

Herodotus II 47. W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of The Semites, 2nd ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1901), p.291. 48 Driver mentions Isa. 8:19 and says that all three terms are synonymous, or that “inquiring of the dead” includes the others. But whether this is a special form of necromancy is doubtful. See S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), p.226. 46 47

258

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

bones of the dead, that you accept this offering from my hand and do my bidding; bring me N son of N who is dead.’”49 The Prohibition of Necromancy The Israelites were specifically forbidden to inquire of Þovot and yiddeÝonim: “Do not turn to Þovot and do not inquire of yiddeÝonim, to be defiled by them: I the Lord am your God” (Lev. 19:31). Consulting them will pollute them, as already stated in the previous chapter: “Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways, for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves” (Lev. 18:24). The Lord is God and the Israelites must put their faith exclusively in Him. Inquiring of an Þov or yiddeÝoni indicates that they are trusting in idols rather than in the Lord. Those who are involved with an Þov and yiddeÝoni are outlawed in Leviticus 20:6 and 27, too. According to v. 6, such a person is liable to excision; according to v. 27, persons with an Þov or yiddeÝoni in them are to be stoned to death. As mentioned above, Ibn Ezra explains that v. 6 refers to one who consults an Þov in secret, which is the normal method for this ritual, performed without witnesses (1 Samuel 28). Verse 27, however, deals with doing so in public. Unlike v. 6, the text of v. 27 refers specifically to “a man or woman.” According to Ibn Ezra, the explicit mention of a woman is because women were more active in this ritual than men. This is also the reason for the feminine form of “you shall not permit a sorceress to live” (Ex. 22:17 [18]). It is possible that Þov and yiddeÝoni are mentioned both at the start and the end of the chapter in order to underscore the severity of transgression both by the medium and by those who consult them. Another theory is that the original chapter consisted only of verses 7–26, after which vv. 1–6 and finally v. 27 were added. The prohibition in Leviticus is reiterated and expanded in Deuteronomy: “There shall not be found among you any one who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or an Þov or a yiddeÝoni, or one who inquires of the dead” (Deut. 18:10– 11). These deeds are abominations that were practiced by the naJoshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (The Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, 1961), p.224. 49

NECROMANCY

259

tions and are condemned by the Bible as magical practices intended to arouse supernatural forces. Nine practices or practitioners are listed here. Tigay believes that the differences among them are sometimes negligible and that some may even be identical; however, the Bible enumerated all of them in order to make it clear and unambiguous that they are categorically forbidden.50 Leviticus and Deuteronomy prohibit magic and necromancy because these abominations were practiced by the Canaanites whom the Israelites were about to dispossess. The Bible utterly condemns practices aimed at foreknowledge of the future. Pagans believed that various methods of divination could provide human beings with advance knowledge of future events and could employ magic to protect themselves. But this notion is anathema to the Torah, which holds that everything is fixed by God, who determines a person’s future for better or for worse. Fortune-telling is illegitimate because it is an attempt to know God’s actions by means of powers that do not depend on Him and that actually work against Him and without His consent. As Rabbi Johanan said of witches, they endeavor “to lessen the power of divine agencies,” thereby contravening the biblical tenet that “the Lord alone is God; there is none beside Him” (Deut. 4:35).51 Inquiring of the dead is forbidden because the spirits of the dead were equated with “other gods.” The pagan nations consulted Þovot and yiddeÝonim, but the Israelites must inquire of their God through His prophets and the Torah. According to Deuteronomy, prophecy, which is the appropriate method for Israel to hear what its God has to say, is a gift from God. The Talmud, too, outlaws magic, which it compares to idolatry (M Sanh. 7:7). Magical formulas are considered to be among the “ways of the Amorites” (M Shabbat 6:10). According to M Sanhedrin 10:1, a person who employs a magical formula to heal a wound loses his share of the world to come. We can learn more about the proscription of Þovot and yiddeÝonim from the story of Saul at Endor. When the disguised monarch arrives at the woman’s house she tells him that Saul has purged the country of Þovot and yiddeÝonim (1 Sam. 28:9). In v. 3, the narrator prefaced the story with the information that Saul had re50 51

Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, p.173. B Sanh. 67b.

260

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

moved (hesir) the Þovot and yiddeÝonim from the land; in v. 9, the woman says that he destroyed (hikrit) them—a harsher and more frightening term. Isaiah refers to the pagan practice of consulting Þovot and yiddeÝonim on behalf of the living (Isa. 8:19). The prophet does not say that the practice is foolish, because it is impossible to commune with the dead; but it is prohibited nevertheless. The Þovot and yiddeÝonim “chirp and mutter” (cf. 10:14 and 59:11). Rashi says that “this is a derogatory expression, for they do not even have speech, but are like those birds that chirp with their voice. The terms chirping and moaning apply to birds.” As noted above, here Þovot and yiddeÝonim may be the spirits of the dead themselves, and the chirping and muttering are the sounds the spirits make when they come up to the surface of the earth. Spronk noted that in ancient Near Eastern literature the dead are often described as birds.52 The Egyptian Coffin texts speak of the dead cackling like geese; in the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal the dead moan like doves.53 Isaiah’s reply to the people’s suggestion begins with the rhetorical interrogative haloÞ. In other words, the prophet counters their proposal by asserting that it is logical to expect a people to inquire of its own deity, and illogical for the living to appeal to the dead. Tur-Sinai, however, understands the clause as spoken by the people: it is only natural, they say, that in a time of trouble the people should appeal to the dead, who are its deities, in order to protect the living. The common folk may well have believed that the dead had the power to save them, despite the strict prohibition on consulting the dead. In another passages Isaiah expresses his scorn for the Þov, but this time indirectly: “Your voice shall come from the ground like an Þov, and your speech chirp from the dust” (Isa. 29:4). The verse refers to the future siege of Jerusalem. The city will be so degraded that the prophet describes it as sunk in the dust, all but voiceless, and when it does speak its voice is like that of the Þov inquiring of the dead. According to Schmidt, this and the other verses in Isaiah that refer to Þov and yiddeÝoni derive from the Deuteronomistic ide-

52 53

Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.100 n.3. Nergal and Ereshkigal, trans. A. K. Grayson, ANET, III. 6. p.509

NECROMANCY

261

ology that rejects their cult and are directed against those sectors of Judahite society that had adopted Mesopotamian pagan beliefs.54

Teraphim Teraphim were another cult object used to obtain foreknowledge of the future and perhaps as a means of communication with the dead. Teraphim were some kind of object: Micah made an ephod and teraphim (Judg. 17:5); Josiah destroyed the teraphim (2 Kings 23:24); Rachel stole the teraphim and placed them in the saddle of the camel. This means that the object was small; Van der Toorn believes that it was not larger than about 30 or 35 cm.55 Teraphim were used to tell the future and are sometimes coupled with the ephod, another cultic object employed for that purpose (Judg. 17:5; 18:17–18, 20; Hos. 3:4). We learn about the association between teraphim and fortune-telling from Zechariah’s dismissal of them: “For the teraphim spoke delusion, the augurs predicted falsely; and dreamers speak lies and console with illusions” (Zech. 10:2). Ezekiel describes how Nebuchadnezzar “has stood at the fork of the road, where two roads branch off, to perform divination: He has shaken arrows, consulted teraphim, and inspected the liver” (Ezek. 21:26 [21]; cf. 1 Sam. 15:23).56 In addition to their use in ascertaining the future, teraphim may also have been associated with necromancy, if we may judge by their inclusion in the same list as the Þovot and yiddeÝonim in the account of Josiah’s ritual reforms (2 Kings 23:24). Scholars have tried to rely on etymology in their pursuit of the meaning of teraphim.57 Many proposals have been advanced, but Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, pp.162–164. Karel van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence,” CBQ 52 (1990): 205. 56 There are only two passages in the Bible where Teraphim are not associated with fortune telling: Rachel’s theft of her father’s Teraphim (but see below) and the incident in which Michal places them in David’s bed (1 Sam. 19:16). 57 For a complete bibliography of studies of this term see: P. R. Ackroyd, “The Teraphim,” ExpTim 62 (1950/51): 378ff; G. F. Moore, Judges (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901), pp.381–382; C. J. Labuschagne, “Teraphim—a New Proposal for its Etymology,” VT 16 (1966): 115 n.1; T. J. Lewis, “Teraphim '!047,” DDD, pp.844–850. 54 55

262

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

their value is limited.58 Of all the conjectures, Hoffner’s theory seems to be the most plausible, despite the difficulties associated with it.59 According to him, the word teraphim comes from the Hittite trapi(š) and “denotes a spirit which can on some occasions be regarded as protective and other as malevolent.”60 He says that the Hittite term is parallel to the Akkadian lamassu or šedu.61 Just as the Akkadian terms initially designated the spirit and only later came to refer to images, it is almost certain that trapi initially referred to the spirit itself and later expanded to mean the object representing it, the statue. According to Hoffner, teraphim are mantic devices employed for cultic inquiry. Another plausible conjecture is that teraphim is the plural of the mishnaic word toref, which means decay, filth and, metaphorically speaking, a women’s private parts.62 If so it is a contemptuous term for idols, like gillulim ‘idols’ (suggestive of gelalim ‘animal droppings’) and šiqquʜim ‘abominations’ (related to šeqeʜ ‘loathsome object’), both of which also appear in the list of items that Josiah eradicated (2 Kings 23:24). According to the Tanʘuma, they are called teraphim “because they are an object of toref, an object of impurity.”63 Because the biblical text sometimes refers to teraphim as gods (Gen. 31:30, 32; Judg. 18:24), it is not surprising that some translations render it as “household gods” (NRSV, NEB). The Targum 58 “Etymology tells us very little about the actual content of a given term in the minds of the speakers” (van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim,” p.204). 59 For criticism see: F. Josephson, “Anatolien TARPA/I-, etc.,” in Florileguim Anatolicum: mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche (Paris: E. de Boccard,1979), p.181; H. Rouillard and J. Tropper, “trpym, rituels de guérison et culte des ancêtres d’après I Samuel XIX 11–17 et les textes parallèles d’Assur et de Nuzi,” VT 37 (1987): 360–361. 60 Harry A. Hoffner, “Hittite Tarpiš and Hebrew TerĆphîm,” JNES 27 (1968):66. 61 Harry. A. Hoffner, “The Linguistic Origin of Teraphim,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1967): 230–238; idem, “Hittite Tarpiš and Hebrew TerĆphîm.” 62 For 0‘ 4‰ d ௴ see: Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1950), p.1658. 63 Tanʘuma Bereshit, Vayeʛe 12.

NECROMANCY

263

uses ʜlm or ʜlmnÞ; the Vulgate generally represents it by idola. One of the functions of these household gods seems to have been protecting the members of the family when they were traveling.64 Moshe Greenberg cites evidence of this from Josephus, who writes about a Parthian widow who secretly brought to the home of her second husband, a Jewish general in Babylonia, “the images of those gods which were their country gods, common to her husband and to herself: now it was the custom of that country for all to have the idols they worship in their own houses, and to carry them along with them when they go into a foreign land.”65 Rachel, fleeing her father’s house, could not take the household gods with her openly, so she stole them so that they would protect her on her journey. The Greco-Roman world, too, had its household gods or Penates. Aeneas, fleeing burning Troy, takes the civic Penates with him. An Etruscan vase of the fifth century BCE depicts his wife carrying a pillow-shaped object with straps, which evidently contains the sacred vessels of Troy. According to Plutarch (Camillus 20:6), Aeneas stole the “Samothracian images” and guarded them closely until he settled in Italy. The common element in the stories of Rachel and Aeneas is that both are persons who, when embarking on a voyage to a new country, take the household gods to protect them. Recall that the Danites, en route to their new territory in the north, steal the teraphim from Micah’s house (Judg. 18:14 ff.). Another possibility is that teraphim were used to obtain knowledge of the future and were taken on important journeys to Scholars have labored mightily to explain why Rachel stole her father’s Teraphim. Some cite legal documents from Nuzi: Possession of the Teraphim would guarantee to Rachel or her husband the right to inherit her father’s estate or to function as the head of the family. Draffkorn notes that the household gods are the guardians who symbolize the family holdings. This the possessor of the Teraphim is the legitimate owner of the property. See A. Draffkorn, “Ilani/Elohim,” JBL 6 (1957): 219 ff. Greenberg rejects these assumptions, noting that nowhere in the story is there any suggestion that Rachel or Jacob had any claim on Laban’s estate that they might assert through possession of the Teraphim. All Jacob wanted to do was to get away with utmost haste and to put as much distance as possible between himself and Laban. See Moshe Greenberg, “Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim,” JBL 81 (1962): 245. 65 Josephus, Antiquities 18, 9, 5. 64

264

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

indicate the route to be taken. According to the Tanʘuma and Targum Yerushalmi, Rachel stole the teraphim to prevent her father from learning what road they were traveling and so that she herself could inquire as to the path ahead.66 That is, taking the teraphim would confuse Laban and help Jacob get away. In recent years scholars have noted three texts from Nuzi that mention the ilanu and the etemmu ‘the spirit of the dead.’ From the terminology employed by these texts, which refer to household gods and the etemmu, they seem to be figurines. The texts emphasize that both the etemmu and the ilanu had to be safeguarded. On tablets from Emar, a person’s heirs are instructed to continue his domestic cult, including care for the dead ancestors. Particularly interesting are two texts that require the heirs to “call upon my household gods and my dead.”67 According to van der Toorn, here too we find “care for the ancestors linked with the worship of the family deities, both set within the context of the domestic cult.”68 Another and interesting point made by van der Toorn is the reference to “revering (palahu) and consulting (saÞalu) the etemmu,” an expression that appears in several Assyrian texts over a very long period. He points in particular to the parallel between the Assyrian etemme saÞalu and Hebrew šaÞal ba-terafim. The picture conveyed by the biblical and extra-biblical evidence is that the teraphim were ancestor figurines used for fortunetelling and perhaps for necromancy as well. The latter possibility requires caution, however, because there is no hint in the Bible that they were used for this purpose. The fact that they were eradicated as part of Josiah’s reform, along with the Þovot and yiddeÝonim, does not prove that they belong to the same category. Initially the use of teraphim did not provoke any criticism. In the period of the Judges and early monarchy it came to be considered a pagan custom but remained a widespread and popular form of fortune-telling (Judg. 18:14, 17, 20). Josiah uprooted them as

66 H. M. Gevaryahu, “In Clarification of the Nature of the Terafim in the Bible,” BethM 15 (1963): 84 (Hebrew). 67 J. Huehnergard, “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar,” RA 77 (1983): 13: 6–8; 17: 9–12. 68 Van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim,” p.220.

NECROMANCY

265

part of his cultic reform; Zechariah scorned them and classified them with augurs and lying dreams. Ezekiel mentions Nebuchadnezzar’s recourse to divining by arrows, teraphim, and the livers of sacrificial animals. Because the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the exiles in Babylonia dismissed all of these as folly, they believed that there was no danger to Jerusalem (Ezek. 21:26, 28).

SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD Providing food to the dead or honoring them with a meal was a common practice in the ancient world. People believed that the dead could influence the world of the living; they could help the living if the latter attended to their needs, or harm them if they neglected them. Is there evidence of this custom in the Bible? Scholars cite Deuteronomy 26:12–14 in this context.69 These verses are part of the declaration to be made when a person finished removing all the tithes from his house. It concludes with a prayer that the Lord bless His nation and His land. As part of this declaration, the household must state that “I have not eaten of the tithe while I was mourning, or removed any of it while I was unclean, or offered any of it to the dead” (v. 14). A mourner was forbidden to eat consecrated foods.70 Some say that the following clause means that tithed produce may not be used as an offering to the dead (a common practice among pagans), whether by leaving it at their tombs or by eating it at a feast in their honor. Ibn Ezra said that it means “giving food to the dead—that is, to satisfy their needs. Some say, for idolatry. The sense behind this statement is that it is forbidden to use some of the grain for any purpose until after the tithe, which is holy, has been taken, because taking the tithe from what is left over is a mark of disrespect; and so too if they gave it when unclean.”

Brichto, Kin, “Cult, Land and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973): 29; Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, pp.103–104; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, pp.39, 49, 241, 248. 70 According to Leviticus 10: 16–19, Aaron and his sons did not eat the flesh of the sin-offering slaughtered on the day that Nadav and Avihu died; see also Hos. 9:4. 69

266

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Tigay notes that niches similar to those found in tombs in Ugarit have been found in tombs excavated in Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom. These niches were used to hold food and drink for the dead. He maintains that the Torah does not ban this practice, but only forbids using tithes for it, because contact with the dead is defiling.71 Bloch, too, believes that the prohibition refers to tithes but not to the actual practice of offering food to the dead.72 Lewis conjectures that the ban may refer to “offerings made periodically as part of the continuing death cult as well as those offerings presented after the initial interment.”73 The custom of leaving food for the dead or sharing a meal with them may have stemmed from the fear that, if allowed to go hungry, the dead might consume the seed sown in the ground (cf. Deut. 14:22). It is possible, however, that “to the dead” does not refer to leaving food for the dead but to eating the funeral meal. This is the view of S. D. Luzzatto, who says that the householder is declaring that he did not employ the second tithe to prepare food for a funeral repast for the mourners, even though comforting mourners in this fashion is a precept. Among the moderns, Schmidt also believes that the reference is to the funeral meal.74 From Jeremiah 16:7 we learn that they gave bread to mourners and offered them a cup of consolation after the burial. When David was mourning for Abner, “all the people came to persuade David to eat bread while it was yet day” (2 Sam. 3:35). And when the Lord instructs Ezekiel to suffer his wife’s death in silence and not to sit in mourning, this includes not eating the bread of other people (Ezek. 24:17). This refers to the first meal after burial, when the mourner does not eat of his own food. According to the talmudic sages, “a mourner is forbidden to eat of his own bread on the first day [of mourning].”75 Tigay, Deuteronomy, p.244; E. L. Sukenik, “Arrangements for the Cult of the Dead in Ugarit and Samaria,” Mémorial Lagrange (Paris: Gabalda, 1940), pp.59–65; M. Bayliss, “The Cult of Dead Kin in Assyria and Babylonia,” Iraq 35 (1973): 115–125; Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, p.97. 72 Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, p.123. 73 Lewis, Cults of the Dead, p.103. 74 Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.198. 75 B MoÝed Qatan 27b. 71

NECROMANCY

267

Thus the weight of the evidence is that even in mourning the Israelites were instructed to remember their commitment to the underprivileged and were forbidden to employ their tithes when they were in mourning or wanted to console others.76 Nothing suggests that the passage is referring to regular offerings to the dead.

Ba’al Pe’or An explicit reference to offerings to the dead is found in the retelling of Israelite history in Psalm 106: “They attached themselves to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices of the dead” (Ps. 106:28). This verse apparently expands on Numbers 25:2.77 The expression zivʚei metim ‘sacrifices of the dead’ is a biblical hapax and can be interpreted in two different ways. It may refer to offerings made to idols, who are dead, rather than to the Lord, who is the living God,78 or it may mean offerings to the shades of dead ancestors.79 According to the primary account in Numbers (25:1–5), the Moabite women invited the Israelite men to the “sacrifices of their gods,” which the verse in Psalm modifies to “sacrifices of the dead.” There are a number of passages in which “gods” and “the dead” are parallel terms.80 According to David Kimʘi, “They ate sacrifices of the dead, as is written [in Numbers], ‘they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods.’ Their gods are the dead.” Ibn Ezra and Sforno make the same equation.

Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.199–200. On Ba’al Pe’or and its association with the term marzeaʚ, see the next chapter. 78 According to Schmidt, what we find in Numbers 25:2 as well as in Psalms 106:28 is “a polemical depiction of foreign gods as lifeless or dead” (Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.266). 79 See: Dahood, Psalms III, pp.73–74; Marvin Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7c; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1977), p.217; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, pp.231–33; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, p.167; Bloch Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, pp.123–124. 80 See: 1 Sam. 28:13; Isa. 8:19–20. For Ugaritic see: KTU 1.6 VI. 47– 48; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp.49–50; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, pp.231–233. For arguments against the equation of the gods and the dead see: Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, pp.201–220; Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.144. 76 77

268

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

The Israelites were seduced by the cult of Ba’al Pe’or when they came to the site of his temple, where they committed lewd acts with the daughters of Moab (Num. 25:1–5).81 According to the text, the woman who had intercourse with Zimri son of Salu was a Midianite princess (v. 6). According to Numbers 31:16, it was Balaam who advised the Midianites to have their women seduce the Israelites to practice idolatry. Because the verbs z.n.h and ʜ.m.d, used to denote what the Israelites did, have sexual connotations,82 some scholars believe that the festival at Ba’al Pe’or included sexual contact.83 Milgrom rejects this idea and takes the nif’al form of the verb ʜ.m.d in the sense of “attached itself to, perhaps by covenant”—that is, they transferred their allegiance from the Lord to Ba’al.84 Levine agrees that the text in Numbers deals with paganism and marriage to Moabite and other foreign women, which is forbidden by Deuteronomy 23:4.85 That is, the verse in Numbers deals with sacrifices to foreign gods. According to the interpretation that the ritual of Ba’al Pe’or is a funerary cult, “the dead” of Ps. 106:28 is not a derogatory characterization of a pagan deity, but actually means the spirits of the dead, who were appeased by sacrifices.86 The problem with this is that the passage in Numbers explicitly refers to foreign gods. The plague that ensued left an imprint on the biblical consciousness, and we read about it again in Deuteronomy 4:3, Hosea 9:10, as well as Psalms 106:28. Perhaps the last of these reflects a different tradition, according to which the plague at Ba’al Pe’or was punishment The name Pe’or is derived from the root p.Ý.r, as in “therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth (u-faÝarah fiha) beyond measure” (Isa. 5:14). According to Spronk, this deity represents the chthonic aspect of the Canaanite god of fertility Baal (Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.231). 82 There is also Hosea 9:10, “when they came to Baal-peor, they turned aside to shamefulness (bošet),” if we interpret bošet literally rather than as a dysphemism for Baal. 83 See: George E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), pp.105–121. 84 Milgrom, Numbers, p.212. 85 Levine, Numbers 21–36, p.284. 86 Milgrom, Numbers, 479–480. 81

NECROMANCY

269

for sacrifices to the spirits of dead ancestors, and should be dated to the Babylonian exile or later. There may be an allusion to libations of blood to the dead in Psalms 16:3–4: “To the holy and mighty ones that are in the earth, … their libations of blood I will not pour out.” But the phrase could also be read as “the holy and might ones that are on the earth” and understood as referring to the pious ones who comply with the Lord’s commandments87—which is why the psalmist says that “all (%#) my delight is in them.” It seems more likely, however, that the reference is to the deities of Canaan.88 If so, the intention is to extol the Lord as compared to the gods of Canaan, and we should emend the text and read “I have no (%) interest in them”—the gods of Canaan. Spronk adds that in this verse “holy ones” (qedošim) means underworld spirits here but “lower deities” elsewhere. He sustains this theory by the fact that Þereʜ often denotes the underworld.89 Schmidt rejects this take on qedošim; he says that it always refers to angels or living saints.90 He overlooked the fact that here the phrase used in parallel to qedošim is Þaddirei (Þaddirim) ‘mighty,’ which sometimes describes the waters associated with the underworld (Ex. 15:10), and sometimes God (1 Sam. 4:8). What is more, the psalm deals with the believer’s appeal that the Lord not abandon his soul to the underworld (v. 10). The poet rejects the gods of Canaan (or cult of the dead) and wants no part of their libations of blood (v. 4). The standard libaJohnston, Shades of Sheol, p.171 n.14. The term the holy ones is applied to the gods of Canaan in a Ugaritic hymn. The mighty ones is another name for Phoenician gods. In Phoenician there is parallelism between qdšm and Þdr. See Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I, pp.87–88; Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.172 n.17. Theodor H. Gaster, “The Canaanite Epic of Keret,” JQR 37(1946–47): 292. 89 Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, pp.334–338; B. Lang, “Life After Death in Prophetic Promise,” ed. J. A. Emerton. VTS 40. Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), p.148 n.11; J. Tropper, Nekromanite: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (AOAT 23; NeukirchenVluyn,1989), p.163; M. Smith and E. Bloch-Smith, “Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel,” [review of K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.283; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, p.166; van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1996), p.210. 90 Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.264. 87 88

270

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

tion consisted of wine; but here it is blood, a custom of idolaters. Perhaps the poet was disparaging idolaters, whose gods are thirsty for blood rather than wine. Rashi glosses: “I will not follow their example and sprinkle blood offerings in honor of the idols.” Another possibility is that the author was alluding to the pouring out of blood that accompanies human sacrifice (Isa. 57:5). Support for the interpretation that the reference is to the cult of the dead is that the continuation of v. 4, “their names will not pass my lips.” The attendants of the ancestral shades were obligated to make funerary offerings, pour water, and invoke their names.91 Calling the name of the dead brings up their picture in imagination. Wherever a person’s name was mentioned, his spirit too was found. When people were named for ancestors, every time the child was called by name they were invoking the ancestor as well. Thus Psalm 16 is a prayer in which the poet expresses his confidence in the Lord. After describing the practices of idolaters he declares that he will not pour libations of blood, which are libations of the dead. Family Sacrifice There is another passage that may allude to offerings to dead ancestors: “David said to Jonathan, “Tomorrow is the new moon, and I am to sit with the king at the meal. Instead, let me go and I will hide in the countryside. … If your father misses me at all (paqod yifqedeni), then say, David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice (zevaʚ ha-yamim) there for all the family” (1 Sam. 20:5–6). Malamat conjectures that this is a reference to the cult of the ancestral dead, of the sort known in Mari as kispu. The object of Saul’s feast is not clear, though the date is the new moon, like the kispu. Two terms are used in this story for the sacrifice in question, zevaʚ mišpaʚah ‘family sacrifice’ (v. 29) and zevaʚ yamim ‘sacrifice of days’ (usually understood as meaning a daily sacrifice or annual sac91 Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, pp.334–347; M. Smith and E. BlochSmith, “Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel,” p.283; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp.53, 166; CAD Z, 18bc; KAI 214: 16–17, 21–22; J. C. Greenfield, “adi balʜu: Care for the Elderly and its Rewards,” in AFO Beiheft 19 (Horn, Austria: Ferdinand und Sohne, 1982), pp. 310-311.

NECROMANCY

271

rifice). The reference to a family sacrifice reinforces the link to the kispu ceremony, at which the family gathered on the new moon to offer sacrifices.92 The “sacrifice of days” mentioned in v. 6 is also referred to in the story of Samuel’s birth (1 Sam. 1:21); there Targum Jonathan renders it as “festival sacrifice.” The Codex Vaticanus of the Septuagint adds “and all the tithes of his land”; Bloch-Smith takes this to be a reference to food for the dead. But if that is true why did the family have to make the sacrifice in another city? It is more likely that Elkanah made an annual pilgrimage to Shiloh on the festival mentioned in Judges 21:19, which is apparently the harvest festival. It may have been customary to offer this annual sacrifice in the presence of the entire family, which is why Elkanah made the pilgrimage with “all his household.” David Kimʘi concurred, writing that it was customary to sacrifice peace offerings once a year and to invite the entire family to share the feast. In Elkanah’s time, when the sanctuary was in Shiloh, he celebrated this rite there. After the destruction of Shiloh, the heads of families offered this sacrifice at the High Place in their own town. They may have done so on the New Moon because it is a day of atonement (Num. 28:15), “a day of atonement for all their generations,” in the words of the Additional Service for the New Moon. Elkanah, too, took all his household and “went up to offer to the Lord the yearly sacrifice (zevaʚ ha-yamim) and to pay his vow” (1 Sam. 1:21). Hallo notes that several prophetic texts criticize cultic assemblies on the Sabbath and New Moon. The reason for this disapproval, he says, is that the convocations on the new moon and full moon involved ancestor worship.93 In fact, censure of these rites is found only twice (Isa. 1:13 and Hos. 2:13). Elsewhere there is no criticism; quite the contrary; the New Moon was a day of rejoicing and feasting when people abstained from work and commerce. It was a day when they would go to the prophet to obtain his blessing (2 Kings 4:23), refrained from selling (Amos 8:5), and offered speAbraham Malamat, Mari and Israel, p.158. H. Hallo, “Royal Ancestor Worship in Biblical World,” in Sha’arei Talmon, eds. M. Fishbane and E. Tov, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), p.386. 92 93

272

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

cial sacrifices (“two young bulls, one ram, seven male yearling lambs” [Num. 28:11]). Frequently the Bible mentions the New Moon alongside the Sabbath. The implication of 1 Samuel 20:27 is that the festival was celebrated for two days, because they did not know the precise moment of the lunar conjunction. To celebrate the New Moon the king made a festive meal for his courtiers. Even though there is no explicit biblical ban on labor, in tannaitic times the custom was to refrain from working on the New Moon.94 We may infer the same custom from the Arad ostraca, which date from many centuries earlier.95 And according to David Kimʘi, “on this day those who, like David, were in the habit of eating at the king’s table, would make a special effort to be present.” In Mesopotamia the job of providing the dead with food and drink was entrusted to paqidum; hence this term has a cultic meaning when associated with funerary rites. Lewis notes Jehu’s instructions for burying Jezebel—“piqqedu that cursed woman and bury her” (2 Kings 9:34)—which, he says, refers to some Canaanite ritual imported by the Omri dynasty.96 Bloch, follows Lewis but says that attending to the needs of the dead was not a foreign influence that infiltrated Israel in the ninth century BCE but an integral part of the societal fabric. She notes that Moses “denied proper postmortem care to the accused Korahites.”97 She cites his challenge (Num. 16:29), which she would understand as meaning “[these men] are cared for as are all men wupqudat kol ha’adam yippaqed ‘alehem. She also says that in a play on words, David tells Jonathan what to say to Saul should Saul note his absence in court, ‘im-paqod yipqedeni abika ‘if your father should miss me’ Jonathan is instructed to say that David has returned home for a family ancestral sacrifice (1 Sam. 20:6). However as we noted the zevaʚ ha-yamim the yearly sacrifice has no connection to the cult of the ancestral dead. We should also be cautious about the linkage between the Hebrew p.q.d and the Akk. paqĆdu. The root p.q.d. is attested throughout the SeB Shab. 24a; B R.H. 23a; B Meg. 22b. Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Ostracon 7 from Arad, attesting the Observance of the New-Moon-Day?,” BethM 66 (1976): 332 (Hebrew). 96 Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp.120–122. 97 Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, p.124. 94 95

NECROMANCY

273

mitic languages: Ugar pqd (KTU 1.16.4.14) “order command”; Phoen. pqd, ”commission”; Egyp. Arm pqd, “order command” Nab. Pqdwn, “responsibility” or “order” (?). Arab. Faqada, miss, be missing; with no connection to funerary rites. Bloch-Smith identified another reference to providing food to the dead: “All the fat ones of the earth shall eat and bow down; all who go down to the dust shall bend the knee before Him, bow before Him, and he who cannot keep himself alive” (Ps. 22:30 [29]).98 Psalm 22 has two distinct parts: in vv. 1–22 the supplicant complains that he has been abandoned by God; in vv. 23–32 he praises the Lord for helping him. There are allusions to the world of the dead and their fate in vv. 17, 21, and 30. That v. 30 refers to eating is not certain, although v. 27 certainly does: “Let the lowly eat and be satisfied; let all who seek the Lord praise Him.” This can apply to those who need food, the poor, who share in the consumption of the sacrificial animal and in the thanksgiving to God. Thus Rashi glosses v. 30: “They [the lowly ones mentioned in v. 27] will eat the fat of the land and bow down.” Although the expression dišnei Þereʜ ‘fat of the land’ is a biblical hapax legomenon, the root d.s.n often appears with the meaning of “fat,” as Rashi notes. It is likely, however, that %# ‘they ate’ is a scribal error for %", and we should read “but to him all the fat [ones] of the land will bow down.” Another plausible emendation, based on the parallel to “all who go down to the dust,” is yešenei Þereʜ ‘they who sleep in the earth.’99 Certainly 14 !+6! could refer to the dead; and they are said, according to MT, to eat! But we can hardly say that the dead bow down. In any case, the verse does not refer to providing food to the dead.100

M. Smith and E. Bloch-Smith, “Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel,” p.283. 99 Dahood, Psalms I, p.143. 100 For further study see: Shaul Bar, “Critical Notes on Psalms 22:30,” JBQ 147(2009): 169–174. 98

274

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

“You Shall Not Eat with the Blood” There are three biblical references to “eating with the blood”101: as a prohibition (Lev. 19:26), as a historical incident (1 Sam. 14:32– 35), and in a prophetic rebuke (Ezek. 33:25). Rashbam was the first to link the prohibition of eating meat “with the blood” to the second half of the verse, “you shall not practice divination or soothsaying” and explain it as a ban on some magical practice. Sforno (1470–1550) says that all of these were methods employed to gain knowledge of the future, a deviation from the pure spirit of prophecy to impurity. According to Nahmanides: This seems to have been a kind of witchcraft or divination, since [the meaning of this passage] may be deduced from its context [i.e., from the second half of this verse which states, neither shall ye practice divination nor soothsaying, we may deduce that the first half of the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood also refers to some form of witchcraft, as will be explained]. Thus they used to spill the blood [of the cattle] and gather it in a hollow, which was then attended, according to their opinion, by the satyrs, and they would eat at their tables to tell them future events. [In the incident in 1 Samuel] ... the people were inquiring of the satyrs or of witchcraft to know their way and what to do, and they were eating with the blood in order to perform that craft.102

The explanation reached its full form in Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed: Although blood was very unclean in the eyes of the Sabeans, they nevertheless partook of it, because they though it was the food of the spirits; by eating it man has something in common with the spirits, which join him and tell him future events, according to the notion which people generally have of spirits. There were, however, people who objected to eating blood, as a thing naturally disliked by man; they killed a beast, received 101 The prohibition of eating blood is repeated several times in the Bible: Gen. 9:4 ff., Lev. 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10 ff.; Deut. 12: 16–23. 102 Nachmanides, Commentary on the Torah: Leviticus, trans. Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1974), pp.307– 308.

