Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean 9783666530975, 9783525530979

Citation preview

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Herausgegeben von Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Matthias Köckert, Hermut Löhr, Steven McKenzie, Joachim Schaper und Christopher Tuckett

Band 233

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Martti Nissinen and Charles E. Carter

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Mit 79 Abbildungen und 6 Tabellen

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-525-53097-9

© 2009, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Druck und Bindung: b Hubert & Co, Göttingen Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

Contents Contents Contents Introduction: Prophecy, Iconography, and Beyond Martti Nissinen / Charles E. Carter .................................................

7

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess Ištar and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecies Izak Cornelius ..................................................................................

15

Maat-Imagery in Trito-Isaiah: The Meaning of Offering a Throat in Egypt and in Israel Thomas Staubli .................................................................................

41

Whence Leonine Yahweh? Iconography and the History of Israelite Religion Brent A. Strawn ................................................................................

51

The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals Nanno Marinatos .............................................................................

86

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia: A New Interpretation of Judges 4:4–5 Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot ..................................................

95

A Rose by Any Other Name: Iconography and the Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1–6 Rolf A. Jacobson .............................................................................. 125 Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City Christl M. Maier .............................................................................. 147 Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles Helen Dixon ..................................................................................... 163 Creeping Things and Singing Stones: The Iconography of Ezek 8:7–13 in Light of Syro-Palestinian Seals and The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Margaret S. Odell ............................................................................ 195

Martti Nissinen and Charles E. Carter

Introduction: Prophecy, Iconography, and Beyond Introduction Martti Nissinen / Charles E. Carter Any reader of ancient biblical or extra-biblical prophecies will notice immediately that the texts permeate with vivid metaphors and descriptions of images. The verbal imagery the authors used would have impacted the ancient audiences more deeply than modern readers since it was related to, often drawn from, iconography contemporary to their audience and embedded in their cultural memory. The essays collected in this volume examine the interface of textual and artistic images, the intersection of two different media that often communicate a similar message. This volume demonstrates that the interconnectedness of text and image spans a wide variety of geographic, temporal, and cultural settings, from Mesopotamia to Syria, from Greece and Crete to Israel and Egypt, from the early second through the late first millennia. This in turn suggests that iconographic traditions – both textual and material – are significant components of the context(s) of prophet messages and actions. As one views images and reads texts the boundaries between visual and textual may become blurred. While one typically speaks of reading texts it is equally appropriate, even necessary to “read” images and “see” texts. The ancient Mediterranean iconography is not static and not only visual – sometimes it is more powerful than the spoken or written word. Helen Dixon notes (below, p. 171): Methodologically, it may be useful to think more broadly about the tools of textual studies and those of art history; that is, to think metaphorically about… [texts] as if each scene were an artistic rendering, a portrait or a relief… just as Margaret Cool Root has shown us the benefit of reading artistic representation as “text” – to proceed as if every detail has meaning.

Or, as Izak Cornelius suggests, “…iconography does not simply illustrate the texts nor do the texts merely describe the visual imagery” (below, p. 17). Texts and images are two distinct media that conform to their own literary and artistic conventions. Textual and iconographical source materials do not presuppose, nor do they necessarily comment upon each other. Nevertheless, they draw from a reservoir of motifs that can find both textual and iconographical expressions; for example, gods and kings can be depicted as lions in images and texts alike, and it is conceivable that similar metaphorical connotations of the lion function both ways (Strawn).

8

Martti Nissinen / Charles E. Carter

A brief description of the essays included in this volume demonstrates the complexities of interpreting these two sources of cultural and prophetic traditions. Izak Cornelius discusses the aspects of the iconography of Ištar – the preeminent goddess of prophecy – in ancient Near Eastern prophetic texts. He compares the visual images of Ištar with motifs known from the prophetic oracles, especially those related to the bellicose aspects of the goddess. Iconographic and textual sources – primarily Neo-Assyrian prophecies, but also those from Mari – portray the goddess with images that emphasize her martial characteristics: weapons, the star, and the lion. Together they yield a twofold but consistent portrayal of Ištar as divine warrior, clearly originating in the same reservoir of motifs; indeed, one can throughout plausibly suggest that the authors of the prophetic texts were familiar with the iconography of Ištar. Thomas Staubli uses Egyptian images and texts and Judean prophecy to posit the existence of a “koine theology” that combined the concepts of Maat and hqdc. Both are linked through the language of the throat. A relief on the Great Pylon of the Isis temple in Philae depicts Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII offering Horus and Isis a figurine of Maat. The inscription on the relief speaks of Maat as “pharynx” and “esophagus” – representing protection and nourishment respectively. Trito-Isaiah’s oracle in Isa 58:6–12 is likewise concerned with establishing justice (hqdc). Staubli offers an innovative interpretation of the Hebrew vpn, one that shares the Egyptian idea of the throat. Fasting is not, as traditional interpretations of the this text suggest, a matter of suppressing oneself (Heb: vpn) or one’s appetite. Rather, the prophet calls on the Judeans to “offer the throat” – this in turn provides for the poor and the suffering, the hn[n vpn. In both cultures’ social and religious contexts, the throat represents at the same time the offering that passes through it and the nourishment that offering provides for the populace (in Egypt) and the poor (in Judah). In both image and text, offering the throat – and the sustenance it provides – is one of the keys to maintaining the social order: Maat in Egypt and hqdc in Judah. Brent Strawn focuses on one of the above-mentioned motifs, the lion, searching for the origins of the leonine image of Yahweh, god of Israel. The majority of the cases of the leonine Yahweh are found in the prophets. Iconography, again, multiplies the sources for leonine images and provides indispensable aspects for its interpretation. Strawn discusses two possible origins of the association of Yahweh with lions – the realm of the gods on the one hand, and the realm of the king on the other. These two domains are not mutually exclusive; both are relevant and, in all likelihood, influenced the leonine imagery in the Hebrew Bible. The amalgamation of divine, royal, and leonine aspects at the interface among gods, king, and lions evokes a tenor of threat and power. A pendant from Tel Miqne-Ekron (Strawn,

Introduction

9

(Strawn, fig. 13) attests that the depiction of Ištar in her martial and leonine aspects coexisted with similar aspects of Yahweh. Whether the leonine image of Yahweh is directly dependent on such images known in Iron Age Palestine is not so much of an issue as the applicability and efficacy of the image of lion common to the worshippers of both deities. Until recently, the connections between Greek prophetic traditions and those of the ancient Near East have not been examined extensively.1 Two articles in this volume contribute to this important interdisciplinary discussion. Nanno Marinatos investigates four images from Minoan Crete of the 16th century B.C.E. Since there are no readable texts dating to this period, scenes portrayed on gold rings become our primary source of information about prophetic activity in Minoa. These images depict men who shake branches of a tree and kick their legs, women who seem to be engaged in twirling movement, and women leaning on a stone. Marinatos interprets the positions of the persons as illustrating ecstatic behavior, and the images as depictions of oracular scenes in an open air sanctuary. The female figure is identified as the queen who, in her office as the high priestess, also functions as a mediatrix of divine knowledge. Marinatos points out an intriguing parallel to this imagery in the Ugaritic epic of Keret. There, the “word of tree and whisper of stone” may refer to a royal oracle. The Minoan image also brings to mind the sacred oak associated with the later oracle of Zeus at Dodona.2 The essay by Yaakov Kupitz and Katell Berthelot takes a fresh look at the prophetess Deborah in Judges 4–5 in comparison with the most famous of the Greek oracles, the Delphic Pythia. As startling as the relationship between the images of these two women prophets may seem, they share a surprising number of common features. Both are prophets with great authority; the name Deborah means “bee,” as does meli,ssa which is used of the Pythia; Deborah sits under a palm tree that is iconograhically attested also in connection with Delphi; the oracle is centrally located (Gr. ovmfalo,j th/j gh/j; cf. Heb. #rah rwbj); and both Deborah and the Pythia have a national political function. This accumulation of common motifs lead the 1 See, however, the theme issue of Vetus Testamentum 57/4 (2007) with contributions by Anselm Hagedorn (“Looking at Foreigners in Biblical and Greek Prophecy,” p. 432–48), Herbert Huffmon (“The Oracular Process: Delphi and the Near East,” p. 449–60), Armin Lange (“Greek Seers and Israelite-Jewish Prophets,” p. 461–82), and Nick Wyatt (“Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone: El’s Oracle to King Keret (Kirta), and the Problem of the Mechanics of Its Utterance,” p. 483–510); see also Armin Lange, “Literary Prophecy and Oracle Collections: A Comparison between Judah and Greece in Persian Times,” in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak; LHBOTS 427; London, 2006), 248–75; Michael Attyah Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece (Berkeley, 2008), 227–35. 2 For Keret, see Wyatt, “Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone”; for Dodona, Sarah Iles Johnston, Ancient Greek Divination (Chichester, 2008), 63–65.

10

Martti Nissinen / Charles E. Carter

authors to conclude that “the biblical writer had the Pythia in mind when describing Deborah” (below, p. 121). The image of Deborah is not simply a copy of the Pythia’s image, but rather a literary figure serving as a “panIsraelite” counterpart to the “pan-Hellenic” prophet. Rolf Jacobson examines some of the key “interpretive cruxes” in Isa 28:1–6 in light of figurines and impressions found throughout the ancient Near East. His specific use of these iconographic traditions apply to two disputed phrases in the oracle: the “proud garland of the drunkards of Ephraim” and the “fading flower of its glorious beauty” (vv. 1, 3–4). He rejects the suggestion that twag trj[ (which is also translated as “proud crown”) is a verbal image for the city walls of Samaria. Rather, hrj[ usually refers to physical crowns worn by monarchs and sometimes more generally, symbolizes a royal setting.3 Material remains also argue against this interpretation: According to Jacobson, none of the crowns worn by Egyptian, Syrian, or Mesopotamian monarchs (or figurines representing crowned monarchs) in any way resemble city walls. Many interpreters suggest that the parallel phrase in the text, fading flower (lbn #yc) is refers to the transitory nature of life and, metaphorically, the immanent destruction of Samaria. Jacobson suggests that the prophet’s audience would have also understood #yc as a “rosette,” a widely used image associated with royalty. Hittite, Ammonite, and Neo-Assyrian kings are depicted with rosettes on their crowns, on bracelets, or as decorations on regal robes. In Judah, the rosette seal impressions stamped on jar handles are also understood as royal symbols – as Jacobson points out, the rosette impressions replaced the $lml seals in the mid-seventh century. Thus, while lbn #yc does in fact denote transience, it is a direct and pointed royal reference “not to the city of Samaria, but to the king who dwells there” (below, p. 133). Christl Maier explores the image of Jerusalem as a queen in the latter part of the book of Isaiah. This role of Jerusalem is not only informed by the common imagination of cities as women but also by iconographical motif of the mural or turreted crown in the shape of a city wall. She argues that, while the deification of the city as tuch. po,lewj occurs no earlier than the Hellenistic period, the mural crown has royal associations in NeoAssyrian iconography. It was especially the Neo-Assyrian rulers who transmitted the image of the mural crown to the Levant. Even the Isaianic texts come close to the massive city wall with fortified towers and gates in the Neo-Assyrian reliefs; for instance, the depiction of Jerusalem in Isa 54:11–13 underlines the royal status of the city. This iconographical link 3 The one exception to this is Isa 62:2–3, which identifies Jerusalem as a royal crown and a royal turban in the divine hand. But see Maier’s discussion of the mural crown below.

Introduction

11

makes sense also with regard to the several commonalities between Assyrian prophecies and Second Isaiah. Helen Dixon’s essay proposes that the Chronicler’s rewriting of the Samuel-Kings material should be understood in light of “Persepolitan royal imagery” that originated in the imperial core and was disseminated throughout the periphery of the empire. In the account of the dedication of the temple, the Chronicler adds one detail that has no counterpart in 2 Kings. As he begins his prayer, Solomon stands, then kneels, on a large raised bronze platform located in the temple court (2 Chr 6:13). This detail has long puzzled commentators, but Dixon suggests that the reference to the bronze platform is an intentional application of “Achaemenid image of the King on High” to Solomon. The archaeological record shows that this “canonical” royal imagery is known throughout the empire, though with local variants. Fragments of thrones – primarily bronze feet in the shape of lions paws, decorative legs and cross pieces – were found in Samaria and Athlit. These fragments all parallel, even duplicate, elements of Achaemenid thrones seen in reliefs and tomb carvings in which the seated king is carried on a large platform. Coins and seal impressions found in Yehud and Samaria also contain traditional Persian symbols of kingship and authority. Taken together, this evidence suggests that local rulers and elite identified with and adopted the imperial ideology of power. The visual account of Solomon kneeling on the raised bronze platform in 2 Chronicles echoes the relief of Darius I standing on a raised dais found on the king’s tomb (Dixon, fig. 4). Thus, the Chronicler uses Achaemenid depictions of royalty to reinforce Solomon’s power and authority. Solomon is the ideal Israelite king – chosen and favored by YHWH and conforming to the Persian ideology of royalty. Margaret Odell uses evidence from Iron Age seal impressions and descriptions of divine beings in The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from Qumran to interpret Ezekiel’s vision of the “beasts and creeping things” that desecrate the temple (Ezek 8:7–13). She follows the proposal of Keel and Uehlinger that over time, animals that initially accompanied deities on stamp and seal impressions gradually come to symbolize and ultimately replace the deity. For example, early representations of Asherah (middle and late Bronze Age) portray her with animals. In the early Iron Age, the goddess is represented by images of gendered animals that symbolize her role in fertility (caprids eating from trees and nursing bovines) and reproduction (horned caprids and scorpions). Over time, the animals may themselves become objects of worship as seen in a seal on which a person venerates a caprid. Based on the glyptic evidence, Odell suggests that the beasts and creeping things in Ezekiel’s vision are theriomorphic symbols of divinity – they are Israelite, not foreign images. The elders Ezekiel condemns and

12

Martti Nissinen / Charles E. Carter

ridicules venerate these images in order to communicate with and connect to “another dimension of reality.” The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice describe wall carvings that represent divine or godlike beings. In the Songs, these beings worship the deity and they bless the community of faith – sometimes in God’s name, sometimes in their own name. At times, the beings and the images that represent them are interchanged – “ the subjects offering the praise are not the living beings themselves, but their representations” (below, p. 204). These statues are not simply decorative, but themselves perform cultic functions. In this respect they form a verbal (and visual) link with Ezekiel 8. The temple iconography in both texts represents “the intermediary function of divine beings.” In Ezekiel and in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice the images themselves are venerated and function as mediators, but with different results. The beings of the Songs enhance the connection between human and divine, while the beings of Ezekiel obscure the divine presence. These studies raise a number of important issues that in turn may be addressed in an on-going discourse on viewing texts and reading images. Prophets, for example, are not known as artists anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean, but do artists sometimes depict prophecy? This is most clearly the case in the images on Minoan rings discussed by Marinatos (figs. 1–4); similarly, the depictions of the Pythia sitting on her tripod in the temple of Apollo in Delphi (Kupitz and Berthelot, fig. 4) are well known. These images can be compared with several Greek vase paintings depicting the presentation of entrails of sacrificial animals for examination,4 which in turn demonstrate that divination could be used as an iconographical motif in ancient Greece. Similar imagery is documented in Assyrian art. The illustration of a military camp an alabaster relief from Ashurnasirpal II’s palace at Nimrud (Calah) includes a scene in which entrails of a sacrificial animal are removed, and the fragmentary scene at the bottom of the “Stele of Vultures” may be interpreted as a dream omen consulted by the priestess Eannatum.5 No comparable scenes showing prophets are known to us, although Cornelius allows for speculation whether some of the female worshippers shown in Neo-Assyrian seals could be identified with women prophets. To what degree may the authors of the prophetic texts have based their textual images on pictures available to them; in other words, was their descriptive imagery directly influenced by visual art? As Margaret Odell has 4

See Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece, 54–57, figs. 8–11. Zainab Bahrani, oral communication. We are indebted to Zainab Bahrani for turning our attention to these images. For the Nimrud relief, see Joan Oates and David Oates, Nimrud: An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed (London, 2001), 236, fig. 148; for the “Stele of Vultures,” Morris Jastrow, The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria (Philadelphia, 1915), 386 pl. XLVII. 5

Introduction

13

suggested elsewhere, this is by no means unthinkable; according to her, “Ezekiel saw what he said he saw,” that is, the imagery employed by author of the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel is so thoroughly comparable with motifs of Mesopotamian art that he must have been familiar with it, if not directly using it as the matrix that informs his depiction of the divine glory.6 In the texts these essays examine, such a translation of visual art into written language may not be quite as obvious, but it is nevertheless probable that the authors of biblical and Near Eastern texts actually saw visual representations, whether in monumental or miniature form, similar to the metaphors used by their textual tradition. The Assyrian scribes, and even the prophets, must have been closely familiar with the temple and palace iconography, hence the motifs common to textual and artistic depictions of Ištar, discussed by Cornelius, may in fact be partly due to their confluence in the writers’ mindset. Indeed, one could ask whether the textual image of the crowned Jerusalem (Isa 54:11–13; see Maier) could ever have emerged without the well-attested mural crown motif in visual art. The articles published here do not warrant a construction of a distinct “prophetic” iconography – on the contrary, they show that the authors of Near Eastern prophetic texts were familiar with ways of metaphorical expression known from other literary sources and iconography. There is no uniquely prophetic use of this imagery. Prophetic texts owe the use of their metaphors primarily to a common literary tradition equally evident in other kinds of texts such as the Assyrian royal inscriptions and biblical poetry. Sometimes, however, written prophecies have demonstrably been inspired by contemporary iconography. Again, it is worth emphasizing that ancient images never simply illustrate written prophecies. Texts and visual art are two distinct but coexisting media. Both kinds of sources are products of historically specific contexts and ideologies; according to Christoph Uehlinger, images “should not be viewed as mere reflections ot their time and place, but rather as extensions of the social contexts in which they were commissioned and produced.”7 The same is certainly true for texts. Images and texts cannot be read as having a shared agenda or program, unless their various interfaces within their respective conceptual, ideological, and artistic environments are iden6 Margaret S. Odell, “Ezekiel Saw What He Said He Saw: Genres, Forms, and the Vision of Ezekiel 1,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids, 2003), 162–76; cf. Christoph Uehlinger and Suzanne Müller Trufaut, “Ezekiel 1, Babylonian Cosmological Scholarship and Iconography: Attempts at Further Refinement,” ThZ 57 (2001): 140–71. 7 Christoph Uehlinger, “Neither Eyewitnesses, Nor Windows to the Past, but Valuable Testimony in ist Own Right: Remarks on Iconography, Source Criticism and Ancient Data-Processing,” in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (ed. H.G.M. Williamson; Proceedings of the British Academy 143; Oxford, 2007), 173–228, esp. p. 223.