NECROMANCY

275

the blood in a vessel or in a pot, and ate of the flesh of that beast, whilst sitting round the blood. They imagined that in this manner the spirits would come to partake of the blood which was their food, whilst the idolaters were eating the flesh; that love, brotherhood, and friendship with the spirits were established, because they dined with the latter at one place and at the same time; that the spirits would appear to them in dreams, inform them of coming events, and be favourable to them.103

The syntax of “do not eat with (Ýal) the blood” is difficult, because the verb Þ.k.l takes a prepositional object only if it also has a direct object.104 There are two common explanations. The first is that here Ýal means “with” (as rendered above): do not eat anything along with blood; that is, it is forbidden to eat blood, or meat with blood. The other is that Ýal means “alongside,” “next to,” “near”; that is, it is forbidden to eat meat in proximity to the blood of the slaughtered animal. The historical incident occurred during Saul’s war with the Philistines: “The people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep and cows and calves and slaughtered [them] on the ground; and the people ate with the blood” (1 Sam. 14:32). Rashi, focusing on “cows and calves” (vaqar u-vnei vaqar), explains that they violated the ban on slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28). He also cites the midrash that the animals were offered as sacrifices and the people sinned by starting to eat the meat before the blood had been offered on the altar. According to David Kimʘi, the transgression was that they ate the meat with the blood still in it: “They prepared the meat hastily, because they were hungry; they slaughtered it on the ground, so the blood did not flow out well and was absorbed into the meat.” But when Saul slaughtered over a stone the blood did drain from the meat. A similar explanation is offered by R. Isaiah of Trani (1180-1250): “Because they slaughtered on the ground, in a depression, the meat was befouled with the blood and they ate it that way.” Gersonides and Abravanel, however, explained that the prohibition is to eat near 103 Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (London: George Routledge & Sons, Limited; New York: E. P. Dutton, 1947), part 3, ch.46, p.362. 104 Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation, p.344.

276

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the blood, because the pagan custom was to use the blood for divination and magic. This is why Saul tried to keep them from eating the meat in the same place where the blood had been spilled. Grintz favors the view of Gersonides and Abravanel and conjectures that Saul was attempting to prevent his soldiers from participating in a ritual of chthonic worship.105 He says that Leviticus 17 distinguishes between sacrifices to the Lord, offered on an altar by day, and sacrifices to the satyrs, offered in the field (v. 5). He notes that the Greeks differentiated sacrifices to the Olympian gods and to the chthonian deities under the earth, which parallels the distinction between sacrifices on the Lord’s altar and sacrifice to the satyrs in the field. Milgrom, going beyond Grintz, provides examples from the ancient Near East of sacrifices to the gods of the underworld.106 In Mesopotamia, Etana entreats Shamash: “Thou hast consumed, O Shamash, my fattest sheep, the earth drinking up the blood of my lambs. I have honored the gods and revered the spirits.”107 In Ugarit, “throat of a calf ... let me place in the hole of the underworld gods.”108 In Egypt, “deities, whose bloodthirsty character is emphasized, are summoned to drink the blood of sacrificial animals.”109 The incident recounted in the book of Samuel takes place at night, the time for sacrifices to demons and the black powers. According to the text, “they slaughtered on the ground”; the locative Þarʜah can also mean that they sacrificed toward the earth, that is, that they slaughtered the animal with its neck facing down. In ancient Greek literature we read when an animal was sacrificed to the chthonian deities its neck faced downward. When Circe instructs Odysseus in the rites required to raise the spirits of the dead so that he can ask Tiresias about the future, she tells him, among other things, “Then sacrifice a ram and a black ewe, turning their heads 105 Yehoshu M. Grintz, Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History, pp.201–221. 106 Milgrom, Leviticus, p.1492. 107 “Etana,” trans. E. A. Spieser, ANET 67–68, p.117; see also Dennis J. McCarthy, “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 88 (1969): 171–172. 108 KTU 1.5 V: 4–6; J. C. L. Gibson, ed., Canaanite Myths and Legends, p.72, 4–6. 109 J.Bergman,“'A‘ dĆm,” TDOT 3:238.

NECROMANCY

277

toward Erebos.”110 In Greece, animals were offered to the Olympians on an altar, whereas sacrifices to the chthonian deities were slaughtered on the ground or on a circle of dirt and grass close to the ground. In the center of the circle was a crack, into which they poured the blood and through which the dead rose to tell the future.111 Why did Saul’s soldiers eat “with” the blood? Was it to placate the spirits of the dead? In Greece, they offered sacrifices to the chthonian gods to appease them and to ward off evil, because those deities avenged spilled blood. Xenophon recounts that on his return march from Persia he was told that Zeus Meilichios was waiting to intercept him. But he sacrificed swine, according to the ancestral custom, and the god relented.112 We have two possibilities, then: Saul’s troops ate “with” the blood to appease the spirits, or (as suggested by Nahmanides and Maimonides), in order to foretell the future. The more plausible explanation is that “eating with the blood” is a practice associated with divination and fortune-telling. The fast that Saul imposed on the people in the previous episode (1 Sam. 14:24–28) can be understood in a similar fashion. Another fast associated with an attempt to learn the events of the morrow is found in the incident at Endor, where Saul had not eaten anything during the preceding day or night.113 In Greece and Rome, those who inquired of the dead or of a god fasted for three days. Grintz believed that the fast decreed by Saul was not initially intended to divine the future, but that some of the army used it for this purpose.114 Note that Saul inquired of the Lord after the sacrifice (v. 37), but the Lord did not answer him. Previously, in v. 18, he inquired of the Ark of God whether to attack the Philistines. Because

Odyssey 10, 527–528. Grintz, Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History, p.210. 112 Anabasis VII, 84. 113 Scholars have offered three explanations for Saul’s fast: (1) Saul was fasting to prepare himself for the revelatory vision through the medium. (2) His dread of the Philistines took away his appetite. (3) He had decreed a fast for himself before the battle. Cf. Ex. 24: 28; 2 Chron. 20: 3– 4. 114 Grintz, Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History, p.215. 110 111

278

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the battle began while Saul was still asking his question some of the people turned to divining by blood.

MOLECH According to the Holiness Code in Leviticus, “do not allow any of your offspring to be offered up to Molech” (Lev. 18:21).115 Violators of this prohibition are to be stoned (Lev. 20:2–5). The prohibition of burning one’s children is reiterated in Deuteronomy, but without reference to Molech: “You shall not act thus toward the Lord your God, for they perform for their gods every abhorrent act that the Lord detests; they even offer up their sons and daughters in fire to their gods” (Deut. 12:31); “let no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the fire …” (Deut. 18:10). Nevertheless, the rite was practiced in the last days of the Southern Kingdom. Jeremiah condemned those who “offered up their sons and daughters to Molech” (Jer. 32:35) or “put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal” (Jer. 19:5). The latter is the only biblical locus that associates the immolation of children by fire with Baal worship; it is clear that here Molech has been replaced by Baal and that the former verse refers to burning the children. Josiah tried to eradicate the cult as part of the religious reform he instituted after the discovery of the ancient Torah scroll: “He also defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, so that no one might consign his son or daughter to the fire, to Molech” (2 Kings 23:10). Here both the fire and Molech are mentioned. 115 The vocalization of the word is not clear. The Masoretic text has a ʚolem (molek), but this could well be a late modification, perhaps chosen because of the assonance with bošet ‘shame,’ which is also a derogatory byname for Baal: Gideon is both Yerubaal [Judges 6–9; 1 Sam. 12:11] and Yerubeshet [2 Sam. 11:21], Saul’s son both Eshbaal [1 Chron. 8:33 and 9:39] and Ishboshet [2 Samuel 2–4], and Jonathan’s son both Mephiboshet [2 Sam. 4:4 and passim] and Meribbaal [1 Chron. 8:34, 9:40]). Jeremiah chastises the people of Judah: “You have set up altars to bošet, altars to burn incense to Baal” (Jer. 11:13). According to Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums (Frankfurt: Madda, 1928), pp.299–308; it was the cult of a universal deity perceived as the king (melek.), lord, or master, but in the Bible the name was corrupted to Molech.

NECROMANCY

279

A number of biblical passages refer to giving children to the fire but do not explicitly mention Molech (e.g., Deut. 18:10, cited above). According to the book of Kings, Ahaz and Manasseh consigned their sons to the fire (2 Kings 16:3, 21:6). The parallel account in Chronicles, which reports that Ahaz “made offerings in the Valley of Ben-hinnom and burned (va-yavÝer) his sons in fire” (2 Chron. 28:3), indicates that the author intended burning (and not some symbolic act: see below). If we take all these passages together, we must conclude that all of them refer to sacrificing children as burnt offerings to Molech. The terminology and details vary because their literary sources are different.116 Nevertheless, scholars have long debated the nature of the Molech cult. Did it involve burning the victim, or was it merely a symbolic ritual (note that the literal meaning of le-haÝavir ba-Þeš is “to make pass through the fire”)? Was there in fact a deity named “Molech”? Can one argue that there was no Molech and the biblical passages must intend human sacrifice to the god of Israel? Some of the moderns, notably Eissfeldt, have argued that Molech is a type of sacrifice rather than the name of a deity.117 This 116 The different verbs refer to the several stages of the sacrificial rite. Thus natan is the dedication stage, heÝevir is the transfer of ownership of the animal to the deity, zavaʚ and šaʚaʞ refer to the actual slaughter of the victim, and œaraf (found in this sense only outside the priestly books) and hiqʞir (the priestly term) mean burning the sacrifice on the altar. As Morton Smith shows, the expressions haÝavir ba-Þeš ‘consign [or make pass through] the fire’ and œarof ba-Þeš ‘burn in the fire’ both mean “burn.” There is a distinction between them, however, in Deuteronomy and the books influenced by it, in which œaraf refers to pagans who sacrifice their children to their idols, whereas haÝavir is applied to the Israelites when they offered children to the god of Israel. The addition of “in fire” specifies the technique employed. Thus we are dealing with different stages of human sacrifice. See M. Smith, “A Note on Burning Babies,” JAOS 95 (1975): 477–479; George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek, pp.79–80. 117 Otto Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im punischen und hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch (BRA 3; Halle: Max Neimeyer, 1935). Eissfeldt’s view has been followed by several scholars: R. Dussaud, review of Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im punischen und hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch, Syria 16 (1935): 407–409; Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1955), p.40 n.4; W. F.

280

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

theory is based on the use of mlk in Phoenician inscriptions to parallel “sacrifice” or “gift.” Accordingly, in the Bible, too, it would denote a type of sacrifice. The passages that refer to Molech refer to a sacrifice offered to the Lord and not to some other deity, because there was no pagan god named Molech. There was an ancient custom in Israel of child sacrifice to the Lord, but it was prohibited later (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5; Deut. 12:31; 18:10). Eissfeldt cites a stele that depicts lambs who are about to be sacrificed, along with the inscription molchomor. He hypothesizes that “molchomor” means the sacrifice of a lamb in place of a human being. But there are problems with Eissfeldt’s theory. To understand molchomor as including the element “lamb,” based on the Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Akkadian imar, we have to explain the vowel shift from the i in all of those languages to an o. As for understanding Molech as “vow” or “pledge,” the Ugaritic vocable mlk generally refers to a human king; in lists of gods or oaths mlk is one of the deities of the underworld.118 Another problem is the verb z.n.h used in Lev. 20:5 to describe Molech-worship: “all those who go whoring after him to whore after Molech” (Lev. 20:5), which cannot be applied to vows and sacrifices. A comparison to similar contexts, such as “they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods” (Ex. 34:15; cf. Ex. 34:16, Deut. 31:16), demonstrates that Molech is a deity and not a sacrifice.119 Nor can we understand the biblical idioms “give to Molech” or “consign to Molech” as denoting “offer a sacrifice. We hear about child sacrifice in Judah, in the time of Ahaz in the late eighth century BCE (2 Kings 16:3), and again in the seventh century, when Manasseh sacrificed his own son (2 Kings 21:6). Weinfeld maintains that the cult of Molech was imported to Judah as a result of the contacts between Ahaz and Assyria. We Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, pp.205–206; idem, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp.162–164; Paul G. Mosca, “Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion: A Study in MULK and MLK,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1975. 118 For a rejection of Eissfeldt’s view, see M. Weinfeld, “Molech Worship in Israel and its Background,” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (1969), vol.1: 39–42. See also Tur-Sinai, The Language and the Book, 1: 94. 119 Heider, The Cult of Molek, pp.232–245.

NECROMANCY

281

know that Ahaz copied the Assyrian-Aramean altar in Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–18). Weinfeld denied that there was a specific deity named Molech, but also argued that the cult focused not on the Lord of Israel, but on a foreign god, whom he identified as BaalHadad. This deity is associated with the Assyrian Adad-malik, whose name appears in the Bible in the corrupt form “Adrammelech” (2 Kings 17:31). Adad-malik/Baal-Hadad was the consort of Ishtar, the queen of heaven; the two were the rulers of the “host of the heavens,” whose cult is mentioned in the Bible (Zeph. 1:5; Jer. 19:13; etc.). Influenced by the talmudic sages and medieval commentators, Weinfeld maintains that the ritual did not involve the actual sacrifice of children, but rather fathering children by a foreign woman and consecrating them to the service of the deity, in a ceremony in which fire played some role. He insists that the verbs natan ‘give’ and heÝevir ‘consign’ have nothing to do with burning or killing, but rather to the transfer of an object to the possession of another, and thus consecration. The occurrences of the verbs œ.r.p, z.v.ʚ, and š.h.ʞ relate to one-time events that had nothing to do with Molech and may simply be a prophetic polemic.120 Weinfeld’s conjectures do not seem to be solidly based, however. The biblical Molech is to be identified with the Malik known from Mesopotamia and Ugarit, not with Adad-malik/Adrammelech or Baal-Hadad. Among the peoples whom the Assyrians brought to resettle Samaria, “the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech” (2 Kings 17:31). Both of these deities have the element “Melech” in their names, but are not related to the specific god known as Molech.121 Fur120 Weinfeld, “Molech Worship in Israel and its Background,” esp. pp.46–47; idem, “The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven and its Background,” UF 4: 133–154; Heider, The Cult of Molek, pp.66–71 and 74–77; J. Day, Molech A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp.41–46. Those who accept this view include: Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, p.266– 267, 288; Morton Cogan, Imperialism and Religion (SBLMS 19; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974), pp.81–83; Domenico Plataroti, “Zum Gebrauch des Wortes MLK im Alten Testament,” VT 28 (1978): 286–300. 121 On this, see: Heider, The Cult of Molek, pp.291–294; Day, Molech, pp.41–46; John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1992), pp.335–357; Levine, Leviticus, pp.258–260.

282

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

thermore, the Mesopotamian Malik is identified with Nergal, the god of the world of the dead, and the Ugaritic mlk is a chthonian god, whereas Baal-Hadad and Adad-malik are not associated with the cult of the dead.122 None of the explanations presented thus far for the nature of the Molech cult have an adequate basis. There is no reason why we should not take at face value the biblical testimony that children were sacrificed to a deity named Molech, according to a custom of the Canaanites and later of the Israelites, in the place called the Valley of Ben Hinnom.123 As early as the third millennium BCE there was a deity known as Malik or Milku/i. Malik is an element of theophoric names recorded at Ebla124 and of personal names from second-millennium Mari. At Mari we also find the form Maliku associated with acceptance of offerings to the dead.125 A similar link to the underworld exists in Akkadian texts, where (as noted) Malik appears on a list of deities along with Nergal, the god of the world of the dead. The mlk of Ugarit, too, is a chthonian deity, whose residence is at Ýttrt, which is also the abode of the god Rpu, who parallels the biblical Rephaim (shades of the dead). Thus we are dealing with a deity of the netherworld who was associated with the cult of dead ancestors.126 In the Quran (Sura 43:77), MĆlik is the angel of the underworld. The evildoers asked him to intervene on their behalf with Allah but he replied that they had to remain in Hell. “They will cry: ‘O Malik! Would that thy Lord put an end to us!’ He will say, ‘Nay, but Ye shall abide!’ Perhaps this Malik is a later avatar of Molech the god of the underworld.127

Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation, p.190. Ibid. 124. Heider, The Cult of Molek, pp.98–100; idem, “Molech "%),” DDD, p.582. 125 Heider, The Cult of Molek, pp.108–111. 126 Ibid., pp.118–141; Day, Molech, pp.46–52. Mark Smith pointed out that “Ugaritic mlk appears to be unrelated to either child sacrifice or the Phoenician sacrificial term mlk. … Nonetheless, the Ugaritic references to mlk bear on the biblical evidence regarding mlk as a title for the leader of the dead.” See Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God (San Francisco: Harper, 1990), p.179. 127 Day, Molech, p.55. 122 123

NECROMANCY

283

The link between Molech worship and the cult of the dead can be found in the Bible, too. In Leviticus (20:2–5), the prohibition of Molech worship is presented in the same breath as the ban on the Þovot and yiddeÝonim. In Deuteronomy, one who consigns his sons and daughter to the fire leads a list that continues with “any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or an Þov or a yiddeÝoni, or one who inquires of the dead” (Deut. 18:10–11). The link is also supported by the misdeeds of Manasseh king of Judah, who, in addition to consigning his son to the fire, also “practiced soothsaying and divination, and made an Þov and yiddeÝonim” (2 Kings 21:6). The condemnation of the abominations committed by the tribes of Israel begins with their consigning their children to the fire and continues with “they practiced augury and divination” (2 Kings 17:17). Even though Molech/Malik is also known from Mesopotamia, the Israelite learned the cult from the Canaanites. This provenance is corroborated by the Bible’s repeated reference to it in association with the abominations of the Canaanites.128 According to the heading of Leviticus 18, which enumerates various proscribed practices, “you shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes” (Lev. 18:3). One of these pagan customs is the worship of Molech (v. 21). Three verses later comes the injunction and explanation, “do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:24–25). And again, “for all of these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled” (v. 27). The Canaanites were to be dispossessed and destroyed because they sacrificed their sons and daughters: “When you enter the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or an Þov or a yiddeÝoni, or one who inquires of the dead. For anyone 128

Ibid., pp.29–31.

284

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

who does such things is abhorrent to the Lord, and it is because of these abhorrent things that the Lord your God is dispossessing them before you” (Deut. 18:9–12). The passage about the Molech cult in Leviticus (20:2–5) also associates it with the abominations of the Canaanites: “You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. For it is because they did all these things that I abhorred them” (Lev. 20:23). As noted, child sacrifice penetrated Judah during the reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh. Here too the biblical text associated it with Canaanite abominations: Ahaz “consigned his son to the fire, in the abhorrent fashion of the nations which the Lord had dispossessed before the Israelites” (2 Kings 16:3). Manasseh, too, sacrificed his son (2 Kings 21:6). At the beginning of the account of his reign, the narrator announces that “he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, following the abhorrent practices of the nations that the Lord had dispossessed before the Israelites” (2 Kings 21:2). And the prophets declared, “Manasseh king of Judah has committed these abominations, and has done things more wicked than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has made Judah sin with his idols” (2 Kings 21:11). It is clear that the biblical author believed that Ahaz and Manasseh had adopted a Canaanite ritual. Other Passages that Refer to the Molech Cult Isaiah 57:3–10 Additional evidence of child sacrifice and the Molech cult can be found in Isaiah 57:5. “You who burn with lust among the oaks, under every green tree; who slaughter your children in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks.” The phrase “clefts of the rocks” occurs only here and in Isaiah 2:21, both times in the context of idolatry.129 Here too the prophet

Instead of the MT taʚat ‘under,’ the Septuagint has ΉϢΖ ΘΤΖ ΗΛ΍ΗΐΤΖ ‘in the midst of (or between) the rocks’ (so too NJPS: “among the clefts of the rocks”). Jonas C. Greenfield (“Prepositions b … Taʚat … in Jes. 57: 5,” ZAW 73 [1961]: 226–28) says that taʚat can mean “among” as well as “under” and translates “… who slay their children in the valleys among the clefts of the rock.” He asserts that the reference is to “clefts in 129

NECROMANCY

285

is denouncing the slaughter of children, in the valleys and grottoes, remote and desolate places that were selected for precisely this reason. Both Rashi and Ibn Ezra explain the passage as referring to child sacrifice.130 Another of the acts condemned by Isaiah is that “you have approached the king with oil, you have provided many perfumes. And you have sent your envoys afar and descended to the netherworld” (v. 9). The king is not identified; he may be the king of Assyria, the overlord of the entire Near East at the time. But because v. 5 speaks of the slaughter of children, and v. 6 of libations and meal offerings, it is plausible that the word should be vocalized not melek but molek and the phrase intends the Molech cult.131 If we are correct that Molech was a chthonian deity of some sort, this revocalization is supported by the second half of the verse, which speaks of a descent to the underworld. The passage also hints at rites of a sexual nature (vv. 7–8); as we have seen, in the Holiness Code the cult of Molech is mentioned in the middle of a list of forbidden sexual acts (Lev. 18:21). But precisely what the Israelites were doing vis-à-vis Molech (or the king) is unclear. Commentators and scholars have differed about the meaning of the verb va-tašuri.132 Ibn Ezra offered two the rock in which a person can hide out or carry out a foul act rather than overhanging cliffs” (p.228 n.13). 130 Delitzsch says that “under the clefts of the rock” refers not to the slaughter of children to Molech in the Ben Hinnom Valley but to a sacrifice to Baal on the high places. See Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, trans. S. R. Driver (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1894), vol 1: 343. 131 Thus the RSV translation. 132 The Septuagint omits the reference to Molech and renders the beginning of the verse “you increased your prostitution with them,” perhaps associating the verb with the Arabic verb tarra ‘abound.’ See P. Wernberg-Møller, “Two Notes,” VT 8 (1958): 308, who suggests “you lavish oil on Melek, you make plentiful your ointments.” G. R. Driver, “Difficult Words in Hebrew Prophets,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed., H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), p.58, translates “and thou wast drenched with oil for the king.” Lewis opts for “You lavished oil on the (dead) king,” since he believes that “the ritual being described is that of the cult of the dead where offerings and libations were being brought to the deceased (v. 6).” He also points to the reference to necro-

286

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

possibilities. It might be related to tešurah ‘gift’ (1 Sam. 9:7): thus “you gave a gift to the king [or Molech].” If so, the people are being censured for seeking the favor of gentile kings by sending them a gift of oil, as in “now they make a covenant with Assyria, now oil is carried to Egypt” (Hos. 12:2 [1]). Alternatively, it may be derived from the root s.w.r ‘see, behold,’ as in “I see him, but not now; I behold him (Þašurennu), but not nigh” (Num. 24:17). That is, they are making a journey in order to see the king (or Molech). This is bolstered by “you were wearied with the length of your way” (v. 10). The prophecy is addressed in the present tense to an idolatrous cult practiced, according to v. 6, “among the smooth stones of the valley.”133 These ʚalleqei naʚal are the small smooth stones found at the bottom of a flowing stream, like the ʚaluqqei Þavanim that David employed against Goliath (1 Sam. 17:40). The author seems to have chosen this expression as an allusion to false gods of stone, as suggested by Ibn Ezra (“they look for smooth stones to fashion into idols”) and David Kimʘi (“whenever they found a fine smooth stone they worshiped it”). The prophet goes on to declare that “they, they are your lot” and enumerates various idolatrous rites—libations, meal offerings, and animal sacrifice—followed, apparently, by sacred prostitution or ritual orgies in the shadow of

mancy in vv. 9a and 13. See Lewis, Cults of the Dead, p.157. For a rejection of Lewis’ views, see Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, pp.254–259. Symmachus has “you anointed yourself with oil in honor of the king,” which thus parallels the next clause, “you have provided many perfumes.” 133 The Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate understand ʚalleqei as from ʚeleq ‘portion’; Targum Jonathan associates it with ʚalaq ‘smooth.’ H. L. Ginsberg, “Some Emendations in Isaiah,” JBL 69 (1950): 59, accepts the former derivation and suggests “in their portion you have inherited your portion.” In fact, the verse seems to propose a play on words between ʚalleqei ‘smooth things’ and ʚelqek ‘your portion.’ See D. F. Payne, “Characteristic Word-Play in ‘Second Isaiah’: A Reappraisal,” JSS 12 (1967): 224. Quite another interpretation is that of W. H. Irwin, “The Smooth Stones of the Wady? Isaiah 57, 6,” CBQ 29 (1967): 31–40. He reads “the dead of the wady,” on the basis of Ugaritic root hlk. Similarly, Lewis (Cults of the Dead, p.149) proposes “among the departed of the wady is your portion”; and Schmidt (Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.255), “among the perished of the wadi.”

NECROMANCY

287

the altar, represented by three successive occurrences of miškav ‘bed’ (vv. 7–8).134 Pagan rites were conducted not only in valleys and on hilltops but also in buildings. Whereas the Torah commanded the Israelites to affix a sacred text to the doorpost,135 “behind the door and the doorpost you have set up your [idolatrous] symbol (zikronek)” (v. 8), protests the prophet. Westermann believes that the symbol in question is a phallus, as an emblem of fertility.136 This reading is reinforced by the end of v. 8, “you have gazed on a hand (yad),” where “hand” is a euphemism for penis (a sense found in both Egyptian and Ugaritic).137 Lewis, observing that in the Bible both zikkaron and yad may denote a memorial monument, suggests that the reference is to some sort of royal mortuary stele.138 Other scholars think that the reference is to pagan deities whose images were placed by the door to protect the family, or perhaps to the household gods themselves.139 David Kimʘi understands the passage as an allusion to a pagan custom adopted by the Israelites: “placing a ritual object so that you always remember the ritual—the opposite of ‘write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates’ (Deut. 6:9). [In other words,] ‘I gave you the precept of the mezuzah, so that you would always remember my worship, but you have cast aside my worship for that of other gods and placed a different memorial behind the door and the doorpost.’ ” Ezekiel 16:20–21 There is also an allusion to the cult of Molech in the book of Ezekiel. In chapter 16 Israel is described as a prostitute who betrays 134 Lewis, by contrast, believes that the description is of the cult of the dead, to which the libations and sacrifices (v. 6) pertain. 135 Deut 6:9; 11: 24. 136 Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. David M. G. Stalker (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p.324. 137 M. Delcor, “Two Special Meanings of the Word ! in Biblical Hebrew,” JSS 12 (1967): 230–40. He mentions a similar usage in iQS vii.13; J. C. L Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, p.125, 33–35. 138 Lewis, Cults of the Dead, p.150. 139 G. W. Wade, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, p.364; J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters XL–LXVI, rev. version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), p.173.

288

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the Lord with every passer-by. The prophet depicts several stages in the prostitute’s descent into sin, culminating in child sacrifice. First she takes the garments she received from the Lord (v. 10) and uses them to make “tapestried platforms” for ritual fornication (v. 16). The silver and gold given her by the Lord she turns into idols (v. 17); the Bible frequently refers to images or gods of silver and gold (Ex. 32:2–4; 35:22; Judg. 8:24–27). The images are specifically ʜalmei zakar, which may well indicate a metal phallus; this is made even more plausible by the rest of the verse, vatizni bam instead of the more common Þaʚareihem: thus “you made yourself phallic images and fornicated with them” (NJPS). We should recall that Isaiah 57:8, discussed above, also refers to adultery and the male organ. Then she took her “embroidered garments”—the shift worn next to the skin—and used it to cover the idols (cf. Jer. 10:9). Finally, she offered the food (here leʚem has a generic sense) that she received from the Lord—“the choice flour, the oil, and the honey, which I had provided for you to eat”—as incense to the idols (v. 19; cf. Hos. 2:7, 10). Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts refer to the ritual of clothing the cult image and making it daily offerings of honey, incense, and oil.140 In Mari they made gifts of flour, oil, and honey to malikş.141 The culmination comes in vv. 20 and 21, where the prophet refers to the sin of child sacrifice: “And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be eaten. Were your harlotries so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and gave them to be consigned (haÝavir) to them?” The sons and daughters—the children of Jerusalem, the children of God—were given over to be consumed by idols. The same trope is used by Jeremiah: “But the Shameful Thing (bošet [a common dysphemism for Baal]) has eaten the possessions of our fathers ever since our youth—their flocks and herds, their sons and daughters” (Jer. 3:24). “Slaughter” (šaʚaʞ), the standard verb for sacrifice, is used, for example, in Isa. 57:5 (“who slaughter your children in the valleys”), a passage we have already 140 B. Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien II (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1925), pp.85ff.; J. þerný, Ancient Egyptian Religion, reprinted (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1957), p.101. 141 Heider, The Cult of Molek, p.368.

NECROMANCY

289

identified as referring to the Molech cult. In the continuation, the use of verbs natan ‘give’ and heÝevir ‘consign’ implicitly refers to Molech, since they are the standard verbs for offerings to that deity; e.g.: “You shall not give any of your children to be consigned to Molech” (Lev. 18:21); “he even consigned his son to the fire” (2 Kings 16:3); “he consigned his sons to the fire in the Valley of Benhinnom” (2 Chron. 33:6). We should note, in passing, the order of the actions in Ezekiel: first the slaughter and then the consignment (to the fire). This led Cooke to conjecture that the victims were killed before being delivered to the fire, rather than burnt alive.142 This is plausible; as we saw in chapter 2, in some cases a malefactor was stoned to death and then the corpse was burned. It seems that Moloch worship, banned by King Josiah (according to 2 Kings 23:10), reappeared after his death and was censured by Jeremiah (7:31; 19:5; 32:35) and Ezekiel. During the last decade before the conquest of Jerusalem, when people despaired of the normative sacrificial rites, they returned to drastic measures and delivered their most precious possession to Molech. Psalms 106:37–39 We also read about child sacrifice in Psalms 106:37. This psalm enumerates the seven transgressions committed by the generation of the wilderness (vv. 7–33), followed by the three sins committed by Israel in the Land of Canaan (vv. 34–39): they assimilated with the Canaanites instead of exterminating them (vv. 34–35); they worshiped Canaanite deities (v. 36); and they offered human sacrifices to the demons (šedim) and idols of Canaan (vv. 37–39). Šedim ‘demons’ appears only one other time in the Bible, in the Song of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy: “They sacrificed to demons, no-gods” (Deut. 32:17). That this refers to pagan deities and is more or less synonymous with the “idols of Canaan” is indicated by the continuation of the verse: “… gods they had never known, new ones, who came but lately, whom your fathers had never dreaded.” In both verses the Septuagint employs the Greek word Έ΅΍ΐΓΑϟΓΑ, which denotes an “inferior divine being” or evil spirit;

G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1951), p.169. 142

290

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

this is also the sense of the word šed in talmudic language and of the Akkadian šēdu.143 The Bible castigates the Israelites for worshiping demons, as in “that they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons (or satyrs: œeÝirim) after whom they play the harlot” (Lev. 17:7). The midrash makes the identification explicit: “these satyrs are none other than demons, as is borne out by the text which says, ‘They sacrificed to demons, no-gods’ (Deut. 32:17); and these demons are none other than satyrs, as it says, ‘and satyrs shall dance there (Isa. 13:21).”144 The equation is corroborated by the end of the verse, lo œeÝarum = “[whom your fathers] had never dreaded,” where the unusual verb must have been chosen because of the pun on œeÝirim. The next verse (Ps. 106:38) refers to the “idols of Canaan.”145 Whereas in v. 37 they were demons, which suggests that they possess some sort of vitality, here they are reduced to lifeless images. Child-sacrifice is condemned as outright murder, the shedding of innocent blood (cf. Jer. 19:4–5), which pollutes the land. The psalmist is echoing the language of the biblical passage that speaks of the community’s responsibility to punish murderers and the result of its failure to do so: “You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land. … You shall not defile the land in which you live” (Num. 35:33–34).146 Both the land and its inhabitants are defiled by their wicked deeds, including whoring after foreign gods. The sin of idolatry, which began at Ba’al Pe’or, continued after the conquest of the land.

SAUL AND THE “WITCH OF ENDOR” Inquiring of the dead parallels inquiring of the Lord in two respects: consulting the oracle and requesting assistance. The former CAD Š: II: 256–259; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, pp.362–363. Lev. R. 22:8. 145 In the Midrash we find a different opinion: “R. Yudan said that the children of Israel likened God to a pair of idols [which they brought with them across the sea]; they said: ‘Like us, He and idols were saved [from the sea].’ Of this it is written And they served their idols, which for them had a likeness [to God].” (The Midrash on Psalms, trans. William G. Braude [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959], 2: 193). 146 For the root ʚ.n.p in this sense, see Jer. 3:1–2 and Isa. 24:5. 143 144

NECROMANCY

291

is found in the incident of Saul at Endor (1 Sam. 28:4–20). In his distress Saul seeks a woman to bring up the spirit of the dead Samuel, because the Lord has failed to answer him, whether by dreams, by the Urim ve-Tummim, or through prophets. The entire incident is set at night: Saul departs the camp after dark and returns before morning (v. 25). According to Ehrlich, this is because witches engage in their magical practices only in the dark. Josephus explained the timing by the king’s desire to conceal his absence from his army.147 Abravanel offered a similar interpretation: “they went at night so that no one would see them and no one in the camp would know that he was gone.” Both reasons may be true: darkness was essential for the medium and also for Saul to get away unseen. Another explanation is that the episode’s nocturnal setting alludes to the fact that the dead are in darkness (Ps. 88:13; 143:3; Job 10:21). The Midrash describes Saul’s adventure as follows: “Then Saul said to his courtiers, ‘find me a woman who is a medium’ (1 Sam. 28:7).” R. Simeon ben Levi said: “Whom did Saul resemble? A king who entered a city and said, ‘Slaughter all of the roosters in this city.’ At night, wanting to leave, he said, ‘Is there no rooster here to crow?’ They said to him: ‘Did you not order us to slaughter them?’ Here too Saul destroyed the Þovot and yiddeÝonim and then said, ‘Find me a medium.’ ”148

It is ironic that Saul, who had exterminated the Þovot and yiddeÝonim, found himself needing the services of a medium. The very fact of his request reflects his sincere belief that the dead know what will happen in the world of the living.149 When the medium sees Samuel rising from the grave she cries out and then rebukes Saul for deceiving her. Readers have long wondered why she did not recognize Saul before Samuel appeared. According to the talmudic sages and traditional commentators, including Rashi and David Kimʘi, the dead rise feet first. Samuel, Josephus, Antiquities 6, 14, 2. Yalkut Shimoni: midrash al Torah Nevim u-Khetuvim (Jerusalem: Levin-Epshtain, 1966–1967), 2:730. 149 On the other hand, according to Eccles. 9:5 the dead know nothing. 147 148

292

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

however, arose in the normal upright posture, out of respect for the king. Seeing this, the woman realized the identity of her visitor.150 In v. 14 the Septuagint, evidently based on this midrash, has her telling Saul that she sees ΩΑΈΕ΅ ϷΕΌ΍ΓΑ = “a man upright” (reflecting a Vorlage of /3 instead of the MT *3). According to Josephus, it was Samuel himself who revealed Saul’s identity.151 Budde believed that some gesture that Samuel made toward Saul spoiled the latter’s incognito.152 It is unclear what rites the medium employed to raise Samuel. The midrash reports laconically that “she did what she did, and she said what she said, and raised him.”153 Of course it is possible that she was a fraud, but the Lord worked a miracle and Samuel really did rise from his grave. When Samuel appears, the woman is taken aback and cries out. Some explain that she knew she had done nothing and was consequently astonished to see a spirit rise up.154 Several manuscripts of the Septuagint have “the woman saw [i.e., recognized] Saul and cried out,” instead of the MT “Samuel”; some scholars would adopt this reading. But the emendation seems to be ruled out by Saul’s question, “What do you see?” and the woman’s response, which describes Samuel’s appearance (vv. 13–14). According to Kaufmann, we are dealing with a method of gaining foreknowledge of the future by getting dead souls to declare what they know.155 The spirits of the dead are referred to as Þelohim; as the woman tells Saul, “I see Þelohim coming up from the earth” (v. 13; cf. Isa. 8:19). They have a mantic power to know and reveal what is concealed in the future, a revelation they express in human language just as prophets do. The spirit of the dead recounts what it sees or knows through its mantic power. This is a

150

65b.

Leviticus Rabbah 26:7; Tanʘuma Leviticus 21:1; B Sanhedrin

Josephus, Antiquities 14, 2, 333. D. Karl Budde, Die Bücher Samuel (Tübingen and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1902), p.180. 153 Lev. R. 26:7. 154 Lewis, Cults of the Dead, p.115. 155 Y. Kaufmann, “On the Story of the Medium,” in Mi-kivshonah shel ha-yetsirah ha-mikra’it: kovets ma’amarim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1966), p.210. (Hebrew). 151 152

NECROMANCY

293

special form of prophecy, that of the Rephaim.156 Kaufmann maintains that enchanters worked themselves into an ecstatic state and became mediums. That is, the medium’s mind merged with or was taken over by that of the dead person. During the encounter, the medium was in a prophetic trance and had supernatural knowledge. When the woman raised Samuel’s spirit, she was imbued with supernatural knowledge that enabled her to recognize Saul. The problem with Kaufmann’s reading is that if the woman was in a trance, how could she suspend it to accuse Saul of deceiving her? Furthermore, according to the biblical narrative the woman served only as an instrument to make the initial connection between Saul and Samuel, who speak directly to each other. She is not a party to the conversation. The implication of v. 21—“the woman came in (or went up [wa-tavoÞ]) to Saul”—is that she was not present during the dialogue of king and prophet, but returned from another room and saw Saul’s panicked reaction to the encounter. Kaufmann, however, believes that the entire conversation was conducted by and through the medium. Another possibility is that it is not the dead person who is raised, but only his shade, which ascends from under the earth and speaks in a chirping voice (Isa. 29:4; 8:19). According to this scenario, the medium and the inquirer sat in separate rooms. The medium saw the spirit of the dead in smoke or as a silhouette rising from the earth and translated its chirps into human language. At Endor, however, Samuel appeared in his full form, not as a silhouette or smoke. The woman was startled and then realized that it was only because of Saul that she had been able to raise Samuel. After the two verify that it is indeed Samuel who was brought up by her enchantments, Saul and Samuel converse directly. The woman goes away and returns only at the end of their dialogue. We have already noted that the woman describes Samuel as Þelohim,157 meaning a shade or superhuman being, as in Isaiah 8:19, discussed above. Some scholars, such as Spronk and Lewis, cite various extra-biblical texts as evidence for the use of Þelohim to refer

Ibid. Other instances of Þelohim with a plural adjective are Jos. 24:19; Deut. 5:23; 1 Sam. 17:26, 36. 156 157

294

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

to the dead.158 One possibility is that the spirit is called Þelohim because it is the divine part of a human being. Here Targum Jonathan renders the word, as often when it cannot refer to God, as “angel”: “I saw an angel of the Lord rising up.” This meaning is supported by “all Þelohim bow down to Him” (Ps. 97:7). David Kimʘi explains that here Þelohim means “a great man” (cf. Ex. 22:8, 27). This reading is plausible; when Moses hesitates to accept his mission to Egypt and the Lord promises to send his brother Aaron with him, He tells him, “he shall speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as Þelohim” (Ex. 4:16; cf. Ex. 7:1). As for the plural participle Ýolim ‘coming up,’ it agrees in number with Þelohim, which is a plural form; compare “He is a holy God (Þelohim qedošim huÞ)” (Josh. 24:19) and “living God (Þelohim ʚayyim)” (Deut 5:26; 1 Sam. 17:26, 36; Jer. 10:10; 23:36). In the next verse, however, the medium describes what she sees in the singular; perhaps the woman saw more than one spirit but Saul asked to speak only with Samuel. Such an interpretation is found in the Talmud: Ýolim implies two: One was Samuel, but [who was] the other? Samuel went and brought Moses with him, saying to him: “Perhaps, Heaven forfend, I am summoned to Judgment: arise with me, for there is nothing that you wrote in the Torah that I did not fulfil.”159

The Tosafists explain that “although Moses was not of [Samuel’s] generation, he said, ‘This is how I interpreted the text and what I practiced. Come and bear witness for me, for you too have learned.’ ” Hutter offers the interesting suggestion that the location of the ritual and the ritual itself are evidence of Hittite influence. According to him, “gods rising” echoes an ancient Hittite incantation formula for conjuring up underworld gods, which was used by the

158 Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.163; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp.49–51, 115: See also Arnold who says: Þelohim “denotes the ancestral dead and not simply ghost or spirit of the dead.” Bill T, Arnold, “Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel,” CBQ 66(2004):203. 159 B ʗag. 4b; Tanʘ. Lev., Emor 2.

NECROMANCY

295

pre-Israelite residents of Endor.160 Inquiring of the dead is very similar to consulting with pagan deities, which is why it was banned in Israel. Later, when the denizens of the underworld were no longer considered to be gods, Samuel could be included in the category of Þelohim without being identified as a god. As Johnston noted, however, a link between Endor and the Hittites is far from certain, and taking the term Þelohim as denoting both forbidden pagan gods and licit nondivine beings seems to be contradictory.161 The best interpretation, then, is that mentioned above: the ghost of the dead is the spirit, the divine component of the human being. When the medium raises Samuel, Saul asks her to describe what she sees; the implication is that Saul himself sees nothing. According to the Tanʘuma (quoted in Yalqut Shmuel 1:28), the medium does not hear what the dead person says, but sees him, whereas the inquirer does not see the shade, but hears its voice. Saul may be in the corner of the room or in the next room and does not see what is happening; this is why he must ask the woman whether it is indeed Samuel who has risen. The woman describes Samuel as “an old man wrapped in a cloak”—apparently the robe that symbolized Samuel’s prophetic or judicial status.162 It may be the robe that Hannah made each year to bring to Samuel when she made her pilgrimage to Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:19) or the cloak (it was Samuel’s) that was torn in two to symbolize the rift between the Lord and Saul (1 Sam. 15:27). The reference to the cloak indicates that the dead in the underworld have the same appearance as they did in the world of the living.163 In any case, when he hears the woman’s description Saul knows that it is indeed Samuel who has risen and consequently bows low out of respect for the prophet. Saul is committing a grievous sin by inquiring of the dead—a practice that is abhorrent to the Lord (Deut. 18:12)—instead of inquiring of the Lord. Raising up a prophet of the Lord by magical means as a way to force the Lord to respond is a detestable action. M. Hutter, “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu ’elohim in 1Sam. 28, 13,” BN 21 (1983): 32–36. 161 Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.146. 162 Similarly, King Ahaziah identified the man who met his messengers as Elijah from the leather girdle he wore (2 Kings 1:8). 163 Isa. 14:9; Ezek. 32:27; B Sanh. 90b. 160

296

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Samuel’s reaction is to rebuke Saul: “Why have you disturbed me (hirgaztani) and brought me up?” (1 Sam. 28:15). There is a bitter irony here, given that the next day Saul and his sons will join Samuel in the world of the dead. We will understand Samuel’s complaint more clearly if we compare it to Phoenician royal tomb inscriptions: that of Tabnit of Sidon—“Don’t, don’t open it, and don’t disturb (trgzn) me, for such a thing would be an abomination to Astarte! But if you do open it and if you do disturb me, may [you] not have any seed among the living under the sun or resting place together with the shades!”164. A similar description is found on the great sarcophagus of Eshmun’azar, discovered near Sidon: “Whoever you are, ruler and (ordinary) man, may he not open this resting place and may he not search in it for anything, for nothing whatever has been placed into it! May he not take the casket in which I am resting, and may he not carry me away from this resting-place to another resting place!” There is also a curse against any ruler or a man who opens the tomb or steals the casket: “May they not have resting place with the shades, may they not be buried in a grave, and may they not have a son and seed to take their place!”165 A comparison with these inscriptions suggests that Samuel sees Saul’s act as desecrating his grave and disturbing his rest, a transgression that is severely punished by Heaven.166 In fact, Saul has sinned twice, both by inquiring of the dead rather than of God and by disturbing the dead. The Gemara, by contrast, sees Samuel’s reaction as fear of Judgment Day: “Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me and brought me up?’ Now if Samuel, the righteous, was afraid of the Judgment, how much more so should we be!”167 The Jerusalem Talmud is even clearer about Samuel’s trepidation. It has Samuel “Tabnit of Sidon,” trans. Franz Rosenthal, ANET, p.662. “Eshmun’azar of Sidon,” trans. Franz Rosenthal, ANET, p.662. 166 The grave should be a place where a person could rest in peace; see Job 3:13–19. Several passages in the Bible insist that the dead cannot be awakened from their sleep (2 Kings 4:31; Jer. 51:39; Job 14:12). For the subject of disturbing the rest of the dead see: William W. Hallo, “Disturbing the Dead,” in Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday, ed. Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane (JSOTSup 154; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp.183–192. 167 B ʗag. 4b. 164 165

NECROMANCY

297

telling Saul, “What is more, I thought that it was the Day of Judgment and I was afraid.”168 On Judgment Day Samuel will be like every other human being. According to the Midrash Rabba, Samuel explains his candor to Saul as follows: “When I was with you I was in a false world and you might have heard untrue words from me, for I was afraid of you lest you should kill me, but now that I am in a world of truth you will only hear from me words of truth.”169 According to the biblical account, when Saul learns that he will fall in battle on the morrow he falls powerless to the ground.170 Saul collapses both because of the terror inspired by the prophet’s words and because he has eaten nothing for a whole day and night. Here the biblical narrator turns the spotlight on the woman, whose merciful and kind nature is revealed when she slaughters her fatted calf to feed Saul.171 Josephus, too, took note of her positive qualities, despite the fact that biblical law condemned her to death: Now it is but just to recommend the generosity of this woman. … She still did not remember to [Saul’s] disadvantage that he had condemned her sort of learning, and did not refuse him as a stranger, and one that she had had no acquaintance with; but she had compassion upon him, and comforted him, and exhorted him to do what he was greatly averse to, and offered him the only creature she had, as a poor woman. … It would be well therefore to imitate the [woman’s] example and to do kindnesses to all such as are in want and to think that nothing is better, nor more becoming mankind, than such a general beneficence, nor what will sooner render God favorable, and ready to bestow good things upon us.172

Saul’s punishment was harsh. The talmudic homilists enumerated five transgressions on account of which died. Although all of

J ʗag. 2a. Lev. R. 26:7. 170 The verb n.p.l occurs four times in Chapter 31 (vv. 1, 4, 5, and 8). 171 On the character of the medium, see Uriel Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives, trans. Lenn J. Schramm (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), pp.73–92. 172 Josephus, Antiquities 6, 14, 4. 168 169

298

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

them are mentioned in the Saul cycle, the Bible does not allege that they were the reasons for his death. We find in the Midrash Rabba: [Saul] was slain because of five sins; as it says, “Saul died for the trespass that he had committed against the Lord” (1 Chron. 10:13), because he slew the inhabitants of Nob the city of the priests, because he spared Agag, because he did not obey Samuel: for it says, “Wait seven days until I come to you” (1 Sam. 10:8), and he did not do so, and because he inquired of the ghost and the familiar spirit, “and did not seek advice of the Lord; so He had him slain” (1 Chron. 10:14).173

It is not totally clear how the homilist is counting five transgressions or what the fifth transgression is. Probably the introductory verse, “for the trespass that he had committed against the Lord,” is included in the number; the printed editions add the word “and” before “he slew the inhabitants of Nob.”174

CONCLUSION As we have seen, the Bible mentions various ways of making contact with the dead, such as Þov, yiddeÝoni, and “inquiring of the dead.” These techniques are employed to gain knowledge of the future and thus to know what should be done to avert undesirable consequences. Another method for learning about the future is to offer sacrifices to the dead, in the belief that the dead know what the living do not. The dead are offered food because of the belief that they can influence events in the world of the living. The dead will help the living if the latter provide for their needs, but will hurt them if they are neglected. A popular cult of the dead, employed mainly to gain foreknowledge of future events, seems to have existed in ancient Israel, alongside the official and established Yahwist tradition. The popular cult was family-centered; only the family offered food and drink to its own dead ancestors. By contrast, the Lev. Rabba 26: 7; see also Tanʘuma Emor 2. On the uncertainty of commentators on the Midrash concerning the five transgressions, see Hanan’el Mack, “Three Parables of R. Shimon b. Lakis Concerning King Saul’s Inquiry of the Spirits,” in Studies in Bible and Exegesis, ed. Moshe Garsiel et al (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2000), vol. 5:186 n.28. 173 174

NECROMANCY

299

official cult served the political and historical needs of the monarchy. The Bible is clearly antagonistic to inquiring of the dead or providing them with food and drink. The prohibition of magic and necromancy, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is motivated by the fact that these were among the abhorrent rituals of the Canaanites, whom the Israelites dispossessed. The Bible does not deny that it is possible to communicate with the dead; but it totally proscribes the practice. It mentions sacrifices to the dead (Ps. 16:4; 106:28; Lev. 19:26; 1 Sam. 14:32–35; Ezek. 33:25), but always rejects them. Providing the dead with food was not part of Israelite culture, and when it did penetrate was rebuffed by official circles. Another ritual that the Bible associates with the worship of the dead and will not tolerate is the cult of Molech. It too was considered to be a Canaanite abomination and linked to the cult of the dead and of the chthonian gods, which biblical texts warn against. In Deuteronomy this cult is associated with divination, soothsaying, augury, sorcery, and the various forms of necromancy (18:10– 11). Even kings took part in it—Ahaz (2 Kings 16:13) and his grandson Manasseh, who, in addition to consigning his own son to the fire, “practiced soothsaying and divination, and made an Þov and yiddeÝonim” (2 Kings 21:6). Clearly many people, kings and commoners alike, believed in the potency of the dead. Over successive generations this belief seems to have become more tenacious, making it necessary to devalue it; it may also have been viewed as a rival to prophecy. The reforms of Hezekiah and later of Josiah sought to eradicate pagan abominations from Israel and to centralize the cult in Jerusalem. They promulgated a ban on necromancy, which had to be eliminated because it was considered to be impious. Now, as we saw in Chapter 3, the biblical texts began describing the dead as powerless and ignorant of events in the world of the living. These reforms aimed to extirpate pagan abominations and to guide the people toward strict adherence to the path of the Lord and His Torah. A direct consequence was the reinforcement of the priesthood and prophecy as the sole channels for communication with God.175 Bloch points out that the reform had underlying political and economic motives—to strengthen the priests and prophets as the sole 175

300

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Nevertheless, the cult of the dead seems to have held out for some time. Ezekiel voiced harsh criticism of the religious and ritual transgressions of those who remained in Judah, including the cult of Molech (16:20–21) and eating meat with its blood (33:25). Even in the Second Temple period we read of sacrifices to the dead, in Tobit’s advice to his son Tobias: “Pour out your bread and wine in the tomb of the just, and give not to sinners” (Tob. 4:17). We have been focusing on techniques for maintaining the bond between the living and the dead. Were mourning customs also colored by the cult of the dead? That is, were they meant to appeal to the spirit of the deceased or to honor him/her? This is the subject of our next chapter.

source of contact with God. A ban on the competing channel of inquiring of the dead would guarantee the economic basis of the priests and prophets, who, among other things, would be sure to receive their tithes. Bloch adds that the reform was in the political interests of the regime, because inquiring of one’s own dead ancestors, an activity that reinforced the tribal structure, was replaced by consultation with the national god, whose emissary was the king. See: Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, p.131; Smith and Bloch-Smith, “Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel,” p.282; For a similar view see: Rachel Hallote, Death, Burial, and Afterlife in Biblical World: How the Israelites and Their Neighbors Treated the Dead (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2001), p.62; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Deuteronomy and the Politics of PostMortem Existence,” VT 45 (1995): 1.

6 MOURNING CUSTOMS A number of mourning customs are mentioned in the Bible and seem to fall into several categories. Some customs are associated directly with the deceased: burial and making a bonfire, dirges and eulogies, erecting a tombstone. Another category relates to the biblical dread of the impurity caused by the dead and the fear of proximity to a corpse. It is absolutely forbidden to touch the dead; doing so causes defilement that lasts for seven days. The Bible provides detailed instructions for removing the impurity caused by death, through the ritual of the red heifer and the ritual of the decapitated heifer. In biblical literature we also encounter rituals associated with the mourners themselves, such as rending one’s garments, wearing sackcloth, fasting, weeping, covering oneself with dirt, and the duration of the mourning period. There are also biblical injunctions limiting such practices, including a ban on shaving off the hair, plucking out the beard, scarifying the flesh, and going to a beit marzeaʚ. In the present chapter we shall examine the background and reasons for these customs. We will ask whether the mourning customs mentioned in the Bible are meant to honor the dead or whether they derive from pagan beliefs about the power of the dead and a consequent attempt to appease the spirit of the deceased so that they will not harm the living.

BURIAL Deuteronomy (21:22–23) enjoins that a person who dies be buried the same day. Although the passage deals with a criminal who has been hanged, the Talmud cites it as the basis of the rule that burial not be put off. Interment may be delayed for a person of high rank whose funeral requires special preparations.1 In the hot climate of 1

B Sanh. 46a.

301

302

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the Middle East, immediate burial seems to have been a practical matter as well, and was apparently also the custom among neighboring peoples. According to Xenophon, not burying the dead quickly is a sign of disrespect to the deceased.2 Rashi, on the other hand, explains that leaving the corpse hanging would be an affront to the Lord, because the human body is the image of God: this is why the dead must be buried without delay. Tur-Sinai attributed the practice of immediate burial to the belief that the spirits of the dead roam the land at night; if they find their own bodies unburied they are apt to harm the living. Another reason is that the corpse defiles the land. At first sight it would seem that, in the Bible, burial is a human action that has no religious significance. The de-emphasis on interment may be intended to prevent the veneration of tombs and reflect the strong biblical rejection of the cult of the dead. The insistence that the location of Moses’ grave is unknown (Deut. 34:6) may have been intended to avoid veneration of the site; or, as Hazkuni (mid 13th century) wrote, it may have been to prevent someone else being buried with him, as happened at Bethel (1 Kings 13:34), and to keep those who inquire of the dead from treating the site as an oracle. To be left unburied was a great curse (1 Kings 14:11–13; 16:4; 21:24; Jer. 16:4; 25:33; Ps. 79:2, etc.), as was exhumation (Isa. 14:19; Jer. 8:1–2). According to the Bible, tombs are impure (Num. 19:16). In Mesopotamia, the ground around a grave was also considered to be a source of defilement. Those who came into contact with it had to offer sacrifices to the god Shamash, bathe, change their clothes, and stay inside their house for a period of seven days.3 This makes it somewhat astonishing that Samuel, Joab, and King Manasseh were buried in their houses (1 Sam. 25:1; 1 Kings 2:34; 2 Chron. 33:20). In fact, burial beneath the floor of a house, especially before the Iron Age, is known from archaeological excavations.4 The kings

2 Xenophon, Memorabilia i, 2.53; In the Iliad we read that the spirit of Patroclus asked Achilles in a dream: “Bury me with all speed that I may pass the gates of Hades.” Iliad 23:71 3 Milgrom, Numbers, pp.160, 316 n.28. 4 Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.52 n.13.

MOURNING CUSTOMS

303

of Ugarit were buried in niches inside the palace.5 In the three biblical cases, however, it is possible that the word “house” means the family mausoleum, since, according to Chronicles, Manasseh was “buried … in his house” (2 Chron. 33:20), whereas the parallel account in Kings reports that he “was buried in the garden of his house” (2 Kings 21:18).6 We should point out that the archaeological data shows that the Israelites bury their dead outside the community.7 The Patriarchs and Matriarchs, except for Rachel, were all buried in the Cave of Machpelah. Jacob’s body was brought back to Canaan from Egypt to be interred there (Gen. 50:13). Although the Bible skips over the deaths of Rebekah and Leah, it does report the death of Rebekah’s nurse Deborah and her burial under an oak tree (Gen. 35:8). The citizens of Jabesh Gilead, after cremating the bodies of Saul and his son, “buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh” (1 Sam. 31:13). Interment under a tree may have been a symbolic act intended to perpetuate the memory of the deceased, because the tree was a symbol of eternal life.8 The members of the generation of the wilderness were buried where they died, including Miriam in Kadesh (Num. 20:1), Aaron at Mount Hor (Num. 33:39), and Moses, whose exact burial place is unknown, in the land of Moab near Beth-Pe’or (Deut. 34:6). There are three references to the burials of the generation that entered Eretz Israel: Joshua was buried on his estate (Josh. 24:30); the bones of Joseph were interred in Shechem, on the plot that his father had purchased from Hamor and which became the inheritance of the Josephites (Josh. 24:32); the high priest Eleazar was buried in the hill country of Ephraim (Josh. 24:33). Later, in the period of the Judges and the early monarchy, we read that the dead were buried in their family estates and tombs; this is the case for Gideon, Samson, Asahel, Ahithophel, and Barzillai (Judg. 8:32; John Gray, I & II Kings, p.101. Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.52. 7 Wayne T. Pitard, “Tombs and Offerings: Archaeological Data and Comparative Methodology in the Study of Death in Israel,” in Sacred Times, Sacred Place, ed. Barry M. Gittlen. (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbraus, 2002), p.149. 8 Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, p.115. 5 6

304

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

16:31; 2 Sam. 2:32; 17:23; 19:38). For some judges only the general location is specified: Tola at Shamir in Ephraim (Judg. 10:2); Jair at Kamon in Gilead (Judg. 10:4); Jephthah in one of the towns of Gilead (Judg. 12:7); Ibzan in Bethlehem (Judg. 12:10); Elon the Zebulunite in Aijalon, in the territory of Zebulun (Judg. 12:11); Abdon son of Hillel the Pirathonite in Pirathon, in the territory of Ephraim (Judg. 12:15). They, too, may have been interred in their ancestral tombs, because in each case the burial place is the judge’s hometown. David introduced the custom of royal burials in the City of David (1 Kings 2:10). Next, “Solomon slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of his father David” (1 Kings 11:43). After the division of the monarchy, kings were buried in their capitals— Tirzah and Samaria in the northern kingdom and Jerusalem in the southern kingdom. The book of Kings reports on the burials of most of the kings of Israel (except for Zimri, Ahaziah, Joram/Jehoram and Hosea). Several kings—Nadab, Elah, Zechariah, Shallum, Pekahiah, Pekah—were murdered and there is no information about their burial (1 Kings 15:28; 16:10; 2 Kings 15:10,14,25,30). Every other king, except for Ahab, died a natural death and was buried in his capital: Baasha in Tirzah (1 Kings 16:6); Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Joash, and probably Jeroboam II in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28; 22:37; 2 Kings 10:35; 13:9,13; 14:16, 29).9 According to the book of Kings, every king of Judah from Rehoboam until Ahaz was buried with his ancestors in the City of David (1 Kings 14:31; 15:8, 24; 22:51; 2 Kings 8:24; 9:28; 12:22; 14:20; 15:7, 38; 16:20; Neh. 3:16). This is near the spring of Siloam, at some distance from the Temple. By contrast, according to 2 Kings 21:18 Manasseh was buried “in the garden of his house, in the garden of Uzza,” as was his son Amon (2 Kings 21:26).10 The Ibid., pp.116–117. The location of the “garden of Uzza” is uncertain. “In the garden of his house” suggests that it refers to a palace built by Manasseh in the new part of Jerusalem on the western hill. Recall that when the Ark of the Covenant was brought from Kiryat Ye’arim, northwest of Jerusalem, to the City of David, one of the stations was a place that David called PerezUzzah (2 Sam. 6:8). Some believe that the tradition concerning David’s Tomb on present-day Mount Zion, the southern tip of the western hill, was born after the Bar Kokhba rebellion, when the tombs of the House 9

10

MOURNING CUSTOMS

305

Bible indicates that these two kings were unusually wicked and consequently were not buried with their ancestors in the City of David. The other kings of Judah—Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoshaphat, and Jotham—were buried with their fathers in the City of David (2 Chron. 12:16; 13:23; 21:1; 27:9). Hezekiah was buried “in the ascent [or upper part] of the tombs of the sons of David” (2 Chron. 32:33; the parallel account in 2 Kings 20:21 is silent about his burial). Apparently Hezekiah was buried in the upper or more important section of the burial plots allotted to the Davidic dynasty. In addition, “all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honor at his death” (2 Chron. 32:33). The description of royal deaths and burials in Chronicles is tendentious.11 Asa, Jehoram, and Uzziah were stricken by illness— viewed as divine punishment; consequently they were not buried in the royal sepulcher but in “their tombs.” The wicked Ahaz, too, is reported to have been buried in the city of Jerusalem, but not in the royal tombs. Nor were kings who died a violent death— Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Josiah—buried in the royal tombs. Apparently the author of Chronicles believed that sinful kings and those who died an unnatural death were not worthy to be interred in the royal tombs; they were denied the honor of a state funeral and the possibility of reuniting with their ancestors in the grave. We have already referred to the biblical idiom “lie down with one’s father” (Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16; 2 Sam. 7:12; 35 times in 1 and 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles). The formula usually is applied to kings who died peacefully. The similar expression “he was gathered to his people” is found only in the Pentateuch, while “he was gathered to his fathers” is found elsewhere in the Bible (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; 2 Chron. 34:28). All of these expressions stem from the idea that a person is buried in the family tomb where he joins of David were destroyed by Hadrian (135 CE). The burial place of the kings of Judah in the Garden of Uzza was still known at that time, however, and was thereafter referred to as the burial place of David and his descendants. It is possible that there is an allusion to Manasseh’s construction project on the western hill in “afterwards he built an outer wall for the city of David west of Gihon, in the valley” (2 Chron. 33: 14). 11 H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982), p.322; Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, p.117f.