14

Martti Nissinen / Charles E. Carter

tified.8 These studies attempt to demonstrate how the search for such interfaces can contribute to reading both kinds of sources as cultural products of their specific socioreligious contexts in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean. ***** This book has its origin in the session of the Prophetic Texts and Their Ancient Contexts Group at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Philadelphia, adding to the series of volumes that have grown out of the work of this group.9 The articles of Nanno Marinatos, Margaret Odell, Thomas Staubli, and Brent Strawn are based on the papers read in the 2005 session, while Izak Cornelius, Helen Dixon, Rolf Jacobson, Yaakov Kupitz and Katell Berthelot, and Christl Maier were subsequently invited to contribute their articles to the volume. We would like to express our thanks to all authors for their contributions as well as to Christoph Spill and the Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht staff for their efforts in publishing the manuscript.

8 See, e.g., Zainab Bahrani, Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia (London and New York, 2001), 27; Silvia Schroer, “Einleitung,” in Images and Gender: Contributions to the Hermeneutics of Reading Ancient Art (ed. Silvia Schroer; OBO 220; Fribourg and Göttingen, 2006), 8–22, esp. p. 10. 9 Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd (ed.), Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (SBLSymS 10; Atlanta, 2000); Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), “Every City Shall Be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (JSOTSup 330, Sheffield, 2001); Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (ed.), The Changing Faces of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids, 2003); Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (ed.), Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and Their Relationships (JSPSup 46; London, 2003); Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis (ed.), The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets, and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (JSOTSup 408; London, 2004); Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (ed.), Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (LHBOTS 427; London, 2006); Ehud Ben Zvi (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 92; Helsinki, 2006).

Izak Cornelius Izak Cornelius

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecies1 1. Introduction and Intentions Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar “Prophetic”2 texts originate from two of the largest corpora of texts from the ancient Near East – Mari (Tell Hariri) on the Euphrates dating from the 18th century B.C.E., and the Assyrian capital of Nineveh (Kuyunjik) dating from the 7th century B.C.E. These corpora were published by Durand (1988) and by Parpola (1997) respectively, with the very handy edition of both corpora by Nissinen (2003).3 In these ancient Near Eastern texts, especially the NeoAssyrian ones, the well-known and perhaps most important Mesopotamian goddess I tar, the goddess par excellence, plays a major role (Nissinen 2000: 95–102).4 Parpola (1997: XIV) formulates as follows: “The prophecies have tight links to the cult of I tar and Assyrian royal ideology, mythology and iconography, and thus represent a genuinely Mesopotamian phenomenon.” Most of the Neo-Assyrian texts derive from or refer to I tar of Arbela, who speaks in at least fourteen texts of the corpus (Nissinen 2001: 180).5 Arbela was the “cradle” (Nissinen 2003: 100) of prophecy. I tar of Arbela is equated with the Assyrian goddess Mullissu (Nissinen 2003 nos. 81:30,’ 92:6, 94 r. 1). I tar of Nineveh – who was the consort of the chief god A ur – stands in second place. Like Mullissu she is the Assyrian Ninlil,6 the consort of the god Enlil, with whom A ur was identified. 1 I am grateful to Martti Nissinen for the invitation to contribute to this volume. I also want to thank my research assistant Jennifer Witts for her help in completing this article and Paul Collins (British Museum) and the personnel of the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin who allowed me to study the original material in these collections during June–July 2007. 2 This is not the place to describe or define the phenomenon, but Nissinen understands it as “human transmission of allegedly divine messages […] another, yet distinctive branch of divination […] noninductive […] prophets act as direct mouthpieces of gods whose messages they communicate (2003: 1), the material from Nineveh he calls “oracles” (97). Cf. also Nissinen 2004. 3 All citations are from Nissinen (2003), using his numbering system. There are also other texts which allude to prophets and prophecy, cf. Nissinen (1998 and translations in 2003). 4 Cf. the indexes in Nissinen (2003: 269). 5 The city of Arbela (Irbil) has not been excavated, but the walls and the façade of the temple called Ega ankalamma are depicted on reliefs (AO 19914 = Barnett 1976 pls. XXV–XXVI; Parpola 1997 fig. 23 and Livingstone 1989 fig. 6); cf. the hymn to the city of Arbela (Livingstone 1989 no. 8), where I tar dwells. 6 Cf. the hymn to the I tars of Nineveh and of Arbela (Livingstone 1989 no. 3). On the equation of Mullissu with I tar of Nineveh, cf. Livingstone (1989 no. 7:11–12 and no. 9:14–15);

16

Izak Cornelius

At Mari the major female deity in the prophecies is the goddess Annunitum.7 I tar plays a logically predominant role in the Assyrian prophecies because of the close relationship between the Assyrian monarch and the cult of the goddess I tar.8 Another interesting fact is that in the Neo-Assyrian oracles most prophets are female, which might be another indication of the dominant role of the female deity. Thorkild Jacobsen aptly described I tar as a goddess of “infinite variety” (1976: 135). This is not the place to describe her development from the earlier Sumerian Inanna into the typical Semitic warrior goddess as she is encountered in the Assyrian prophecies.9 The aim of this contribution is to look at visual representations or the iconography of I tar and compare these representations with descriptions of I tar in some of these prophetic oracles. This contribution focuses on the warrior goddess as she is encountered in iconography and the “prophecies,” and not on the sex or love goddess. The naked goddess and the possible link with Inanna-I tar is also not a concern here.10 This is not intended as a comprehensive or new catalogue, nor is it even an attempt to move in this direction, as this would need several monographs.11 Only a selection of illustrations is reproduced by way of linedrawings, although references to other publications with good photographs and other technical details are included. This contribution also draws heavily on important studies on I tar in Ancient Near Eastern art such as the articles by Barrelet (1955), Seidl (1976–80) and Ornan (2001), and the opus of Colbow (1991).12 The intention is to compare the visual images with motifs from the prophetic oracles, keeping in mind that there is never a 1:1 Menzel (1981: 6–33) and Stol (1999). However, recently Lambert (2004) and Porter (2004) have emphasized the separateness of the different I tars. 7 Cf. on Annunitum now Selz (2000: 34–35 with references) and the index in Nissinen (2003: 269). au ka (Wegner 1981) is the Hurrian form of I tar, as mentioned in Amarna letter 23 (Nissinen 2003 no. 121). 8 Cf. Oppenheim (1977: 205) and on the king and his relationship with the divine Machinist (2006 esp. 166–67). 9 Cf. the overviews in Abusch (1999) (with previous literature); Harris (1991); Selz (2000) and now Groneberg (2004: 150–65), with a popular account in Wolkstein and Kramer (1983), which includes illustrations by Williams-Forte (174–99). Cf. also the remarks of Parpola (1997: XXVI– XXXI and XLVII–XLVIII). Compare in this regard also the transformation of the armed Aphrodite (Flemberg 1995). 10 Cf. Seidl (1976–80: 89a), especially “Näckte Göttin” by Wiggermann and Uehlinger (1998) and now Herles (2006: 228–30). 11 For this reason only a few selections from, e.g., the scores of glyptic items, such as the third and second millennium material collected by Colbow (1991), could be included in the discussion, as is the case with the later second millennium material collected by Herles (2006: 226–23) and the Neo-Assyrian corpus, which is in need of study (cf. Dezsö and Curtis 1991: 108 and the collection of seals in Watanabe 1999: 323, 327–28, 334–35, 336–37 figs. 20–22, 25–27, 40–41, 44–46). 12 There are also some useful illustrations available in Parpola (1997) and Watanabe (1999) cited earlier; cf. also earlier Winter (1983: 217–22 Abb. 182–89 and 500–5).

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

17

relationship, as the iconography does not simply illustrate the texts nor do the texts merely describe the visual imagery. One text collected by Nissinen (2003 no. 101) describes the visit of Assurbanipal to Arbela when he heard of the rebellion of Teumman of Elam and prayed to I tar. Teumman assembled his troops and in this context the goddess is described as “goddess of warfare,” “lady of battle,” and “most warlike among the gods.”13 A visionary had a dream and reports about his night vision: I tar who dwells in Arbela entered, having quivers hanging from her right and left and holding a bow in her hand. She had drawn a sharp-pointed sword, ready for battle (Nissinen 2003 no. 101 v 52–55).

As we know, Teumman was defeated and he himself decapitated. Reliefs from the northwest palace at Nineveh depict the battle at the Ulayah river and a famous banquet scene shows the head hanging as a trophy on a tree.14 What about the description of I tar? This question brings us to her iconography.

2. The Iconography of I tar As with most deities from the ancient world, including the Ancient Near East, no original cultic statues from the temple cella have survived. This is also the case with I tar, which means we have to turn to other media (Seidl 1976–80: 87b), although some of the representations might derive from cult statues (Dezsö and Curtis 1991: 108–9).15 In collecting and describing representations of I tar in ancient Near Eastern art, the point of departure will be images of divine women identified clearly by accompanying inscriptions, which is arguably still the best approach. Seidl (1976–80) has collected three items in this regard and we shall start with these.

13

In a text of Esarhaddon she is “lady of warfare and battle” (Nissinen 2003 no. 97:74) and in another has power and strength (Livingstone 1989 no. 3:4–5). Cf. CAD Q 14–15. 14 Now in the British Museum in London ANE 124801 and 124920 (Barnett 1976: pl. LXV; Barnett and Forman s.a.: Taf. 118–31; Curtis and Reade 1995: 72–77 and Livingstone 1989: figs. 34 and 24). 15 On cult statues cf. Berlejung (1998: I B. 2); Herles (2006: 1.1) and also Seidl (2000).

18

Izak Cornelius

2.1 Inscribed material The first example (fig. 1)16 is an Iranian rock relief at Sarpol-i ZohƗb, first published by de Morgan in 1896. It is dated ca. 2000 B.C.E., and depicts a king on the left with a bow and arrow and an axe, resting his foot on an enemy.17 He faces a woman with a multi-horned crown, lock of hair, folded dress with left shoulder open, collar, and weapons (two maces and an axe – although not clear – on the left-side) protruding from/growing over her shoulders or her back. In her raised right hand she holds a ring18 and in the other hand behind her on a leash there are two kneeling enemies with the leash on rings through their noses.19 The horned crown is typical of Mesopotamian deities and the ring is also a divine symbol. It is shown on many images to be discussed in relation to Ištar in due course.20 In the accompanying inscription (Edzard 1973) the king identifies himself as Anubanini and states clearly that he made these images of himself and the goddess Ištar–there can be no doubt about the identity of the goddess represented here.21 The second item comes from Babylon, where it was taken to as booty or a trophy, and found by Koldewey in 1899. It is part of a relief22 of Šamaš-rƝš-uV>ur, šaknu of SnjKau and Mari on the Middle Euphrates from the eighth century and which was originally part of a palace wall.23 The ruler is represented facing two deities to his left, identified by labels as Ištar and Adad, and on the right is a damaged figure with the name of the 16 ANEP 524; Börker-Klähn (1982 no. 31 with older literature); Colbow (1991: 173–76, cf. 451 Taf. 8:60); Seidl (in PKG 301–2 Abb. 183 and 1976–80: 87b Abb. 1) and Groneberg (2004: Abb. 9b). 17 According to Koch (1992: 14), this relief served as prototype for the later victory relief of Darius I at Bisutun. 18 She does not hold some kind of sceptre with a “fleur de lys” on top as in the drawing in Barrelet (1955 fig. 7a). That drawing confused the bowstring and the star-sun symbol between the two figures. 19 Not their lips as described in ANEP, however, on the Esarhaddon Zincirli stela (BörkerKlähn 1982 no. 219) the rings are depicted going through their lips. On the motif of the nose-ring cf. Uehlinger (1997: 306). 20 The ring occurs together with a rod as the so-called ring-and-rod motif on the famous stela of Hammurabi of Babylon (ANEP 515 = Börker-Klähn 1982 no. 113). However, Jacobsen (1987: 4; cf. Williams-Forte in Wolkstein and Kramer 1983: 181) has argued that it is rather a case of a “coil of rope […] a measuring cord” (Collon 1986: 156 calls it a “measuring tape”) and a “yardstick” as is clear on the stela of Ur-Nammu (ANEP 306 and Börker-Klähn 1982 pl. H). Wiggermann (2007: 421) rejects the identification with the measuring rod and rope. 21 There are another two reliefs from the same site which can also be identified with the goddess Ištar (Börker-Klähn 1982 nos. 32 and 34 and Colbow 1991: 176–77 Abb. 61–62). 22 It is not a “stela” as in Ornan (2001: 238–39 fig. 9.8 and 2005: 63, 76–77 fig. 64). 23 1,18 x 1,32 m in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum 3108 = ANEP 533; Börker-Klähn 1982 no. 231 (with older literature); Seidl (1976–80: 87 Abb. 2) and now Cavigneaux and Ismail (1990) and especially Mayer-Opificius (1995).

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess Ištar

19

goddess Anat (not illustrated; cf. Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990: 398, 400–1 fig. 3). The deity on the left (fig. 2) stands on a scalloped pedestal (mountains), has long hair and wears a feathered headdress and a long skirt fastened with a “Syrian belt” and decorated with large disks. Her right hand is raised in a gesture of greeting and the other holds a ring and bow with an eight-pointed star on it. The third item (fig. 3)24 is a stela of reddish breccia from Til Barsip (Barsib/Tell ‘Ahmar) from the eighth century, first published by ThureauDangin and Dunand (1936). It has a dedicatory inscription on the side and back of the head: dedicated by Aššur-dnjr-pƗn a prefect of KƗr-Salmanassar for Ištar of Arbela (Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936: 157). The goddess stands on the back of a striding lion and holds it by a leash, together with a ring and a flower (lotus?),25 her left hand is raised in greeting. She wears a high conical horned crown with a star on it and a short dress with one leg open and a mantle over the other leg. On her back are two crossed quivers (globe-tipped? Cf. Collon 2001: 127) and a sword on her side.26 Behind her is what looked like Ištar “vêtue de feu (c’est-à-dire nimbée)” to ThureauDangin and Dunand (1936: 157).27 As shown by Ornan (2001: 240–41), it is merely part of a bow28 with the bright sparkles of the divine weapon. She also compares it with one on a Phoenician item (Ornan 2001: 242–43 fig. 9.11) and argues that this as a “trait native to Syria.”29 These three items illustrate what has been called three iconographic “types” (Colbow 1991: 77 and Seidl 1976–80: 88a) with typical attributes of the goddess Ištar: fig. 1 = Weapons protruding from the shoulders; fig. 2 = Star and bow; fig. 3 = Star, weapons (sword, quivers and part of a bow) and lion.

24 1,21 x 0.77 x 0.30–35 m in the Louvre AO 11503 = ANEP 522; Börker-Klähn (1982 no. 252); Ornan (2001: 240–41 fig. 9.10 and 2005: 78 fig. 90); Seidl (1976–80: 88a Abb. 3); Strawn (2005: 195 fig. 4.248) and Winter (1983 Abb. 505; however, this drawing left out the horned headdress and the ring!). 25 Not represented in all line-drawings (e.g., Ornan and Strawn). 26 Cf. now the Neo-Assyrian stela of the god Adad (Balcio÷lu and Mayer 2006) with quiver, bow and scabbard. 27 Seidl (1976–80: 88a) calls it “eine Art Nimbus.” 28 Collon (2001: 127) describes it as a “shield,” which is less likely; cf. Dezsö and Curtis (1991: 107 with note 18). 29 Ornan also takes the lion mount in later Assyrian monumental art to be part of Syrian and Hittite-Hurrian tradition (cf. also 2005: 36). On seals an armed goddess can be seen stepping on a lion already in the Akkadian period (fig. 4), although the fully mounted goddess is more typical of Middle Assyrian (Ornan 2005: figs. 29–30) and especially Neo-Assyrian seals (fig. 8) and stelaereliefs (see below). Deities on animals go back to Akkadian cylinder seals (Boehmer 1965 Abb. 367–73; also 565–72).