306

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

his ancestors who predeceased him. Note, though, that burial is usually specified separately from these phrases. In principle “he lay down with one’s fathers” denotes a peaceful death, whereas “he died” refers to an unnatural death. Driver showed that the Code of Hammurabi, too, makes this distinction, employing “he died” in the case of unnatural death and “he went to his fate” for a natural death.12 Over time these formulas became conventional. But their use was not always consistent, given that some kings who were wicked or were killed are nevertheless said to have lain with their fathers (1 Kings 14:20; 22:37, 40; 2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chron. 26:2). These may be exceptional cases; or, as Johnston believes, the original sense of the idiom may have been forgotten.13 Here we should mention Ezekiel’s prophesy that “the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they, nor their kings, by their harlotry, and by the corpses of their kings (uv-figrei malkeihem) at their death” (Ezek. 43:7). Here the prophet is condemning the pollution of the Temple by the corpses of the kings of Judah, buried nearby. This apparently refers to the burial of the last kings of Judah (Manasseh, Ammon, and perhaps also Josiah and Jehoiakim) in the Garden of Uzza, which is thought to have been located on the western hill of Jerusalem, opposite the Temple Mount, or perhaps on the slopes of that hill overlooking the Temple. Some scholars, though, associate the verse with an ancestor cult.14 Neiman glossed the word peger as “stele,” on the basis of two Ugaritic texts, which he compared to three Phoenician votive inscriptions.15 Thus the verse would refer to some idolatrous ritual object and not to the cult of the dead. Galling, however, citing a stele from Hazor, says that the stele is not part of a pagan ritual but a memorial to the dead.16 Zimmerli agrees, reading the text as “by 12 Godfrey Rolles Driver, “Plurima Mortis Imago,” in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman, ed. Meir Ben-Horin, Bernard D. Weinryb, and Solomon Zeitlin (Leiden: Brill, 1962), p.141. 13 Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.35. 14 Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.250; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp.139–142. 15 D. Neiman, “PGR: A Canaanite Cult-Object in the Old Testament,” JBL 67(1948): 55–60. 16 K. Galling, “Erwägungen zum Stelenheiligtum von Hazor,” ZDPV 75 (1959): 1–13.

MOURNING CUSTOMS

307

the memorials of their kings at their death.”17 Albright read bebamotam ‘on their high places,’ and understood it to mean a special funerary installation separate from the royal tombs themselves, where they erected memorial steles to kings.18 Another possibility is that peger denotes a sacrifice. In Ugaritic we find špš pgr ‘offering to Shapash’ and yrʚ pgrm ‘month of sacrifice.’ The Akkadian pagra’um is understood to mean animal sacrifices for the royal ancestor.19 An Akkadian text from Mari includes the expression bēl pagrê ‘lord of the offering.’ In light of this evidence, some scholars take the passage in Ezekiel as evidence of a royal ancestor cult in pre-exilic Israel.20 But as Schmidt and Johnston have noted, the use of peger in Ugaritic and Akkadian texts does not corroborate the theory that here it means stele or funerary stele.21 Peger in the Bible refers to a human corpse, except for one use for animal carcasses (Gen. 15:11). As for the possibility that peger means “sacrifice,” that may be true in Ugaritic and Akkadian; but in the Bible, as Schmidt noted, the Priestly Code never uses peger in this sense.22 Consequently we must prefer the reading that Ezekiel intends the corpses of the Judean kings whose burial near the Temple had defiled it. The issue of the pollution spread by tombs also preoccupied the author of the Temple Scroll from Qumran, which refers to burial in houses and calls for establishing special burial sites to keep the land from being defiled: “You shall not do as the nations do— in every place they (are accustomed) to burying their dead; even in Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, trans. James D. Martin (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p.409. 18 W. F. Albright, “The High Places in Ancient Palestine,” SVT 4(1957): 248; idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, pp.203–206; idem, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp.103–104. 19 Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp.72–79; J. H. Ebach, “Pgr =(Toten) Opfer?: Ein Vorschlag zum Verständnis von Ez. 43, 7.9,” UF 3(1971): 365–368; G. C. Heider, The Cult of Molek, pp.392–394. On the Mari Text see J. F. Healey, “The Underworld Character of the God Dagan,” JNSL 5(1977): 43–51. 20 Johnston, Shades of Sheol, p.180 n.63. 21 Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.250; Johnston, Shades of sheol, p.180. 22 Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, pp.250–251. 17

308

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

their houses they bury them—but you shall set apart places in your land where you shall bury your dead. Among four cities you shall establish a place for the purpose of burying in it.”23 This is a strong condemnation of burial inside houses. The author of the scroll would establish four permanent burial sites for the entire country. Later, the tanna’im taught that it was permissible to move a grave if a city has come to surround it, but disagreed about the special case of the graves of kings and prophets.24 Evidence about the tomb of one king that was moved is found in the Uzziah inscription mentioned previously. Making a Bonfire Another custom associated with burial is making a bonfire. This is mentioned in three biblical passages. Asa was “laid on a bier which had been filled with various kinds of spices prepared by the perfumer’s art; and they made a very great fire in his honor” (2 Chron. 16:14). As for Jehoram of Judah, “his people did not make a fire for him like the fire for his fathers” (2 Chron. 21:19). Jeremiah promises Zedekiah that “like the fires of your fathers, the former kings who were before you, so men shall burn for you” (Jer. 34:5). What kind of burning is this? Recall that both Asa and Jehoram were critically ill—the former with a disease in his leg, the latter with an intestinal affliction. Could this be connected with the burning? But unlike Asa, no burning was made for Jehoram and he was not buried in the royal tombs; that is, he was deprived of the last honors. The talmudic sages, Rashi, and David Kimʘi, referring to the verses in Chronicles, believed that it was the king’s bed and personal belongings that were burned. There was a custom to make a huge bonfire and burn incense in honor of a deceased monarch. Josephus writes that 500 of Herod’s slaves and freedmen followed his bier, carrying sweet spices.25 The use of the indirect object leka ‘for you’ by Jeremiah proves that the reference is to doing honor to the deceased and not 23 Colum 48, lines 11–14; trans. Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation & Commentary (JSOTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1985), p.43. 24 T Baba Bathra 1:7 25 Josephus, Wars of the Jews 1, 673.

MOURNING CUSTOMS

309

cremation of the corpse (although the Vulgate does have “conburent te”). These words are left out by the Septuagint (41:5), perhaps because the translators were afraid they might be understood as referring to cremation.26 Jeremiah’s prophecy that Zedekiah would die peacefully and a bonfire would be lit in his honor did not come to pass; the unfortunate monarch was tortured by Nebuchadnezzar and hauled off to Babylon in chains (39:6–7). Some believe that a funeral bonfire was originally an Assyrian custom, known from the time of Esarhadon, who was a contemporary of Manasseh of Judah. If so, it is strange that the Bible never denounces the custom.27 Cremation In addition to its references to making bonfires to honor the dead, the Bible also mentions cremation. A cremation burial site has been excavated in the region; some associate it with the Sea People who settled in the country in the twelfth and eleventh centuries BCE.28 After that the custom spread and became fairly common, especially on the Phoenician coast in the northwest. Later, in the Roman period, the custom was prevalent among the non-Jewish residents of the country. Cremation was also practiced by the Hittites in Anatolia and northern Syria. There is biblical evidence of cremation, too, but only in special cases. In general cremation was considered to be a severe punishment for sin (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:14; 21:9; Josh. 7:25). Burning a corpse was viewed as a serious transgression, as indicated by Amos’ prophecy about Moab (2:1). The ban on cremation endured; Tacitus mentions it among the Jews’ perverse customs: “Rather than cremate their dead, they prefer to bury them in imitation of the Egyptian fashion.”29 According to the talmudic sages, “Where burning [of the emperor’s raiment] took place at death there was idol worship.”30 However, we have to stress that

William McKane, Jeremiah, 2: 869. Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, 175. 28 M. Dothan, “A Cremation Burial at Azor: A Danite City,” ErIsr 20 (1989): 170–172. 29 Tacitus, Histories 5: 5. 30 M. Avodah Zarah 1:3. 26 27

310

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the sages understood this to mean burning the effects of the deceased and not cremation. According to 1 Samuel 31:12–13, the people of Jabesh Gilead burned the corpses of Saul and his sons before they buried the bones. Both traditional commentators and modern scholars, puzzled by this, have advanced various explanations. The Sages, for example, explained that they burned the personal effects of the deceased.31 Consequently, Targum Jonathan has here “and they burned for them as they burn for kings.” Maimonides codified the halakhic ruling that the king’s scepter, crown, and personal effects may not be used by another; when he dies all of them are burned in the presence of the corpse.32 David Kimʘi surmised that “they burned the corpses because they were infested with maggots. Because they did not want to bury them with the worms, that being undignified, they burned the flesh and buried the bones.” According to Driver, here va-yiœrefu does not mean burning at all; rather, it is related to œaraf ‘resin,’ and the verse should be rendered “they anointed them there with resinous spices.”33 Budde holds that the reference to cremation is a gloss added by a later author who detested Saul and wanted to blacken his name.34 But if we omit the words “and burned them there” at the end of v. 12, v. 13—“then they took the bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh”—makes no sense: why did they bury only the bones, and what did they do with the rest of the body? Hence it is more plausible that in this case the bodies were cremated to prevent the Philistines from abusing the corpses. The parallel text in 1 Chronicles 10:12 does not mention the cremation of the corpses, but only the place where Saul and his sons were buried. According to Kalimi, the reasons for the omission are the alien nature of cremation in Israel, the fact that Amos considered cremation to be a sin, and the tendency of ancient texts to present it as a punishment for severe transgressions.35 See T Shabbat 7 (8):18; T Sanh. 4:2–3; B Av. Zar. 11a. Laws of Kings 2:1. 33 G. R. Driver, “A Hebrew Burial Custom,” ZAW 66 (1954): 315. 34 D. K. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, p.192. 35 Isaac Kalimi, The Book of Chronicles: Historical Writing and Literary Devices (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2000), p.53(Hebrew). 31 32

MOURNING CUSTOMS

311

Another verse with which scholars have wrestled is Amos 6:10, which describes the devastation that will follow the defeat and destruction of Israel: “And when a man’s kinsman (dodo), he who burns him (u-mesarefo), shall take him up to bring the bones out of the house. …” One crux in this verse is the hapax legomenon 04,). Some conjecture that, as a parallel to the dod, who is the father’s brother, the mesaref must be the mother’s brother. This theory is advanced by Karaite sources but is philologically untenable.36 Another possibility is that the victims of plague are cremated, to prevent the infection from spreading; or that sweet spices are burned in honor of the dead (thus NJPS). In either case, this means an interchange of œin and samekh.37 Because cremation was not the normal practice among the Hebrews, it is implausible that the text refers here to cremation. Tur-Sinai proposed emending the text—not 04,) but 0,)—a metathesis of (!) 0,) ‘one who eulogizes him.’38 Some scholars assert that mesaref is not a relative who tends to the dead but a container in which the corpse was carried; to maintain the parallel they revocalize dodo ‘his kinsman’ to dudo ‘his pot.’39 Driver was of the opinion that in this passage, as in the case of Saul and his sons, the reference is to coating the corpse with resin, by way of embalming.40 Kutscher glossed saraf as “anointing” or “smearing.”41 In rabbinic texts the noun œaraf, used in connection with various trees and spices, means “resin”; the denominative verb means “smear with resin.” In the Tosefta we find sirefah beœaraf (note the verb with a samekh!) ‘he covered it with resin.’42 Following this line, the mesaref would be a person who covers the corpse with resin. According to Kutscher it might be a reference to anointing the dead with olive oil a custom known from the mishShalom M. Paul, A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p.215 n.21. 37 The RSV has “he who burns him,” on the assumption that /4, = /46. 38 Tur-Sinai, Peshuto shel Miqra, 3/2, 467–468. 39 Paul, Amos, p.215 nn.25, 26. 40 Driver, “A Hebrew Burial Custom,” pp.314–315. 41 Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), p.338. 42 T Mikvaoth 6[7]:21; Paul, Amos, p.215. 36

312

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

naic era: “All the requirements of the dead may be done [on the Sabbath]: he may be anointed with oil and washed.”43 Or it might be anointing the dead with spices as we read in Mark 16:1: “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.”44

Qinah ‘Dirge’ Another mourning custom is the dirge (qinah). Dirges or laments were sung at the funerals of both important people and commoners, as well as in times of extreme crisis—war, drought, and plague. The prohets employed this literary device to make the catastrophe more vivid in an effort to provoke the people to repent from their evil ways. There are two types of dirges on the death of a person— those with a standard text and those composed especially for the death of a king or prince, such as David’s laments for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:19) and for Abner (3:33). The book of Lamentations mourns the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The book of Psalms, too, incorporates dirges based on historical incidents, although we cannot always identify the particular event. From the dirges in the Bible we may infer several standard idioms characteristic of the genre. These include the interjection hoi and rhetorical questions beginning with the interrogatives Þeik/Þeikah ‘how’ and lammah ‘why.’ Þeik and the poetic form Þeikah are typical of dirges (Jer. 9:18; 48:39), frequently used to introduce them with a rhetorical question that highlights the contrast between the past and the tragic present.45 Although some scholars claim to have detected a specific dirge meter of 3:2—that is, three words— pause—two more words—it is difficult to accept that all dirges followed this pattern. That dirges were chanted or sung can be inferred from Amos 8:10 and 2 Chronicles 35:25, where they are associated or contrasted with derivatives of the root š.y.r ‘sing.’ Dirges were most often chanted by professionals. Although these keeners were usually women, the lament for a king or great M Shabbat 23:5; Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies, p.339. Cf. Matt. 26:6–12 (= Mark 14:3–8 = John 12:3–7); Luke 24:1; John 19:39–40. 45 Lam. 2:1; 4:1. 43 44

MOURNING CUSTOMS

313

man might also be recited by men: “Jeremiah composed laments for Josiah which all the singers, male and female, recited in their laments for Josiah” (2 Chron. 35:25). The Bible refers to professional keeners as šarot ‘female singers’ (2 Chron. 35:25), meqonenot ‘female dirge-singers’ (Jer. 9:16 [17]), and ʚakamot ‘skilled women’ (ibid.). They were experts in their craft, trained to sing or compose funeral songs, who passed their special skills from generation to generation (Jer. 9:19 [20]). According to the Mishnah, On the days of New Moon, of Hanukkah and of Purim they may raise a wail and clap [their hands in grief]. Neither on the former nor on the latter occasions do they chant a dirge. … What is meant by “raise a wail” [Ýinnuy]? When all sing in unison. What is meant by “a dirge” [qinah]? When one speaks and all respond after her.46

The profession may have been dominated by women because they are considered to be more emotional and sensitive. In the ancient Near East, too, there were professional mourners of both sexes. We read about the ʜĆrihu or screachers, bakkitu or profesÚ sional criers, and the lallĆritu (lallĆru) or professional wailers. Phoenician reliefs, such as the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos (tenth century BCE), depict female keeners. We should also recall the passage in Ezekiel about the women who sit and weep for Tammuz (Ezek. 8:14). The keeners’ main function was to provoke the mourners to tears. Jeremiah expects that their wailing will cause “our eyes” to “run with tears” (Jer. 9:17 [18]; cf. 2 Sam. 1:24 and 3:34). The dirge was chanted by the side of the corpse, in the home of the deceased or at the grave. The custom of employing professional keeners was codified as halakhah in the mishnaic age: A husband “is under the obligation of maintaining and ransoming [his wife] and providing for her burial. R. Judah ruled: Even the poorest man in Israel must provide no less than two flutes and one lamenting woman.”47 From here we learn, incidentally, that the funeral song was accompanied by flutes. M MoÝed Qatan 3:9. M Ketubot 4:4; see also T Nedarim 2:7; and cf. Josephus, Wars 3, 9, 5; Matt. 9:23. 46 47

314

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Jeremiah, too, alludes to this: “My heart moans like a flute for the men of Kir-heres” (Jer. 48:36). The wailing of the flute symbolized the dirge and crying; the Mishnah refers to bringing flute-players “for a bride or for the dead.”48 In the New Testament, too, we read of flute-players in a house where a girl has just died (Matt. 9:23). Apparently the flute was chosen for weddings because it symbolized male fertility and for funerals because it was an emblem of resurrection. In the myth of Tammuz, the music of his flute is to restore him to life. It is interesting that the Greeks and Romans played the aulos at both weddings and funerals. Drawing on the refrain in David’s dirge on Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:19, 25, 27), “how are the mighty fallen,” the recapitulations in the mocking dirge on Egypt (Ezek. 32:19–32), “go down and be laid with the uncircumcised,” and the refrain in Revelations (18:10, 16, 19), “Alas! Alas! Thou great city,” some believe that the dirge style was antiphonal, a sort of dialogue between the leader and a chorus. As we saw above, this is how the Mishnah defines the dirge: “One speaks and all respond after her.”49 Dirges might be repeated as an annual rite. David’s dirge for Saul and Jonathan is said to be “written in the Book of Jashar” (2 Sam. 1:18). The meaning of the first part of this verse is obscure, in large part because of the concluding word qašet ‘bow.’ The Septuagint solves the problem by leaving out the word, so that the object of the verb “teach” is the dirge itself; this is also how the RSV renders the verse: “he said it [i.e., the dirge] should be taught to the people of Judah.” That is, David instructed that the members of his tribe be taught this dirge, just as Moses taught his song to the Israelites (Deut. 31:22; cf. Ps. 60:1). Gordon explained that David meant for the dirge to be used in military training, to encourage the soldiers to be brave like Saul and Jonathan. Eissfeldt restores the bow to the verse: “David said, now that the mighty men of Israel have fallen, it is necessary that the children of Judah learn war and draw the bow.”50 This is compatible with the AV rendering: “Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow.” AnM Baba Meʛia 6:1. M MoÝed Qatan 3:9. 50 Otto Eissfeldt, “Zwei verkannte militär-technische Termini im Alten Testament,” VT 5(1955): 234. 48 49

MOURNING CUSTOMS

315

other possibility is that qešet/bow is the name of the dirge (drawn from the reference to “the bow of Jonathan” in v. 22) or a reference to a well-known melody.51 This interpretation is behind the NJPS translation, “he ordered the Judites to be taught [The Song of the] Bow.” The continued performance of a dirge from year to year is also mentioned with regard to Jeremiah’s lament for King Josiah: “Jeremiah composed laments for Josiah which all the singers, male and female, recited in their laments for Josiah” (2 Chron. 35:25). We may infer from this that an annual memorial day was instituted for the monarch, with part of the ceremony drawn from a set text or book of dirges. This may be the biblical book of Lamentations, which the Sages refer to as the Book of Dirges or Scroll of Dirges, the Septuagint as Threnoi, and the Vulgate as Lamentationes. According to the well-known baraita in the Babylonian Talmud, “Jeremiah wrote his book and the books of Kings and Dirges.”52 The rabbinic tradition was that this referred to the fourth chapter of Lamentations. According to Josephus, “Jeremiah the prophet composed an elegy to lament him, which is extant till this time also.”53 This almost certainly refers to the biblical book of Lamentations. But it is implausible that the work referred to in Chronicles is the book of Lamentations, which deals with the destruction of Jerusalem and exile of the people and not with the death of Josiah. Just as the people mourned for Josiah each year and the sages of that generation instituted the recitation of dirges, we find that “it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year” (Judg. 11:39–40). Gaster suggested that this rite was “based on an ancient and primitive custom of annually bewailing the dead or the ousted spirit of fertility during the dry or winter season.”54 The festival in question was probably the remnant of a mourning rite for a goddess who had descended to the netherShimon Bar-Efrat, II Samuel, Introduction and Commentary (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1996), p.12 (Hebrew). 52 B Baba Bathra 15a. 53 Josephus, Antiquities, 10, 5, 1. 54 Theodor H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, p.431. 51

316

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

world. The ceremony, which symbolized the cycle of withering, growth, and fructification, was meant to bring her back to the world of the living.55 If so, the story in Judges is a stage in demythologization, detaching the custom from the myth by presenting it as derived from a historical episode.56 Although this ceremony became “a custom in Israel,” the text of the dirge has not been preserved. Dirges praised the deceased and enumerated his or her virtues (2 Sam. 1:22–24; Ezek. 19:10–11) and valor (2 Sam. 1:27; Ezek. 32:27), while overlooking any failings. By contrast, in the collective dirge inspired by a calamity that befell a city or country, the people confessed their transgressions (Lam. 1:5, 8, 14, 18, 20; 2:14; 4:6) and admitted that their suffering was a punishment sent by the Lord (Lam. 1:5, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21; 2:1, 2, 5, 9, 17, 20, 22). Dirges for individuals tended to be secular in nature, This is clear in David’s dirge for Saul and Jonathan and his short dirge for Abner. Neither contains any reference to God, a prayer for the dead, or a mention of their devotion to the Lord. Perhaps this secular vein is meant to establish a distance between death and mourning and the domain of religion. An echo of this is found in Amos, where, after ten men have died in a single house, the survivor “shall say, ‘Hush! We must not mention the name of the Lord’ ” (Amos 6:10).

Misped ‘Mourning, Lament, Eulogy’ In the account of Sarah’s death and burial we read that Abraham came to mourn and weep for Sarah; only after that did he address the issue of burying her. Many biblical passages, in fact, place the misped before the interment (Gen. 23:2; 50:10, 13; 1 Sam. 25:1; 28:3; Jer. 22:18; 25:33). In others the order is reversed—first burial and only then the misped (1 Kings 14:8); However in Chapter 13:29–30 v.29 puts spd before qbr and v.30 reverses the order! In Jer.16:4–6 “The only thing we can properly say is that the festival must have been characterized by the young women’s weeping over a dead deity” (Flemming Friis Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament [Leiden: Brill, 1962], p.103). 56 J. Alberto Soggin, Judges (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), p.217. 55

MOURNING CUSTOMS

317

here too v. 4 has spd before qbr and v. 6 reverse the order. The roots s.p.d and b.k.h ‘cry, weep’ describe mourning practices and occur together frequently (Gen. 23:2; 2 Sam. 1:12; Isa. 22:12; Ezek. 24:16; Joel 2:12; Esth. 4:3). In Ugaritic, too, we find the cognate pair, where it describes the mourning for Aqhat the son of Danel.57 It appears also in Akkadian bikĩtu u sipdu/sipittu.58 In Jewish Aramaic, too, the two roots s.p.d and b.k.h appear together: “When they saw the Temple vessels there they cried and mourned there.”59A reading of the Bible, however, indicates that in some places s.p.d does not mean the same as b.k.h does. First of all, s.p.d may mean beating the breast, as in “beat upon your breasts (Ýal šadayim sofedim) for the pleasant fields” (Isa. 32:12). The amora Ulla cited this verse as a proof text in his distinction among the various expressions of grief associated with mourning: “Ulla said: [The technical meaning of] a hesped is [striking] the breast. … [The technical meaning of] ʞippuaʚ is clapping one’s hands [in grief], and that of qillus is [tapping] with the foot [in mourning].”60 This sense is also found in the Akkadian verb sapĆdu ‘beat the breast.’61 Mourners beat their breast while performing a funeral dance; this dance is apparently what is denoted by the noun misped, as we may infer from two verses: “You turned my lament (mispedi) into dancing” (Ps. 30:12 [11]); and “a time to mourn (sefod) and a time to dance” (Eccles. 3:4). The contrast between s.p.d and r.q.d is reinforced against the background of the “dance of death” performed by relatives and professional keeners, as still found in eastern lands. Another sense of s.p.d may be chanting a dirge or lament, as in “they shall not lament for him (yispedu lo), saying, ‘Ah my brother!’ or ‘Ah sister!’; they shall not lament for him, saying, ‘Ah lord!’ or ‘Ah his majesty!’ ” (Jer. 22:18; cf. Jer. 34:5; 1 Kings 13:30). Amos refers to those who perform the misped as “skilled in lamentation” (Amos 5:16). The misped may also have originally been a bitter cry, André Herdner, Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963), 19:171–172; Dennis Pardee, “The ÞAQhatu Legend (1.103),” COS, 1:354. 58. CAD: B 223–225, bikĩtu. 59 Targum Sheni on Esther 1:4. 60 B MoÝed Qatan 27b. 61 CAD: S 150–151, SapĆdu 57

318

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

as in “for this I will lament (Þespedah) and wail; … I will make lamentation (misped) like the jackals” (Mic. 1:8; cf. Jer. 4:8; 49:3; Joel 1:13). The Bible applies both the verb and the associated noun to the death of human beings (Gen. 23:2; 50:10; 1 Sam. 25:1; 28:3; 2 Sam. 1:12; 3:31; 11:26). Sometimes s.p.d is linked to q.b.r ‘bury’ (1 Kings 13:29; 14:13; Jer. 16:4; 25:33) and clearly denotes lamenting for the dead. In other passages the crying and wailing are over some tragedy other than death (Mic. 1:8; Jer. 4:8; 49:3). Forms of s.p.d also appears in association with fasting (2 Sam. 1:12; Joel 2:12; Zech. 7:5), with wearing sackcloth and rending one’s garments (2 Sam. 3:31; Esth. 4:1), and with cutting oneself (Jer. 16:6). According to Ecclesiastes (12:5), the mourners (sofedim) made the rounds of the streets. Both the verb and noun appear in proximity to or in association with the noun Þevel ‘mourning’ (Gen. 50:10; Jer. 6:26; Mic. 1:8; Esth. 4:3). A closer reading of Genesis 50:10 indicates that misped is a one-day event, whereas Þevel ‘mourning’ lasts seven days. In the Talmud, by contrast, we find “three days for weeping and seven for lamenting (hesped) and thirty [to refrain] from cutting the hair and [donning] pressed clothes; hereafter, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, ‘You are not more compassionate towards him [the departed] than I.’ ”62 The distinction between weeping and hesped/misped suggests that the latter denotes the entire period of mourning, whose duration the Sages sought to limit. Ben Sira, too, is opposed to protracted mourning and speaks of “weeping, wailing, and lamenting bitterly for a day, two days” (38:17). This limitation must be directed at the funeral and burial, since, as he himself notes, mourning lasts for seven days (22:12). If a person does not take part in public wailing and mourning for one or two days, people may start talking. After two days, however, the intensity of grief diminishes and mourners should compose themselves, because excessive mourning is bad for one’s health and life (38:18–19).

Maʜʜevah ‘Pillar, Tombstone’ Rachel was buried “on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem),” and Jacob set up a pillar (maʜʜevah) on her grave (Gen. 35:19–20). 62

B MoÝed Qatan 2b.

MOURNING CUSTOMS

319

According to 1 Samuel 10:2, in the time of Samuel, circa 1020 BCE, “Rachel’s tomb” was a familiar landmark; it still was more than four centuries later, when the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah went into exile (Jer. 31:15). This was not the only pillar that Jacob erected (see Gen. 28:18; 31:45; 35:14, 20). Two of them commemorated a divine revelation to Jacob (28:14 and 35:14); one served as a testimonial of the treaty between Jacob and Laban (31:45); this last one marked the site of a tragic event. According to the author of the late midrash Genesis Rabbati, it was erected “so that Israel would see her grave, prostrate themselves there and pray for mercy” (170). Absalom erected a pillar because, we are told, he had no son to perpetuate his name (2 Sam. 18:18). This statement contradicts 2 Samuel 14:27, which reports that he had three sons. The verses may be reconciled by assuming that they died in childhood (they are never referred to again). As for the pillar, Cassuto noted a Ugaritic text that defines the ideal son as one “who erects the stele of the ‘god’ of his father”63—i.e., of his father’s shade or ghost. Because Absalom did not have a son, he himself erected a pillar to perpetuate his name and to serve as a place where sacrifices could be offered to him (cf. Deut. 26:14). One’s “name” (šem) signifies continuity and survival (Ex. 3:15; Job 18:17; Prov. 10:7) and frequently a person’s descendants (1 Sam. 24:21; Isa. 48:19; 66:22; Nah. 1:14). According to the law of levirate marriage, the goal of that institution is that the name of the dead brother “not be blotted out of Israel” (Deut. 25:6); that is, to ensure the continuation of the family line. Boaz purchased Elimelech’s field from Mahlon and Chilion, at the same time that he took Ruth as his wife, “so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate, that the name of the deceased may not disappear from among his kinsmen and from the gate of his home town” (Ruth 4:9–10). Zelophehad’s daughters had a similar motive for wanting to inherit their father’s portion (Num. 27:1–11). Indi63 2 Aqhat 1.27, 45; 2.16. See: U. Cassuto, “Daniel and his son in tablett II D of Ras Shamra,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies, trans. Israel Abraham (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), 2:200–201; Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20 (AnBib 81; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), p.65 n.88.

320

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

viduals want their name to be carried on and not to disappear; the deceased continue to exist through their descendants because they bear their name. The pillar, with the name of the deceased inscribed on it, symbolized the enduring link between the dead and the living. In the ancient Near East such pillars often threatened those who might damage them and efface the original owner’s name with the curse that their own name would be blotted out. According to Tigay, the earthly remembrance of the name of the deceased maintained the link between the living and the spirit of the dead. Wherever the dead person’s name was mentioned, his or her soul was present. Inscriptions bearing the names of the dead were often placed in sacred places, to keep them in the presence of the deity. Conversely, people wrote the names of their enemies on bowls, which were then shattered as a means of prophylactic magic.64 In addition to perpetuating his name, sons helped their dead father’s spirit by performing ritual acts. Mesopotamian texts refer to sacrifices and libations offered to the spirits of the dead.65 Childless people adopted children so that there would be someone to bury them and perpetuate their name. On the other hand, stones were piled atop the corpses of sinners, rebels, and enemies. After the execution of Achan the Israelites raised a huge mound of stones over him (Josh. 7:26) ). Similar treatment was meted out to the corpse of the king of Ai (8:29) and to the five Canaanite kings whom Joshua hanged (10:27). The pile of stones evidently marked the burial place of the wicked; passersby would add another stone to the heap because the person buried there was considered to be accursed.

THE IMPURITY OF THE DEAD Contact with a dead body is absolutely forbidden; anyone who touches a corpse is ritually unclean for seven days (Num. 19:1–22). According to the Talmud, this defilement is caused by the bodies of Gentiles, too, but not by the carcasses of animal, which render a Tigay, Deuteronomy, p.482. J. C. Greenfield, “adi balŗu: Care for the Elderly and its Rewards,” in AFO Beiheft 19 (Horn, Austria: Ferdinand und Sohne, 1982),pp. 310– 311; Lewis, Cult of the Dead, pp.53ff., 72ff., 96, 119. 64 65

MOURNING CUSTOMS

321

person impure for only one day (Lev. 11:24–40).66 The impurity of death is the most extreme form of defilement (Lev. 5:2; 6:9; 9:6–7). Anthropologists say that primitive human beings believed that corpses were impure and must be avoided. This taboo was motivated by the fear of death. According to Frazer, fear of the dead is a key element of primitive religion. Mourners wore special garments to keep the spirits from identifying them. Another fear was of disease-causing infection that might be contracted from the dead.67 Eichrodt emphasized the element of fear; he says that the Israelites’ mourning customs, such as rending their garments, dressing in sackcloth, and spreading ashes on their head were all part of “an attempt to make oneself unrecognizable to the dead for fear of their envy or malice.”68 The fear of defilement from proximity to a corpse was not unique to the Hebrews or Semites in general; it has ancient origins and can be found in many cultures in America, Africa, and Asia. For example, “among the Navajos [of North America], the man who has been deputed to carry a dead body to burial, holds himself unclean until he has thoroughly washed himself in water prepared for the purpose by certain ceremonies.” “The Zulus … purify themselves by an ablution after a funeral.” “Tibetan … mourners returning from a funeral stand before the fire, wash their hands with warm water over the hot coals, and fumigate themselves thrice with proper formulas.”69 The Greeks placed a bowl of water at the entrance of a house where someone had died, so that those who entered could purify themselves. After the funeral they purified the house. It was forbidden to bring a corpse to a holy place. Contact with the dead made a person impure; an impure person was forbidden to approach an altar.70 The Babylonians were afraid of spirB Yebamot 61a. James George Frazer, The Fear of the Dead in Primitive Religion (New York: Arno Press,1977), pp.11ff. 68 Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 2: 215. 69 Edward B. Tylor, Primitive Culture (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1920), 2: 433, 434, 437. 70 Euripides, Alcestis 98–100; Iphigenia in Tauris 380–383; Helen 1430f.; Pausanias ii. 27; George Buchanan Gray, Numbers (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903), p.244. 66 67

322

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

its that attacked the dead person and consequently performed purification rites on the corpse.71 The fear of the defilement caused by the dead can also be found outside the Torah, in Haggai 2:13 and 2 Kings 23:14, as well as in the post-biblical age, in Tobias 2:9; Baruch 31:11, and Ben Sira 31:30 (34:25). Louis Finkelstein, by contrast, believed that the whole matter of ritual impurity was related to hygiene. In the hot climate of the Middle East a corpse was a ready source of disease and epidemics. Such laws were of special importance in connection with festivals held in the Temple, which attracted large numbers of people. Hence the laws of purity and impurity “were rules of health which alone prevented each festival from leading to an epidemic.”72 The problem with this explanation is the halakhic rule that if a majority of the people are impure the pilgrimage to the Temple and associated sacrifices are not postponed.73 According to the laws relating to the impurity of the dead, “when a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days” (Num. 19:14). That is, anyone who enters the tent where the corpse is lying, as well as the major appurtenances of daily life—clothes, mattresses, pots, and jugs—are defiled, even if they do not come into direct contact with the dead body. How long a person stays in the tent is immaterial; the very fact of entering it makes one impure. The text is in the present tense, because the Israelites lived in tents in the wilderness. It is possible that the tent, too, is polluted, because it must be sprinkled with water (v. 18). For the Bible, the status of the dead person is irrelevant; every corpse renders its surroundings impure to the same extent. This was not the case among the nations. Among the Greeks, for example, the degree of impurity of mourners was a function of the closeness of their relationship to the deceased.74 71 Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston: Ginn, 1898), pp.602–603. 72 Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1938), 1: 27. 73 B Pesaʘim 77a, 79a; B Yoma 50b–51a; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Entering the Sanctuary, 4:9, 11. 74 Jacob Licht, A Commentary on the Book of Numbers [XI-XXI] (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1991), p.175 (Hebrew); Robert Parker, Miasma:

MOURNING CUSTOMS

323

Verse 15 adds that an open vessel that does not have a closefitting top tied to it also becomes impure, and so does its content (generally food). This verse deals with the impurity transferred by the tent, a category that, according to Eichrodt, reflects the fear that the “spirit of the dead may try to hide itself in the house in order to avoid having to enter the grave with the corpse.”75 Verse 16 deals with pollution by direct contact with the corpse of a person slain in war or with a body buried previously that is unexpectedly exposed. In this case only a person who touches the dead person or the tomb is defiled. Even touching a bone after the flesh has decomposed causes impurity. As a result, full respect must be accorded to bodies found in the open field, even if they have long since decomposed and only a small fragment remains. A person defiled by a dead body or grave makes others impure, but to a lesser extent (Lev. 19:22; cf. 11:15). This verse is the source of the several degrees of impurity enumerated in the Mishnah. The High Priest The question of ritual purity and impurity is of utmost importance in the case of the high priest. According to the Bible, he may never come into contact with the dead because he must maintain the purity of his body in order to protect the purity of the sanctuary. He could not fulfil this obligation if he defiled himself by contact with the dead or contracted a forbidden marriage. Accordingly the high priest is forbidden to participate even in his parents’ funeral (Lev. 21:11). All other priests, however, may attend the funerals of close relatives. These regulations were apparently motivated by opposition to the cult of the dead.76 The Yahwist cult of ancient Israel eschewed worship of the dead. The Lord is the deity of the living, not of the dead. Leviticus 21:2–3 lists those close relatives for whom priests (other than the high priest) may defile themselves: father, mother, Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp.39–40. 75 Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:215. 76 John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Word Books: Dallas, 1992), p.347.

324

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

son or daughter, brother, and virgin sister. There is no explicit mention of a wife, who is apparently intended by “his nearest of kin” that heads the list. The Sages stipulated that a priest must bury his wife even if he does not wish to defile himself for her.77 According to Rabbi Ishmael, a priest is permitted to defile himself for his wife; according to Rabbi Akiva he is obligated to do so.78 When the wife of a certain priest named Joseph died on the eve of Passover and he did not want to defile himself for her, his fellow priests pushed him so that he would fall against her body and made him impure against his will.79 The Sages said that a priest should defile himself for a sister who had not yet left their father’s house, whether or not she was betrothed.80 But if she had moved in with her future husband’s family she is no longer considered to be “close” to her brother. Also excluded is a sister who had been raped or seduced and is no longer virgin. The Nazirite The sanctity of Nazirites is so extreme that they are subject to a ban on defiling themselves for the dead that is of equal stringency with that applying to the high priest (Num. 6:6–7). Nowhere is it stipulated how the Nazirite should conduct himself with regard to other forms of ritual impurity; but the stringencies imposed with regard to the impurity of the dead apparently brought with them a whole series of rules of conduct concerning other forms of impurity. The regulations applying to the Nazirite, stated in Numbers 6:1–21, include three main prohibitions: He may not drink wine or other intoxicating beverages or eat any product of the vine. He may not cut his hair; rather, he must let it grow long, thereby providing a visible sign of his holiness. Finally, most important for us here, he must avoid being defiled by the dead.81 “For his father or mother, B Menaʘot 100a. B Soʜah 3a. 79 B Zevaʘim 100a. 80 B Yebamot 60a ; Maimonides, Laws of Mourning 2:10–11. 81 Although the proscriptions of drinking wine and coming into contact with the dead resemble those that apply to priests, those incumbent on the Nazirite are much stricter. A priest, for example, may not partake 77 78

MOURNING CUSTOMS

325

his brother or sister, he must not defile himself for them at their death” (Num. 6:7). “At their death” (be-motam) covers preparing the body for burial and following the bier to the cemetery. Whereas others are defiled only by direct contact with a corpse or by being under the same roof with it, the Nazirite and high priest are defiled even by proximity to a dead body. Milgrom cites examples from the ancient world of situations in which a person could be defiled by sight and not by contact. According to Lucian (second century), in Syria priests who merely saw a corpse had to purify themselves in a special ceremony and were not allowed to enter their temple until the next day.82 In ancient Greece, a person who saw a corpse was not allowed to enter a temple. Some Mesopotamian texts, too, state that people (and not just priests) contract impurity when they see a corpse.83 The second law concerning Nazirites (v. 9) specifies what they must do if they do become impure when someone dies unexpectedly. In this case the Nazirite vow, symbolized by long hair, is invalidated by the pollution. The Nazirite is impure for seven days, after which he or she must undergo rites of purification like any other person defiled by a dead body. The long hair, no longer consecrated, must be shorn off. According to the Mishnah, the hair must be buried to prevent it from defiling other objects.84 The head is shaven as a sign that the vow has been breached. This action is performed on the seventh day because that is last day of impurity for all those defiled by the dead. Nazirites who were exposed to a corpse also had to bring sacrifices like anyone who sinned inadvertently. The offering consisted of strong drink when he enters the sanctuary (Lev. 10:9; Ezek. 44:21), but is permitted to do so outside its precincts (Isa. 28:7); and there is certainly no ban on other products of the vine. As for defilement by the dead, here the Nazirite resembles the high priest, who is not even allowed to approach the corpses of his nearest relatives. Priests, too, are not allowed to shave their heads; but on the other hand they are not allowed to let it grow long and must consequently clip it frequently (Ezek. 44:20). See Milgrom, Numbers, p.44. 82 Lucian, De Dea Syria, trans. Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden (Missoula, Montana : Scholars Press, 1976), p.57, n.53. 83 Milgrom, Numbers, p.304 n.16. 84 M Temurah 7:4.

326

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

of a dove for a burnt offering, a dove for a sin offering, and, after an interval of time, a ram for a guilt offering. During this interval Nazirites reconsecrated their hair and vow. In no other case does the Bible prescribe a waiting period between required sacrifices. Why must the vow be renewed before the guilt offering is brought? In all cases of a guilt offering, the transgressor must repay the sanctuary for profaning the sacred before a sacrifice can be brought for atonement (Lev. 5:14–16). That is, the holy object must be restored before the Lord will forgive the sin. The same thing applies to a Nazirite who has been defiled. The guilt offering will not be acceptable until the Nazirite restores the status quo ante—the hair that was shaved off and the period of the vow that was interrupted. Only then may the priest bring the Nazirite’s guilt offering to the altar, in the hope that he or she will be forgiven.85

RITUALS TO ELIMINATE THE IMPURITY OF DEATH The Red Heifer As we have mentioned, those who have been defiled by a corpse remain impure for seven days. Then, to remove the pollution, they must go through a special ritual whose core is being sprinkled with water that contains the ashes of a red heifer on the third and seventh days of their impurity. Extra-biblical sources, too, speak of a seven-day period of purification from the pollution of death. The heifer was taken outside the camp or inhabited place—so as to remove the polluting rite from the settled locality—where it was slaughtered and burned. The ashes were collected and placed in a vessel, to which water from a fountain or flowing stream was added.86 A pure individual used hyssop branches tied together as an aspergillum to sprinkle the water on the impure individual, tent, or vessel on the third and seventh days after the individual was defiled. After being sprinkled, the impure persons bathed in water and waited till the evening, when they became pure once again. The severity of the impurity diminished after the sprinkling on the third Milgrom, Numbers, p.47. In the Second Temple period the ashes were divided into three parts: one-third for sprinkling, one-third for sanctifying new lustral water, and one-third for safekeeping. See M Parah 3:11, T Parah 3:14. 85 86

MOURNING CUSTOMS

327

day; we find something similar in Jewish mourning customs, where the restrictions that apply to mourners diminish in severity after the third day: “Three days for weeping and seven for lamenting and thirty [to refrain] from cutting the hair and [donning] pressed clothes; hereafter, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, ‘You are not more compassionate towards him [the departed] than I am.” 87 The punishment incurred by a person who is defiled by a corpse and does not undergo purification with the ashes of the red heifer is excision. This sanction is stated twice in the passage (vv. 13 and 20). Not only do those who have been defiled by a corpse but do not undergo purification as prescribed remain impure forever; they can defile the sanctuary and in fact are considered to have already done so (v. 13). During the Second Temple period the concern about impurity was so great that the lustral water was made available at 24 different places in the country. Even after the destruction of the Temple the water was still to be found in Judea, the Galilee, Transjordan, and Etzion Gever in the south.88 The talmudic sages endeavored to purge the ritual of the red heifer of any mythological or magical aspect. The story is told of a certain Gentile who queried Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai about the red heifer: “The thing you Jews do appears to be a kind of sorcery. A cow is brought, it is burned, it is pounded into ash, and its ash is gathered up. Then when one of you gets defiled by contact with a corpse, two or three drops of the ash are mixed with water and sprinkled upon him, and he is told ‘You are cleansed!’ ” R. Johanan asked the heathen: “Has the spirit of madness ever possessed you?” He replied: “No. Have you ever seen a man whom the spirit of madness has possessed?” The heathen replied: “Yes. MoÝed Qatan 27b; cf. Shulʚan Arukh Yoreh De’ah, Laws of Mourning 380. 88 Tosef. Parah 3:14; 10:2; 5:6; 7:4; Milgrom, Numbers, p.161. 87

328

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE And what do you do for such a man? Roots are brought, the smoke of their burning is made to rise about him, and water is sprinkled upon him until the spirit of madness flees.” R. Johanan then said: “Do not your ears hear what your mouth is saying? It is the same with a man who is defiled by contact with a corpse. He, too is possessed by a spirit, the spirit of uncleanness, and Scripture says, ‘I will cause [false] prophets as well as the spirit of uncleanness to flee the Land’ (Zech. 13:2).” Now when the heathen left, R. Johanan’s disciples said: “Our master, you put off that heathen with a mere reed of an answer, but what answer will you give us?” R. Johanan answered: “By your lives, I swear: the corpse does not have the power by itself to defile, nor does the mixture of ash and water have power by itself to cleanse. The truth is that the purifying power of the Red Cow is a decree of the Holy One. The Holy One said: ‘I have set it down as a statute, I have issued it as a decree. You are not permitted to transgress My decree: ‘This is the statute of the Torah.’ ”89

The Gentile believed that the ritual of the red heifer was some kind of hocus-pocus to expel an evil spirit. This is compatible with the popular belief that the spirit of the dead defiled the living and pursued them. According to R. Johanan ben Zakkai, however, the procedure has only ritual significance. A corpse defiles because that is God’s law: the impurity is not some independent force and the water has no magical power.90 Milgrom, asks why were the ashes retained? Why the Torah did not remove this element from the ceremony for purifying those defiled by a corpse. He says that this kind of impurity caused an irrational fear. Contact with a corpse was considered to be a source of impurity because people believed that the spirit of the dead might seize control of those who touched it; the rituals were required to expel the inimical spirit. This explains the use of ashes 89 90

Pesiqta de-Rav Kahane 4:7. Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages, pp.98–99

MOURNING CUSTOMS

329

and the red color of the heifer—both of them well-known folklore remedies for warding off evil spirits.91 Because death is considered to be a heaven-sent punishment, there is logic to prohibiting proximity to the dead. Those defiled by a corpse required a magical ritual to expel the impurity that had penetrated their body from the body of the dead. This fear of the spirit of the dead was utterly real and survived to the talmudic period. According to Josephus, Herod Antipas had to force his Jewish laborers to settle in the city of Tiberias and had to build them houses and give them plots of land, because he erected the city on a cemetery.92 The Decapitated Heifer Similar to the rite of the red heifer is the law of the decapitated heifer (Deut. 21:1–9). This prescribes the procedure to be followed when a corpse is discovered in the open field and the identity of the murderer is unknown.93 The elders and judges of the neighboring towns come to measure and determine which town is closest to the corpse. Then, in order to remove the blood-guilt from the citizens of the closest town, its elders decapitate a young heifer alongside a flowing stream (and not where the corpse was found), wash their hands over it, proclaim that they had no knowledge of or even indirect responsibility for the murder, and pray for atonement for the blood that was shed: “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Absolve, O Lord, Your people Israel whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among Your people Israel” (vv. 7–8). This ceremony was conducted far from human settlements—a feature that recalls the Day of Atonement ritual of the scapegoat (Lev. 16:22). The place where the corpse was found became taboo for farming. The ceremony was public to broadcast the crime and perhaps lead to discovery of the murderer’s identity. No parallel ceremony is known from extra-biblical texts, though we do find the idea that a city bears responsibility for Milgrom, Numbers, p.441. Josephus, Antiquities 18, 2, 3. 93 On the Hittite law that deals with a similar case, see: E. Neufeld, The Hittite Laws (London: Luzac & Co., 1951), pp.2–3, 59. 91

92.

330

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

crimes committed in its territory.94 Thus, according to the Code of Hammurabi, “If the robber has not been caught, the robbed seignior shall set forth the particulars regarding his lost property in the presence of god, and the city and governor, in whose territory and district the robbery was committed, shall make good to him his lost property. If it was a life (that was lost), the city and governor shall pay one mina of silver to his people.”95 According to the Torah, the sin will weigh heavily on the people if the murderer is not identified and punished. As long as the murderer has not been executed, the victim’s blood cries out from the ground and the transgression pursues the entire nation. The Talmud says that the heifer was killed instead of the murderer.96 The words “this blood” in the formula recited by the elders refers to the blood of the victim for which the ritual atones. Modern scholars have expressed a variety of opinions about this ritual. Merz believes that the spirit of the victim cried out for the blood of the murderer and terrified the living. If its cries were not heard and obeyed, the dead would punish the living with various calamities, beginning with drought. Decapitating the heifer was a pious fraud meant to deceive the victim’s spirit that the murderer had been found and executed.97 Von Rad believed that the heifer was killed as a sacrifice to the Lord, accompanied by a prayer for atonement. He also believed that the original ceremony included magical elements intended to cast out the sin.98 Elhorst believed that the decapitation of the heifer was an offering to a netherworld deity that was transformed within the Yahwistic religion of Israel.99 It was a magical practice directed against the murderer; through the act of decapitation society undertook that the guilty party would be For the city’s responsibility for deeds committed in its territory, see Tigay, Deuteronomy, p.192 n.9. 95 “The Code of Hammurabi,” trans. Theophile J.Meek, ANET, No. 23–24 p.167. 96 B Soʜah 47b; Eccles. Rab. 7:16. 97 E. Merz, Die Blutrache bei den Israeliten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916), pp.48–55. 98 G. von Rad, Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966): pp.136–37. 99 H. J. Elhorst, “Eine verkannte Zauberhandlung (Dtn 21 1–9),” ZAW 39 (1921): 66–67. 94

MOURNING CUSTOMS

331

punished in the future. The ritual was also intended to transfer the blood-guilt from the elders to the heifer. Hooke explained the heifer as “a true substitute for the corporate personality of the community, devoted to the underworld to avert the threat of evil from a dangerous, unhouselled, ghost let loose upon an innocent community.”100 Patai believed that the ceremony reenacted the murder in a barren place, with the aim of purifying the polluted land where the corpse had been discovered.101 Rofé explained the ceremony of decapitating the heifer as a reenactment of the murder, aimed at eliminating the pollution and purifying the ground.102 We must reject the notion that the decapitated heifer is a sacrifice, because there is no altar or sprinkling of the blood. Nor is its flesh burned or eaten. Nor can the hypothesis that the ritual was meant to transfer the guilt to the heifer stand, because the elders decapitated it before they washed their hands. In the case of the scapegoat sent to Azazel, the priest laid his hands on the animal’s head and confessed all the sins of Israel before the animal was slaughtered or sent away. Because the heifer was decapitated before the elders washed their hands it could not take the guilt with it. Perhaps there was a symbolic element involved. The elders who confessed that they had nothing to do with the murder would be punished like the heifer should they be found to have lied. The blood of the heifer represents the blood of the victim and its decapitation is a reenactment of the murder. The elders’ washing their hands over the heifer and declaration of their innocence shows that the heifer symbolized the victim and that the elders are blameless in the crime. The decapitation is meant as a threat to the murderer: this is the penalty that should be meted out to him. In fact, the talmudic sages learned from this ritual that a convicted murderer is to be decapitated.103 S. H. Hooke, “The Theory and Practice of Substitution,” VT 2(1952): 11. 101 R. Patai, “The ÝEgla ÝArufa or the Expiation of the Polluted Land,” JQR 30 (1939–40): 66–67. 102 A. Rofé, “The Breaking of the Heifer’s Neck,” Tarbiz 31 . (1961/62): 119–43 (Heb.). 103 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Mishpatim 4. 100

332

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

We see that the ritual of the decapitated heifer, like that of the red heifer, includes magical elements. This is why the Sages classified both of them, as well as the scapegoat, among the precepts that are not to be considered rationally: “I the Lord have made a statute and you have no right to criticize it.” According to Targum Jonathan, the maggots that grow in the carcass of the decapitated heifer find the murderer, seize him, and bring him to the authorities for trial. The version in the Midrash is that the worms actually kill the murderer. Summary There is no doubt that the biblical laws of ritual impurity go back to forgotten ancient beliefs about the power of the spirits of the dead. Terror of these spirits is a key element of primitive religion. Proximity to a corpse was a source of dread in the pagan world. The spirit of the dead pursued the living and could defile them. The pollution spread by a corpse inspired irrational fear; people believed that the spirit of the dead person could seize control of them if they touched a corpse. Magical ceremonies were necessary to purge the defilement caused by a corpse. Just as this fear of the dead is irrational, so too are the rituals prescribed by the Bible. Hence it is only natural that the Sages classed them among the precepts that transcend rational inquiry and are not to be challenged. The background to all the regulations about the impurity of a corpse is the desire to move away from and eliminate the cult of the dead. In Israel, worship of the dead was never part of the official religion. The Lord is the God of the living, not of the dead.

MOURNING CUSTOMS One ancient mourning custom that survives to the present is that the bereaved rend their garments. This practice is mentioned for the first time in the Joseph cycle. When Reuben discovers that Joseph has vanished he tears his clothes (Gen. 37:29). Jacob does the same thing after he sees Joseph’s bloody cloak (v. 34). After the defeat at Ai, Joshua rends his garments (Josh. 7:6); so do Hezekiah, after hearing the Rabshakeh’s ultimatum (2 Kings 19:1), and Mordechai, when he learns of the decree to exterminate the Jews (Esth. 4:1). Job tears his robe when he is informed of his children’s death (Job 1:20). The custom is also documented in extra-biblical texts,

MOURNING CUSTOMS

333

thus during the drought that followed the death of Daniel we read that Anath “rends the garment of Daniel the Rapha-man.”104 Today, at a Jewish funeral, a gash of approximately four inches is cut in the mourner’s upper garment, on the left side for parents and on the right side for the other five relatives for whom mourning is mandatory (Lev. 21:1–3). The mourner stands while tearing the garment (Job 1:20) and recites the benediction that accepts God’s justice. In the past mourners ripped their garments themselves.105 The act may symbolize a release of tension or it may be a substitute for cutting oneself. Some believe that it was originally a palliative of self-mutilation. Rending the clothes may be a relic of an ancient custom in which mourners bared their chest. Egyptian tomb pictures show bare-breasted women placing their hands on their heads, clapping their hands, or tearing out their hair. Their faces are covered with dust (cf. Ezek. 27:30; Ps. 102:10), they have ropes on their necks (cf. 1 Kings 20:31), and their hips are girded with torn black sackcloth. The sarcophagus of Ahiram of Byblos (twelfth century BCE) is decorated with a relief of four bare-breasted women, two of them with their hands on their head and two of them beating their thighs (cf. Jer. 31:19; Ezek. 21:17). Men stand before the king with their right arm bared. Isaiah may have had in mind the baring of the breast in his injunction, “strip yourselves naked, put the cloth about your loins! Beat upon your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine” (Isa. 32:11–12). When his teacher R. Eliezer died, R. Akiva bared both of his shoulders and beat his breast until the blood flowed.”106 According to Ecclesiastes Rabbah, “All Israel lamented and clapped hands [in mourning] over the death of [Samuel].”107 It is possible that the Mishnah intended this custom when it prescribed

104

p.153.

“The Tale of Aqhat,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, C. i. 35,

105 Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p.261; Shulʚan Arukh Yoreh De’ah 340:1. 106 B MoÝed Qatan 27b; Semaʘot 9:2. 107 Eccles Rab 7:4

334

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

that “none rend [their clothes] nor bare [their shoulder] on the intermediate days of festivals.108 Wearing sackcloth is another widespread custom that is often associated with rending one’s garments. Jacob did so (Gen. 37:34); after Abner’s assassination, David told the people to tear their garments and wear sackcloth (2 Sam. 3:31). The custom indicated both private and national mourning (Job 16:15; Lam. 2:10; Esth. 4:1) and sometimes remorse for sin (1 Kings 21:27; Neh. 9:1) or a hope for salvation (2 Kings 19:1, 2; Dan. 9:3).109 The neighboring peoples also wore sack as a symbol of mourning, remorse, and repentance—in Damascus (1 Kings 20:31), in Moab (Isa. 15:3), in Ammon (Jer. 49:3), and in Sidon (Ezek. 27:31). So too in extrabiblical sources; when El, the father of the gods, is mourning the death of Baal, he “puts on sackcloth and loincloth,” as does Anat.110 According to Jonah 3:8, the people of Nineveh dressed themselves and their animals in sackcloth. Although it is possible that “man and beast” in this verse is a dittography from verse 7, similarly Judith 4:10 refers to clothing animals in sackcloth. Herodotus says that the Persians included their animals in their mourning rituals: “They shaved off all the hair from their own heads, and cut the manes from their war-horses and their sumpter-beasts, while they vented their grief in such loud cries that all Boeotia resounded with the clamour.”111 There seems to have been a special costume for widows in mourning. Tamar removed her widow’s weeds (it is not clear what sort of garment this was and how long Tamar had been wearing it) and put on a veil (Gen. 38:14). Joab instructed the wise woman from Tekoa to wear mourning garb when she appears before David (2 Sam. 14:2). Judith wore sackcloth as an undergarment beneath her widow’s garb (Judith 8:5; 9:1; 10:3).112 Other mourners, M MoÝed Qatan 3:7 Cf. Judith 4:10; Baruch 4:20. 110 “Poems about Baal and Anath,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, g.I*AB(vi): 17, p.139. 111 Herodotus, History ix 24 (tr. Rawlinson). 112 Some say that when El was mourning for Baal he put mourning clothes over his regular garments. On the various interpretations of this 108 109

MOURNING CUSTOMS

335

and not just widows, seem to have worn distinctive clothing; in the inscription about the mother of Nabonidus, after the seven days of mourning “all the people of the country shaved and cleaned themselves, [threw away] their [mourning] attire.”113 Consequently King Nabonidus brought them new clothes. From the prophet Micah we may infer that mourners went about naked and barefoot (Mic. 1:8). Such nakedness also symbolized defeat. Both Isaiah and Ezekiel went about naked and barefoot to symbolize the impending captivity (Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17– 23). The stele of Sennacherib (705–681 BCE) depicts naked captives from Lachish impaled on stakes. Elsewhere on the stele we see soldiers holding naked captives by the legs after the fall of the town.114 Mourners do not anoint their bodies with oil (2 Sam. 12:20; Isa. 61:3; Dan. 10:3). Gilgamesh tells his friend Enkidu that when he goes down to the netherworld he should refrain from anointing his body with oil; otherwise, the fragrance of the oil would arouse the dead, who would seize him and prevent him from leaving.115 The custom of refraining from anointing the body with oil during mourning is also documented at Elephantine.116 In the harsh climate of the Middle East, applying oil to the body is vital for preserving the skin. This is the context in which the Bible lists oil, alongside food and clothing, as the three elements essential for human life: “My lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” (Hos. 2:7 [5]). These three basic items are also found together in Mesopotamian law codes.117 passage, see: Eileen F. de Ward “Mourning Customs in 1, 2 Samuel,” JJS 23 (1972), p.11. 113 “The Mother of Nabonidus,” trans. A. Leo Oppenheim, ANET, p.562. 114 David Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology, 1982), pp.82, 86. 115 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E.A.Speiser, ANET, Tablet xii, line 16, p.97. 116 Elephantine Documents, No. 30, line 20; No. 31, line 20. 117 “Lipit-Ishtar Law Code,” trans, S. N. Kramer, ANET, No. 27, p.160; “The Law of Eshnunna,” trans. Albrecht Goetze, ANET, No. 32, p.162; “The Code of Hammurabi,” trans. Theophile J. Meek, ANET, No. 178, p.174.

336

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Hence not anointing the body with oil was like refraining from eating and drinking and wearing sackcloth. Some fasted while mourning (Judg. 20:26; Joel 2:12; Jon. 3:7– 8; Ps. 35:13; Esth. 4:3). Fasting is an expression of grief, accompanied by weeping and wearing sackcloth and other signs of mourning. In Joel and Esther we find the three elements of fasting, weeping, and misped ‘lamenting.’ The people of Jabesh-Gilead fasted seven days for Saul (1 Sam. 31:13); David and his army fasted for the rest of the day when they heard the news of Saul’s defeat and death (2 Sam. 1:12). In the former case, the townspeople may have prolonged their fast because they were uncertain whether stealing and cremating the corpses of Saul and his sons was appropriate. Nowhere else in the Bible do we find so long a fast; perhaps it was extended because of the catastrophic nature of Saul’s defeat. In any case we probably cannot infer a general custom from it. Most fasts in the Bible are associated with appeals for mercy in times of crisis and distress. Fasting was apparently thought to be a way to arouse divine mercy. The clearest example of this is the fast of the Ninevites, an expression of their full repentance, after which the Lord annuls his decree of annihilation. A possible implication of this story is that fasting and wearing sackcloth are not exclusively Jewish customs but were a universal manifestation of mourning in the ancient East. The standard mourning period was seven days, as in Joseph’s mourning for his father: “When they came to the threshing floor of Atad, which is beyond the Jordan, they lamented there with a very great and sorrowful lamentation; and he made a mourning for his father seven days” (Gen. 50:10). As we have seen, the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead fasted for seven days after they buried Saul and his sons (1 Samuel 31:13). Job’s friends “sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights. None spoke a word to him for they saw how very great was his suffering” (Job 2:13). The seven days of mourning was an entrenched custom in the Second Temple period: “Mourning for the dead lasts seven days, but for a fool or an ungodly man it lasts all his life” (Ben Sira 22:12). Judith was mourned for seven days (Judith 16:24). When Herod, died, writes Josephus, “Archelaus paid him so much respect, as to continue his mourning till the seventh day; for so many days are ap-

MOURNING CUSTOMS

337

pointed for it by the law of our fathers.”118 In fact, a seven-day period of mourning is of ancient origin; Gilgamesh mourns his friend Enkidu for seven days.119 According to the inscription about the mother of Nabonidus, mentioned above, kings, princes, and foreign governors mourned her for seven days and seven nights.120 The talmudic sages were not satisfied with the story of Jacob as the source for the seven days of mourning—“Do we learn from events that took place before the Torah was given?”—and offers various other possibilities, including the seven days of the priestly consecration (Leviticus 8) and the seven days of Miriam’s quarantine (Numbers 12).121 The Talmud says that after the Torah was given, Moses instituted the customs of seven days of mourning and seven days of the marriage celebration; attributing the custom to Moses is intended to give it greater force.122 The Talmud says that the soul mourns the body for the first seven days after death: “A man’s soul mourns for him [after death] seven whole [days]. For it is said, ‘And his soul mourns for him’ (Job 14:22); and it is written, ‘and he made a mourning for his father seven days’ (Gen. 50:10).”123 Various midrashim compare the seven days of mourning to other periods of the same duration, including the seven days of Creation and the seven days of the marriage feast.124 This seems to be a typological number, given that 7 and 30 are basic units of the Jewish calendar. Josephus, Antiquities 17, 8, 4. “Day and night I have wept over him. / I would not give him up for burial / In case my friend should rise at my plaint / Seven days and seven nights, / Until a worm fell out of his nose” (“The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, Tablet X: ii: 5–9, pp.89–90). 120 “The Mother of Nabonidus,” trans. A. Leo. Oppenheim, ANET, p.562. 121 J MoÝed Qatan 3:5 (82c). 122 TJ, ket, 1,1. 123 B Shabbat 152a. 124 Tanʚuma Bereshit, end of Vayeʘi 18:104, p.222 (ed. Buber); Tanʚuma Vayiqra, beginning of Šemini 1, pp.21–22 (ed. Buber); R. Tobia ben Elieser, Lekach-Tov, ed. Salomon Buber (Vilna: Wittwe & Gebruder Romm, 1884), chap 50:6, p.242; Midrash Sekel Tov on Genesis, ed. Salomon Buber, 50:25–26, pp.331–332 (new edition). 118 119

338

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

The Talmud divides the seven-day mourning period into two parts. The first three days were characterized by crying and weeping, the last four by other mourning customs. This division was apparently based on the belief that the corpse begins to decompose visibly after the first three days. Until then they tested it to make sure that the person was really dead. All four gospels indicate that this was done for Jesus. Martha says about her brother Lazarus, “by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days” (John 11:39). According to the Talmud, the spirit of the deceased circles around the corpse for the first three days, because it wants to re-enter the body. It is only after three days, when the corpse begins to disintegrate, that the soul departs from it definitively.125 This belief explains why the first three days of the mourning period were harsher. According to Luke 24:37, when the apostles saw Jesus among them, three days after the crucifixion, their first reaction was fear, because they thought he was a ghost that posed a danger to them. Strong fears of the spirits of the dead were associated with the funeral. The Talmud quotes the Angel of Death: “Do not stand in front of women when they are returning from the presence of a dead person, because I go leaping in front of them with my sword in my hand, and I have permission to harm.”126 In some Orthodox circles today it is customary to make three or seven brief halts on the way to the cemetery and to recite biblical verses during each of them.127 The purpose of these halts is to deceive and escape the baneful spirits, who continue on their way when the mourners stand still. Morgenstern maintains that Israel and the neighboring peoples entertained a special dread of ghosts during the first seven days after death. This fear peaked at the end of the third day, when the spirit realized that it would not be able to return to the body. From then until the seventh day the spirit had to enter the nether-

J. Yebamot 15:3; Lev. Rab. 18a. B Berakhot 51a. 127 Shulʘan Aruukh, Yoreh De’ah 376,5 in gloss of Moses b. Israel *Isserles(Rema). 125 126

MOURNING CUSTOMS

339

world.128 The rabbinic literature describes the Rephaim as the malevolent shades of the dead who harm the living.129 The Israelites observed thirty days of mourning for Aaron and later for Moses (Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8), perhaps because they were important men. Female captives, too, mourned their parents for thirty days (Deut. 21:13). This law of the beautiful captive woman recognizes her right to mourn for her family and demands that she be respected. Both Joseph Bekhor-Shor and Hazkuni insist that “it is not decent for you to take your pleasure in her while she is weeping.” The Sages sought biblical verses to support the thirtyday period, too. Some based it on the thirty days of mourning for Moses.130 Others learn it from a homily on the verse (Deut. 34:8) and others by analogy with the law of the Nazirite.131 In some cases mourning lasted longer. When Jacob thought that Joseph was dead he “observed mourning for his son many days” (Gen. 37:34). How long this may have been is not specified. The same expression is used of Ephraim after his sons were slain by the men of Gath (1 Chron. 7:22). Daniel mourned for three weeks (Dan. 10:2). The Egyptians mourned Jacob for seventy days, as was their custom (Gen. 50:3): forty days for embalming and seventy days of weeping. It is not clear whether the seventy days included the forty. According to Herodotus and Egyptian documents of the fifth century BCE and Hellenistic period, the body spent seventy days in niter. Diodorus Siculus refers to thirty days during which the corpse was anointed with oil and spices and seventy-two days of mourning for a king.132 From these we may infer that the passage in Genesis refers to thirty days of mourning in addition to the seventy days of embalming, which were also a time of mourning.