20

Izak Cornelius

It is interesting to observe that all three of these cases come from outside of Assyria: Iran and Syria, although Assyrian art influences are discernible. Fig. 3 is in the North-Syrian tradition (Börker-Klähn 1982: 225–26), but not distinguishable from Mesopotamian imagery (Dezsö and Curtis 1991: 108). The warrior traits are clear, as indicated by the weapons: on the shoulders (fig. 1), the bow (fig. 2), and the quivers, bow and sword (fig. 3). The lion on which she stands (fig. 3) also emphasizes the martial aspect of I tar as emphasized by various scholars.30 On the basis of these general observations we can look at other material in different media and from different periods. 2.2 Comparisons The weapons on the back31 characterize the goddess as a warrior.32 Such attributes might go back to Early Dynastic times (ca. 2700–2500 B.C.E.), as argued by Seidl (1976–80: 88a),33 although Colbow has been critical of this (1991: 100). They are common in Akkadian (ca. 2300 B.C.E.) glyptic, as shown by Boehmer’s collection.34 The weapons are very clear on a beautiful cylinder seal in Berlin with shafts and lion heads.35 Maces and axes are shown on a Chicago cylinder seal, although the winged figure now also carries a sickle-axe hanging down in the one hand and holds a lion on a leash in the other hand (fig. 4).36 The goddess can also be seated on a lion (Colbow 1991: Abb. 26 = Keel 1980: Abb. 2) or with lions depicted on the

30 Cf. inter alia Cornelius (1989: 60): “[…] lion pedestal complemented the motif of war;” Puech (1999: 525a): “[…] symbolizes the military character of the goddess Ishtar.” In the Exaltation of Inanna (COS 1.160: 519) she is “lady mounted on a beast” – which could be translated “lion” (Lewis 1996: 44 n. 124). She is already linked with the lion on a vase from her Early Dynastic II (ca. 2700–2500 B.C.E.) temple at Nippur (Lewis 1996: 45 with fig. 24). A colossal lion statue comes from the temple of I tar at Nimrud (BM ANE 118895 = Collon 1995 fig. 186; Strawn 2005: 220 fig. 4.298). Cf. also CAD L 23: “Attested only as epithet of I tar;” RLA 7: 84 and 91; Fauth (1981); Lewis (1996: 44); Strawn (2005: 194–96, 209–10) and Watanabe (2002: 90–91). 31 Cf. the comparative figures in Barrelet (1955: fig. 2). 32 In the same way that the weapons on her shoulders characterize I tar, there are the flames of ama, the water and fishes of Enki-Ea and the infants’ heads of Nintu, as intelligently observed by Keel (1974: 35 with note 3). 33 Cf. Colbow (1991: Taf. 1:1) = PKG 14, Abb. 95b. The figure on the lower fragment of the Vulture Stela of Eannatum might have these (Schroer and Keel 2005: no. 242 with literature), but this is much too unclear. 34 Cf. Boehmer (1965: Taf. XXXII) and Colbow (1991: Taf. 2–5). 35 VAM Berlin 3605 = Boehmer (1965: 40, 42, 69, 84, 131 no. 801 Taf. XXIV: Abb. 274); Colbow (1991: 111 Taf. 2: Abb. 14) and Klengel-Brandt (1997: Farbabb. 20). 36 OIC A 27903 = Schroer and Keel (2005: no. 258, with previous literature). On the winged I tar cf. Barrelet (1955).

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

21

seat (Schroer and Keel 2005: nos. 259–60, with literature).37 Weapons on the shoulders are also shown in other media such as terracotta reliefs from Ur III (Colbow 1991: 160–61, 164–65; Taf. 7: Abb. 56–57). In later times the weapons do not really protrude from or over the shoulders or the back, but are strapped onto the back as with the goddess on the famous 18th-century painting from the Mari palace room 106 (fig. 5). 38 Here there are cross-bands with which the weapons are fastened39 and also a sickle-axe40 hanging down in the one hand, while the other hand holds the “measuring cord and rod” of the Mesopotamian deities.41 This is not that clear on the earlier second painting at Mari (room 132 “chapel of I tar”), where the goddess is seated, shown with one hand receiving an offering.42 The same straps are shown on Old Babylonian (ca. 1800 B.C.E.) seals43 and in some cases there are clearly maces and not only arrows in the quivers (especially BM ANE 89017 = Collon 1986: 156 with pl. XLVIII: 384). The star of figs. 2 (quiver) and 3 (crown) is the symbol of I tar as found on Babylonian kudurrus (Seidl 1976–80: 88b; 1989: 100; cf. Slanski 2003: 129) and later Neo-Assyrian royal stelae (Reade 1977: 39). The star is identified by a text label as her symbol on the famous 9th-century Sippar tablet of the sun god. 44 The eight-pointed star is most common with anthropomorphic figures of the goddess and a large star can be seen on the Akkadian cylinder seal (fig. 4) next to the figure, but also on an Old Babylonian seal from Tell Asmar (fig. 7).45 Neo-Assyrian seals depict large stars above her head (Keel and Schroer 2004: Abb. 151 = fig. 9, fig. 151a; MoortgatCorrens 1988: Abb. 5b = Ornan 2005: fig. 140; Watanabe 1993: Taf. 6: 37 For a statue from Susa of the goddess Inanna/Narundi cf. Spycket (1981: 144 pl. 96) and Strawn (2005: fig. 4.264). 38 Louvre AO 19826. Cf. ANEP 610; Colbow (1991: 211–213 Taf. 13: Abb. 110); Nunn (1988: 70–82, 85–87 Taf. 58–59) and now Margueron (2004: 478, pl. 56, fig. 459). The painting might go back to a three-dimensional frontal statue; cf. Collon (1986: 157) and Al-Khalesi (1978: pl. VI). 39 Cf. on the Alalakh seal impression (Colbow 1991: Taf. 19 Abb. 192 = Winter 1983: Abb. 187); also found with the Syro-Palestinian god Re ef (Cornelius 1994: 32 with pl. 5 RR7), cf. also Cornelius (pl. 33 BR 5) and on such bands Pope (1970). 40 On the difference between the sickle-axe and the sickle sword see Keel (1974: 35–26) and on the divine weapons in general Solyman (1968). 41 It is interesting that I tar is mostly shown with the “ring” only (as on fig. 1), whereas the combination is shown with male gods, as on the Maltai relief (ANEP 537 = Börker-Klähn 1982: no. 207) and of course the stelae of Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi mentioned above. On an Old Babylonian cylinder she holds the “measuring cord and rod” in the one hand and not a weapon as in other cases (Collon 1986: 156, 160 pl. XXIX: 395). 42 Cf. Colbow (1991: 181–188); Nunn (1988: 73–74, 82–83, 88–89 Taf. 65); Margueron (1999: 890–891 and now 2004: 407–9 fig. 398). 43 Cf. Colbow (1991: Taf. 11–27) and Collon (1986: 156–57 pls. XXIX–XXX). 44 BM ANE 91000. Cf. ANEP 529; Collon (1995: fig. 135); Herles (2006: 11–12 Abb. 3; 26 n. 131); King (1912: 120–27 pls. XCVIII–CII); Seidl (1989: 98, 100). 45 Chicago A 17898 = Colbow (1991: 339 Taf. 19: Abb. 165) and Keel (1974: Abb. 4).

22

Izak Cornelius

8.11).46 The headdress of fig. 3 is very similar to that on cylinder seal fig. 8 with a smaller star and horns. There are also stars on the quivers on the back, with dots on the sickle-sword. On a scaraboid stamp seal Berlin VAM 5887 Ass. 1119b the star is on a bow (Jakob-Rost 1975: 66 pl. 9 #188 = Dezsö and Curtis 1991: fig. 2b = fig. 6) as with fig. 2.47 A Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal shows a goddess on a lion-griffon, holding it by a leash, with a sword and a quiver on her back topped by a star in a circle (BM ANE 105111 = Collon 2001: 89–90 pl. XLI #153; Parpola 1997 fig. 7). On an Assyrian helmet with a crowning scene is a goddess with a star on her head and on the quivers (Berlejung 1996: 35 Abb. and Born and Seidl 1995: 30 Abb. 22 = fig. 13). The Til Barsip stela (fig. 3) depicts crossed quivers on the back.48 On Old Babylonian cylinder seals the weapons from the shoulders are transformed into arrows in a quiver on the back of the goddess (Porada 1948: 46 with #371).49 The figure now also holds a harpe- or sickle-axe hanging down in the one hand, as on the Akkadian example (fig. 4). In the other hand is a double-headed lion mace as on fig. 7, which starts to appear in front of the seated goddess in the Ur III period ca. 2050 B.C.E. (Colbow 1991: Taf. 6). 50 Old Babylonian terracotta reliefs (Colbow 1991: 413–41 with Taf. 28–31) show the goddess with quivers on her shoulders (Abb. 238, 240), with a bow (Abb. 243) and an axe, sometimes the lion-headed mace (Abb. 249, 251). In some cases the figure forms part of a wagon or chariot (Abb. 239, 242–43). A famous Neo-Assyrian green garnet cylinder seal in the British Museum clearly shows quivers with arrows in them on the back (fig. 8)51 and there are many other less impressive examples from this period (fig. 9). 52

46 But note that the goddess Gula also has a star on her headdress (Collon 1994: 43). For a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal (IM 96.153.57) depicting Gula together with I tar cf. Ornan (2004 fig. 4 = 2005 fig. 125). 47 Cf. also on the cylinder seal BM ANE 129543 = Collon (1997 no. 774; 2001: 129 pl. XIX: 243) where she holds two arrows behind her back. But note that the star is different to the one on the drawing in Dezsö and Curtis (1991: fig. 2b), corrected in the drawing of fig. 6. 48 The change to crossed quivers might be ascribed to the increasing role of the bow (Dezsö and Curtis 1991: 108). 49 Also Colbow (1991: Taf. 11–13) and Porada (1948: nos. 371–78). 50 This weapon is shown with many deities (e.g., Strawn 2005: 190–91 fig. 4.223). 51 BM ANE 89769 = Collon (2001: 127–28 no. 240 Pls. XIX, XXXIII, XXXVIII), a detailed description with references to this very much reproduced item; add to this also Barrelet (1955: fig. 23); Keel (1984: 135 fig. 23); Klengel–Brandt (1997 Abb. 14); Klingbeil (1999: 193–94 fig. 26); Livingstone (1989 fig. 5); Ornan (2001 fig. 9.12 and 2005: 100 fig. 122); Strawn (2005: 194–96 fig. 4.246); Watanabe (1999: 327: 2.2.2) and Winter (1983: 459 Abb. 504). 52 E.g. BM ANE 105111 cited above, where the quiver is like the one on fig. 8. For more stylized ones see Keel and Schroer (2004 Abb. 151 = fig. 9 and fig. 151a); VAM 2706 (KlengelBrandt 1997 Abb. 140 = Ornan 2005 fig. 121); Watanabe 1993 Taf. 7: 8.13) and MMA 1989.361.1

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

23

Weapons like the bow of fig. 2 also occur on the seal fig. 8 (decorated with ducks’ heads)53 and in addition to the quivers there is a curved sickle-sword visible on the back. Fig. 3 also carries a sword on the back as with fig. 8 and on many other Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals. In addition fig. 3 has a half-circle which, as shown above, is a bow at the back with stars or the sparkles of the divine weapon, as is also seen on the weapon of fig. 8 and not some “circle of fire” of the goddess. The goddess and the lion of fig. 3 can be seen on items shown in figs. 4– 8. In fig 4 one leg comes out of a “Schlitzrock” and the foot rests on a reclining lion held by a leash. Fig. 8 shows her standing with both feet on the animal. In fig. 6 she has one leg raised with the foot on the head of the animal and in fig. 8 the feet are aligned and placed on a feline looking back in her direction. The animal of fig. 8 looks more like a leopard than a lion because of the small head and what look like spots.54 The lion motif goes back to Akkadian glyptic (Boehmer 1965: Abb. 377–89 = fig. 4) and reference has been made to cases where she sits on a lion or on a throne decorated with lions.55 This motif continued in the Old Babylonian period on the Mari painting (fig. 5), on terracotta reliefs (Colbow 1991 Abb. 241, 243) and in glyptic (fig. 7),56 where the lion is “shrunken” (Lewis 1996: 44 n. 120) to a “rudimentären Bestie” (Colbow 1991: 81). On the Babylonian kudurrus the lion is also her symbol and depicted as a protome (Ornan 2005 fig. 62; Seidl 1989 Abb. 22 below right). She is possibly also shown on lions on Middle Assyrian seals (Ornan 2005: 35–37 figs. 29–30).57 On NeoAssyrian stamp seals she stands on lions and is shown with quivers and a bow (Dezsö and Curtis 1991 figs. 2a–b = fig. 6), with fig. 8 still the masterpiece.58 An unarmed goddess on a lion is shown on Neo-Assyrian rock reliefs at Maltai and Bavian (Börker-Klähn 1982 nos. 207–10 and no. 187a and 188 with literature59). On the Maltai relief of Sennacherib the king is shown with

(online at www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/04/wam/ho_1989.361.1.htm), where there are (as on fig. 8) stars on the weapons, with one on the head. 53 For detail cf. Madhloom (1970 pl. XXIX). 54 Lion = Collon (2001: 127); panther = Keel (1984: 135) and leopard = Klingbeil (1999: 194 and n. 113). 55 There is one Akkadian example where the goddess is shown seated on a lion-decorated seat, with her feet also resting on a lion (Colbow 1991: 112 no. 24 Abb. 28), but the original is lost and we have to fall back on the line-drawing. 56 Cf. also Colbow (1991 Taf. 10–27): Collon (1986 pls. XXIX–XXX); Porada (1948 nos. 371–78) and Strawn (2005 fig. 4.243). 57 See the smiting/menacing gesture and the star with quiver (?). 58 Or rests one foot on a lion as on BM ANE 129543 referred to above. Here the roaring lion is very clear. 59 Cf. now Ornan (2007).

24

Izak Cornelius

a procession of seven deities on animals.60 Deity 2 is a goddess seated on a throne on a lion. She wears a high headdress, holds a ring and her hand is in a gesture of blessing.61 Deity 7 is a very similar goddess standing on a lion – usually identified as Ninlil-Mullissu or I tar of Nineveh and I tar of Arbela.62 An unarmed goddess standing on a lion also appears on a stela from Assur (Börker-Klähn 1982 no. 205)63 and seated on a throne on a lion as one of the divine symbols on the Zincirli stela of king Esarhaddon (BörkerKlähn 1982 no. 219),64 which is very similar to the first figure on the throne on a lion on the Maltai relief. Because she is a warrior goddess and the lady of the hunt, the goddess also appears as part of chariot decorations on Assyrian reliefs (Ornan 2001: 239–40 and 2005: 92–93).65 On the fragment of an iron helmet (BM ANE 22496) worn by body guards, perhaps even from the Arbela unit (Dezsö and Curtis 1991: 110 fig. 1 with reconstruction figs. 16, 18 = fig. 10), 66 she stands in full battle dress on a lion (only the upper tail is visible) with quiver, sword on her waist, and perhaps a shield on her back (?). A lady on a lion is crudely incised on a 7th-century silver pendant from Tel Miqne-Ekron in Palestine (Golani and Sass 1998 fig. 14:2 = fig. 11). It can be compared with another one from Zincirli.67 In both cases she has one hand raised and is faced by worshippers. The Zincirli one shows the figure partly encircled with what looks like rays or stars; on the Ekron item they might also partly be shown at the back. As argued above with regard to fig. 3, it is not the “circle of fire” of the goddess, but really a bow with stars or the sparkles of the divine weapon as is also seen on the 60

ANEP 537. Cf. Curtis and Reade (1995 fig. 17) for a colour “in situ” photograph. The detail is depicted in Ornan (2005 fig. 97b) and Parpola (1997 fig. 26). 62 The impression of the so-called “seal of destinies” used by Esarhaddon on a treaty tablet also depicts a goddess on a lion, with a flower, ring and rein and a high square-top hat with horns. The legend refers to A ur and Ninlil (Wiseman 1958: 15–16 fig. 2), who can be identified with Mullissu or I tar of Nineveh, as shown above. Cf. Herbordt (1992: 146–49); Seidl (2002: 106 fig. 15); Watanabe (1992: 109–10 Taf. 1–2:1.1, 1999: 315 fig. 1) and Winter (2000: 61–63 fig. 2). 63 But not the stela in Strawn (2005: 195 fig. 4.249 = Börker-Klähn 1982 no. 270) which is regarded as a fake (Börker–Klähn 1982: 232 and Ornan 2001: 238 n. 7). 64 Berlin VAM 2708; with detail in Ornan (2005: fig. 104b); Parpola (1997: fig. 2) and Seidl (2002 fig. 13), for an old photograph from 1888 of the upper part cf. Wartke (2005: Abb. 21). 65 Cf. ANE BM 124825a = Barnett (1998: pls. 206–7; Russell (1991 fig. 75) and BM ANE 124946 = Barnett (1976 pl. XXXV; detail in Reade 1977 pl. IIIa). In a lion-hunt scene, I tar is shown encircled by rays on Assyrian reliefs on chariot poles..Cf. BM ANE 124867 = Barnett (1976 pl. VIII middle) with detail in Reade (1977 pl. IIIb) and with line-drawings in Ornan (2001 fig. 9.9 and 2005 fig. 115) and Parpola (1997 pl. XXX fig. d). There might be a figure of I tar on the “hub” of the chariot wheel as well. 66 Dezsö and Curtis (1991: 107) regard the scene of the helmet as “an exact parallel” to fig. 3. 67 The Ekron one (3715.01) is ca. 54 x 36 mm. For a colour photo cf. King and Stager (2001 ill. 219). The Sam’al one is 42 x 10 mm. VAM Berlin S 3692 = Ornan (2001 fig. 9.14) and Wartke (2005 Abb. 84). For discussion of both items cf. Ornan (2001: 246–49 and now 2006). 61

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

25

weapon of fig. 8. Ornan (2001) devotes special attention to the figure of the goddess in a “circle” (cf. Podella 1996: 31–35, 126–32), especially with regard to six seals from Palestine/Israel from the period of the Assyrian conquest. On none of these is she armed (cf. Ornan 2001 fig. 9.6) as is also the case on some Neo-Assyrian material. 68 The best example of the armed goddess encircled by stars or rays is cylinder seal BM 89164. There is a sword on the waist and “crossed globe-tipped bow-cases on her back (Collon 2001: 133).”69 In other cases she is also armed with a sword,70 or with a sword (with stars!) and quivers (fig. 12)71 and mounted on some other composite mythological being (Parpola 1997 fig 11a). 72 Whether the Ekron pendant (fig. 11) shows a sword, as argued by Ornan (2001: 247), is too unclear from a photograph of the original.73 There is an example of a broken cylinder seal in Stellenbosch depicting an encircled goddess with a headdress with a star on it (compare fig. 12) and facing a god in a winged-disk supported by winged bull-like beings 74 and two worshippers – the one with an animal (fig. 14).75 Fig. 3 is I tar of Arbela according to the dedicatory inscription, but not in a “circle of fire” nor is her melammu or aura depicted. The Mesopotamian deities have power or glamour, called melammu.76 Divine statues 68 She is also shown unarmed on the back of a lion (Parpola 1997 fig. 10, 11c). Ornan (2001 fig. 9.13: Berlin VAM Ass. 4276 = Klengel-Brandt 1997 Abb. 92) shows an Assyrian seal impression with an unarmed encircled goddess on a lion faced by the king and his spouse. 69 BM ANE 89164 = Collon (2001: 133 pl. XLVI no. 252). Represented in colour on the cover of Parpola (1997 and Frontispiece). Compare the quivers and sword of the male god. 70 VAM 508 and 10114 = Moortgat (1966: 140 Taf. 71 nos. 598 and 599) Watanabe (1993 Taf. 6:8.5 and 8.9); for 508 cf. Collon (1997 no. 883) and for 10114 cf. also Klengel-Brandt (1997 Abb. 11); Klingbeil (1999: 217 fig. 49). 71 VAM 2706 = Moortgat (1966: 140 Taf. 71 no. 597); cf. also Klengel–Brandt (1997 Abb. 140); Ornan (2005 fig. 121); Watanabe (1993 Taf. 6:8.6); figure from Winter (1983 Abb. 501); also Fribourg BIBEL+ORIENT VR 1992.17 (Keel and Schroer 2004 no. 183 = Uehlinger 1997 Abb. 20). 72 An impression on a clay tablet shows a bearded deity with two quivers on the back and a bow in front, encircled by stars or rays (PKG 359 fig. 10:l; cf. Herbordt 1992: 174 Taf. 1:9). Might it be I tar in her “male” guise? 73 In his article on a plaque from Dan depicting an even cruder figure on a bull, Biran (1999: 54 fig. 14) proposes I tar as a possibility, but admits that female deities are usually shown on lions. Lewis (2005: 106–7 with fig. 4.37 and note 143) refers to an oral communication of Ornan who opts for I tar surrounded by a ring of stars, but she does not stand on bulls (Uehlinger 2000: XXIX fig. 3). Cf. now Ornan (2006) on goddesses and bulls. 74 Cf. the bull figures on the Berlin seals quoted in footnote 68. 75 Currently on loan to the Department of Ancient Studies from the collection of the University (KG/VN/2), chalcedony (agate) consisting of white and brown layers in concentric pattern (RD 2.55) – with thanks to Dave Glenister (Dept. of Geology University of Stellenbosch). The exact origin of the seal is unknown, but it was purchased in the seventies by the late Prof. Schroeder of the Dept. of Fine Arts at Stellenbosch. 76 Cf. Black and Green (1992: 130–31); Cassin (1968); CAD M/II 10 and RLA 8/1–2: 35. Cf. for the melammu of I tar, Nissinen (2003 no. 101 vi 4).

26

Izak Cornelius

were clothed and deities are represented covered in light or stars. Marduk “wore” the auras of seven gods and the monsters of Tiamat were again “clad” with glories.77 The closest one can come to a depiction of the aura of I tar is where she is encircled by what could be stars, rays or sparkles, as on the examples (e.g., fig. 12) given above.

3. Comparison of the I tar Iconographical Material with Other Texts and the Prophecies 3.1 General It is impossible to identify the specific type of I tar known from the texts with what was found in the iconography because text and image do not correlate directly.78 Fig. 3 is clearly dedicated to “I tar of Arbela” as the inscription says, but in the other cases the type is unknown and it is difficult to say whether fig. 8 is also an “I tar of Arbela” (e.g., Collon 2001: 127). Nor are all depictions of the encircled goddess to be identified as representing I tar of Arbela, as Herbordt (1992: 112) and Seidl argue (1976–80: 88). Nevertheless, an attempt will be made to compare these two independent sources of information on the goddess under discussion. As noted earlier, Thureau-Dangin and Dunand had already connected the figure on the stela of “I tar of Arbela” (fig. 3) with the vision quoted above,79 but also with the famous seal (fig. 8).80 The quivers hanging on her shoulders are indeed shown on fig. 3, and a bow on the seal shown in fig. 8, but also on the relief shown in fig. 2. In Assurbanipal’s hymn to I tar of Nineveh (Livingstone 1989 no. 7:6) she wears a crown gleaming like stars and discs, which calls to mind the star on the crown of fig. 3 and the discs of fig. 2. I tar is called “lioness” and connected and compared with the lion – especially in the context of war as shown above. In the hymn to the city of Arbela (Livingstone 1989 no. 8:5’) she is “seated on a lion […] mighty lions crouch beneath her.” The armed I tar is often depicted with or on a lion (fig. 3 and cf. figs. 4–8, 10–11). On the Maltai relief mentioned above,

77 COS 1.113: 392a, 395a. In the Hebrew Bible God is clothed in splendour and majesty (Ps 104:1; cf. Job 37:22). God challenges Job to dress himself in glory, which is ironic as only God can (40:10). 78 Cf. inter alia now Ornan (2005: 10–12). 79 “Porte des carquois suspendus à droite et à gauche et tient à la main un arc” (1936: 157). 80 In this regard Collon (2001: 128) refers to “The vision of the seer of I tar of Arbela before the battle between Asurbaniabla and the Elamites” written on the back of an early plaster impression.

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

27

the Zincirli stela and a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal the unarmed I tar is literally seated on a lion. In a Neo-Babylonian prayer to I tar (Foster 2005: 601–3) she is described in martial terms and as expected as “lioness” and “raging lion.” I tar is “Flaming-Fire-of-Battle” (CAD 7: 229a). In a hymn to I tar she is “Anntum of battles” (Lambert 2004: 38) and in the treaties I tar of Arbela is the goddess of battle, the lady of battle who smashes the bow (Parpola and Watanabe 1988: no. 6:453). The goddess is “lady of warfare” who broke the bows of the enemies of Esarhaddon (Nissinen 2003 no. 97 i 74–75). As part of the lion hunt reliefs from the north-west palace at Nineveh, king Assurbanipal makes a libation and stands holding a bow on a dead lion.81 The inscription reads: […] the lions which I killed. I erected the terrible bow of I tar, lady of battle, over them (Watanabe 1992: 92).

3.2 Nineveh Oracles The Nineveh oracles abound with military images related to I tar and describe I tar as the one who vanquishes the enemies of the Assyrian king: I am the great lady, I am I tar who throw your enemies before your feet […] I am I tar of Arbela, I will flay your enemies and deliver them up to you (Nissinen 2003 no. 68:11’–20’). I will shed the blood of my king’s enemies […] the enemies I will bring in neckstocks and the allies with tribute before his feet (Nissinen 2003: no. 82:22’–25’).

The relief of Anubanini (fig. 1) shows the triumphant king stepping on an enemy and the goddess leading the enemies by nose-rings. Old Babylonian glyptic has a smiting king (warrior god-king?) trampling the enemy before I tar or even cutting off his head (Colbow 1991 Abb. 86, 218 and 112).82 Assyrian palace reliefs depict captives cast down to be flayed or being flayed83 and captives in neckstocks, as on the Balawat gates,84 and on the

81 BM ANE 124886–7 = ANEP 626; Barnett (1976: 54 pls. LVII, LIX); Strawn (2005: 167–68 and n. 203 with references). 82 On a seal impression from Mari, a winged goddess is trampling the enemy (Keel 1974 Abb. 19). In Egyptian iconography the pharaoh smites the enemy in the presence of the gods (Cornelius 1994: 105 n. 1, 145–46). Cf. also on the triumphant king (as on the stele of Naram-Sin of Akkad) and the motif of “smiting the enemy” Kaelin (2006: 150–55). 83 BM ANE 124908–9 = Parpola (1997 fig. 27) and Botta (1972 pl. 120). 84 BM ANE 124661 = ANEP 358; Curtis and Reade (1995: 99); King (1915 pl. XV).

28

Izak Cornelius

Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser V the vassals bow before the king and tribute is depicted.85 With a sharp dagger she will put an end to the enemies of Esarhaddon and be his effective shield (Nissinen 2003 no. 73 iv 5–19). In the iconography the goddess is shown armed with a sword (fig. 3 and cf. figs. 8–10, 12). With regard to fig. 10, Dezsö and Curtis (1991: 107) talk of a shield on the back, but this is unclear. There is no clear depiction of the goddess with a protective shield.86 The goddess will protect Esarhaddon and: Like a faithful cub 87 I will run around in your palace, sniffing 88 out your enemies (Nissinen 2003 no. 80 ii 9’–10’).

The cub is a lion – the connection between I tar and the lion is general knowledge and the iconography (fig. 3 and compare figs. 4–8, 10–11) leaves no doubt about the importance of this attribute of the goddess. She also guards him “like the crown on my own head” (Nissinen 2003 no. 73 iii 28’–29’). Most visual images of the goddess I tar studied here have shown her wearing a crown (cf. CAD A/1 154–155) and even on an Assyrian helmet she is putting a crown (fez) on the head of a king (Born and Seidl 1995 fig. 22 = fig. 13). 3.3 Mari oracles The main goddess in the earlier Mari oracles is Annunitum, the “martial I tar” (Selz 2000: 34), who in a later text of Nabonidus “carries bow and quiver” (CAD Q 149b). Queen ibtu wrote to king Zimri-Lim that in the temple of Annunitum a servant girl went into a trance and told Zimri-Lim: I will massacre on your behalf. Your enemy I will deliver up into your hand (Nissinen 2003 no. 24:10–13).

In a divine letter to Zimri-Lim the deity says: “I dispatch my strong weapons ahead of you. And I dispatch 7 nets to cast on the Elamites. To Zimri85

BM ANE 118885 = ANEP 351–355; Börker-Klähn (1982 no. 152). The deity mostly depicted with a shield as symbol of protection is the Syro-Palestinian Re ef, who was also popular in New Kingdom Egypt; cf. Cornelius (1994: 55, 251) and forthcoming entry in IDD. 87 Cf. Nissinen (2003: 114 note a) on translating mrnu as “lion” with Parpola (1997: 14) and not merely as “dog,” because the cub spells mortal danger for his enemies and because the lion is the emblem of the goddess. On the link between the lion and the dog cf. CAD N/2 194b: “the lion, the dog of I tar,” quoted by Strawn (2005: 190 note 346). 88 Cf. line 20’. 86

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

29

Lim speak! E tar Ninet (says), ‘With strong weapons I stand by you’” (ARM 26 192 = Heimpel 2003: 248). Are any of these goddesses of the Mari “prophecies” in any way represented? The figure on the famous painting in room 106 (fig. 5) has been identified with various goddesses – Annunitum, Belet-ekallim or I tar (cf. Al-Khalesi 1978: 58–60). The scene has traditionally been labelled “the investiture of Zimri-Lim,” but Seidl (PKG 303–304) called it merely “the adoration of I tar.” This is not the place to discuss the whole matter of the function of room 106 and the problems with dating involved.89 The iconography shows that the king merely touches the “measuring cord and rod” which the goddess is holding as her divine attributes. He does not “receive” these “royal” emblems or regalia from the goddess,90 although she is depicted as the city goddess meeting the king and from whom the king ultimately gets his power (Keel and Schroer 2004: 110; Margueron 1999: 894–95). Haldar (1952: 64–65) has no doubt in his mind that this is I tar as the goddess of war, but he continues: “[…] the scene represents an oracular scene in which I tar is imparting an oracle concerning the outcome of war.” It is unclear whether the scene is really “oracular,” but there is no doubt that it can be linked with the martial I tar, which is so common in the oracles. 3.4 Other examples In addition to the military descriptions, I tar is also the nurse and mother of the king (Nissinen 2003 no. 92 r. 6, 11), carrying him on her lap, and the king is her calf. In another text the king sucks her teats (Livingstone 1989 no. 13:6–8). Keel (1980: 107) has already discussed seals where the warrior goddess is shown with the “cow and calf” motif (cf. fig. 7), but argued that this is no real mother image. In this regard Ornan (2001: 249–52 fig. 9.17 = Keel and Uehlinger 2001 Abb. 323) discusses a seal from the surface of Lachish representing a woman holding her breasts and flanked by a worshipper in Neo-Assyrian style. She even goes further by linking the figure to the JPFs (Judean Pillar Figurines; cf. Kletter 1996 and 2001) who also hold their breasts. Assyrian imagery, including that of I tar, penetrated into the iconography of Judah in the Iron Age IIC period (Keel and Uehlinger 2001 §171) and, following Ornan (2001: 252), such imagery might be the 89

Cf. the literature cited above. As Ornan (2005: 12) observes, texts describe these as royal symbols, but held by the deities and not the kings. According to Jacobsen (1987: 4), Ur-Nammu does receive these objects of “peace” from the deity. 90

30

Izak Cornelius

inspiration for the image of the enigmatic “Queen of Heaven” (Jer 7:18, 44:17–19, 25). The king was also brought up between her wings (Nissinen 2003 no. 82:27’). On an Akkadian seal (fig. 4) I tar as warrior is winged.91

4. Final Observations Female prophets play an important role in the Mari material, but also in the Assyrian corpus (Nissinen 2003: 99 and Parpola 1997: XLVIII). It is quite logical that women would associate themselves with I tar, the female goddess par excellence. Ornan (2001: 244) reflects on the unique feature of depicting female worshippers in Neo-Assyrian art. A female worshipper is shown on a seal from Tel Dor in Palestine/Israel (Ornan 2001 fig. 9.6), but also on a seal from the time of Sennacherib, where the goddess is in a nimbus on a lion, with a king and his consort behind him worshipping her (Ornan 2001 fig. 9.13). A woman also worships the goddess on a lion on the Zincirli pendant (Ornan 2001 fig. 9.14).92 Might we speculate that in some cases the woman is indeed prophetess? On the other hand, eunuchs are often depicted with the goddess on seals, as shown by Watanabe (1999: 317–21).93 Is this because they were high officials and generals? I tar is so prominent in the Assyrian prophecies because of her relationship with the Assyrian king, but especially in his role as a warrior and leading the Assyrian armies into battle. I tar in her role as a warrior goddess par excellence is depicted as an armed goddess, as the iconographical material discussed here has shown and as she is also described in some of the Nineveh and Mari oracles and other comparable texts.

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar 91 Cf. Barrelet (1955) on this motif. Whether the winged figure on other Akkadian seals (Boehmer 1965 nos. 377, 379 = Colbow 1991: Abb. 17, 19) have weapons protruding from the wings is not so clear. This is even more difficult to ascertain with the unarmed winged figures. The goddess might be depicted in a winged shrine already at Ebla (Selz 2000 fig. 2). 92 But not on the famous BM seal (fig. 8) as previously argued by Ornan (2001: 244 fig. 9.12), which is a beardless eunuch (Parpola 1997 fig. 8) because of the sword. On eunuchs cf. lately Deller (1999) and Grayson (1995). I thank Dominique Collon and Tallay Ornan for their e-mails on this matter and the seal under discussion. 93 In the corpus of seals published by Watanabe (1993: 8.5, 8.9 = fig. 12) two seals show bearded officials, who are not eunuchs. The bearded courtiers and the eunuchs (without beards) form the totality of the palace officials as in the oracle in Nissinen (2003 no. 92:4 with note b).

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

31

Fig. 1: Rock relief; Sarpol-i Zohb; ca. 2000 B.C.E. After Heidemarie Koch, Es

kündet Dareios der König: Vom Leben im persischen Großreich (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 55; Mainz, 1992), Abb. 4.

Fig. 2: Relief; Babylon; 8th cent. B.C.E. After Ursula Seidl,“Inanna/I tar (Mesopotamien) B. In der Bildkunst,” RLA 5 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980), Abb. 2.

32

Izak Cornelius

Fig. 3: Stela; Til Barsip; 8th cent. B.C.E. After Seidl, “Innana/I tar“, Abb. 3.

Fig. 4: Cylinder seal; Akkadian c. 2300 B.C.E. After Silvia Schroer and Othmar Keel, Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alten Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bilder (IPIAO 1; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2005), Katalog 258.

Fig. 5: Wall painting; Mari, 18th cent. B.C.E. After Othmar Keel, Wirkmächtige

Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament: Ikonographische Studien zu Jos 8, 18–26; Ex 17, 8–13; 2 Kön 13, 14–19 und 1 Kön 22, 11 (OBO 5; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), Abb. 9.

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

33

Fig. 6: Stamp seal; Assur, ca. 8th cent. B.C.E. After Tamás Dezsö and John Curtis,

“Assyrian Iron Helmets from Nimrud Now in the British Museum”, Iraq 53 (1991), fig. 2b (with the star corrected).

Fig. 7: Cylinder seal; Tell Asmar; ca. 18th cent. B.C.E. After Keel, Siegeszeichen, Abb. 4.

34

Izak Cornelius

Fig. 8: Cylinder seal; ca. 8th cent. B.C.E. After Urs Winter, 1983. Frau und Göttin:

Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt (OBO 53; Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), Abb. 504.

Fig. 9: Cylinder seal; ca. 8th cent. B.C.E. After Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer,

Eva – Mutter alles Lebendigen: Frauen- und Göttinnenidole aus dem Alten Orient (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004), Abb. 151.

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess Ištar

35

Fig. 10: Part of reconstruction of decoration on fragment from the front of an Assyrian iron helmet inlaid in bronze; Nimrud, second half of the 8th cent. B.C.E. After Dezsö and Curtis, “Helmets”, fig. 16.