128 Julian Morgenstern, Rites of Birth, Marrige, Death and Kindred Occasions Among the Semites (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1966), p.166. 129 Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer 34. 130 Nissan Rubin, The End of Life: Rites of Burial and Mourning in the Talmud and Midrash (Israel: Hakkibutz Hameuchad, 1997), p.109 (Hebrew); Semaʘot 7:9. 131 Gen. Rab.100; J MoÝed Qatan 3:5 (82:3); B MoÝed Qatan 19b. 132 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, p.347.

340

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

It was forbidden to mourn excessively, however, because death is a divine decree that must not be questioned (2 Sam. 12:19– 24). On some occasions the mourning period was curtailed (Ben Sira 38:17). During the mourning period the mourners sat (Ezek. 26:16; Jon. 3:6; Job 2:8, 13; Isa. 3:26; etc.) or lay on the floor (2 Sam. 13:31; Lam. 2:21),133 rather than on the usual cushions or carpets. Sitting on the bare floor was a sign of humility and of identification with the dead, but also of proximity to the underworld.134 Ezekiel has a vision of the women sitting at the gate of the Temple and weeping for Tammuz (Ezek. 8:14). When he learns of his sons’ death Job stands up, rends his cloak, and falls to the ground (Job 1:20). David, informed that his sons have been killed, tears his clothing and lies on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31). In an extra-biblical text, when El learns of the death of Baal, he “descends from the throne, sits on the footstool; from the footstool, and sits on the ground.”135 Some mourners sat with their heads bowed. According to Lamentations, “the elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground in silence; they have cast dust on their heads and put on sackcloth; the maidens of Jerusalem have bowed their heads to the ground” (Lam. 2:10). Isaiah asks, “Is such the fast I desire, a day for men to starve their bodies? Is it bowing the head like a bulrush and lying in sackcloth and ashes?” (Isa. 58:5). Outside the Bible we find that the gods, panicked by the demands of Yam, sat with their heads on their knees.136 In the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe, the royal courtiers bow their heads when they learn of his death.137 As for those who mourned for Nabonidus’ mother, “for seven days and seven nights they walked about, heads hung low.”138 Cf. Shulʘan Arukh Yoreh De’ah 387:1. Ward, “Mourning Customs in 1, 2 Samuel,” pp.3–4; A. J. Wensinck, Some Semitic Rites of Mourning and Religion (Amsterdam: J. Müller, 1917), pp.12–18. 135 “Poems about Baal and Anat,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, g.I*AB VI: 11, p.139. 136 G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, III*, B, i*, 21–23, p.78. 137 “The Story of Si-Nuhe,” trans. John A. Wilson, ANET, p.18. 138 “The Mother of Nabonidus,” trans. A. Leo Oppenheim, ANET, p.562. 133 134

MOURNING CUSTOMS

341

From Job 2:11–13 we learn that silence is one of the hallmarks of mourning: “They sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights. None spoke a word to him for they saw how very great was his suffering” (Job 2:13). Note, however, that when the friends arrived and did not recognize Job they cried aloud, ripped their garments, and placed dust on their heads (2:12). Thus their silence may be a result of their shock at his appearance rather than a sign of mourning. This passage, however, does seem to be the source of the Jewish custom that those who come to console a mourner remain silent until the mourner speaks to them, as mentioned in the Talmud.139 In fact, the account of Job continues, “afterward, Job began to speak and cursed the day of his birth” (Job 3:1), only after which “Eliphaz the Temanite answered” (Job 4:1). Qohelet maintains that there is “a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Eccles. 3:7). Perhaps this silence means the mourning period as might the first half of the verse. As the talmudic sages wrote, “the merit of attending a house of mourning lies in the silence observed.”140 According to Lamentations, “The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground in silence (yeševu … yiddemu); they have cast dust on their heads and put on sackcloth” (Lamentations 2:10). Although the verb yiddemu is usually rendered as “be silent,” it could also mean “wail, mourn.” Here both senses suit the context.141 If we examine the Bible as a whole, however, we find that mourners usually sigh and wail and cry (Isa. 9:3; 23:1; Jer. 31:15; Ezek. 24:16–17; etc.). Thus it is plausible that in the context of mourning the verb d.m.m denotes soft crying rather than silence. In Akkadian, the cognate verb damĆmu refers to the sighs of mourners and the cooing of doves. In the Babylonian Job story, “I will praise the Lord of wisdom,” we find, “I moaned like a dove all my days, like a singer I moan out my dirge.”142 In Ugaritic literature, too, the B MoÝed Qatan 28b. B Berakhot 6b. 141 Thomas F. McDaniel, “Philological Studies in Lamentation, I,” Bib 49 (1968): 38–40. 142 Tablet 1, lines 107–108. See Benjamin R. Foster, “The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer (1.153),” in COS, 1: 488; “I will Praise the Lord of Wisdom,” trans. Robert D. Biggs, ANET, p.597. 139 140

342

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

verb dmm has the sense of “keen” and is used in parallel to “cry.” In the Keret saga we read “my son, weep not for me, do thou not wail (tdm) for me.”143 All of these texts support the idea that in Lamentations, too, the reference is to sighing and moaning rather than to silence. As a mark of their condition, mourners covered their body with dust or ashes. After the defeat at Ai, Joshua and the elders put dust on their head (Josh. 7:6; cf. Isa. 47:1; Job 2:12; Esth. 4:1–3). The same custom was part of ceremonies of repentance (Job 42:1; Neh. 9:1) and of supplication and entreaty (Job 16:15–17; Dan. 9:3). Tamar, after being raped by her brother Amnon, placed ashes on her head (2 Sam 13:19).144 According to Ezekiel, the mariners of Tyre “wail aloud over you, and cry bitterly. They cast dust on their heads and wallow (yitpallašu) in ashes” (Ezek. 27:30). Driver, alleging an absence of evidence that the Hebrews or Arabs wallowed in the dust when mourning but noting the many passages that speak of their sprinkling ashes on their heads as a token of grief, would render yitpallašu in that sense.145 In fact, several biblical passages refer to this mourning custom (Jer. 6:26; 25:34; Mic. 1:10). In Jeremiah 6:26 also Mic. 1:10, the Septuagint renders the verb as “sprinkle oneself” and Targum Jonathan has “cover one’s head.” But the Peshitta, and later Rashi and David Kimʘi, all have “roll” (i.e., wallow), which is the normal sense of the verb in post-biblical Hebrew.146 143.

“The Legend of King Keret,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, lines 25–26, p.147. 144 Jastrow suggested to read 4Ž Z‰ (an article of feminine luxury) instead of 40 Ž since it is unlikely that Tamar first placed ashes on her head and then put her hand on her head. However placing one hand on the head was another gesture of grief; compare Jeremiah 2:37 ‘hands’ and the illustration in ANEP (nos.634, 640). See: Charles Conroy, Abslom Abslom!, : Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20 (AnBib 81; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), p.152; Marcus Jastrow, “Dust, Earth and Ashes as Symbols of Mourning Among the Ancient Hebrew,” JAOS 20 (1899): 136. 145 And thus NJPS: “strew ashes on themselves.” See G. R. Driver, “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems,” Bib 35 (1954): 157–158. 146 See Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, 2: 1185, s.v. 6%0 II: “Gitt 58a She rent it (the shirt) and rolled herself in the dust.”

MOURNING CUSTOMS

343

In the story of Baal, we read that when El the father of the gods heard that Baal had been killed, “he poured dust (Ýmr) of mourning on his head, earth of mortification on his pate.”147 This is very similar to the verse from Ezekiel quoted above. According to the account of the death of Nabonidus’ mother, kings, princes, and the governors “made a great lament, scattered [dust] on their head.”148 While at the end of the Egyptian “Story of Two Brothers,” the grieving elder brother goes to his house “smeared with dust.”149 By covering themselves with dust or ashes, mourners reminded themselves where they came from and where they would return: “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). Recall that the Bible identifies dust with the underworld, the place to which people descend after death; this may be the explanation of the custom.150 Another possibility is that it is a reaction to the trauma of bereavement. As for going barefoot, when David fled Jerusalem during Absalom’s revolt he left the city crying, his head covered, and barefoot (2 Sam. 15:30). When Ezekiel is enjoined not to mourn his wife, one of the particulars is that he should wear his shoes (Ezek 24:17)—from which we may infer that going barefoot was one of the customs of mourning. Here too, covering the head and removing the shoes may be an attempt at disguise, so that that the spirit of the dead will not recognize the mourner. The Greeks and Ro147 “Poems about Baal and Anath,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, g.I*AB(vi): 14, p.139. Scholars do not agree about the meaning of the word Ýmr. Gordon says that it means something like “dust” or “ashes,” Fenton suggested that the word means “ashes”; Gray prefers “turban,” Driver opts for “straw” or “hay,” and Taylor “straw” See: Gordon, UT, No. 1874a; J. Gray, Legacy of Canaan,(SVT5; Leiden: Brill, 1957), p.51; G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, p.142; J. Glen Taylor, “A First and Last Thing to do in Mourning: KTU 1.161 and Some Paralles,” in Ascribe to the Lord, ed. Lyle Eslinger & Glen Taylor (JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), p.163; T. L. Fenton, “Ugaritica -Biblica,” UF 1(1969): 69. 148 “The Mother of Nabonidus,” trans. A. Leo. Oppenheim, ANET, p.562. 149 “The Story of Two Brothers,” trans. John A. Wilson, ANET, p.25. 150 R. Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, trans. John Penney Smith (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh and London, 1960), p.27.

344

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

mans, too, went barefoot while mourning. The women who accompanied Demeter as she mourned the rape of Persephone went barefoot. According to Suetonius, the senators were barefoot when they removed Augustus’ ashes from the pyre.151 In times of drought, the Romans conducted a ritual known as the nudipedalia or “barefoot ceremony.”152 Mourners left their feet bare but covered their head—as David did when he fled Jerusalem during Absalom’s revolt (2 Sam. 15:30). Farmers, and others too, covered their heads in times of drought (Jer. 14:3–4). Haman is covered with grief in view of his fate (Esth. 6:12; 7:8). In the Bible the root ʚ.p.h has the sense “cover”: “The House itself he paneled (ʚippah) with cypress wood. He overlaid it (va-yʚappehu) with fine gold” (2 Chron. 3:5).153 The lexicographers gloss the phrase ʚafui roš as meaning “with the head covered in sorrow.”154 According to the post-talmudic tractate Semaʚot, which deals with the customs of mourning, mourners must cover their heads.155 On the other hand, the instructions to Ezekiel before his wife’s death (Ezek. 24:17) imply precisely the opposite, in that he is told to eschew mourning rites and nevertheless to keep his turban on his head. This means that in normal circumstances on the death of his wife he would have removed his turban and shoes. According to Haran the avoidance of Ezekiel from mourning customs was “…interpreted as a symbolic act that puzzled the people, not as a normal priestly stricture.”156 The Sages held that mourners should veil their face. Their proof text is taken from the same passage in Ezekiel; when the prophet tells the people to refrain from mourning customs, as he is doing, he says, “you shall not cover over your upper lips or eat the bread of comforters” (Ezek. 24:22). According to the Jerusalem Talmud, only the upper lip was to be covered, and not the mouth Suetonius, Augustus, 100. Tertullian, Apologeticus 40. 153 In fact, Hebrew ʚ.f.h may be a contronym: The Arabic hafiya ‘was Ú hidden’ can also have the opposite sense of “uncover, reveal,” while ʚafiya ‘was barefoot’ is cognate with the Hebrew root y.ʚ.p 154 HALAT 1:339; R. Gordis, “Studies in Hebrew Roots of Contrasted Meanings,” JQR 27 (1936): 41–43. 155 Semaʘot, ed. M. Higer (New York, 1931), chap. 5–6, pp.126–31. 156 M. Haran, “+#,” EMiqr 4:30(Hebrew). 151 152

MOURNING CUSTOMS

345

itself, so that people not be misled into thinking that the mourner had a toothache.157 Mourners did not veil their head the entire time; according to tractate Semaʚot, “When the tomb is sealed he covers his head; when he comes to stand in the line [of comforters], he uncovers his head and receives them. When he leaves the line he covers his head. When he enters his house and others come to comfort him, he uncovers his head and receives them.”158 That mourners covered their head is also evident from the account of Bar Kappara’s conduct after the death of Rabbi Judah the Prince.159 Another reference to the custom is Micah’s fulmination that the deceitful prophets and their ilk, deprived of their visions, will cover their upper lip in shame (Micah 3:7). Veiling the upper lip is incumbent on lepers (Lev. 13:45). Lepers made themselves out to be mourners because their disease was viewed as a heaven-sent punishment; behaving like mourners was a way to arouse divine mercy. Another explanation is that lepers veiled their face to warn people against approaching them, just as they called out “unclean! unclean!” (Lev. 13:45). Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer reports that, during the time of the Second Temple, the people of Jerusalem entered the Temple precincts on the Sabbath and sat between two gates—one gate for grooms and another gate for mourners. “And if someone entered by the mourners’ gate and his upper lip was covered, they knew that he was a mourner and said to him, ‘May He who dwells in this house console you.’ ”160 Hence it is possible that the original point of covering the upper lip was not as a sign of mourning but to warn others not to approach a person who had been defiled by the dead.161

J MoÝed Qatan 3:5 (82d). Semaʘot 10:9. 159 J KilÞayim 9:4 (32b); J Ketubot 12:3 (35a). 160 Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer 17. 161 It seems that not everyone accepted this custom, since according to the Jerusalem Talmud “the two sons of Rabbi Judah the Prince went out, one with his head uncovered and the other with his head covered” (J MoÝed Qatan 3:5 [82d]). 157 158

346

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Limits on Mourning Customs Thus far we have surveyed biblical mourning customs. But the Bible also includes laws to restrict or ban some mourning customs. According to the Holiness Code in Leviticus, “You shall not round off the corner of your head, or destroy the corner of your beard. You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead (la-nefeš), or incise any marks on yourselves” (Lev. 19:27–28). Deuteronomy adds, “You shall not gash yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead (la-met)” (Deut. 14:1). The latter admonition, which is addressed to the people as a whole, resembles the precepts directed to the priest in the Holiness Code: “They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads, or cut the corner of their beards, or make gashes in their flesh” (Lev. 21:5), which we will examine below. These prohibitions are motivated by a view of Israel’s special sanctity: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God” (Deut. 14:2). This holiness entails a ban on carrying mourning customs too far and disfiguring the body. According to Leviticus 21:16–23, priests with a physical blemish may not offer sacrifices, because they would profane the holy precincts. Those who mutilate their bodies, too, are impure. The prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy outlaw gashing the flesh or shaving off or tearing out the hair, because these actions would detract from Israel’s special holiness. According to the traditional commentators (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Nahmanides, Abravanel), the Israelites are close to the Lord as sons are close to their father, and their outward appearance and diet must be suited to this proximity. Among the moderns, George Adam Smith argues that the banned mourning practices, such as gashing the flesh and shaving off or tearing out the hair, were Canaanite funerary rituals. He says that the rites enumerated in Deuteronomy 14:1 are unacceptable because, as that verse notes, “you are a people consecrated to Yahweh your God (rather than to godly dead)”; the expression “you are children of the Lord your God” (v. 1) and the proscription of the worship of other deities (Deut. 13:2–19) indicate that v. 1 alludes to the worship of the an-

MOURNING CUSTOMS

347

cestral dead.162 According to Tigay the gifts of blood and hair were meant to strengthen the ghostly shade in the underworld or to appease it so it would not be envious of the living. He also suggests that self-punishment is a consequence of the guilt feelings of those who were saved or survived.163 The first prohibition is against shaving the head: “You shall not round off the corner of your head” (Lev. 19:27). Here “round off” (taqqifu) refers to cutting all the way around the head in a circle,164 while the “corner” of the head apparently means the temples.165 According to the Talmud, “ ‘The corner of his head’ is the extreme end on one’s head: and what is [rounding] the extreme end on his head? If he levels his temple-growth from the back of his ears to the forehead.”166 Even today many Orthodox Jews never trim their sidelocks. Apparently this prohibition, as it applied to all Israelites, banned shaving part of the head, whereas for priests it means shaving the entire head (Lev. 21:5). Shaving the temples was a custom of pagans, as evidenced by Jeremiah: “I will punish … all who dwell in the desert that cut the corners of their hair” (Jer. 9:24–25 [25–26]).167 The link with idolatrous rituals and practices is reinforced by two prophets’ descriptions of the mourning for the destruction of Moab: “on every head is baldness, every beard is shorn” (Isa. 15:2); and “every head is bald and every beard is shorn” (Jer. 48:37).168 The same mourning customs were practiced in Israel. Job shaves his head when he 162.

George Adam Smith, The Book of Deuteronomy: In the Revised Version With Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1950), p.185. 163 Tigay, Deuteronomy, p.136. 164 The verb heqif in the hiph’il means “circle around” (Josh. 6:3, 11; Ps. 48:3, 13). The Septuagint renders it as “cut around.” It may be related to the Arabic naqafa ‘smash,’ in which case in our verse it means “cut, destroy”; cf. Isa. 10:34; Job 19:26. 165 In v. 9 the word peÞah means the “corner” or “edge” of a field. In biblical poetry the word is used to parallel qodqod ‘top of the head’ (e.g., Jer. 48:45). The Bible refers to certain desert tribes as those “who have the hair of their temples clipped” (Jer. 9:25 [26]; 25:23). 166 B Makkot 20b. 167 Herodotus, History 3, 8; 4, 175. 168 Cf. Jer. 47:5; Ezek. 27:31.

348

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

learns of the deaths of his sons (Job 1:20). Micah tells the people to “make yourselves bald and cut off your hair for the children of your delight” (Mic. 1:16). Isaiah invokes “that day [when] the Lord God of hosts called to weeping and mourning, to baldness and girding with sackcloth” (Isa. 22:12). Shearing the hair is part of the law of the “beautiful captive” (Deut. 21:10–14), who must shave her head and pare her nails (v. 12). Josephus and Nahmanides explain these acts as rituals of mourning for her family and homeland.169 On the other hand, Rashi and Abravanel follow the view of R. Akiva, which is that they are intended to make her unattractive, so that her captor will change his mind and not marry a foreign woman.170 The custom of shearing or tearing out the hair is also mentioned by the prophets (Isa. 22:12; Jer. 16:6; Ezek. 7:18; Amos 8:9). By contrast, in ancient Arabia widows lived in seclusion for a year, during which time they did not bathe, trim their nails, or cut their hair.171 Shearing or tearing out the hair was a sign of mourning in the ancient East as well; Gilgamesh mourned his dead friend Enkidu by “pulling out (his hair) and strewing [it...].”172 The practice was also known in Greece and Rome. A shaven head was a mark of shame. In Mesopotamia, a free man who slandered another man’s wife had his head shaven.173 Under the Middle Assyrian laws, a free man was entitled to pull out the hair of his male or female slaves to punish them.174 Hair was a symbol of the human life force. Shorn locks were placed on corpses and graves. Arabs of the pre-Islamic period left clippings of their hair on the graves of revered saints. When the renowned warrior Khalid Ibn al-Walid died, every woman in his tribe cut her hair to place on his tomb.175 According to Herodotus,

Josephus, Antiquities 4, 257. Sifre, 212. 171 S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, p.245; W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (Adam and Charles Black: London, 1892),p.368. 172 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, Tablet viii: ii: 20, p.88. 173 “The Code of Hammurabi,” ANET, No. 127, p.171. 174 “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” trans. Theophile J. Meek, ANET, No.44, No. 59, pp.184–85. 175 Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom, p.590. 169 170

MOURNING CUSTOMS

349

when their leader died the Persians cut their own hair and that of their animals.176 In Babylonia, Syria, Greece, and Arabia, some offered their shorn locks in a temple.177 In the time of Muhammad Arabs would sacrifice a lamb to celebrate the birth of a son; the newborn’s hair was then shorn and the shaven pate smeared with the blood of the lamb. The idea was to rid the infant of all evil (represented by the hair) and to consecrate him to God so that He would protect him. The inhabitants of Taif in Arabia shaved their head whenever they returned from a journey in order to reinforce their bond to the sacred place, which was thought to have been weakened during their absence from it.178 The biblical prohibition on removing hair with a razor seems to be the rejection of a pagan custom associated with the dead. According to Milgrom, precisely because the practice of shaving off the hair was widespread in Israel (Ezek. 7:18; Mic. 1:15) it was necessary to limit it to only part of the head.179 An associated prohibition is the ban on destroying the corner of the beard (Lev. 19:27).180 This prohibition is reiterated, with regard to priests, in Leviticus 21:5. Ezra testifies that plucking the hair and beard were reactions to bad news: “When I heard this, I rent my garment and robe, I tore hair out of my head and beard, and I sat desolate” (Ezra 9:3). Shaving the beard was another sign of mourning (Jer. 41:5). The beard is a hallmark of virility. A closely cropped beard was a mark of shame (2 Sam. 10:4), but a lush beard was a sign of nobility and dignity (Ps. 133:2). In Canaanite myth, El the father of the gods shaved his beard to mourn the death of his son Baal: “He gashes his cheeks and his chin.”181

Herodotus, History 9, 24. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, pp.1691, 1802; Robertson Smith, Lectures on The Religion of The Semites, pp.323–325. 178 Robertson Smith, Lectures on The Religion of The Semites, p.331. 179 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, p.1691. 180 Although the other prohibitions in this section are phrased in the plural, tašʚit ‘destroy’ is in the singular. But the Septuagint, Samaritan, and Peshitta all read the plural tašʚitu. 181 “Poems about Baal and Anat,” ANET, g.I*AB vi: 19, p.139. 176 177

350

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

It is also forbidden to gash one’s flesh (Lev. 19:28).182 This, too, seems to have started out as a pagan custom. Some scholars believe the proscription is a reaction to the rituals of Canaanite fertility cults.183 They cite the story of Elijah’s duel with the prophets of Baal, in which “they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them” (1 Kings 18:28).184 The prophets of Baal cut themselves, drawing blood as a libation to their god, in their desperate attempt to get him to answer their entreaties. Similarly, an Akkadian wisdom text from Ugarit describes the preparations for a burial: “My brothers bathed in their own blood like (an) ecstatic.”185 Maimonides rejected such self-mutilation as out-and-out idolatry: “Gedidah (gashing) and seritah (producing incision) are identical. The pagans used to make gashes in their flesh to express grief for their dead, and injure themselves for the sake of idolatry, as it is written: “They gashed themselves as was their practice” (I Kings 18:28). This too was forbidden by the Torah, as it is written: “You shall not gash yourself” (Deuteronomy 14:1).186 But he ruled that someone who cuts himself in his grief because his house has collapsed or his boat has been shipwrecked is exempt from punishment. Scarification as a mourning ritual is also known from extrabiblical texts. When El is mourning his son Baal, “he harrows the roll of his arm. He plows his chest like a garden, harrows his back like a plain.”187 In addition to rending their garments, Arab women scratched their faces and breasts with their fingernails and beat and gashed their flesh with their shoes. Greek women in mourning 182 The sense of the biblical œ.r.ʞ is the same as that of the Akkadian šĆraʞu ‘tear to pieces’ and Arabic šaraŗa ‘slit.’ 183 A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1979), p.239; Spronk, Beatific After life, pp.244–247; Lewis, Cult of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, pp.100–101. 184 The verb œ.r.ʞ is synonymous with hitgoded. According to R. Jose, œaraʞ is equivalent to hitgŇdad and also means “gash” (B Makkot 21a); in Akkadian we have gadĆdu ‘to chop’ (CAD G 8). 185 J. J. M. Roberts, “A New Parallel to I Kings 18 28–29,” JBL 89 (1970): 76–77. 186 Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry 12,13. 187 “Poems about Baal and Anat,” ANET, g.I*AB vi: 20–21, p.139.

MOURNING CUSTOMS

351

raked their cheeks and sometimes their necks with their nails until the blood flowed.188 Briseis, “when she saw Patroklos lying torn with sharp bronze, folding him in her arms cried shrilly above him and with hands tore at her breasts and her soft throat and her beautiful forehead.”189 And in the story of Ahiqar, “when the men heard [of his death], they wept; and the women disfigured their faces.”(4:13, Syriac).190 Restrictions on Mourning by Priests Some of the restrictions on mourning practices that apply to priests resemble those incumbent on all Israelites: “They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads, or cut the corner of their beards, or make gashes in their flesh” (Lev. 21:5). As noted above, whereas Israelites are cautioned about shaving only part of the head, for priests it applies to the entire head. Here too the traditional commentators say that the reason is that the priests must be holy to God. Consequently, according to Rashi and the Sifra, “if someone makes several gashes or bald spots he is liable to lashes for each one.”191 Two more prohibitions apply only to the high priest: he may not go about with his hair loose and/or head uncovered (see below), and he may not rend his garments (Lev. 21:10, recapitulating Lev. 10:6). The Sages disagreed about the sense of roš paruaÝ, the first of these prohibitions. Many held that it means allowing the hair to grow long. This interpretation is presented by Rashi and Ibn Ezra, relying on the Sifra, which adduces the law of the Nazirite, who is commanded to “let the locks of hair of his head grow long (gaddel peraÝ œeÝar rošo)” (Num. 6:5). In other words, priests must keep their hair trimmed and may not grow it long as a sign of mourning. This meaning seems to be incontrovertible in Ezekiel’s restatement of 188

242ff.

Euripides, Electra 145ff.; Hecuba 650ff.; Hesiod, Shield of Heracles

189 Iliad 19:282–85 (trans. Lattimore); see also 2:699–700, “now the black earth had closed him under, whose wife, cheeks torn for grief, was left behind in Phylake.” 190 R. H. Charles, APOT, 2: 748–749. 191 Sifra, Amor 1:5.

352

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the priestly regulations: “They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long (u-feraÝ loÞ yešalleʚu); they shall only clip the hair of their heads” (Ezek. 44:20). The fact that the sons of Aaron were not allowed to cut their hair, even when mourning, is adduced by the Sages as the source of the rule that non-priestly mourners, too, may not cut their hair or shave.192 This ban lasted 30 days: “Three days for weeping and seven for lamenting and thirty [to refrain] from cutting the hair and [donning] pressed clothes.”193 The Jerusalem Talmud disagrees: “These are the things that a mourner is barred from doing in the first seven days: bathing, anointing the skin, … cutting the hair, and doing laundry.”194 A baraita in Semaʚot harmonizes the two traditions, however, informing us that originally the ban on cutting the hair applied for seven days and was later extended to thirty.195 Note again that this rule applies to Israelites, not priests. The root p.r.Ý seems to have a second meaning as well—let go, loose.196 According to Lev 21:10 the high priest during the seven days of his consecration “shall not let his hair hang loose, not tear his vestments.” A similar regulation applies to Eleazar and Ithamar (Lev.10:6). By contrast the regulations applying to the leper (rošo yihyeh faruaÝ)” (Lev. 13:45)—and the rite for the woman suspected of adultery (u-faraÝ Þet roš haÞiššah)” (Num. 5:18) is to let the hair hang loose. Indeed, Milgrom drawing on rabbinic sources points that in the cases of the leper and a woman suspected of adultery the meaning is that they must “loosen their hair and let it be unkempt.” He supports this understanding from the Akkadian idiom perasaÝ wašarat ‘her hair is unloosed.’197 Rending one’s clothes is one of the classic displays of mourning in the Bible, and this too is forbidden to priests.198 They must B MoÝed Qatan 14b. B MoÝed Qatan 27b. 194 J MoÝed Qatan 3:5 (82d). 195 Semaʘot 7:11. 196 T. Kronholm, “-4 Z‘ pĆraÝ ;-4 Z peraÝ ,” TDOT 12:99. 197 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, p.609. 198 Here the verb p.r.m has the sense “tear,” and this is how Onqelos and Pseudo Jonathan rendered it. There are only three occurrences of the root p.r.m in the Bible, all of them in the priesthood code: our chapter, 13:45, and 21:10. 192 193

MOURNING CUSTOMS

353

avoid all outward signs of mourning so as to maintain a dignified appearance always. In the specific case of Aaron’s sons, they had been anointed with the holy oil, like the high priest, and might be struck down by heaven if they let their hair grow long or tore their garments as a sign of mourning. In summary, we have seen that shaving the beard, gashing the flesh, and shaving the head are all prohibited as expressions of mourning, because of their affinity to the cult of the dead. The fact that the prophets refer to these customs again and again, without criticism, long after they were ostensibly prohibited, led scholars such as Smith to conjecture that these proscriptions are of late origin, from the time of the Babylonian exile or after.199 We should remember, though, that the Israelites were lax in the observance of many Torah laws. As we mentioned before all these customs were borrowed from the cult of the dead as practiced by the neighboring peoples, whom the Israelites emulated; this is why the Bible banned them. In the Hebrew Bible self-mutilation is forbidden because the human body was created in the image of God. The prohibitions applying only to priests add another dimension, namely, that they may not allow themselves to be defiled by the dead.

THE BEIT MARZEAʙ One last prohibition associated with mourning is that of going to a beit marzeaʚ, an institution mentioned by Jeremiah and Amos: “For thus said the Lord: Do not enter a beit marzeaʚ, do not go to lament and to condole with them” (Jer. 16:5); “Therefore they shall now be the first of those to go into exile, and the mirzaʚ seruʚim shall pass away” (Amos 6:7).200 These are the only two loci where the G. A. Smith, The Book of Deuteronomy, pp.184–185; Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, pp.171, 176. According to Smith the law was not known to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, nor to the Jews of Shechem who brought their sacrifices to the Temple. He says the law was not part of Deuteronomy but was inserted during the Exilic period or later. 200 For discussion of the MRZH tablet, see: Bezalel Porten, The Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968), 179–86; Patrick D. Miller, Jr., “The Mrzh Text” in The Claremont Rash Shamra Tablets, ed. Loren R. Fisher (AnOr 48; Rome: Biblical Pontifical Institute, 1971), pp.37–48; M. Dahood, “Additional Notes on the MRZH Text,” pp.51– 199

354

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

term appears, and its meaning is a great mystery. The Septuagint on Jeremiah renders it by Όϟ΅ΗΓΑ ‘Bacchic revel, feast, banquet.’ But the Greek of Amos 6:7b is “the neighing of the horses shall be removed from Ephraim”—understanding mrzʚ in a totally different way, apparently reading '!,, for the Masoretic '!4,, and interpolating “from Ephraim.” The Vulgate has, respectively, domum convivii ‘house of feasting’ and et auferetur factio lascivientium ‘the acts of licentiousness will be removed.’ The verse from Amos is part of the rebuke of the rich, who have wasted their time and squandered their wealth in riotous living while ignoring justice and the needs of the people. A mirzaʚ seruʚim is a joyous banquet. The prophet seems to have chosen the unusual term because of the phonetic resemblance between mirzaʚ and mizraq ‘bowl’ (mizreqei yayin ‘winebowls,’ v. 6) and between sar ‘be removed’ and seruʚim. Ibn Ezra glosses the collocation: “marzeaʚ is like the word rinnah ‘give voice’ as in ‘do not enter a beit marzeaʚ’; marzeaʚ and šir ‘song’ are synonyms. And when catastrophe strikes the song will come to an end.” According to David Kimʘi, Mourning will come to those who are stretched out (seruʚim) on their couches. … Sar denotes proximity, as in “come over (surah) and sit down here” (Ruth 4:1) and “let me go over (Þasurah) and see this great sight” (Ex. 3:3). … As for marzeaʚ, our sages said it means “mourning,” as in “do not enter a beit marzeaʚ.” And from this verse they learned that the mourner sits at the head of the company, as it says we-sar mirzaʚ seruʚim, which they read as if it were we-œar … ‘the mourner is the prince of the others’ ([seruʚim] as in seraʚ ha-Ýodef ‘the part that remains’ [Ex. 26:12]).

54, in The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, ed. L. R. Fisher (AnOr 48; Rome: Biblical Pontifical Institute, 1971); Marvin H. Pope, “A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, ed. James M. Efird (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1972), pp.170–203 (esp. 190–194); Hans M. Barstad, The Religious Polemics of Amos (VTSupp 34; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), pp.127–142; B. Halpern, “A Landlord-Tenant Dispute at Ugarit?” Maarav 2 (1980): 121–40; T. L. Fenton, “The Claremont ‘MRZH’ Tablet, Its Text and Meaning,” UF 9(1977): 71–75.

MOURNING CUSTOMS

355

The etymology of the term marzeaʚ remains unclear. O. Eissfeldt distinguished between two homonyms rzʚ I, “to hail/shout” and rzʚ II, “to bind together;” according to him what unites funerary lamentation and festal celebration is the loud shouting.201 B. Porten regarded Eisefeldt’s distinction between rzʚ “shout,” and rzʚ, “unite,” to be arbitrary.202 It was Braslavi and later Pope who suggested connecting it to Arabic root, rzh.203 The verb r.z.ʚ exists in both ancient and modern Arabic. Dictionaries of classical Arabic define it as “fall to the earth with no ability to rise because of weakness or fatigue.” Arabic Þarzaʚ means “lift and support on,” as for a drooping vine on a frame. irtazaʚ means to recline and rest. In antiquity people ate while reclining. The prophet Amos invokes this custom in his denunciations of the wealthy magnates of Samaria: “Those who lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the stall” (6:4); “they recline by every altar on garments taken in pledge” (2:8). If marzeaʚ has to do with reclining, Amos is saying that the impending disaster will put an end (sar as in Ex. 8:25 [29] and Judg. 16:17) to the decadent gluttony of the people of Zion and Samaria—precisely how the verse is explained by Rashi and the Targum.204

O. Eissfeldt, “Sohnespflichten in alten Orient,” Syr 43 (1966):45; idem.“Etymologische und archäeologische Erklärung alttestamentlicher Wörter,” OrAnt 5 (1966): 176. 202 B. Porten, The Archives from Elephantine, p.186 n.147. 203 Yosef Braslavy, “ ‘Do not enter a beit marzeaʚ’ (Jer. 16:5),” BethM 48 (1972): 12 (Hebrew.); Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, p.221. 204 Some modern commentators understand it differently. For example Greenfield takes marzeaʚ to mean a funerary cult, because vv. 9 and 10 refer to the impending deaths of the people of Samaria. See J. C. Greenfield, “The Marzeaʘ as a Social Institution,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22 (1974): 451–55. See also: Philip J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah: An Archaeological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp.138–139; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos (AB 24A; New York: Doubleday, 1989), pp.566–568; Pope, too, associates marzeaʚ with funerary feasts, saying, in part, “the mention of ivory beds, feasting, music and song, wine bidding, and perfume oil in Amos 6:4–7 … are all features of funeral feast in the marzēaʚ(-house), or the drinkinghouse” (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs, p.216). But these arguments should be 201

356

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

In Jeremiah 16:5 the beit marzeaʚ is also a place where one reclines to eat and drink; the difference is that here the banquet is a mourner’s meal.205 In vv. 5–13 Jeremiah is told to stay away from gatherings of mourning and of joy. According to v. 5, he may not enter a beit marzeaʚ and may not go to lament or condole with them. These are two separate prohibitions: there was no lamenting in the beit marzeaʚ, which was the site of the feast of consolation after the funeral. This feast is mentioned explicitly in v. 7. Whereas the Masoretic text has “they shall not break [sc. bread] for them (loÞ yifresu lahem) on account of mourning,” the Septuagint has “bread will not be broken” (reflecting a Vorlage read as lo yiffares leʚem). The custom of providing food to mourners after a funeral is known from the events after the burial of Abner: “Then all the people came to persuade David to eat bread while it was yet day” (2 Sam. 3:35). Verse 7 also refers to the “cup of consolation”— wine or other strong drink to console the mourners, as in “give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress” (Prov. 31:6). We may conclude, then, that the beit marzeaʚ was where people assembled to take part in the funeral meal. By Jeremiah’s time this ceremony had lost all vestiges of a pagan cult; otherwise the Lord would not have needed to instruct the prophet to stay away from it.206 In the Talmud, the word marzeaʚ and its cognates denote a feast, sacrifice, or even revels, in addition to the funeral feast.207 The midrash associates the Israelites’ transgression with the daughters of Moab at Baal-Peor (Num. 25:1–3) with the establishment of Moabite mirzaʚim to which the Israelites were invited.208 Pseudo rejected because the passage in question is a rebuke of the rich and the lack of social justice. 205 See B Ketubot 69b. 206 Braslavy, “‘Do not enter a beit marzeaʚ,’ ” p.15; for the opposite view, see Barstad, The Religious Polemics of Amos, p.129. But the idolatry in vv. 11, 13, and 18 has nothing to do with the beit marzeaʚ. 207 Although the Talmud indentifies it with the feast of consolations the mourners were permitted to drink ten cups of wine. See: B Ketubot 69b; B Ketubot 8b. 208 Sif. Num. 131.

MOURNING CUSTOMS

357

Jonathan’s rendering of v. 2 there—“they invited the people to the sacrifices to their idols, and the people ate at their banquets, and bowed to their idols”—supplies marziʚehon ‘their mirzaʚim’ as the object of “ate.” One of the captions on the Medeba map (sixth-century CE) from the vicinity of Baal Peor identified “BHTOMAPCEA with the Maioumas festival.”209 Maioumas was a raucous festival known from Greek and Roman sources, celebrated in port cities like Alexandria, Gaza, and Ashkelon. Many texts from the ancient East—from Ugarit (fourteenth century BCE), an Aramaic potsherd from Elephantine (fifth century BCE), Phoenician and Punic inscriptions (third and second centuries BCE), Nabatean inscriptions from Avdat and Petra (first century CE), and dedicatory inscriptions from Palmyra (first to third centuries CE)—shed light on various aspects of the marzeaʚ, but ultimately provide an incomplete picture of it. What is important for us, though, is whether it was associated with the cult of the dead, such providing the dead with food. Scholars cite two texts as evidence that it was: KTU 1.21 and 1.114. In KTU 1.114 El summons the gods to a feast. This is followed by a description of El sitting in a marzeaʚ, where he drinks himself to inebriation and then goes home. Even there he continues drinking until he collapses in his own excrement. Pope tried to show that the passage refers to a death-cult ritual.210 But nothing in the text seems to allude to the cult of the dead; the story is merely one of the gods getting roaringly drunk.211 Some scholars also cite KTU 1.21 (CTA 21.a), the so-called Rephaim text. This text seems to be problematic for a number of For the Medeba map see: M. Avi-Yonah, “The Madeba Mosaic Map,” ErIsr 2 (1953): 142 (Heb.); V. R. Gold, “The Mosaic Map of Madeba,” BA 21 no 3(1958): 50–71. 210 Pope, “A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,” pp.174–175. 211 For a rejection of Pope’s ideas, see: Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp.84–85; S. E. Loewenstamm, Comparative Studies in Biblical and Oriental Literatures (Neukirchen and Vluyn, 1980), pp.372, 410–22; C. E. L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El BaÝa l and the Rephaim (HSM 21; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press,1979), pp.160, 211; B. Margalit, “The Ugaritic Feast of Drunken Gods: Another look at RS 24.258 (KTU 1.114),” Maraav 2 (1979–80): 81–82; Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.65. 209

358

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

reasons, however. There are three occurrences here of mrzÝ, which is evidently but not certainly a by-form of mrzʚ.212 The text is defective in all three loci and has had to be restored, making it uncertain who invited the Rephaim to the banquet. One possibility is that Danel, mourning his murdered son Aqhat, invites the rpum or spirits of the dead to the mrzÝ—apparently to the altar that served as the site of the banquet. After that we read how “Anat prepares fowl, beef, veal, pours several different kinds of wine.” The Rephaim ate and drank for six days. This would seem to be a feast in memory of the dead.213 Another possibility is that it was El who invited the Rephaim to the banquet. This reading is supported by lines 8–9: “and El replied … My mrzÝ.” In the latter case, the account is of a banquet of the gods in which the mythical heroes or rpum took part. If we accept the identification of mrzÝ with mrzʚ, the latter term is clearly associated with the spirits of the dead. What the two Ugaritic texts certainly have in common is drinking. The problems with them, however, led Lewis and Schmidt to argue, correctly, that the link between the Ugaritic mrzÝ and funeral rites has not been proven.214 As for the biblical text, there is no doubt that Jeremiah is referring to the meal of consolation. As noted above, the ancient pagan aspects of this meal had long since disappeared by his time, or there would have been no question of his taking part in it.

On the equation of mrzÝ and mrzʚ see: L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods, p.142 n.43; Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, pp.65–66. 213 A different view is expressed by L’Heureux, who says that “since Dan’il greets the rpÝm at their arrival, he may be taken as a kind of gatekeeper or steward in El’s palace.” He compares this with the myth of Adata, where we read of Dumuzi who was one of the doorkeepers of Anu. This myth seems to have nothing to do with the Dumuzi cycle. From all of this he concludes that the Rephaim text is not an integral part of the story of Aqhat, because it refers to Danel. See L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods, p.137. 214 Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp.80–88; Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, p.66; see also: Dennis Pardee, “Marziʚu, Kispu, and Ugaritic Funerary Cult,” in Ugarit, Religion and Culture, ed. Nick Wyatt et al.(Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1996), p.279. 212

MOURNING CUSTOMS

359

CONCLUSION The mourning customs described in the Bible can be divided into three categories. The first category includes mourning rituals associated with the deceased him/herself, such as burial, making a bonfire, dirges, laments, keening, eulogy, and the tombstone. All of these are human actions that honor the dead. Burial also has a religious significance, because sinners are not said to lie with their ancestors, implying posthumous punishment for their misdeeds. The dirge and lament praised the deceased and described his/her virtues. They too were divorced from the official cult, apparently so as to maintain a distance between mourning and divine worship. The erection of a monument bearing the name of the dead person represented the link between the living and the dead. The customs in the second category are associated with the fear of defilement by the dead, which was very strong in antiquity. The laws of impurity can be traced back to forgotten ancient beliefs about the power of the spirits. Magical ceremonies such as the red heifer and decapitated heifer were prescribed to allay this dread. Fear of the spirits of the dead is also manifested in a series of laws against certain mourning practices. The biblical rationale for all these prohibitions is the holiness of Israel, which requires that the people eschew extreme mourning customs. On the other hand, the Bible proscribes shaving the beard, gashing the flesh, and tearing out the hair because they derive from the death cults of the neighboring peoples. The third category of customs includes those that apply to mourners themselves. These too contain vestiges of the cult of the dead. Tearing the garments was apparently a substitute for scarifying the flesh to provide blood for the dead. Other mourning customs, such as wearing sackcloth, wailing, fasting, and covering oneself with dust, served as a sign of humility and an expression of grief. Sitting on the ground brings one closer to the underworld; covering oneself with dust reminds persons whence they come and where they are going. And this brings us to the ultimate question: is our passing indeed final, or can human beings hope for resurrection? This is the subject of our last chapter.

7 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD There is a consensus among scholars that Daniel 12:2–3, which they assign to the second century BCE, refers to the resurrection of the dead.1 The question is whether biblical texts earlier than this time allude to this doctrine. The phrase “resurrection of the dead” never appears in the Bible. By contrast, there are four occurrences in the Mishnah and 41 in the Babylonian Talmud. As we saw in the chapter on the underworld, the dead who inhabit that realm have no real existence and cannot praise the Lord. If so, how is resurrection possible? Scholars searching for biblical allusions to resurrection have cited various idioms.2 They list verbs including q.w.m ‘arise,’3 the hiphil of q.w.ʜ ‘wake up,’4 and ʚ.y.h ‘live,’5 all of which can denote a return to life. We also find l.q.ʚ ‘take,’6 which refers to being taken to Heaven, the noun ʚayyim ‘life,’7 and ʚ.z.h ‘see.’8 In the present chapter we shall survey the passages in which these terms appear and try to determine whether they do in fact allude to the resurrection of the dead. It is important to remember that by the end of the second century CE the future resurrection was an integral part of rabbinic 1

392.

John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp.391–

2 John F. A. Sawyer, “Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead,” VT 23 (1973): 18–34. 3 2 Kings 13:21; Isa. 26:14, 19; Job 14:12. 4 2 Kings 4:31; Isa. 26:19; Job 14:12; Dan. 12:2. 5 1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 13:21; Isa. 26:14, 19; Ezek. 37:3, 5–6, 9–10, 14; Job 14:14. 6 Gen. 5:24; 2 Kings 2:3, 5, 9; Ps. 49:16; 73:24. 7 Ps. 27:13; 30:6; 36:10; 56:14; 68:29; 116:8–9; 133:3; 142:6. 8 Ps. 17:15.

361

362

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

doctrine: “All of Israel have a portion in the world to come. … But all the following have no portion therein: he who maintains that resurrection is not biblical doctrine. …”9 How did it come about that the scanty allusions to resurrection in the Bible produced such a strong acceptance of the doctrine in the rabbinic literature? To understand this evolution we must review the books of the Bible, followed by Apocryphal works such as 1 Enoch, 4 Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 2 Baruch, the Sibylline Oracles, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Testament of Job, to find out whether the concept of resurrection was prevalent when they were written. We will also look at Second Temple Jewish literature such as 2 Maccabees (early first century BCE), where resurrection is associated with martyrdom and the author has the victims of the Antiochian persecution declare that “one cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!” (2 Macc. 7:13–14). In this chapter we shall also examine Josephus’ remarks about the three Jewish sects, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes, and their respective views on the subject. Then we will look for evidence of a belief in the resurrection of the dead at Qumran, and conclude with the talmudic sages’ views on this topic.

BIBLICAL PASSAGES “I deal death and give life” (Deut 32:9) The talmudic sages believed that allusions to the resurrection of the dead could be found in the earliest strands of the Bible. One of the praises of the Lord is that “I deal death and give life; I wounded and I will heal” (Deut. 32:39; cf. B Pesaʘim 68a) and that “the Lord deals death and gives life, casts down into Sheol and raises up” (1 Sam. 2:6; cf. 2 Kings 5:7). The first of these versions, from the Song of Moses, can be dated to sometime between the twelfth century BCE, the period of the Judges, and the era of the schism between the Samaritans and the Jews after the destruction of the First Temple in the sixth century. The latter comes from the Prayer of Hannah, which dates from between the eleventh and ninth centu9

B Sanh. 10:1.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

363

ries BCE.10 In both cases the order of the words is crucial: first death and then life. The fact that the Lord kills and then gives (back) life is an indication of His power to alter the condition of the dead and restore them to life. For the rabbis, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah are a single unit, both of them the words of God. Believing as they did that the words of the Lord are eternal and immutable, they did not accept the concept of historical development of doctrine. Consequently they cited verses from the Bible to bolster their arguments about the resurrection.11 The talmudic sages employed the verse from Deuteronomy to make their case for resurrection: Rabba opposed [two verses]: It is written, I kill, and I make alive; whilst it is also written, I wound and I heal! The Holy One, blessed be He, said, What I slay, I resurrect [i.e., in the same state], and then, what I wound, I heal [after their revival]. Our Rabbis taught: I kill, and make alive. I might interpret, I kill one person and give life to another, as the world goes on: therefore the Writ states, I wound, and I heal. Just as the wounding and healing [obviously] refer to the same person, so putting to death and bringing to life refer to the same person. This refutes those who maintain that the resurrection is not intimated in the Torah. (B Sanh. 91b)

As for the verse in Samuel, Targum Jonathan renders it as: “All these are the mighty deeds of the Lord Who rules the universe, Who deals death and promises to give life, Who lowers to Sheol and in the future will raise up to eternal life.” From this targumic gloss we see that in the tannaitic age Hannah’s praise was understood as alluding to the resurrection of the dead. The verse was understood in a similar vein in various aggadot, cited in the names of R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, and R. Akiva, second-generation 10 Leonard J. Greenspoon, “The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981): 310–311; B. C. Pryce, “The Resurrection Motif in Hosea 5:8–6:6, An Exegetical Study,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1989, pp.276–277. 11 Neil Gillman, The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought (Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1997), pp.129– 130.

364

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Tannaim, as well as in the name of R. Judah ben Beteira. According to B Sanhedrin 92a–b: “[The] Tanna of the School of Elijah [states]: The righteous, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect, will not revert to dust.” Rashi explains that after the righteous are restored to life in the Messianic era they will not return to the dust again in the interval between that age and the World to Come; rather, their flesh will remain intact on their bodies until they once again live in the future World to Come.12 Another reference to Hannah’s prayer is found in B Rosh Hashanah 16b–17a (with a variant in Tosefta Sanhedrin 13), in the well-known baraita about what awaits the three categories of human beings on Judgment Day. Here we are told that, according to Hannah, God slays the wicked, restores the righteous to life, and casts down to the underworld and raises up again those who are neither righteous nor wicked: “The intermediate will go down to Gehinnom and squeal and rise again.” Like the participants in Korah’s rebellion, who were cast down into the netherworld because their sins and merits were of equal weight, those in the intermediate category descend to Sheol, where they are punished for their transgressions. According to the Sages, they must be purified of their sins through suffering, so that they can ultimately be written and sealed for eternal life, like the righteous. The Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 10:2 [53a]), in an aggadah about Elisha’s servant Gehazi, cites the verse from Samuel as sufficient answer to those who deny the resurrection of the dead. We find something similar in Pesiqta Rabbati: “ ‘Who has established all the ends of the earth?’ (Prov. 30:4). This refers to the Holy One, Blessed Be He, who restores the dead to life, as we read, ‘Your dead shall live, their bodies shall rise’ (Isa. 26:19); so too ‘the Lord deals death and gives life.’ ” On the other hand, the verses from Deuteronomy and Samuel may not be referring to the resurrection of the dead at all.13 Instead, Note that, according to Rashi, the Talmud distinguishes between the resurrection of the righteous, whom the Holy One Blessed Be He will bring to life, and the days of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead in the world to come. 13 S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, p.378; Robert Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, p.55. 12

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

365

they could be expressions of faith in God’s omnipotence. God has the power to deal death and give life; and, as the talmudic sages sensed, this does not have to refer to the same individual. As Spronk noted, this trope may be a reaction to the pagans’ belief in the power of Baal, who heals and vivifies the shades of the dead in Ugaritic literature. The Bible counters, forcefully, that only the Lord has the power of life and death.14 Both Deuteronomy and Samuel describe the unlimited power of the Lord, Who casts down to the underworld and raises up. As Hertzberg noted in his commentary on Samuel, the belief in resurrection can be found at the end of the Bible, but “its theological starting point is without doubt consciousness of the unconditioned might of Yahweh.”15 These verses expound the Lord’s irresistible power. His triumph over death is an indication of His merciful treatment of those who believe in Him and pray to Him to rescue them from death. If so, the verses do allude to resurrection. Daniel 12:2–3 Another passage that may allude to resurrection is: “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence. And the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever” (Dan. 12:2–3). That is, when the dead awake it will be determined who inherits eternal life and who everlasting shame. Those who bravely withstood the evil decrees, played an important role in resisting them and helped others do so, will have a special merit: “The knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever.” This seems to be synonymous parallelism, with the “knowledgeable” equivalent to “those who lead the Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.270. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I & II Samuel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), p.30. [“The thought of resurrection was probably not in the poet’s mind though the passages we have just cited formed one of the theological bases for later, apocalyptic breakthrough.” Ralph W. Klein, I Samuel (WBC; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983), p.17.] See also MartinAchard, From Death To Life, pp.56–57. 14 15

366

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

many to righteousness” and “the bright expanse of sky” to “the stars.” Those who, through their deeds and words, inspired the masses to behave like the righteous, will shine forever. The operative verb in v. 2 is “awake”; that is, they will be reborn from their sleep. “Those that sleep in the dust of the earth” is a metaphor for the dead, imagined as sleeping in their graves.16 Note that the subject is “many,” and not “all,” which would mean all human beings. From this we may infer that the verse applies only to the righteous. The predicate, which speaks of “eternal life,” “reproaches,” and “everlasting abhorrence,” means that those who rise will receive their just reward and live eternally. Those who deserve punishment, however, will not rise at that time and will be considered shameful and abhorrent.17 The former category apparently includes the righteous and those who did penance. Nonbelievers and those who died unrepentant will not be restored to life. According to Saadia Gaon, this awakening will take place at the time of the redemption.18 The same opinion, that resurrection will be the lot of the righteous only, is stated by Maimonides and Nahmanides.19 Some modern commentators, too, hold this view. Collins maintains that resurrection pertains only to the faithful, especially the wise.20 The author of Daniel seems to have been referring to the righteous who were persecuted and died in his own time. He speaks only of two groups who sleep in the dust, the righteous and their opponents. The former will receive eternal life, the others reproaches and everlasting abhorrence.

16 Job compares death to sleep: “So man lies down never to rise; he will awake only when the heavens are no more, only then be aroused from his sleep” (Job 14:12). Compare Jeremiah’s prophecy about Babylon, “[they will] sleep an endless sleep, never to awake” (Jer. 51:39, 57). 17 DeraÞon is a biblical hapax, with the meaning of an abomination, something that arouses horror and revulsion: “They shall go out and gaze on the corpses of the men who rebelled against Me: their worms shall not die, nor their fire be quenched; they shall be a horror [or: abhorrence] to all flesh” (Isa. 66:24). 18 Saadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions 7, 2. 19 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin, trans. Fred Rosner (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1981), pp.134–164. 20 Collins, Daniel, p.392.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

367

Abravanel does not agree with Saadia, Maimonides, and Nahmanides and holds that the resurrection will apply to all human beings. He advances two reasons for this. First, it would not be fair to the many generations that waited for the Messiah if, in the end, only those who happened to be alive in his time were able to benefit from his coming. Hence the dead of all ages will rise—the righteous who have earned their reward, but also the enemies of Israel, who return to life only to witness their own disgrace. Second, the gentiles who return to life will understand the utter folly and nullity of their belief and accept the sole true faith, as prophesied by Zephaniah: “For then I will make the peoples pure of speech, so that they all invoke the Lord by name and serve Him with one accord” (Zeph. 3:9). The righteous dead who awaken from their sleep will earn eternal life. The expression “eternal life” (ʚayyei Ýolam) alludes to Adam’s destiny had he eaten of the Tree of Life—to “live forever” (Gen. 3:22): that is, Adam would have lived forever had he not sinned. A close reading of the Bible indicates that the phrase ʚayyei Ýolam can in fact be understood in two different senses:21 eternal life (Isa. 25:8) but also a long life span, like that of the antediluvian generations. As Isaiah says, “No more shall there be an infant or graybeard who does not live out his days. He who dies at a hundred years shall be reckoned a youth, and he who fails to reach a hundred shall be reckoned accursed” (Isa. 65:20). The verse in Daniel is the best developed and crystallized presentation of a theological position whose roots can be traced to both biblical and nonbiblical literature—the combined belief in the eternity of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and reward and punishment. Its appearance in the book of Daniel is the result of the religious persecution in the time of Antiochusthe successes of the Hellenizing party, and the suffering of the righteous who remained faithful to the Lord. All of this posed a challenge to that Collins notes that the expression ʚayyei Ýolam ‘eternal life’ appears only in this verse, but refers to the similar ʚayyei neʜaʚ in 1QS 4:7. He adds that the sense of Ýolam/neʜaʚ ‘eternal, everlasting’ is an open question. In his notes he cites Psalm 133:3, where we find the phrase ʚayyim Ýad haÝolam, which Dahood says refers to belief in life everlasting. See Collins, Daniel, p.392 n.212. 21

368

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

generation about the meaning and purpose of martyrdom and the question of reward. One answer, provided here, is that the deeds of human beings in this world find their recompense in the world to come, in the form of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead: this is the way in which Divine justice is manifested. Another verse from Daniel that refers to the resurrection is “but you, go on to the end; you shall rest, and arise to your destiny at the end of the days” (Dan. 12:13). This is the reply to Daniel’s request for an explanation of what he has seen. He is told that “these words are secret and sealed to the time of the end” (Dan. 12:9). As Sawyer noted, this “destiny” is resurrection.22 But the “rest” is the sleep of the dead (12:2). The verse promises that Daniel, too, like the righteous, will be included in the resurrection of the dead. Hosea 6:1–2 Some believe that “after two days [taking mi-yomayim as equivalent to be-yomayim] He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him” (Hos. 6:2) alludes to the resurrection of the dead.23 This interpretation must be rejected, though, because it follows “Come, let us return to the Lord; for He has torn, that 22

p.233.

Sawyer, “Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead,”

23 Mauchline rejects the idea that the reference is to healing, because “he will revive us” in v. 2 seems to mean revival after death. Spronk thinks it refers to release from the world of the dead, which is part of the conception of the beatific afterlife, and not simply recovery from illness. Andersen also believes that the reference is to resurrection: “Verse 2 opens and closes with the statements, ‘He will make us live and we shall live.’ Explicit hope for the resurrection of the body can hardly be denied in this passage, but commentators have been reluctant to admit it.” He says something similar about another verse in Hosea (13:14): “I will ransom them from the power of the grave and I will redeem them from death”: “There lies a picture of death and resurrection which is widely accepted though not a part of a major dogmatic tradition.” See: John Mauchline, Book of Hosea, The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), p.625; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.276; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea (AB 24; New York: Doubleday, 1980), pp.420–421.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

369

He may heal us; He has stricken, and He will bind us up” (v. 1). That is, it refers to the suffering or illness of the living, whom the Lord will heal after they beseech him for forgiveness.24 The emphasis is on the rapidity with which the Lord will restore their health. Israel is metaphorically compared to a sick person whom the Lord will heal; in other words, we are dealing, not with death, but with illness. Israel has sinned and therefore has been punished; but when the people repent the merciful Lord will heal them.25 Thus “that he may heal us” corresponds to the “I wounded and I will heal” (Deut. 32:39) as well as to “He will never be able to cure you” (Hos. 5:13). “He has stricken, and he will bind us up” echoes Eliphaz, who says of God that “He wounds, but he binds up; He smites, but his hands heal” (Job 5:18). This is also how the verses in Hosea were understood by the medieval commentators. For example, Ibn Ezra writes that yeʚayyenu ‘revive us’ is “like ‘heal us’ ” in the previous verse. David Kimʘi had a similar view, referring to Joshua 5:8, “when the circumcising of all the nation was done, they remained in their places in the camp till they were healed” (Ýad ʚayotam). We can also cite “they will kill me and let you live (ve-Þotak yeʚayyu)” (Gen. 12:12). Thus there is no allusion to resurrection.26 Barré showed, on the basis of the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon and Akkadian medical texts, that the terms “live” and “arise” refer to the recovery of the sick.27 24. Interestingly, neither the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, nor the ancient apologists cite Hosea 6:2 as a proof text. Tertullian was the first to do so. Luther thought that Paul (“he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” [1 Cor. 15:4]) was referring to Hosea 6:2. See Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p.118. 25 J. Wijngaards, “Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. VI 2),” VT 17 (1967): 226–239; claims that the national death and resurrection appears in the context of covenant. It is derived from language used in connection with the deposition of a king; the restoration of a vassal king to his throne is described as “raising him from death to life.” 26 James Luther Mays, Hosea: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p.95; Wolff, Hosea, p.117; A. A. Macintosh, Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), pp.220–221. 27 M. L. Barré, “New Light on the Interpretation of Hosea VI 2,” VT 28 (1978): 129–141.

370

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

The import of v. 2 is that the Lord will heal us very soon (in two days), and on the third day we will get up from our sickbed. Hezekiah says something similar to Isaiah: “What is the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the House of the Lord on the third day?” (2 Kings 20:8). Thus “live before him (niʚyeh lefanav)” means standing before Him in full health. Rashi understands the verse differently, taking the particle mi- of miyomayim literally, as meaning “from”: “ ‘He will revive us from the two days’: He will restore us from the two disasters that befell us,” that is, the destruction of the First and Second Temples, and the reference to the third day is an allusion to the Third Temple that the Lord will erect. Ibn Ezra, too, read an allusion to the exile into this text. Targum Jonathan, by contrast, understands it as referring to the resurrection of the dead: “He will make us live to the days of comfort that will come in the future: on the day of the resurrection of the dead He will raise us up and we will live for Him.” The fact that v. 2 speaks of rising up on the third day has led some scholars to the conclusion that Hosea has in mind the pagan belief in the death and resurrection of the fertility god. According to Plutarch, for example, the Egyptian god Osiris died on the seventeenth of Athyr and was found alive on the nineteenth of Athyr; i.e., on the third day.28 In the cult of Tammuz, as recounted in the ancient Sumerian poem, we read about Inannam’s descent into the netherworld for three days and three nights.29 It is interesting, though, that Ugaritic texts do not mention three days in the context of Baal’s return from the lower world. Because the formula of rebirth after three days was well known in the ancient Near East, some have thought that here Hosea must have been borrowing from a Canaanite source.30 But all these notions should be rejected, because the verse has to do with Israel and its recovery, not with fertility gods and their resurrection. The two-day/three-day construction is simply an idiom for a short period, or a trope that desPlutarch, De Iside et Osiride 13 (356c); 39 (366f). S. N. Kramer, “Ishtar in the Nether World according to a New Sumerian Text,” BASOR 79 (1940): 18–27; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 1946), p.144f. 30 Flemming Friis Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament, pp.128–129. 28 29

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

371

ignates no definite duration. In any case, there is nothing mythological here at all.31 Some scholars believe that extra-biblical influences moved Israel toward a belief in resurrection,32 with tales of the death and rebirth of gods leaving an imprint on Israelite doctrines. The question, though, is whether the death and rebirth of Baal can explain the notion of a cycle of human death and resurrection? As Andersen notes in his commentary on Hosea, “the death and resurrection of people has nothing in common with a myth in which a god dies and comes back to life.”33 Isaiah 26:19 In the “Great Apocalypse” (Isaiah chapters 24–27), the prophet cries, “Oh, let your dead revive! Let corpses arise! Awake and shout [or sing (rannenu)] for joy, you who dwell in the dust!—for Your dew is like the dew on fresh growth” (Isa. 26:19). This is reminiscent of Daniel 12:2: both verses say that those who dwell in the dust—the dead—will awaken. The Septuagint and Targum Jonathan understood the verse to refer to the resurrection of the dead. Modern scholars, however, are of two minds. Some believe that the reference is to national restoration, not bodily resurrection.34 Others identify “your dead” with those who will be resurrected.35 Still others, like W. R. Millar and O. Kaiser, maintain that the verse is a late addition to the prophetic text.36 In any case, there is a lack of consensus about the date of the entire section, which some assign

31 William Rainey Harper, Amos and Hosea (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1905), p.283. 32 Leila Leah Bronner, “The Resurrection Motif in the Hebrew Bible: Allusion or Illusions?” JBQ 30(3) (2002): 148 n.16. 33 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, p.420. 34 Gerhard F. Hasel, “Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic,” ZAW 92 (1980): 273 n.47. 35 Ibid., n.48. 36 W. R. Millar, Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic (HSM 11; Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1976), pp.103–104, 119–120; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), pp.215–220. By contrast, there are scholars who defend the literary unity of Isaiah 24–27; see Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.299 n.1.