Fig. 11: Silver pendant; Tel Miqne-Ekron; 7th cent. B.C.E. After Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen (QD 134; Freiburg: Herder, 2001), Abb. 398.

Fig. 12: Cylinder seal; 8th cent. B.C.E. After Winter, Frau, Abb. 501.

36

Izak Cornelius

Fig. 13: Part of decoration on helmet; 8th cent. B.C.E. After Hermann Born and

Ursula Seidl, Schutzwaffen aus Assyrien und Urartu (Sammlung Axel Guttmann 4; Mainz: von Zabern, 1995), Abb. 22.

Fig. 14: Cylinder seal; ca. 8th cent. B.C.E. Currently on loan to the Department of

Ancient Studies from the collection of the University of Stellenbosch (KG/VN/2). Unpublished, photograph by Anton Jordaan.

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

References Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess I tar

37

Abusch, Tzvi. 1999. “Ishtar.” DDD2: 452–56. Al-Khalesi, Yasin M. 1978. The Court of the Palms: A Functional Interpretation of the Mari Palace. Malibu. Balcio lu, B.M./W.R. Mayer. 2006. “Eine Neuassyrische Votivstele aus Turlu Höyük.” Or 75: 177–81 and Tab. XII. Barnett, Richard D./W. Forman. s.a. Assyrische Palastreliefs. Prague. Barnett, Richard D. 1976. Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668–627 B.C.). London. Barnett, R.D. et al. 1998. Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh. London. Barrelet, Marie-Thérèse. 1955. “Les déesses armées et ailées.” Syria 32: 222–60. Berlejung, Angelika. 1996. “Die Macht der Insignien.” UF 28: 1–36. – 1998. Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik. OBO 162. Fribourg/Göttingen. Biran, Avraham. 1999. “Two Bronze Plaques and the Hussot of Dan.” IEJ 49: 43–54. Black, Jeremy/Anthony Green. 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. London. Boehmer, Rainer M. 1965. Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit. Berlin. Börker-Klähn, Jutta. 1982. Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. Baghdader Forschungen 4. Mainz. Born, Hermann S./Ursula Seidl. 1995. Schutzwaffen aus Assyrien und Urartu. Sammlung Axel Guttmann 4. Mainz. Botta, Paul Émile. 1972. Monument de Ninive II. Osnabruck. Cassin, Elena. 1968. La splendour divine: Introduction à l’étude de la mentalité mésopotamienne. Paris. Cavigneaux, Antoine/B. Khalil Ismail. 1990. “Die Statthalter von Shu und Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 21: 321–456. Colbow, Gudrun. 1991. Die kriegerische I tar: Zu den Erscheinungsformen bewaffneter Gottheiten zwischen der Mitte des 3. und der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends. Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 8. München. Collon, Dominique. 1986. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals III, Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods. London. – 1994. “Neo-Assyrian Gula in the British Museum,” pp. 43–47 in Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz/Nadja Cholidis (ed.), Beschreiben und Deuten in der Archäologie des Alten Orients: Festschrift für Ruth Mayer-Opificius. Münster. – 1995. The Art of the Ancient Near East. London. – 1997. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London. – 2001. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals V, NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods. London. Cornelius, Izak. 1989. “The Lion in the Art of the Ancient Near East: A Study of Selected Motifs.” JNSL 15: 53–85. – 1994. The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al: Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c 1500–1000 B.C.E.). OBO 140. Fribourg/Göttingen. Curtis, John E./Julian Reade. 1995. Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum. London. Deller, Karlheinz. 1999. “The Assyrian Eunuchs and their Predecessors,” pp. 303–11 in Kazuko Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life, Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996. Heidelberg. Dezsö, Tamás/John Curtis. 1991. “Assyrian Iron Helmets from Nimrud Now in the British Museum.” Iraq 53: 105–26. Durand, Jean-Marie. 1988. Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1. ARM 26/1. Paris. Edzard, Dietz Otto. 1973. “Zwei Inschriften am Felsen von Sar-i-Pul-i-Zohab: Anubanini 1. und 2.” AfO 24: 73–75. Fauth, Wolfgang. 1981. “I tar als Löwengöttin und die löwenköpfige Lama tu.” WO 12: 21–36.

38

Izak Cornelius

Flemberg, Johan. 1995. “The Transformation of the Armed Aphrodite,” pp. 109–22 in Brit Berggreen/Nanno Marinatos (ed.), Greece and Gender. Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 2. Bergen. Foster, Benjamin R. 2005. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd ed. Bethesda, Md. Golani, Amir/Benjamin Sass. 1998. “Three Seventh-Century BCE Hoards of Silver Jewelry from Tel Miqne-Ekron.” BASOR 311: 57–82. Grayson, A. Kirk. 1995. “Eunuchs in Power: Their Role in the Assyrian Bureaucracy,” pp. 85–98 in Oswald Loretz/Manfried Dietrich (ed.). Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993. AOAT 240. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn. Groneberg, Brigitte. 2004. Die Götter des Zweistromlandes: Kulte, Mythen, Epen. Düsseldorf. Haldar, Alfred. 1952. “On the Wall Painting from Court 106 of the Palace of Mari.” Orientalia Suecana 1: 51–65. Harris, Rivkah. 1991. “Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites.” HR 30: 261–78. Heimpel, Wolfgang. 2003. Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Winona Lake, Ind. Herbordt, Susanne. 1992. Neuassyrische Glyptik des 8.–7. Jh. v. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Siegelungen auf Tafeln und Tonverschlüssen. SAAS 1. Helsinki. Herles, Michael. 2006. Götterdarstellungen Mesopotamiens in der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jahrtausends v.Chr.: Das anthropomorphe Bild im Verhältnis zum Symbol. AOAT 329. Münster. Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1976. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven. – 1987. “Pictures and Pictorial Language: The Burney Relief,” pp. 1–11 in Murray Mindlin, Markham J. Geller/John E. Wansbrough (ed). Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East. London. Jakob-Rost, Liane. 1975. Die Stempelsiegel im Vorderasiatischen Museum. Berlin. Kaelin, Oskar. 2006. “Modell Ägypten”: Adoption von Innovationen im Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. OBO SA 26. Fribourg/Göttingen. Keel, Othmar. 1974. Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament: Ikonographische Studien zu Jos. 8, 18–26; Ex. 17, 8–13; 2. Kön. 13, 14–19 und 1. Kön. 22, 11. OBO 5. Fribourg/Göttingen. – 1980. Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes im Lichte eines altorientalischen Bildmotivs. OBO 33. Fribourg/Göttingen. – 1984. Deine Blicke sind Tauben: Zur Metaphorik des Hohen Liedes. SBS 114/115. Stuttgart. –/Silvia Schroer 2004. Eva – Mutter alles Lebendigen: Frauen- und Göttinnenidole aus dem Alten Orient. Fribourg. –/Christoph Uehlinger. 2001. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen. QD 134. Freiburg. King, Leonard W. 1912. Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets. London. – 1915. Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser. London. King, Philip J./Lawrence E. Stager. 2001. Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville. Klengel-Brandt, Evelyn (ed.) 1997. Mit Sieben Siegeln versehen: Das Siegel in Wirtschaft und Kunst des Alten Orients. Mainz. Kletter, Raz. 1996. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR International Series 636. Oxford. – 2001. “Between Archaeology and Theology: the Pillar Figurines from Judah and the Asherah,” pp. 179–216 in Amihai Mazar (ed.). Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. JSOTSup 331. Sheffield. Klingbeil, Martin. 1999. Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography. OBO 169. Fribourg/Göttingen. Koch, Heidemarie. 1992. Es kündet Dareios der König: Vom Leben im persischen Großreich. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 55. Mainz. Lambert, Wilfred G. 2004. “Ishtar of Nineveh.” Iraq 66: 35–39.

Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior Goddess Ištar

39

Lewis, Theodore J. 1996. “CT 13.33–34 and Ezekiel 32: Lion-Dragon Myths.” JAOS 116: 28–47. – 2005. “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images,” pp. 69–107 in Neal H. Walls (ed.). Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East. Boston. Livingstone, Alasdair. 1989. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki. Machinist, Peter. 2006. “Kingship and Divinity in Imperial Assyria,” pp. 152–88 in Gary Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis (ed.). Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Brown Judaic Studies 346. Providence, R.I. Madhloom, Tariq A. 1970. The Chronology of Neo Assyrian Art. London. Margueron, Jean Claude. 1999. “Mari: a Portrait in Art of a Mesopotamian City-State,” CANE 2: 885–99. – 2004. Mari, métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Paris. Mayer-Opificius, Ruth. 1995. “Das Relief des Šamaš-rƝš-uV>ur aus Babylon,” pp. 333–48 in Oswald Loretz/Manfried Dietrich (ed.). Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993. AOAT 240. Kevelaer/ NeukirchenVluyn. Menzel, Brigitte. 1981. Assyrische Tempel. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 10/I-II. Rome. Moortgat, Anton. 1966. Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin. Moortgat-Correns, Ursula. 1988. “Ein Kultbild Ninurtas aus neuassyrischer Zeit.” AfO 35: 117–33. Nissinen, Martti. 1998. References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources. SAAS 7. Helsinki. – 2000. “The Socioreligious Role of the Neo-Assyrian Prophets,” pp. 89–114 in Martti Nissinen (ed.). Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives. SBLSymS 13. Atlanta. – 2001. “City as Lofty as Heaven: Arbela and Other Cities in Neo-Assyrian Prophecy,” pp. 172– 209 in Lester L. Grabbe/Robert D. Haak (ed.). “Every City Shall Be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East. JSOTSup 330. Sheffield. – with contributions by Choon-Leong Seow and Robert K. Ritner. 2003. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. SBLWAW 12. Atlanta. – 2004. “What is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern Perspective,” pp. 17–37 in John Kaltner/Louis Stulman (ed.). Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon. JSOTSup 378. New York. Nunn, Astrid. 1988. Die Wandmalerei und der glasierte Wandschmuck im alten Orient. Handbook of Oriental Studies 7/1. Leiden. Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago. Ornan, Tallay. 2001. “Ishtar as Depicted on Finds from Israel,” pp. 235–56 in Amihai Mazar (ed.). Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. JSOTSup 331. Sheffield. – 2004. “Idols and Symbols: Divine Representation in First Millennium Mesopotamian Art and its Bearing on the Second Commandment.” TA 31: 90–121. – 2005. The Triumph of the Symbol. Pictorial Representation of Deities in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban. OBO 213. Fribourg/Göttingen. – 2006. “The Lady and the Bull: Remarks on the Bronze Plaque from Tel Dan,” pp. 297–311 in Yairah Amit (ed.). Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Winona Lake, Ind. – 2007. “The Godlike Semblance of a King: The Case of Sennacherib’s Rock Reliefs,” pp. 161–78 in Jack Cheng/Marian H. Feldman (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter. CHANE 26. Leiden. Parpola, Simo. 1997. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki. –/Kazuko Watanabe. 1988. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. SAA 2. Helsinki. PKG = Orthmann, W. et al. 1975. Der Alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 18. Berlin. Podella, Thomas. 1996. Das Lichtkleid JHWHs: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt. FAT 15. Tübingen. Pope, Marvin H. 1970. “The Saltier of Atargatis Reconsidered,” pp. 178–96 in Jack A. Sanders (ed.). Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. New York. Porada, Edith. 1948. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections. The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library. Washington.

40

Izak Cornelius

Porter, Barbara Nevling. 2004. “Ishtar of Nineveh and Her Collaborator, Ishtar of Arbela, in the reign of Assurbanipal.” Iraq 66: 41–44. Puech, Émile. 1999. “Lioness.” DDD2 : 524–25. Reade, Julian. 1977. “Shikaft-i Gulgul: Its Date and Symbolism.” Iranica Antiqua 12: 33–44. Russell, John M. 1991. Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago. Schroer, Silvia/Othmar Keel. 2005. Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bilder. Vol. 1. Fribourg. Seidl, Ursula. 1976–80. “Inanna/I tar (Mesopotamien) B. In der Bildkunst,” RLA 5: 87–89. – 1989. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs: Symbole mesopotamischer Gottheiten. OBO 87. Fribourg/Göttingen. – 2000. “Babylonische und assyrische Kultbilder in den Massenmedien des 1. Jahrtausends v.Chr.,” pp. 89–114 in Christoph Uehlinger (ed.). Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st millennium B.C.E.). Proceedings of an International Symposium Held in Fribourg on November 25–29, 1997. OBO 175. Fribourg/Göttingen. Selz, Gebhard J. 2000. “Five Divine Ladies: Thoughts on Inana(k), I tar, In(n)in(a), Annunitum, and Anat, and the Origin of the Title ‘Queen of Heaven.’” NIN 1: 29–61. Slanski, Kathryn E. 2003. The Babylonian Entitlement Narûs (Kudurrus): A Study in Their Form and Function. Boston. Solyman, Toufic. 1968. Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Götterwaffen im alten Mesopotamien und ihre Bedeutung. Beirut. Spycket, Agnès. 1981. La Statuaire Proche-Orient Ancien. HO 7/1:2B. Leiden. Stol, Marten. 1999. “Mullissu.” DDD2: 606. Strawn, Brent A. 2005. What is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. OBO 212. Fribourg/Göttingen. Thureau-Dangin, F./Maurice Dunand. 1936. Til-Barsib. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 23. Paris. Uehlinger, Christoph. 1997. “Figurative Policy, Propaganda und Prophetie,” pp. 297–349 in John A. Emerton (ed.) Congress Volume Cambridge 1995. VTSup 66. Leiden. – (ed.). 2000. Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near Easxt and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium B.C .E., Symposium Held in Fribourg on November 25–29, 1997. OBO 175. Fribourg/Göttingen Wartke, Ralf-Bernhard. 2005. Sam’al: Ein aramäischer Stadtstaat des 10. bis 8. Jhs. v. Chr. und die Geschichte seiner Erforschung. Mainz. Watanabe, Chikako E. 1992. “A Problem in the Libation Scene of Ashurbanipal,” pp. 91–104 in Takahito Mikasa (ed.). Cult and Ritual in the Ancient Near East. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 6. Wiesbaden. – 2002. Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia: A Contextual Approach. Wien. Watanabe, Kazuko. 1993. “Neuassyrische Siegellegenden.” Orient 29: 109–38. – 1999. “Seals of Neo-Assyrian Officials,” pp. 313–66 in Kazuko Watanabe (ed.). Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life, Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996. Heidelberg. Wegner, Ilse. 1981. Gestalt und Kult der I tar- awu ka in Kleinasien. AOAT 36. Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn. Wiggermann, Frans A.M. 2007. “Ring und Stab (Ring and Rod),” RLA 11: 414–21. –/Christoph Uehlinger. 1998. “Näckte Göttin.” RLA 9: 46–64. Winter, Irene J. 2000. “Le palais imaginaire: Scale and Meaning in the Iconography of NeoAssyrian Cylinder Seals,” pp. 51–87 in Christoph Uehlinger (ed.). Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st millennium B.C.E.). Proceedings of an International Symposium Held in Fribourg on November 25–29, 1997. OBO 175. Fribourg/Göttingen. Winter, Urs. 1983. Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt. OBO 53. Fribourg/Göttingen. Wiseman, D.J. 1958. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon.” Iraq 20: 1–28. Wolkstein, Diane/Samuel Noah Kramer. 1983. Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth. New York.

Thomas Staubli Thomas Staubli

Maat-Imagery in Trito-Isaiah Maat-Imagery in Trito-Isaiah

The Meaning of Offering a Throat in Egypt and in Israel* 1. Offering a Throat in Egypt In a relief at the Great Pylon of the temple of Isis on Philae – to be most precise, on the north face of the western tower, uppermost register of the western decoration, Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII (51–30 B.C.E.) presents a figurine of Maat to Horus and Isis (fig. 1).1

The Great Pylon repeats the scene in five additional variations: directed towards Horus a second time, two times towards Amun, and once each towards Shu and Osiris.2 In addition, there is another dedication in the Mammisi of Philae.3 The version in fig. 1 is the most complex, and theologically the most challenging. The adjacent inscriptions read as follows:4 * I am most indebted to Silvia Schroer and Hans Ulrich Steymans (discussion), E. Axel Knauf (translation) and Brent A. Strawn (proofreading). 1 Hermann Junker, Der grosse Pylon des Tempels der Isis in Philä (Wien 1958), 48 Abb. 23. 2 Ibid., 38, 138, 187, 205, 209. 3 Hermann Junker and E. Winter, Das Geburtshaus des Tempels der Isis in Philä (Wien 1965), 59, 69, 85, 139, 153, 179, 293, 331. 4 Ibid., 47, 49.

42

Thomas Staubli

[superscription of the two lines between the pharaoh and Horus] Recitation: to present the Maat(-figurine) and to recite: [left line, close to Horus] “Yours be your šfj.t, O Falcon, of secret birth your Great Daughter, loving Your Majesty. [middle and right line, immediately under the Maat-figurine] This your throat (qbb.t), which came down/settled for your protection, she is Maat, elated on your head, your gullet (tp’’ t-wj t-k’w), which sends nourishment to your body, she will never desist from your majesty.” [long line to the king’s right] Words of the king to Horus: “I am coming to thee, O thou of Edfu, Lord of the Truth in feathers of many colors, who rejoices in truth, I am bringing your throat (K``K`) to you, by which thou liveth. Her Majesty never desists from your body, Thou verily art (the) Horus, the judge of rightful laws, (the) Maat (has) nourished your body.”