372

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

to the eighth century and others to the third.37 Whatever the date, however, the verse certainly antedates the book of Daniel—and this is what concerns us here. The Septuagint, as well as 1QIsaa, the Peshitta, and Targum read the verbs “awake” and “shout (sing)” in the future, rather than the imperative, an indication that the translators took it as referring to the resurrection of the dead. In addition to q.y.ʜ the verse uses the verbs q.w.m and ʚ.y.h. These, as noted above, are touchstones of the belief in resurrection.38 Recall that both the Bible and nonbiblical texts envision death as a form of sleep (Jer. 51:39; Ps. 88:11; Matt. 27:52). Gilgamesh, addressing his dead friend Enkidu, tells him, “What, now, is this sleep that has laid hold on thee? Thou art benighted and canst not hear [me]! But he lifts not up his head; he touched his heart, but it does not beat.”39 If sleep equals death, then waking up alludes to resurrection. Another motif employed here by Isaiah is that of dew. Dew symbolizes freshness and vitality, as opposed to the dryness of death. Similarly, light represents life and darkness death. The presence of the dew motif in this verse has led scholars to conjecture an Egyptian or Canaanite influence. Egyptian texts assert a heavenly origin for dew, in the tears of Horus and Thoth, and which

37 Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.297; Hasel, “Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic,” p.268, nn.8–9. 38 Sawyer, “Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead,” pp.218–34; Hasel, “Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic,” p.272; Philip C. Schmitz, “The Grammar of Resurrection in Isaiah 26:19a–c,” JBL 122 (2003): 145–149. 39 See ANET, p.87; VII, II, 13–16. In Ugaritic literature we read the words of Danel to Baal: “May Baal break the pinions of them [the vultures], as they fly over the grave of my son, rousing him from his sleep” (ANET, p.154). In the Egyptian Book of the Dead there is a call to the dead (chap 178): “Wake up, you who sleep! Look, one now brings the offering.” A high priest of Memphis inscribed the following poem on his wife’s tomb: “The West is a land of sleeping, filled with oppressive darkness, the stopping place of those who have taken leave, who sleep there in their coffins. They do not wake up in order to see their brothers.” See H. Bonnet, Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1952), p.354.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

373

has the capacity to revive the dead.40 Canaanite texts recount how Baal was restored to life with his daughters Pidray, “the girl of the honey-dew,” and Tallay, “the daughter of showers.”41 The notion that dew restores life is also found in the verses from Hosea cited above (6:1–3; 14:5–6). The Talmud, too, links dew and resurrection; for example: “… the dew wherewith the Holy One, blessed be He, will hereafter revive the dead, for it is written: A bounteous rain didst Thou power down, O God; when Thine inheritance was weary, Thou didst confirm it” (B ʗagigah 12b). The prooftext quoted is Psalm 68:10, which is part of a passage that refers to the revelation at Sinai; according to the Midrash, the souls of the Israelites momentarily left their bodies, but the Lord restored them to life with rain and dew. Who will be resurrected according to this verse: all humanity, or only Israel? The former seems unlikely, because v. 19 speaks of “your dead”—those belonging to the Lord and/or Israel. This does not contradict v. 14—“They are dead, they will not live; they are shades, they will not arise”—which refers to the foreign overlords whom God has condemned to oblivion. Thus there is a sharp distinction between gentiles and Israel, with resurrection promised only to those who died for the God of Israel. The resurrection envisioned by the prophet in this Great Apocalypse is limited to the faithful whose loyalty to the Lord in trying times extended to the point of martyrdom for His sake. This is very close to the notion that prevails in later Jewish apocalypses.42 It seems that when the destruction of Judah and the exile to Babylonia led many to doubt Divine justice, the doctrine of resurrection was seen as the solution to the problem of unjust human suffering. If we date this text to the fifth century—which is almost certain—we have here solid evidence of a Jewish belief in resurrection before the time of Daniel.

40 J. de Savignac, “La rosée solaire de l’ancienne Egypte,” NC 6 (1954): 345–53. 41 Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.304; Helmer Ringgren, Israelite Religion, trans. David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), pp.247, 322. 42 Robert Martin-Achard, “Resurrection,” in ABD 5: 682.

374

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Isaiah 53:8 Isaiah laments that the Servant of the Lord “was cut off (nigzar) from the land of the living through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment” (Isa. 53:8). Being cut off from the land of the living may connote death; but it may also mean despair, as in the people’s complaint in Ezekiel, “our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are clean cut off (nigzarnu lanu)” (Ezek. 37:11). Apparently the servant is on the verge of death (a motif found frequently in Psalms). The continuation—“And his grave was set among the wicked” (Isa. 53:9)—is a rhetorical device indicating that his condition was so critical that his eulogy had already been pronounced and plans made to bury him among the evildoers. Whether the servant is in fact dead, or merely dying, is a crucial issue for Christian theology. Christianity asserts that the servant died, was buried, and returned to life, thereby presaging the death and resurrection of Jesus. Even if we allow that the description goes beyond serious illness, we still cannot be certain whether the servant actually died or was taken up to heaven, like Elijah. The latter possibility is suggested by the first half of v. 8—“by oppressive judgment he was taken away”—where the verb l.q.ʚ echoes the account of Elijah’s assumption to Heaven. Nor is the identity of the servant clear. Is he the prophet, or the people of Israel? The latter seems more likely, given that in Isaiah’s prophecies of consolation the Lord refers to Israel as “my servant.”43 In the Second Temple period, though, the Sages offered several possible identifications of the servant: the prophet Isaiah, who was speaking of himself; some famous personage in Israel; the King Messiah, who will redeem Israel at the end of days; or the entire nation of Israel. The early Christians believed that the reference was to the King Messiah and the passage a prophecy about Jesus. This reading is implausible, however, because nowhere does the Bible hint that the messiah will suffer before appearing as the redeemer. It is unlikely that this is the first appearance of this motif. In several of Isaiah’s prophecies (40:11–14; 42:22–24), however, suffering and abasement do pertain to the condition of Israel in exile. What is more, Isaiah associates this prophecy with nations and their kings 43

Isa. 41:8; 42:18; 43:10; 44:1–2; etc.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

375

(52:15), who would almost certainly be speaking about the people of Israel and not about a lone individual. Another problem that has vexed commentators is how we are to understand the fact that the servant bears the sins of others and suffers on their account. Is the Bible saying that one who has not sinned is punished in order to save transgressors? Recall that the original biblical doctrine was that fathers might be punished for the transgressions of their sons and sons for the transgressions of their fathers. This concept was not challenged until the time of Jeremiah (31:28–29) and Ezekiel (Ch. 18). Rashi holds that the servant of the Lord is Israel, which atones for the sins of the nations through its suffering. According to the Talmud, the 70 bullocks offered in the Temple on the festival of Sukkot were meant to atone for the 70 nations of the world.44 For Judah Halevi, the servant stands for the entire people of Israel; the phrase “he bore our sickness” (Isa 53:4) means that Israel among the nations is like the heart among the bodily organs, which suffers more from illnesses than the other organs but also enjoys health more than the others. He adds that Israel suffers for the sins of the nations because it imitates them— “they mingled with the nations and learned their ways” (Ps. 106:35).45 The talmudic sages who associated the prophecy with the Messiah held that his suffering atones for the sins of Israel only, and not of all human beings. This is an extension of the notion that all Israel share a mutual responsibility for one another and are considered to be a single body: when one limb is damaged all the other limbs feel its pain.46 Psalms 49:16; 73:23–24 Psalm 49:16 [15] and Psalm 73:23–24 may refer to the resurrection of the dead.47 Both passages employ the verb l.q.ʚ as the believer B Suk. 55b. Judah Halevi, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith of Israel (New York: Spero foundation, 1946) 2:34, 36, 44. 46 E. E. Urbach, The Sages, p.618. 47 Drawing on parallels from Ugarit, Dahood asserts that many words in Psalms allude to resurrection and the immortality of the soul. According to Dahood, a close reading of the Bible reveals that ʚayyim, Þaʚarit, ʚazoh ʞov, k.b.d, l.q.ʚ, n.ʚ.h, ʜedaqah, ʜ.b.Ý, qayyiʜ, and t.m.k all have an 44 45

376

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

expresses his hope for everlasting life in the presence of God. The two psalms are classified as “Wisdom Psalms” that ask why the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer. Ancient and modern commentators have quarried them for allusions to belief in the doctrine of life after death and reward and punishment. As we shall see, however, when it refers to life after death and resurrection the Bible tends to speak only in veiled hints. Psalm 49 is a Wisdom Psalm, as Ibn Ezra noted at the beginning of his commentary: “This Psalm is extremely important because it speaks explicitly of the light of the world to come and of the soul of wisdom that does not die.” There is no dialogue with God here, unlike in psalms of prayer or lamentation; nor is there any praise of God, as in the hymns and songs of thanksgiving. In its nature this psalm is much more like a wisdom proverb or parable that deals with death, which does not distinguish between rich and poor, between wise and fool, or between human beings and the animals. It describes the vain attempt by the wealthy to ransom their souls and elude death. Nevertheless, “for when he dies he can take none of it along; his goods cannot follow him down” (Ps. 49:18 [17]). On the other hand, “God will redeem my life from the clutches of Sheol, for He will take me” (v. 16 [15]). Was the psalmist referring here to a belief in the world to come, in which the righteous receive the reward of everlasting life, whereas the wicked perish? The last-cited verse is the core of the Psalm. The psalmist’s statement that the Lord will take him may remind us of Enoch and Elijah, who were “taken” by the Lord. It is not clear what led him to the belief that the Lord will redeem him from Sheol, nor what he means by “He will take me.” Is it that the Lord will rescue the believer from the doom of death? Or only from the torments of Sheol? The verse may be a late addition, inserted in the wake of the change in the conception of death and the spread of the belief in the world to come, especially among the Pharisees of the Second Temple period. Note that the verse can be understood in two different senses. It may be expressing thanks to the Lord for saving the psalmist eschatological sense. (Dahood, Psalms III, p.LI). For a summary of the arguments against Dahood’s position, see: Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.284.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

377

from his enemies. In Psalms, heaven-sent rescue from one’s adversaries is frequently compared to deliverance from the underworld. If so, there is nothing here about life after death or resurrection, but only a statement that the Lord saves the believer from death.48 This is how Barth reads the verse, in a fashion compatible with the observation in verse 11 [10] that “the wise die, … the foolish and ignorant both perish.”49 But the verse may mean that the Lord will save the believer from Sheol. The Lord has indeed spared some of his servants from Sheol, as stated in Genesis 5:24 (Enoch) and 2 Kings 2:3 (Elijah).50 Von Rad says that “this statement can hardly be referred to anything other than a life after death.”51 H. J. Kraus argues for resurrection. B. Duhm, H. Schmidt, and E. Podechard suggest immortality.52 Briggs maintains that the verse is a gloss inserted to make the psalm suitable for public prayer. It does not refer to saving the believer from death, but sparing him after death, and is in fact modeled on Psalm 73:24. In the background of both psalms is the story of Enoch. According to Briggs, the sense is that the Lord will gather the righteous to Paradise, a tenet that developed later in Judaism. Psalm 73 is also a Wisdom Psalm that deals with the issue of reward and punishment and of how the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper. Its solution is that the success of the wicked is ephemeral and temporary. A similar account can be found in Proverbs and Job. The second half of the Psalm advances the idea that According to Martin-Achard our verse does not refer to resurrection. The believer thinks that he will escape not only premature death but also death itself. See Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, p.157. 49 Christoph Barth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten Testaments (Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1947), pp.158ff. 50 Note that in Ugaritic, too, the verb l.q.ʚ is associated with death. In one Ugaritic text we find: wklhm bd rb tmtt lq ʚt, “And I snatched all of them from the hand(s) of the Master of Death (=Moth)” (UT, 2059: 21– 22). 51 Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol.1:406. 52 Bernhard Duhm, Die Psalmen (Freiburg i.B.: Mohr, 1899), p.140; Hans Schmidt, Die Psalmen (HAT 15; Tübingen: Mohr, 1934), p.95; E. Podechard, Le Psautier (Lyons: Facultés catholiques, 1949), pp.220–221. 48

378

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

the wicked are doomed to destruction (vv. 18–20). By contrast, the psalmist has won Divine providence and intimacy (vv. 21–26). The Psalm concludes that those who are remote from the Lord perish, but the righteous enjoy their closeness to Him (vv. 27–28). Scholars are not sure about v. 24: “Thou dost guide me (tanʚeni) with thy counsel, and afterward (ve-Þaʚar) thou wilt receive me (tiqqaʚeni) to glory” (Ps. 73:24). Here too, as in Psalm 49, the verb l.q.ʚ may be understood in different ways: It may mean “receive” (as in the RSV rendering just cited) or “lead” (as in Gen. 48:1 and Ex. 14:16),53 or it may have the sense of bodily assumption appropriate to Enoch and Elijah.54 Another crux is “afterward”: does it refer to earthly life in the present, or to life after death?55 Here too there is no consensus among scholars. The argument that it does not refer to life after death is buttressed by the frequent biblical descriptions of a dark and unattractive Sheol.56 Rowley, by contrast, avers that Psalm 73 may advance a notion of life after death different from what was common at the time, but that it was “a glimpse rather than a firm faith.”57 Von Rad believes that this Psalm, like Psalm 49, does indeed refer to life after death: “The idea of life after death was not some unheard-of novelty, since as early as the time of Ezekiel the cult of the dying and rising god had forced its way into the Temple itself (Ezek.8:14).”58 We should also remember the stories of Enoch and Elijah who were taken by the Lord. Hence Andersen holds that it may have been Israelite theologians who offered the possibility of

53 A. Cohen, The Psalms: Hebrew Text, English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (London: Soncino Press, 1945), p.235. 54 Emilie Grace Briggs, The Book of Psalms (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), p.147. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150, vol. 2:91; according to Dahood the psalmist uses terms that allude to the story of the assumption of Enoch in Gen. 5: 24. See: Dahood, Psalms II, p.195. 55 A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms,vol. 2:535–536. 56 Snaith suggests that “afterwards” means after this temporary distress and not life after death. See N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London: Empworth Press, 1957), p.89. 57 H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel (London: SCM Press, 1956), p.175 n.2. 58 Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol.1:406– 407.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

379

resurrection, thereby relieving the tension between their belief in God and the facts of life.59 The traditional commentators believed that the reference was to the world to come. David Kimʘi’s gloss on v. 24, based on the strong pause that the cantillation mark on the word “afterward,” is “after an entire life of pursuing the Divine, my soul will be fit to be received in the most glorious part of paradise.” Sforno however, disregards the caesura and reads we-Þaʚar as a preposition governing the next word: “after glory”: After my soul is glorified in this world, You will receive me in the next world. Against all these interpretations, one can certainly read the verse as an expression of thanks to the Lord for having helped the psalmist recognize the truth. The verbs tanʚeni and tiqqaʚeni— “guide” and “lead”—are parallel and refer to the direction that the Lord has given the poet. “Thou dost guide me (tanʚeni) with thy counsel” expresses the psalmist’s gratitude that the Lord has helped him know the truth. Tanʚeni can mean “show the way,” as in “show me Your way, O Lord, and lead me (unʚeni) on a level path” (Ps. 27:11). The second half of the verse would then mean that the Lord goes ahead and guides me to follow after Him—a description of the way in which the Lord guides and supports the psalmist. In the previous verse the poet says that he now knows that God is always with him and holds his right hand to guide him and show him the way. Verse 24 continues the image of divine guidance to the poet. Thus these two psalms do not seem to be about resurrection. Rather, they express thanks to the Lord for delivering the believer from his enemies. As we have seen, heaven-sent rescue from one’s adversaries is frequently compared in Psalms to deliverance from the underworld. Had the psalmist believed in life after death, divine judgment, and resurrection, the question of why the wicked prosper and righteous suffer would not have troubled him. The Valley of the Dry Bones Does Ezekiel’s vision of the Valley of the Dry Bones (chapter 37) describe an actual resurrection of the dead, or is it merely a metaphor? The traditional commentators were of two minds on the 59

Anderson, Psalms, 2:536.

380

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

subject. The key phrase is “I am going to open your graves and lift you out of [or raise you from: we-haÝaleti] your graves” (Ezek. 37:12). When the doctrine of resurrection developed later, many interpreted the vision in its light. In Ezekiel’s day, however, such a belief had not yet crystallized. He may be offering a vision of consolation that provides a symbol of the people’s return from exile. The opening of the graves and lifting of the dead out of them is a metaphor for the Lord’s putting an end to the people’s exile and returning them to their land. There is no doubt, however, that Ezekiel’s vision helped catalyze the later crystallization of the doctrine of resurrection.60 As noted, the talmudic sages as well as the medieval commentators did not agree about the interpretation of the chapter. The Sages’ views on resurrection and their understanding of Ezekiel’s vision are presented in B Sanhedrin 92b. Their views fall into two categories. Some held the story to be literally true: R. Eliezer said: The dead whom Ezekiel resurrected stood up, uttered song, and [immediately] died. What song did they utter? — The Lord deals death in righteousness and gives life in mercy. R. Joshua said: They sang thus, The Lord deals death and gives life, Casts down into Sheol and raises up… R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose the Galilean said: The dead whom Ezekiel revived went up to Palestine, married wives and begat sons and daughters. R. Judah b. Bathyra rose up and said: I am one of their descendants, and these are the tefillin which my grandfather left me [as an heirloom] from them.

Among this party, however, there was disagreement as to the identity of those who were resurrected. According to Rav, they were the Ephraimites who “calculated the redemption and erred”; that is, they miscalculated the date of the end of the bondage in Egypt, because they began counting the allotted 400 years from the Covenant between the Pieces rather than from the birth of Isaac. According to Samuel, however, “these are people who denied the resurrection of the dead”; their revival serves as a proof and reproof to themselves and all others who are slack in this belief. R. G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), p.397. 60

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

381

Jeremiah bar Abba held that they were men who “lacked the sap of good deeds.” For R. Isaac Nappaʘa, they were “the men who covered the whole Temple with abominations and creeping things.” Finally, in the opinion of R. Johanan, they were “the dead of the plain of Dura” (an allusion to Daniel 3:1). The other opinion, upheld only by R. Judah, is that “in truth it was only a parable.” Rashi explains that it was intended as an allusion to the exile: just as the dead returned to life, so Israel will return from exile. A similar interpretation is offered by David Kimʘi: “These things didn’t really happen.” As for the parable, he offers two possibilities: “God showed these bones to Ezekiel to symbolize the revival of the Jewish people, in which they will emerge from exile, after having been like dry bones. It is also possible that He showed him this vision to teach him that at the time of the future redemption, the dead will be resurrected in order for them to share in the redemption.” Maimonides followed much the same path in his Guide (2:46). Many Christian communities, too, saw Ezekiel’s vision as a literal account of resurrection. An echo can be found in Matthew 27:51–53, where, after the account of the crucifixion, we read: “The earth shook [cf. Ezek 37:7] … The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had died were raised, and coming out of the tombs … they went in to the holy city [cf. Ezek. 37:12].” As scholars have noted, “many Church fathers found the final resurrection of the dead proclaimed here.”61 The vision itself has been incorporated into the liturgies of both Judaism and Christianity. It is read as the haftarah on the intermediate Sabbath of Passover, which marks the liberation from Egypt and slavery. Christians employ it in the context of baptism at Lent and Easter. Both festivals are celebrations of liberation and new life.62

Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), p.749. 62 Ibid., p.751; Cooke, Ezekiel, p.398. 61

382

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

Rejection of the Doctrine of Resurrection As we saw in Chapter 3, the Bible considers death to be a final end. In the words of the wise woman from Tekoa, “We must all die; we are like water that is poured out on the ground and cannot be gathered up” (2 Sam. 14:14). There is no escaping death and no way to return from it. God does not show favoritism and does not spare any human being from death. In his reply to Eliphaz, Job bids him “remember that my life is a breath; my eye will never again see good. … As the cloud fades and vanishes, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up. He returns no more to his house, nor does his place know him any more” (Job 7:7–10). A person who descends to the underworld will never return to his house. The verb here is s.w.b, the same found in the Lord’s curse that Adam will return to the ground. Job’s remark raises an important question: does the statement that a human being never returns from the underworld mean that Job rejects the doctrine of resurrection? The amora Rabbah was of the opinion that he did.63 It is possible, however, that he is referring only to a return to life in this world. This would seem to be the import of v. 10: when a person ends his present life there is no social function for him to fill if he returns, because his term of life is over. If so, we cannot infer anything about Job’s views on the doctrine of resurrection from this passage. But a denial of resurrection does seem to be clear in “so man lies down and does not rise [again]; they will not awaken until the heavens are no more, will not be aroused from their sleep” (Job 14:12).64 Job believes in the eternity of the heavens; thus death is forever. Perhaps he is alluding to eschatological events at the end of days, when heaven and earth will pass away (see Isa. 34:4 and 51:6). Job’s apparent rejection of the doctrine of resurrection placed the Aramaic translator in an uncomfortable position. Accordingly B Baba Bathra 16a. The singular Þiš in the first half of the verse is a collective noun, whence the plurals in the second half. Orlinsky claims that “be aroused from their sleep” is a gloss on yaqiʜu ‘awaken’ and that yaqiʜu here is an Arabism. See Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Job 14.12,” JQR 28 (1937–1938): 57–68. 63 64

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

383

he rendered the second half of the verse as if it referred only to the wicked: “… the wicked will not awaken, nor be aroused from their charnel house.” Saadia Gaon explains another verse that seems to deny resurrection—“for He remembered that they were but flesh, a passing breath that does not return” (Ps. 78:39)—as follows: “When they said that the spirit of man departs and does not return, this does not mean that the Lord cannot return it to him, nor that He has not promised this, but He can and has already promised it. But ‘does not return’ refers to the nature of human beings, who cannot restore the soul to the body after it has left it in a natural way, until the Creator wishes to do so. This is also what Job means when he says, … ‘man lies down never to rise’ (14:12), namely, to recount the frailty of human beings and their inability and helplessness to return by their own power, until the Lord wills it.” Two verses later, Job asks a rhetorical question: “If a man dies, can he live again?” (v. 14). Job knows the answer: the dead do not live again. If they could look forward to resurrection, there would be some hope for him. According to Robert Gordis, Job wants to accept the doctrine of resurrection, but ultimately realizes that he cannot believe in it.65 It is interesting that Job’s friends, who try to justify the divine plan to him, do not refer to the doctrine of resurrection. The Septuagint drops the interrogative particle and has only the future ΊφΗΉΘ΅΍, which totally alters the theological sense of the verse: “If a man dies, he will live.”66 The Aramaic translator also rewrites the text: “If a wicked man dies, is it possible for him to live?” The doctrine of resurrection is also denied in Ecclesiastes (3:17–22). Ecclesiastes speaks of the injustice that prevails in the world and incidentally notes that there is no difference between Robert Gordis, The Book of Job, p.150. Donald H. Gard, “The Concept of the Future Life according to the Greek Translator of the Book of Job,” JBL 73 (1954): 137–138; Henry S. Gehman, “The Theological Approach of the Greek Translator of Job 1–15,” JBL 68 (1949): 231–240. Budde and Duhm propose reading weyiʚyeh ‘and live’ instead of ha-yiʚyeh ‘will [or can] he live?’ and understand Þim not as the interrogative “if” but as the sign of the optative: “Would that a man died and [then] lived again!” See: Karl Budde, Das Buch Hiob (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), p.72; Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Hiob (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1897), p.77. 65 66

384

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

human beings and animals; their destiny is identical, for all die in the end. According to Ecclesiastes, everything comes from the dust and returns to dust (cf. Gen. 3:19). On the other hand, when Qohelet speaks of the posthumous fate of human beings he states that “the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit [or lifebreath: ruaʚ] returns to God who gave it” (Eccles. 12:7). The same idea can be found elsewhere in the Bible (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30). The idea that after death the human soul ascends to the Heaven first appears in the apocryphal works of the second and first centuries BCE (1 Enoch 104:2, 4; 2 Bar. 30:1–5; Ascent of Moses 10:9). Apparently this idea stems from the Hellenistic belief that the human soul is a spark of ether that returns to the celestial realm at death. Seow says that Ecclesiastes 3:20–21 is a reaction to the speculations of later generations and that Qohelet refuses to accept the idea that there is an essential difference between human beings and animals. The question is not whether the human soul ascends or descends, but whether the destiny of human beings and animals is the same. The answer is provided in verse 19: there is no difference.67 But Qohelet has no proof for this. Ultimately, “who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?” (Eccles. 3:21). His conclusion is that, inasmuch as human beings cannot know what the future holds, they should enjoy the present (v. 22).

ASCENT TO THE HEAVEN The Bible knows of two mortals who may have ascended to Heaven—Enoch and Elijah. Enoch is said to have been taken by God (Gen. 5:24). Elijah ascended in a whirlwind to the sky (2 Kings 2:11). As we have seen, when human beings die they descend to the netherworld, from which there is no return. If these two accounts do refer to an ascent to Heaven, they are intended to bolster the belief that the future existence after death is not in the underworld but with God. These stories can be compared to the Babylonian myths about Utnapishtim and Utuabzu. The latter is the seventh sage in the list of the kings of Uruk, “who ascended to

67

C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes, p.176.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

385

Heaven.”68 In the Gilgamesh Epic Utnapishtim reports that “they took me and made me reside far away, at the mouth of the rivers.”69 We may hear an echo of this in Isaiah’s mockery of the king of Babylon, who sought to ascend to the heavens and be like a god, but instead is with maggots and worms in the underworld (Isa. 14:12–20).70 Enoch Genesis reports that “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). A straightforward reading of the verse takes this as referring to Enoch’s death, rather than his assumption to heaven. The word Þeinennu ‘he was not’ is a metaphor or euphemism for death.71 It is used elsewhere in the Bible to avoid explicit mention of death, as in “soon I shall lie down in the dust; when You seek me, I shall not be (we-Þeinenni)” (Job 7:21); “before I depart and am no more (we-Þeinenni)” (Ps. 39:14; see also Prov. 12:7).72 The verb l.q.ʚ, employed in this verse, is another biblical euphemism for death, as in: “I am about to take away the delight of your eyes from you through pestilence. … In the evening my wife died” (Ezek. 24:16, 18); “the sons of the prophets who were in Bethel came out to Elisha, and said to him, ‘Do you know that today the Lord will take away your master from over you?’ ” (2 Kings 2:3; Rykle Borger, “The Incantation Series Bĩt Mēseri and Enoch’s Ascension to Heaven,” in I Studied Inscription from before the Flood, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp.230–233. 69 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, XI:196, p.95. 70 The motif of an ascent to heaven can also be found in the Wisdom of Solomon (2:22–24; 23:1–9) and especially in 4:14, referring to “one who pleased God and was loved by him” (v. 10): “For his soul was pleasing to the Lord, therefore he took him quickly from the midst of wickedness”—alluding to the story that Enoch was taken by the Lord so that he would not learn from the deeds of the wicked. 71 Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1: 285. 72 Another possible meaning of Þeinennu is that a person has disappeared from mortal sight (Gen. 37:30; 42:13; 1 Kings 20:40) or vanished suddenly (Isa. 17:14; Ps. 103:16). Ibn Ezra thought it meant that his grave was unknown. Support for this can be found in the sequel of the account of Elijah’s ascent to Heaven: “for three days they sought him but did not find him” (2 Kings 2:17). 68

386

I DEAL DEATH AND GIVE LIFE

also vv. 5, 9, 10). Rashi explains that l.q.ʚ refers to an untimely death; Ibn Ezra says that it is a usage of respect. Clearly, then, the traditional commentators understood the verse to be referring to Enoch’s death. Rashi writes that Enoch was a righteous man who was on the verge of falling into sin; to save him from this, the Lord hastened his end. This idea can be traced to the midrash (Genesis Rabbah 25:1) that Enoch was a righteous man whom God “took”—a natural death, not a miraculous assumption into heaven—so that he would not remain in the company of the wicked and be tempted into sin: R. ʗama b. R. Hoshaiah said: “It means that he [Enoch] was not written in the roll of the just but in the roll of the wicked.” R. Aibu said: “Enoch was two-faced, sometimes acting justly, sometimes wickedly.” Therefore the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I will take him away at a time when he is acting justly.” Some skeptics said to R. Abbahu: “We do not find that Enoch died.” R. Abbahu asked “Why not?” They said: “The word take is used here and it is also used of Elijah.” He replied: “If you rely on the word take, then in Ezekiel it is written, ‘ … behold I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes.’ ” R. Tanʘuma said, “he answered them well.”73

In fact, it seems to be the story of Elijah, who ascended to Heaven in a whirlwind and did not die, that spawned the popular legend that Enoch, too, was taken to heaven by God. As we have seen, the language of the verse in Genesis resembles that used in 2 Kings. In Psalms, the verb l.q.ʚ refers to translation to the eternal world of souls: “God will redeem my life from the clutches of Sheol, for He will take me” (Ps. 49:16 [15]); “and afterward You will take me (or receive me: tiqqaʚeni)” (Ps. 73:24). Some modern commentators, however, believe that the story of Enoch does refer to an ascent to Heaven.74 They note that the verse states twice that Enoch walked with God—the first time referring to his life on earth, the second to being with God after being taken by Him. Many moderns also believe that the verb l.q.ʚ is a Gen. Rab. 25:1. Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, p.69; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.268 n.2. 73 74

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

387

technical term for bodily assumption.75 As noted by Spronk (and many before him), the text is amenable to contradictory interpretations and conceals more than it reveals.76 As already noted, the Enoch tradition has parallels in Mesopotamian mythology, in the figure of Enmeduranki, the seventh king of antediluvian Sipar.77 Sipar was a center of the cult of the sun god Utu.78 This king was dear to the gods Anu, Bel, and Ea, and was received into the fellowship of Shamash and Ramman. The gods welcomed him into their midst, revealed their secrets to him, seated him on a golden throne, and initiated him in the practice of divination. The Mesopotamian myth links this king to the sun god, who presides over the 365–day solar year, just as Enoch’s biblical lifespan is 365 years. The Babylonian king was the seventh in the antediluvian line, just as Enoch is the seventh generation from Adam.79 The king is intimate with the gods, just as Enoch “walked with God.” There were also traditions that the sage Utuabzu, mentioned above, ascended to Heaven, just as in Israel there were similar legends about Enoch.80 But the Torah blurred the mythological aspects while adapting the story to its own purposes. Although the legends about Enoch were not incorporated into the Torah, in the last two centuries BCE Enoch became an important character in the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees. Enoch is also the eponymous hero of two books, the so-called Ethiopic and Slavonic Books of Enoch. The Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments of the book all in Aramaic. According to Charles’ Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, p.268. Ibid., p.268 n.3. 77 Thorkild Jacobson, The Sumerian King List (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), p.75; James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocaylptic Tradition (Washington DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America:1984), pp.33–51. 78 J. Skinner, Genesis, p.132; Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, p.68; Speiser, Genesis, p.43. 79 W. G. Lambert, “Enmeduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 (1967): 126–38; Jack M. Sasson, “A Genealogical >>Convention