The Maat(-figurine) that the pharaoh, as supreme judge and royal incarnation of the sun, offers to Horus as a constant source of protection and nourishment is characterized by two terms: as pharynx and as esophagus (literally: “pipe [cavern] that sends food”). The Judge of Heaven and Earth is hungry for righteousness, Maat. Maat is promised to Horus by the pharaoh in a pledge on the wall of the temple, which calls Maat a “throat,” and an image that depicts the king as a giver of Maat. Maat is nourishment and its provision at the same time. A translation of this imagery into the language of social relations would read as follows: the king vows to comply with the legal demands for justice, which primarily consisted of a guarantee of the great Egyptian temple estate’s functioning. By this he indirectly vouchsafed the provisioning of the population with the necessities of life, because everyone was linked to the economy of the temples in some way, and some were wholly dependent on it. For ancient Egyptians, offering Maat was “the most significant of all acts a human being could perform in this world; this is why it can symbolize the role of the king.”5 The Maat-offering combines the human and the cosmic world and its order (which has to be conceived as a process, not as a sort of space). It is primarily the Sun, which is born every morning and retreats into the west as a serene old man every evening, that receives the Maatoffering. In this context, Maat is perceived as the essence of life: “seen, inhaled, kissed, embraced, eaten, swallowed, in sum: incorporated”6 by Re, 5

Jan Assmann, Ma’at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im Alten Ägypten (München 1990),

187. 6

Ibid., 188 with references.

Maat-Imagery in Trito-Isaiah

43

God Sun. In its most concise formulation, the notion is expressed by the royal name of Queen Hatshepsut: Ma’at-Ka-Re’, which can be translated as “Justice is the essence of life of (the) God.” In the ritual depicted on the pylon, reciprocal human care is transposed into the relation of the human with the divine, insofar as humans have a status (being kings or being “transformed” [i.e., dead]) that allows intercourse with (the) God. The royal name, which quite frequently contains a Maat element, may represent Maat itself. The central scene at Abu Simbel shows Usir-Maat-Re (Ramesses II) offering Maat to Re, who is holding an Wsr-sign in his other hand.7 The scene underlines the reciprocity of their relation: gods and kings are related to each other by an enduring process of reciprocal creation – and not only in a spiritual sense, but also in economic terms. In this relationship the human being offers its dearest possession: itself.

2. Offering a Throat in Judah Trito-Isaiah’s notion of fasting confronts us with a theology that bears striking similarities with the conceptual world of the Maat-offering discussed above, even in minute details (Isa 58:3–12):

7 Paul John Frandsen, “Trade and Cult,” in The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians: Cognitive Structures and Popular Expressions, Proceedings of Symposia in Uppsala and Bergen 1987 and 1988 (ed. Gertie Englund; Boreas 20; Uppsala 1987), 95–108. The constellation of the offering of the name as Ma’at goes back at least to Amenophis III (Nb-Ma’at-R’).

44

Thomas Staubli

3 “Why do we fast, but you do not see? Why humble our vpn , but you do not notice?” Look, you serve your own interest on your fast day, and oppress all your workers. 4 Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight and to strike with a wicked fist. Such fasting as you do today will not make your voice heard on high. 5 Is this the fast that I choose, a day to humble the vpn? Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush and to lie in sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast, a day acceptable to YHWH? 6 Is this not the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? 8 Then your light shall break forth like the dawn. and your healing shall spring up quickly; your qdc shall go before you, and the dwbk YHWH shall be your rear guard. 9 Then you shall call, and YHWH will answer; you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am. If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, 10 if you offer to the hungry your vpn and the vpn of the humbled, you satisfy Then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday. 11 YHWH will guide you continually, and satisfy the needs of your vpn with bonbons and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail. 12 Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live in.

Negative fast

Positive fast

Light Regeneration Order

A B C

Promise of Salvation Offering

D

Light

A

Regeneration

B

Order

C

Promise of Salvation

D

X

“To fast” primarily means “not to eat anything.” This implies that vpn is to be understood according to its basic meaning “throat.” vpn occurs five times within the pericope, three times in a negative manner as hn[n vpn. In this way, the traditional notion of fasting as “suppressing one’s throat” is brought into question. This is accomplished in a highly artistic manner: vv. 9b–10a forms the center of a chiastic composition running from v. 8 through v. 12; v. 10b forms a chiasm within itself. The expression vpn serves as the axis of symmetry in the unit. The vpn of the Israelites who are addressed by this text shall be offered (Hiphil qwp)8 to the tortured vpn of the hungry. That means, not that 8 This verb is common in the wisdom literature where the meaning can be “to obtain something important” such as wisdom itself (see Prov 3:13) or the favor of YHWH (Prov 8:35; 12:2; 18:22; Sir 4:12). It seems, however, that the original and concrete context of feeding was never totally lost from the verbal root, as is evidenced in Ps 144:13 where the word is used for the products

45

Maat-Imagery in Trito-Isaiah

suppressing one’s own vpn is the true meaning of fasting, but instead the suppression of each and every hn[n vpn is the true meaning of fasting. The salutary consequences of this action affect four levels: 1) on the cosmological level, the light of the sun will expel darkness (A–A’). The sun symbolizes the Israelites’ acceptance of and accordance with hqdc. 2) On an individual level, human beings are healed and comprehensively restored/regenerated (B–B’). 3) On a collective level, world order is reestablished by honor and rebuilding of a/the city (C–C’). 4) On a spiritual or prophetic-theological level, the people are promised divine support and a future in integrity (D–D’). The leitmotif vpn occurs in this connection once again. YHWH himself, it is said, will spoil the vpn of the beneficent with sweetmeats (“bonbons”)9 – another instance of vpn underscoring its basic meaning as “throat.”

3. A Comparision of Judean and Egyptian Throat-Offering(s) Both Trito-Isaiah and the Egyptian Maat-theology symbolize doing justice, or accommodation to the divine world-order, by the offering of a throat or the nourishment that passes through it. The biblical demand, addressed to all the people, emphasizes the relation between the offering and the need of those who are to receive it: offering the vpn feeds the hn[n vpn. Pharaoh’s pledge in Egypt stresses the parallelism between the offering and its purpose/intention: offering Maat fulfills the requirements of Maat.

Offering

Isa 58:3–12

Great Pylon of Philae

vpn

Maat as qbb.t (pharynx) tp“ t-wd t-k’w (esophagus)

Offerer

People

Pharaoh

Addressee

hn[n vpn

Horus

Aim of Offering

(h)qdc

Maat

Divine Instigator

YHWH

Isis as Hathor

Both texts acknowledge a divine pair that is activated by the offering: In Trito-Isaiah qdc and YHWH enter the scene protecting and honoring the

filling the granaries. The same is true for the Ugaritic verb pq. Beside the more abstract meaning “to obtain” it also denotes the more concrete “to drink” and “to gulp.” See HALAT, 869; also Horst Seebass, “vpn,”THWAT 5:539. 9 This is an onomatopoetic translation of the hapax legomenon twxcxc (> xxc “to glare”) based on the examination of Klaus Koenen, “Textkritische Anmerkungen zu schwierigen Stellen im Tritojesajabuch” Bib 69 (1988): 564–65.

46

Thomas Staubli

offerer (v. 8b). qdc precedes the offerer, YHWH follows him. The (archaic) personal pronoun makes qdc appear as a quality of the merciful person (i.e., “his righteousness”?); however, the type-scene of an entourage of dignitaries, the preceding image of the rising sun (v. 8), and the parallelism of YHWH and hqdc in Isa 61:3 eliminate any doubt concerning Trito-Isaiah’s knowledge of the ancient name of the Sun-God of Jerusalem and its meaning.10 In Philae, both divine beings are seated in front of the offering pharaoh: Horus as the offering’s addressee, and Isis, Mistress of Philae, as a background-deity who watches over all rituals in her temple. In the inscription, she is explicitly addressed as “Great Maat”: Hathor, the Mistress of Denderah, eye of the sun at Edfu, uraeus on her father’s head, great Maat presiding over the “house of the venerable,” beautiful sun-goddess at Bigge [an island in the neighborhood of Elephantine]; may she pass to the high mountain in peace, and cleanse her limbs on/at Abaton. 11

According to Trito-Isaiah, it is not God who receives the offering, but a hn[n vpn, quite in accordance with this prophet’s theology which was critical of the temple. As opposed to his contemporaries or forerunners like Haggai and Zechariah, he has no need for a temple in which YHWH receives offerings. The God who dwells in a temple is replaced by the poor and suffering (dwelling among us). The structure of the text, however, preserves the elements of a ritual. We are not dealing with a total elimination of the cult, but with a consistently laical-social interpretation of it, which drops ritual like offerings and fasting. According to Trito-Isaiah, God only lives as long as the poor are living, whereas according to Haggai, Zechariah, and the Egyptian theology of cult and temple, the poor only live as long as the Deity is provided with offerings. Only a functioning temple guarantees (in a temple economy unaffected by corruption) provisioning of the disadvantaged. Trito-Isaiah does not abandon the cult, he radically individualizes it. Each and every one is now responsible for providing for the poor and thus preserving the cosmic order, which becomes visible – for Trito-Isaiah and his social gospel – in the rising sun, which, within the theology of creation, is a symbol for YHWH and hqdc (see Isa 58:8a, 10b).12 At the same time, Trito-Isaiah’s chain of demands emphasizes that 10

Two city rulers of Jerusalem had theophoric names with qdc as God’s name: Melchizedek (Gen 14:18) und Adoni-Zedek (Josh 10:1, 3). Among the angels who fill the heavenly vacuum created by monotheism, Zedeq is the most powerful (1QM 17.7–8). According to Jeremiah, at the end of time Jerusalem will be called “YHWH our justice” (Jer 33:16). For further references see DDD s.v. Zedeq. 11 Junker, Der grosse Pylon, 48. 12 Against Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches (BZAW 225; Berlin 1994), 261. He states that Isaiah 58 lacks any creation theology. This “observation” is his most important

Maat-Imagery in Trito-Isaiah

47

social politics cannot stop with alms-giving; structural actions are also necessary, including the freeing of debtors from slavery (Isa 58:6–7).13

4. Pieces of the Egypto-Levantine Maat-hqdc Theology Koine Puzzle The offering of the throat is just one piece among many witnessing an Egypto-Levantine Maat-hqdc theology koine in the 1st millenium B.C.E. Further pieces of the same puzzle may be mentioned in passing: According to the priestly theology of the temple, the high priest represents the people in front of God wearing a breastplate (with pockets) decorated with twelve precious stones bearing the names of the twelve tribes. This is to remind God of Israel’s life in accordance with the hqdc, and induce his blessing. In Egypt, this task fell to pharaoh, whose pectoral is mainly decorated with the offering of pharaoh’s name to Maat.14 Egypt and the (southern) Levant share the concept of a throne based on Maat/hqdc (Ps 89:15MT; 97:2; Prov 16:12); 15 as well as the notion that this throne consists of thin air. In this regard, note that Maat is the sister of Shu, god of the air, and her symbol is the feather (cf. Ps 97:2).16

criteria to discern his “tradent circle III.” For the relationship between sun and healing see Mal 3:20. Silvia Schroer, “‘Im Schatten deiner Flügel’: Religionsgeschichtliche und feministische Blicke auf die Metaphorik der Flügel Gottes in den Psalmen, in Ex 19,4; Dtn 32,11 und in Mal 3,20,” in “Ihr Völker alle, klatscht in die Hände!” (ed. Rainer Kessler et al.; Exegese in unserer Zeit: Kontextuelle Bibelinterpretationen 3; Münster 1997), 296–316 has demonstrated that this verse receives passages from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. 13 This aspect has been emphasized by Willy Schottroff, “Unrechtmässige Fesseln auftun, Jochstricke lösen: Jesaja 28,1–2 (sic!), ein Textbeispiel zum Thema ‘Bibel und Ökonomie,’” BibInt 5 (1997): 263–78. 14 Othmar Keel, “Die Brusttasche des Hohenpriesters als Element priesterschriftlicher Theologie,” in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments (ed. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger; Herders Biblische Studien 44; Freiburg 2004), 379–91. 15 Helmut Brunner, “Gerechtigkeit als Fundament des Thrones,” VT 8 (1958): 426–28. The Egyptian concept of kingship was adopted in Mesopotamia during the third century; see Oskar Kaelin, “Modell Ägypten”: Adoption von Innovationen im Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (OBO.SA 26; Fribourg/Göttingen 2006), esp. chap. 3. During the Neo-Assyrian domination of the Levant the Judean conception of the throne is clearly influenced by the Assyrian perception of the originally Egyptian concept (for a detailed comparison between Assyrian and Judean salvation oracles see Hans Ulrich Steymans, “‘Deinen Thron habe ich unter den großen Himmeln festgemacht’: Die formgeschichtliche Nähe von Ps 89,4–5.20–38 zu Texten vom neuassyrischen Hof,” in “Mein Sohn bist du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen (ed. Eckart Otto and Erich Zenger; SBS 192; Stuttgart 2002), 184–251. 16 Irene Shirun-Grumach, “Remarks on the Goddess Maat,” in Pharaonic Egypt, the Bible and Christianity (ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll; Jerusalem 1985), 173–201, esp. 182–83.

48

Thomas Staubli

In most Egyptian towns, as well as in the city of Jerusalem, the Sun is the supreme deity, guarding over the Israelite’s accommodation to hqdc and punishing misdeeds (cf. the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah at sunrise). 17 The sun is hovering over the local deities as a trademark of their compatibility with Maat, as, for example, in the crowns of Amun at Thebes and Ptah at Memphis. The sun figures also in the official “coat of arms” of the kingdom of Judah, as evidenced by the numerous lmlk-stamps. Mal 4:2 contains the closest parallel to Isaiah 58. In addition to the constellation of sun, justice, and healing/regeneration, Mal 4:2 has the motif of the young bulls set free, which comes from the theology of the “Book of the Dead.”18 This implies that the Judean theologians were also acquainted with the eschatological dimension of Egypt’s Maat-theology and its promise of a regeneration of the just in the realm of the dead, and that the Judeans could integrate even that feature into their symbolic system.

5. The Meaning and Relevance of the Throat-Offering By hn[n vpn, the theology of Trito-Isaiah relates to a formula constitutive for Yom Kippur. Trito-Isaiah does not deal with some sophisticated theological nicety, he rather addresses the focal question of how to establish a just order of the world. Note Lev 16:29–31 (cf. 23:27, 32; Num 29:7; Ps 35:13 and Pss Sol 3:8): A This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, B you shall deny (hn[) your vpn. C And you shall do no work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. X For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before YHWH. C’ It is a Sabbath of complete rest to you, B’ And you shall deny (hn[) your vpn. A’ It is a statute forever. The great achievement of the theologians that composed Isaiah 56–66 consists in their pointing out a possibility of redemption without the temple and 17

Othmar Keel, “Wer zerstörte Sodom?” Theologische Zeitschrift 35 (1979): 10–17. Silvia Schroer, “Beobachtungen zur Aktualisierung und Transformation von Totenweltmythologie im alten Israel: Von der Grabbeigabe zur Rezeption ägyptischer Jenseitsbilder in Mal 3,20,” in Mythisches in Biblischer Bildsprache (ed. Hubert Irsigler; QD 209; Freiburg 2004), 290– 317. 18

Maat-Imagery in Trito-Isaiah

49

its cult, and how they did this on the very basis of the Torah and its theology of redemption. By alluding to Yom Kippur, the apogee of the liturgical, ritual year, they developed an alternative ritual of reconciliation, which could be enacted independently from the temple, but did not exclude God from the redeeming transaction of gifts. Now the vpn of the offerer is substituted for the redeeming gift that may please God, which forms a compulsory part of any act of redemption. In the hn[n vpn, in the poor, God himself is present, who receives the ritual offering. In the oppression of the poor, God suffered collateral damage. Restitution to the impoverished and exploited is thus also a restitution paid to the collaterally-damaged God. The vpn of the offerer itself is the most evident, most precious, and most effective offering. This theology marks the beginning of a movement, growing through time, toward a Judaism without temple – a movement that nevertheless preserves the traditional, differentiated cultic categories. It is wrong to declare the authors of Trito-Isaiah to be adamant opponents of Zadokite theology and the priestly code.19 It is equally wrong to make them champions of the Torah, who sided with “orthodoxy” against the syncretistic traditionalism of the “people of the land.”20 Adherents of such a view are forced to postulate that the authors of Trito-Isaiah did not yet have a (written) Torah, because otherwise, they would have referred people to the already-known Torah.21 But, in fact, the authors of Trito-Isaiah quote from the Torah, and especially from its core, Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16), not in order to mechanically repeat it, but rather to (re)interpret it in a radically innovative manner. In the synagogue, Isaiah 58 is the haftarah for Yom Kippur, indicating that rabbinic Judaism preserved the cultic, redemption-efficient dimension of feeding the hn[n vpn. Still more proof is found in Jewish folklore and customs. In some locations, the practice of Kappores slaughtering on Yom Kippur – the sacrifice of a hen or a cock as a substitute for the sinner – was defended against reform Judaism with the argument that the animals slaughtered were given to the poor. Rhenanian Jews “civilized” this custom by giving the poor, instead of the animal, its value in cash, in order to prevent the poor from thinking they were given the sinners’ sins.22 Christianity picks up on the notion that God (or Christ) is present in the poor and connects caring for the poor with the (postmortem) vindication of 19 See esp. Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (rev. ed.; Philadelphia 1979) following Wellhausen and Protestant exegetes. 20 Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah (JSOTSup 193; Sheffield 1995), 174–82. 21 Ibid., 179. 22 For references see Isidor Scheftelowitz, Das stellvertretende Huhnopfer: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des jüdischen Volksglaubens (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 14, Gießen 1914).

50

Thomas Staubli

the individual (see Matthew 25). The notion of a postmortem final judgment is so central in Islam that the achievement of salvific righteousness by alms-giving becomes a sacred duty, one of the five pillars of Islam. It is no wonder that papal encyclicals as well as tractates by leading Muslim Ayatollahs stress incessantly giving to the poor or, to the same end, the necessity of a just economic system. Preaching about and the practice of sharing with the poor constitutes the great interfaith consensus of the monotheistic religions in a global age which regrettably is also the age of gigantic social differences.23

23 For further aspects of Isaiah 58:3–12 (dating, history of the text) see my article “Die Darbringung der näfäsch in Jes 58,3–12,” in L’Ecrit et l’Esprit: Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en hommage à Adrian Schenker (ed. Dieter Böhler, Innocent Himbaza, and Philippe Hugo; OBO 214; Fribourg/Göttingen 2005), 310–24.

Brent A. Strawn

Whence Leonine Yahweh? Iconography and the History of Israelite Religion1 Brent A. Strawn

1. Whence Leonine Yahweh? Opening the Question Whence Leonine Yahweh? The Hebrew Bible contains a plethora of lion images associated with Yahweh – so much so that, in several texts, Yahweh might well be described as a Lion-God. This is demonstrated not only by the many instances that employ lion metaphors for Yahweh (often in the prophets),2 but also by the numerous passages where lions are mentioned or associated with God. These latter include passages where the lion is a favorite or familiar of Yahweh (e.g., Ps 104:21–22; 111:5; Job 38:39–40) as well as instances where Yahweh uses the lion as a punitive tool (1 Kgs 13; 20; 2 Kgs 17:25– 26; Isa 15:9; Jer 5:6). Also to be considered at this point are those places where Yahweh exercises protective power over lions (1 Sam 17:37; Ps 124:6; Daniel 6), or where the divine beings that serve God have leonine aspects (Ezek 1:10; 10:14; cf. 41:19 and 1 Kgs 7:29). One final locus connecting Yahweh with the lion are those texts where Yahweh seems to be portrayed as a lion-hunter: hunting the wicked king-as-lion as, for example, in Ezek 12:13; 17:20. Each of these uses of lions with Yahweh finds its correlate in the comparative evidence of the broader ancient Near East as well as in the archaeology of ancient Israel/Palestine.3 When the widespread use of the lion metaphor for God in the biblical text is considered within these comparative data, it becomes clear that the biblical materials are extremely reluctant to attribute

1 An earlier version of this article was presented in the Prophetic Texts and Their Ancient Contexts Group at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 2005. It is based on portions of my book, What Is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO 212; Fribourg/Göttingen, 2005), esp. 231–77. This research was supported in part by the University Research Committee of Emory University, to which I am indebted. I thank Bill T. Arnold for reading an earlier draft of this essay; and also thank Nanno Marinatos, Thomas Staubli, and Martti Nissinen for their comments and assistance. 2 See, e.g., Isa 31:4; 38:13; Jer 25:30, 38; 29:19; 50:44; Hos 5:14; 6:1; 11:10; 13:7–8; Joel 4:16; Amos 1:2; 3:8, 12; cf. also Lam 3:4, 10; Job 10:16; 16:9. For further discussion, see Strawn, What Is Stronger, 58–65. 3 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 77–228.

52

Brent A. Strawn

leonine imagery to the monarch/mighty one.4 The theological implications of leonine metaphor are thus underscored: this is a metaphor reserved, in the main, for the Deity. While an important inference, this remains a rather general conclusion; more specific conclusions can and should be drawn out. It might be stated, first, that the extensive use of the lion metaphor with Yahweh is at odds with the immediate Canaanite context, at least in the literary remains presently available to us for the latter.5 Simply put, we know of no other Canaanite deity that is figured like a lion in the way that, or to the extent that, Yahweh is.6 In fact, the lion is “far less prominent in the Canaanite descriptions of the divine than the bull metaphor.”7 Quite the opposite situation obtains for the Hebrew Bible. On the one hand, one may thus conclude that there is no vestige of an explicit anti-lion polemic in ancient Israel.8 On the other hand, the significantly fewer instances of bull imagery applied to Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible – especially when seen from the perspective of the Ugaritic texts – underscores what scholars have long believed: that the use or non-use of a particular animal image may be motivated by religious and/or theological concerns.9 On this point it is instructive to note that while El and Baal are frequently called or associated with bulls in the Ugaritic texts, the same is not true for these deities and lions.10 4 At least the Israelite monarch/mighty one; see below and, further, Strawn, What Is Stronger, 236–50. 5 Viz., the Ugaritic texts. Of course, one must beware a simplistic identification of the Ugaritic data with the category “Canaanite.” For useful discussion on the problems involved, see John Day, “Ugarit and the Bible: Do They Presuppose the Same Canaanite Mythology and Religion?”; Lester L. Grabbe, “‘Canaanite’: Some Methodological Observations in Relation to Biblical Study”; and Gregorio del Olmo Lete, “Approaching a Description of the Canaanite Religion of Ancient Israel: Methodological Issues” – all of which are found in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible: Manchester, September 1992 (ed. George J. Brooke, Adrian H.W. Curtis, and John F. Healey; UBL 11; Münster, 1994), 35–52, 113–22, 259– 73, respectively. 6 The only Levantine comparable of which we have textual evidence is Mot, but the data are quite meager (see Strawn, What Is Stronger, 211–14). 7 Marjo C.A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8; Münster, 1990), 538. 8 J. Hempel, “Jahwegleichnisse der israelitischen Propheten,” ZAW 42 (1924): 100. The archaeological data from ancient Israel/Palestine lend still further support to this conclusion. See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 77–128. 9 See, e.g., Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 538. This is not to say that bull imagery was not applied to Yahweh, which it certainly was, only that it is applied to Yahweh far less frequently than lion imagery; and that avoidance may be due to aspects of the cult of El that were ultimately rejected in the Hebrew Bible (see John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan [JSOTSup 265; London, 2002], 34–41; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel [2d ed.; Grand Rapids, 2002], 50, 84–85). Of course, the matter is far more complex when speaking of ancient Israel outside and beyond the presentation found in the Hebrew Bible (see, e.g., Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 34 n. 58; W. Herrmann, “El,” DDD2 [1999]: 274–80). 10 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 212–13 on Ugaritic ary. The term is used to describe the offspring or siblings of Athirat, El, Baal, and Mot – but also Danel. While it is at least possible that

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

53

There is more going on in the use of the lion image with Yahweh vis-àvis the comparative material than simple contrast, however. There is also a good deal of similarity between the way the Hebrew Bible and the comparative contexts employ the lion image for deities – especially when one includes non-textual and extra-Canaanite data. This similarity is notable insofar as the lion is frequently found with female deities in the ancient Near Eastern context.11 To be sure, male deities also occur with the lion, but it is with the female deities that leonine associations are most pronounced and prevalent. Said differently, the most important lion deities are female. The parade examples are, of course, I tar in Mesopotamia and parts west and Sekhmet in Egypt – along with their various associates. What can be made of this fact in light of the frequent association of Yahweh with lions in the Hebrew Bible? Could the portrayal of Yahweh as a lion-god be something that originally belonged to the realm of the goddess, and that was incorporated into Yahweh’s persona? Is it possible that the leonine Yahweh owes his felinity to a goddess? Precision when tracing genetic relationships among deities let alone deity traits is, of course, exceedingly difficult. Certainty is typically not to be had in these matters.12 Even so, with this caveat duly entered, the rich breadth of the comparative data at our disposal indicates that an attempt can and should be made in inquiring after the origins of Yahweh’s leonine profile. There are at least two possible sources for the motif if it is, in fact, derivative in some way and not sui generis. These sources are: (a) the realm of the gods and (b) the realm of the monarch. As is well known, the two are not unrelated in the ancient Near East. Even so, they can be treated separately and, for obvious reasons, the gods are taken up first.

2. Yahweh and the Lion-Gods As already indicated, Levantine textual references to a leonine deity akin to Yahweh are practically nil. At Ugarit, El is the bull (tr), and Baal, too, has

ary is some kind of leonine designation (cf. Hebrew ’ rî/’aryê), it is significant that another Ugaritic text, KTU 6.62, uses arw to refer unambiguously to a lion (the inscription is actually on a lion-head), indicating that caution is in order with respect to ary. 11 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 200–14 and the literature cited there; add further Hans Möbius, “Die Göttin mit dem Löwen,” in Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers: Ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1966 (ed. Gernot Wiessner; Wiesbaden, 1967), 449–68. See further below. 12 Note, e.g., Smith’s difficulty in deciding whether bull imagery in certain contexts is to be associated with Baal or El (The Early History of God, 84–85). This sort of difficulty could be repeated ad infinitum.

54

Brent A. Strawn

occasional bull associations.13 The incorporation of El aspects into Yahweh is thus unhelpful for a discussion of lion metaphors, and Baal aspects – whether accepted or rejected14 – are also non-leonine. Leonine Yahweh, that is, is not descended from either El or Baal. The point with Baal is particularly important given the connections between the lion and the storm(-god) that are often noted by scholars. These connections are drawn from many different bases, including even the syntagmatic (see further below). However, iconographically, it must be stressed that many of the storm-gods are found, not with lions, but with leonine composites – either the winged liongriffin/eagle or the winged lion-dragon (see fig. 1)15 – and with bulls. 16 Moreover, the iconographical evidence for the association of the male storm-god and the lion – again, more precisely, lion-composites – seems to be mostly early (Akkadian period or earlier) and eastern (see fig. 2).17 Still further, one finds that in several cases the main gods, often storm-deities, in parts West are not leonine themselves; instead, it is their female consorts who have leonine connections.18 One thinks of Hittite Teshub and his con-

13 For the bull and Baal, see Izak Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al: Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c 1500–1000 BCE) (OBO 140; Fribourg, 1994), 142, 165, 168, etc. 14 There is evidence of both incorporation/assimilation and conflict/rejection when it comes to Baal and Yahweh. See Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 68–127; Smith, The Early History of God, 65–101. 15 See Antoine Vanel, L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage dans le Proche-Orient ancien jusqu’au VIIe siècle avant J.-C. (CahRB 3; Paris, 1965), 159–60 and figs. 3, 5–8, 11, 21–22, 49, 74, 77; especially 160. Similarly, J.C. Greenfield, “Hadad,” DDD2 (1999): 377–82, especially 379; and Alberto R.W. Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 8; Winona Lake, Ind., 2003), 27–34, 85–88, who tracks the advent of the winged lion-dragon (u umgallu) to the Akkadian Period and associates it with fertility. Cf. also Daniel Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen (Wiesbaden, 2001), 124–25. 16 As Vanel points out, the lion-dragon or lion-griffin was eventually replaced by the bull (L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage, 160). The lion continues to be found, of course, but in its pure form is less pronounced (see ibid., figs. 28–29, 79). Even where it does exist in contexts with the storm-god, it is often associated, not with the male deity, but with associated female goddesses (see further below). 17 See Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, 15–17. The two main examples are Ningirsu/Ninurta (depicted in fig. 2) and I kur (perhaps also Dagan). It will be recalled that the latter comes to be associated with Adad, who is associated, not with the lion, but with the bull (ibid., 23; and, further, 48–60, 71). 18 One might compare at this point the much later testimony of Lucian (2nd century C.E.), that Atargatis was supported by lions, while the male god sat on bulls (De Dea Syria 31, cf. 15). See Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, ed., The Syrian Goddess (De Dea Syria) Attributed to Lucian (Missoula, 1976), 43 and 23, respectively; H.J.W. Drijvers, “Atargatis,” DDD2 (1999): 114–16; and Robert A. Oden, Jr., Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea (HSM 15; Missoula, 1977), especially 47–107.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

55

sort, Hebat (fig. 3), but perhaps also of Ugaritic El19 and his consort, Athirat, who is often thought to have lion connections (though this can be debated).20 For the biblical materials, however, the pairing seems to be Baal and Asherah. 21 In the latter two pairings, then, the storm imagery might be the purview of El or Baal (depending on the corpus) and the lion-imagery the purview of Athirat/Asherah. Could she be the origin of the lion motif in Yahweh?22 This is at least prima facie possible since the storm-gods are largely unleonine in the west, at least in the late second and first millennia. However, a hasty descision locating the origin of leonine Yahweh in Athirat/Asherah is not acceptable for a number of reasons. First, the textual connections between Athirat/Asherah and the lion are minimal at best. Second, the connection of the Qud u-type plaques, which often depict a goddess with lion mount (see fig. 4), 23 to Asherah specifically has been problematized by the work of Steve A. Wiggins24 and Izak Cornelius.25 Third, even if these depictions do refer to Asherah, it is certain that: (a) they do not refer to this particular goddess alone;26 and (b) these presentations portray the goddess in her fertility aspect(s) (note the nudity, lotus blossoms, water, etc.) with the

19 Perhaps via bull connections? For the storm and the bull in early Mesopotamia, see Mary Kathleen Brown, “Symbolic Lions: A Study in Ancient Mesopotamian Art and Literature” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1973). For the bull and the storm-god, see Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, 18–24, 107–12. 20 See, e.g., Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (Cambridge, 2000), 187, 209. 21 See, e.g., Gerald L. Mattingly, “Asherah,” in Piotr Bienkowski and Alan Millard, Dictionary of the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 34; idem, “Baal,” ibid., 41–42. This biblical pairing of Baal and Asherah is probably secondary (given the rejection of Asherah in the Hebrew Bible; see Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 42), erroneous (given the Ugaritic data), and susceptible to different understandings (see Hadley, The Cult of Asherah, 207). 22 See Smith, The Early History of God, 200–202, for the incorporation of El and Asherah elements into Yahweh. For Asherah exclusively, see ibid., 133–47. 23 For additional figures, Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 4.252–256, 4.258. 24 See Steve A. Wiggins: “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess,” UF 23 (1991): 383–94; and idem, A Reassessment of “Asherah”: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. (AOAT 235; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993), 94 and n. 14, 114, 120 (a revised version of this book has now appeared: Steve A. Wiggins, A Reassessment of Asherah: With Further Considerations of the Goddess [Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2007]; citations are to the 1993 edition). Wiggins’ argument that there is no association of Asherah with lions whatsoever at Ugarit may be incorrect, however, depending on the translation of brt aryh, often used to describe Athirat’s offspring (see note 10 above). 25 See Izak Cornelius, The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the SyroPalestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500–1000 BCE (OBO 204; Fribourg/Göttingen, 2004; a second, enlarged edition of this book appeared in 2008; citations are to the 2004 edition). 26 See ibid., especially 89–90, 93–99, 101.

56

Brent A. Strawn

lion being used as an animal mount within that general tableau.27 Fertility is not, however, the accent that receives emphasis in the leonine depictions of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible (see, e.g., Isa 31:4; 38:13; Jer 49:19; 50:44; Hos 5:14; 13:7–8; Amos 3:12; Job 10:16). Far from it! Things seem at an impasse. Early East Semitic male (storm-)gods are often presented with lions and in martial form but this connection seems underdeveloped in the West for later periods. In ancient Israel/Palestine, especially in the Late Bronze Age, there are depictions of male gods with lions but the presentation is mostly of those gods hunting or smiting lions (fig. 5).28 Again, not excepting the importance of Ezek 12:13; 17:20, the presentation of Yahweh is typically not as a lion-hunter, nor as a lion-killer, but as a lion itself. Egypt, for its part, has a number of lion gods, but the ones that are most clearly represented in the archaeological record of ancient Israel/Palestine are Amun and Bes. There are problems with both deities and data-sets, however. A number of Iron Age I seals portraying a lion apparently venerate Amun (fig. 6) but do so quite subtly – largely by using the lion cryptographically in the writing of the god’s name.29 These small seals do not, that is, present Amun as “the mysterious lion with a loud roar, which tears apart that which falls into his claws” that we read of in Egyptian inscriptions.30 Bes appears in the Iron Age III/Persian Period as the “Lord of the Lions” (fig. 7),31 but, again, while such a presentation is not completely unrelated to Yahweh’s control of lions, it does not have much significance for the metaphorical portrayal of Yahweh as a lion. These data, then, when considered alongside the previous judgments about the female god with lion – often associated with fertility and for which textual references are slim, at best, in the West in later periods – raise the question: In what sense can it truly be said that ancient Near Eastern (male) lion-gods are the source of the lion-like Yahweh?

27

Cornelius believes that the “Qdeschet” figure is an independent goddess with an independent iconography that stands mostly for “healing power and a good life” (ibid., 98; his emphasis; see further 95–97). 28 For additional figures, see Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 3.7–8; also fig. 3.111 from the Iron Age III/Persian Period. 29 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 90 and the literature cited there; to which add Othmar Keel, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Einleitung (OBO.SA 10; Freiburg Schweiz, 1995), 214–15. For further images, see Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 3.36–45. 30 TDOT 1:378. 31 For another image, see Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.109.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

57

Baal-Seth and Leonine Yahweh Despite the counsel of despair presented above, there are still two viable possibilities that commend themselves as possible progenitors of the kind of imagery that Yahweh manifests in the Hebrew Bible in leonine guise. The first is Baal-Seth, who is frequently found riding on the back of the lion, sometimes with Reshef (see fig. 8).32 Seth was identified with Baal in Egypt at the time of the New Kingdom.33 A connection between the two gods can be established especially in those iconographical contexts where Seth is named in the associated inscription(s) but where his attributes are nonEgyptian and not typical of Seth;34 or, alternatively, when the deity in question appears to be Baal but is depicted with wings.35 Here, then, is some positive evidence connecting the lion with the male storm-god which might have ramifications for the leonine Yahweh. Even so, in many depictions of BaalSeth decidedly martial aspects are neither clear nor obvious. Martial aspects are more apparent in seals that portray Baal, armed with sword/spear36 or bow, with lion mount (e.g., fig. 9).37 But even in these depictions there are 32 For more images, see Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 3.46–47, 3.49. For secondary literature on Baal-Seth, see Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, especially 143–45, 181–82, 196; also idem, “Some Additional Representations of the God Baal-Seth on Seal-Amulets,” JNSL 22 (1996): 157–66; Othmar Keel in Othmar Keel, Menakhem Shuval, and Christoph Uehlinger, Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel III (OBO 100; Freiburg Schweiz, 1990), 202– 4; 304–8; and Keel, Corpus: Einleitung, 209–10. For Reshef and the lion, note KTU 6.62, but see Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 196, for why the winged-figure-on-lion on seals cannot be Reshef. 33 Ibid., 143; Karel van der Toorn, “Seth,” DDD2 (1999): 748–49; Mark S. Smith, Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century (Peabody, Mass., 2001), 230 n. 62; and, more extensively, Herman te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of His Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion (2d ed.; Probleme der Ägyptologie 6; Leiden, 1977), 109, 120–29; and Rainer Stadelmann, Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Probleme der Ägyptologie 5; Leiden, 1967), 32–47. The identification is typically assigned to Dynasty 18, but Cornelius, “Some Additional Representations,” 161–62 n. 10 indicates that the first representation of Baal-Seth might be on a cylinder seal from Avaris that dates to the first half of the 18th century. 34 See Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 134: “These attributes indicate that this is actually Ba‘al […].The Egyptians identified Ba‘al with their Egyptian storm-god Seth […] but each of these two deities has a unique iconography.” Cf. ibid., 143–44, 159–61. For Seth as a storm-god, see Jan Zandee, “Seth als Sturmgott,” ZÄS 90 (1963): 144–56; te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 128–29; and note also Seth’s identification with Hittite Tishpak/Teshub (van der Toorn, “Seth,” 748; te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 109, 119–21). 35 Wings are otherwise “unknown for the Canaanite Ba‘al” (Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 144; see also 161, 181, 253, and especially 166 on KTU 1.46 line 6: b‘l knp). Despite the identification of Baal and Seth, note the seal (ibid., Pl. 47 no. BM 22) where the two gods are presented together and thus differentiated. Cornelius calls this piece “unique and exceptional” (ibid., 143). 36 Or, perhaps, w3 -scepter. See Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 204 for a discussion. 37 Cf. also Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 3.51. One could note (more broadly) depictions of ancient Near Eastern deities that may be storm deities (some possibly Baal or Baal-Seth) and that

58

Brent A. Strawn

problems “matching” attributes of Baal-Seth (especially the Sethian side) with the typical tenors of the leonine metaphors of Yahweh.38 A more fundamental problem is knowing which gods these images depict in the first place. “Baal-Seth” is, after all, something of a scholarly construct to explain anomalies in the iconographical depiction of either or both of these deities.39 The problem is made worse by the necessary but always-vexed adjudication of textual and iconographical material. Simply put, not all of the leonine associations that are found with particular deities in the texts are found in the iconography (cf., e.g., on Amun above), nor, conversely, are those that are present in the iconography always present in the texts (e.g., Baal/Baal-Seth).40 The problem is especially pronounced, in my judgment, with Baal/Baal-Seth. The lack of leonine associations with Baal in the Ugaritic materials – indubitably our most extensive and native database for this deity – has already been noted above and remains a most serious impediment to tracing Yahweh’s leonine aspects (only) to him. It is also notable – even if one is reluctant to admit of problems in the identification of Baal/Baal-Seth on seal-amulets – that that figure’s relationship with also have lion mounts (see, e.g., ibid., figs. 4.236–39), but especially gods in martial presentations with lion mounts (e.g., ibid., figs. 4.234–35). Note also the rampant lion in ibid., fig. 4.297, which contains the inscription “Temple of the Weather God” and the unique lion headed stelae from the temple of Adad (nb!) at Tell Rimah (ibid., fig. 4.301). But it should be recalled that gods associated with other phenomena are also depicted with lions (e.g., ibid., figs. 4.240–41). So, again, the storm and lion connection is not unequivocal. 38 See, conveniently, van der Toorn, “Seth,” 748–49; Manfred Lurker, An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt (London, 1980), 109–10; and, more extensively, te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, especially 138–51. These works highlight Seth’s connections to darkness, chaos, chthonic elements, foreign lands, the desert, and his manifestation by the “cruel sea” (Lurker, Illustrated Dictionary, 109). Ultimately, Seth seems to have been “a figure symbolic of all evil” (ibid., 110). But, again, Yahweh’s leonine connections are not chaotic and evil so much as punitive and martial (see Strawn, What Is Stronger, 58–65). On this score it is worth noting that Green is unable to connect Yahweh’s storm-god presentation in the Hebrew Bible with any leonine antecedent or referent, despite his attempt to closely associate the storm and lion elsewhere in his book (see The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, 219–92, especially 219–80). 39 Of course the construction is not without merit or support. Note, e.g., those instances where the divine name Baal is written in Egyptian with the Seth-animal determinative (WÄS 1:447; Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 143; te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 120, 129). Moreover, several iconographical contexts clearly show Seth in foreign, Baal dress (see ibid., 124–26); indeed, “not a single image of Baal has been found in Egypt, in which he is not also Seth” (ibid., 126). The issue is more complicated, however, for non-Egyptian pieces – particularly anepigraphic seals from ancient Israel/Palestine, and it is, in fact, only on seal-amulets that the winged-god-on-lion type appears. Note Cornelius’ opinion: “in Canaan the identification of Seth with Ba‘al did not exist and the god was known as Ba‘al by the general population (including Egyptians residing there)” (The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 161; emphasis mine). Cf. further ibid., 197 and n. 1, 209; and Cornelius, “Some Additional Representations,” 163. 40 The problems include the nature of the media involved (e.g., seals are typically too small to contain identifying inscriptions) or the broader artistic tradition (it is more difficult to identify Canaanite deities, than, say, Egyptian ones given the former’s more-typically anthropomorphic form). See Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 14.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

59

the lion is not exclusive: he is also found without animal attributes and is found with other animals.41 Moreover, there is also the lion-killing motif – attested for Baal/Baal-Seth,42 but noticeably lacking for Yahweh. So, while Baal-Seth remains a potential option in the search for a divine leonine antecedent for Yahweh, the issue is still far from settled. Yahweh and the Martial Lion Goddess(es) There is, then, a second possibility – in addition to Baal-Seth – that must be considered. This second possibility involves the female goddess who is connected with the lion but who manifests that connection in ways beyond and differently from the realm of fertility, in ways that are more punitive and martial. To be precise, the goddess that fits such a description is in actuality not a singular entity. At least two deities present themselves as potential candidates for the job: Mesopotamian I tar, on the one hand, and Egyptian Sekhmet, on the other. 1. I tar. I tar was, of course, the lion-goddess par excellence in Mesopotamia. She is frequently depicted with lions, with the latter serving as her mount or as her subdued animal, or even both.43 Such images present the goddess in her warlike aspect; she is typically heavily armed, with scimitar, bow, and quiver, dominating the lion more than riding on it (see, especially, fig. 10),44 though she is also shown riding on it (fig. 11). There can be no doubt that her domination of lions lends as much weight to her military presentation as does the extensive weaponry. The textual sources connecting I tar and the lion are even more explicit and more martial.45 Only I tar is called “lioness” (labbatu) or even “the (divine) Lioness” (dlabbatu). As such, she roars at the earth with the results every bit as deleterious as those of Yahweh when he roars (e.g., Amos 1:2). Like Yahweh, lioness I tar rages, stalks, and is presented as a fierce predator. Here, then, is a possible ancestor – a matriarch, as it were – in the lineage of leonine Yahweh. But what can be said of I tar in ancient Israel/Palestine? In an important article, Tallay Ornan has pointed out that representations of I tar in the 41 Particularly the horse, but also serpents or monsters of various sorts. See Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 209–24, 262–63. Earlier, Cornelius thought the horse-connection to also be true for Qud u (ibid., 209 n. 1, 211), but more recently associates the horse mostly, if not exclusively with Astarte (The Many Faces of the Goddess, 89–90, 100). 42 See Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 223; for images, cf. Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 3.9, 4.216. 43 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 190–200 and figs. 4.243–45, 4.247–49; cf. fig. 4.250. 44 For further images, see Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 4.243–45, 4.248. See also the article of Izak Cornelius in this volume. 45 See ibid., 208–10.

60

Brent A. Strawn

first millennium are somewhat rare, at least in monumental art. 46 Indeed, in the 9th–7th centuries specifically, I tar appears most frequently on minor art, not on monumental pieces.47 Even so, one might note the NeoAssyrian lion orthostats at the temple of I tar at Nimrud (fig. 12), which, while unusual for the period,48 continue to connect the goddess with the lion in monumental ways. Or, one might recall the “processional way” leading to the I tar gate, which depicted as many as 120 lions. With these items duly noted, one can turn to a number of representations of I tar in the archaeological record of ancient Israel/Palestine which bear directly on the question at hand.49 In fact, Keel and Uehlinger argue that “I tar is the only one of the Assyrian deities who appears in anthropomorphic form on Iron Age IIC Palestinian stamp seals.”50 Most of these objects show evidence of local variants, traits, and the like and are thus local products – imitations, perhaps, of imports, but locally manufactured.51 Ornan draws the following conclusion from this evidence: The locally made products that depict I tar, and the use of Assyrian traits exemplified […] suggest adaptation of Assyrian imagery by local artisans and imply penetration of the worship of I tar into [the] local cult.52

While several of the local I tar depictions show her in her martial aspect, there is one piece from ancient Israel/Palestine that is especially important for the present study. It is the pendant from Tel Miqne-Ekron, dating to the late 8th or 7th century (fig. 13). 53 In this piece there is evidence that I tar in both her martial and leonine aspects was known in ancient Israel/Palestine in the Iron Age. Further knowledge of I tar, though not necessarily with 46

See Tallay Ornan, “I tar as Depicted on Finds from Israel,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (ed. Amihai Mazar with Ginny Mathias; JSOTSup 331; Sheffield, 2001), 238, though she does note the stela of ama-re-u ur where Itar is behind Adad. 47 Ibid., 239. See further Tallay Ornan, The Triumph of the Symbol: Pictorial Representation of Deities in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban (OBO 213; Fribourg/Göttingen, 2005). 48 Because, in the main, orthostats of composite creatures were preferred at this point in time. See Dominique Collon, Ancient Near Eastern Art (Berkeley, 1995), 137. 49 See Ornan, “I tar as Depicted on Finds from Israel,” 235–56. 50 Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, 1998), 292 (emphasis mine); see also ibid., 370 and 293 illus. 286–88c (from Shechem, Ashdod, Beth-Shean, and Dor); and cf. ibid., 297 illus. 289 (Megiddo). 51 See Ornan, “I tar as Depicted on Finds from Israel,” 235, 244, 248–49, 251–52. 52 Ibid., 251. 53 Ibid., 246 n. 22 and 248; see also Seymour Gitin, “The Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Western Periphery: The Levant, with a Focus on Philistine Ekron,” in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995 (ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting; Helsinki, 1997), 77–103, especially 93 and n. 58, 102 fig. 21; and idem, “Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State,” in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West: Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor and Ashkelon (ed. Seymour Gitin; Dubuque, 1995), 61–79.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

61

leonine aspects, might be found in the opaque mentions of the “Queen of Heaven” (~ymvh tklm) in Jer 7:18; 44:17–19, 25.54 Many scholars have argued that this queen is, in fact, I tar, not only given the royal epithet (cf. Akk malkat ammi, arrat ammi, etc.), but also due to the fact that the Hebrew word for the cakes (Hebrew ~ynwk) offered to this queen is a loanword from Akkadian kamnu, one of the terms used to designate certain offerings to I tar.55 Nevertheless, scholarly opinion is still divided over the identity of the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah, and many other possibilities have been proposed, including Asherah, Anat, Qud u, and Astarte. Indeed, it is intriguing to entertain the possibility that Jeremiah’s “Queen of Heaven” could be a composite – Astarte, for example, “in syncretism with her Mesopotamian equivalent Ishtar.”56 The identification of different goddesses with I tar (and others) may well be the best option, especially given Keel and Uehlinger’s caution that even the objects that definitely represent I tar in Iron Age Palestine permit no conclusion regarding how the goddess was accepted locally. To date, such seals have not been found in Judah, which means that to identify the “Queen of Heaven” exclusively with the Assyrian deity Ishtar, and no other possible deity, cannot be the last word on the subject.57

For the time being, then, it seems wise to set aside the Jeremiah references due to their uncertain bearing on the question. But, as Keel and Uehlinger indicate, even the seals that do depict I tar do not allow any definitive conclusions with regard to the local acceptance of the goddess, especially in the Judean cult (contra Ornan). The identification (Day’s “syncretism”) of different goddesses with I tar and others is an intriguing topic to pursue in this regard and I will return to it below. Still, for the purposes of the present study, it is enough to state that the Tel Miqne-Ekron pendant clearly attests to knowledge of I tar, armed and with the lion, in the land, in the Iron Age. She remains, then, an attractive possible progenitor of Yahweh’s leonine presentation. But, as important as the Tel Miqne-Ekron pendant is, it is – up to the present moment at least – a solitary piece. The other images of I tar recovered 54 The literature is immense. See Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 144– 50 and the literature cited there; and, more briefly, William J. Fulco, “Ishtar,” ABD 3 (1992): 521– 22. 55 See Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 148; HALOT 2:466; CAD K:110–11; AHw 1:430; Cornelis Houtman, “Queen of Heaven,” DDD2 (1999): 678–80. 56 Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 150; referring also to Susan Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta, 1992), 5–35. For Astarte (alone) as the Queen of Heaven, see Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 148–50. 57 Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, 294 (their italics).

62

Brent A. Strawn

from ancient Israel/Palestine do not portray her in exactly the same way. So, as important as Ištar is and may have been, the paternity test, or, better, a maternity test, regarding Yahweh’s leonine lineage is not yet decided. There is another goddess to be considered: Sekhmet. 2. Sekhmet. Sekhmet’s leonine profile is, like Ištar’s, quite similar to Yahweh’s. It is well known that she came to be considered the consort of Ptah and the mother of the leonine Nefertem, forming with these two the Memphite triad of the New Kingdom. The goddess of war and sickness, Sekhmet was frequently portrayed as a lioness, especially as a leontocephaline (see, e.g., fig. 14). She caused various diseases, either directly or through her messengers; and annual epidemics were blamed on her activity. The hot desert winds were sometimes identified as her fiery breath. Sekhmet was also a warrior: fighting the enemies of Ra, defeating Apophis, and killing the companions of Seth (nb! cf. above). It is thus clear that it is her dangerous, violent, martial, and punitive sides that receive special emphasis, and this is an accent that makes sense of, and with(in), her leonine presentation. Only the cult could assuage this lion.58 Sekhmet’s lion pedigree is secure and quite similar to Ištar, on the one hand, and Yahweh, on the other. What makes her candidacy as possible progenitor of and for Yahweh’s leonine heritage slightly more attractive than Ištar’s is the fact that her presence in the archaeological record of ancient Israel/Palestine is somewhat more substantial. There is, first, the Hebrew seal of ‘z’ bn K#ts (fig. 15), which probably depicts Sekhmet (or Bastet), though its unprovenanced nature makes it of limited use. Of much more significance, then, is the large number of Egyptian or Egyptianizing amulets found in ancient Israel/Palestine. Christian Herrmann has catalogued some 83 amulets of Sekhmet59 from Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Tell elFar‘ah (N.), Tell en-NaV>beh, Gezer, Beth-Shemesh, Jerusalem, Sheikh Zuweid, Lachish, Tell el-Far‘ah (S.), Tell el-‘Ajjul, Tell es-Safi, Sera‘, Achziv, Tell Abu Hawam, Ashkelon, and Tel Gerisa.60 They range in time 58 The breach of responsibilities (covenantal or otherwise) that is often found in conjunction with Yahweh’s leonine presentation might be profitably compared (see, e.g., Jer 25:30, 38; Hos 5:14; 6:1 [note bwv]; 2 Kgs 17:25–26 [note ary and jpvm]; etc.). 59 Or perhaps her more benevolent counterpart, Bastet. See further below. 60 Christian Herrmann, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel (OBO 138; Fribourg, 1994), 146–96. See also Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, 350 and 352 illus. 338a–b; and Keel, Corpus: Einleitung, 218. In subsequent volumes, Hermann has added a few additional examples: Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Band II (OBO 184; Fribourg/ Göttingen, 2002), 65–66: two items from Ashkelon (of a lion-headed or cat-headed goddess and of Bastet or Sekhmet; Iron Age IIB and Iron Age IA, respectively); 104–5: Akko (Iron Age IA–B); Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Band III (OBO.SA 24; Fribourg/Göttingen, 2006), 123– 25: three lion-headed representations, only one provenanced (Ekron, Late Bronze Age IIB – Iron Age IB), none of which can be certainly identified with a specific gender (male or female) and so cannot be positively identified as Sekhmet.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

63

from the Late Bronze Age (IIB) through the Persian Period, though the majority of them belong to Iron Age II (see, e.g., fig. 16).61 Keel and Uehlinger, writing of the late Iron Age, have noted such Sekhmet-objects, which are not uncommon, and state that they raise the question of whether the popularity of these deities [goddesses like Isis, Sekhmet, etc.] might not also be due to the fact that a point of contact is provided that links the lion and the goddess once again, as had been done long ago.62

This comment leads to at least three points that deserve further consideration: (1) that several different deities might be leonine; (2) that the goddesslion connection was known earlier in the archaeological record, but (3) it dropped out only to reappear somewhat later. On the first point, it might be said that although a number of Egyptian gods and goddess are leontomorphic,63 such presentations are not found in the amulets of ancient Israel/ Palestine for goddesses other than Sekhmet.64 Important Egyptian lion gods, like Mahes, do not occur at all,65 and Nefertem, while present, is not leontomorphically portrayed. 66 There are, of course, a number of Bes representations, but the amulets do not lay special emphasis on his leonine connections,67 though some seals from the Iron Age III/Persian Period do attest to his mastery of lions (see fig. 7 above). It would appear, then, that Keel and Uehlinger’s statement about connections between the lion and the goddess has mostly (and precisely) to do with Sekhmet and only then, by extension, with other deities, perhaps due to Sekhmet’s occasional representation with them. That being said, the Tel Miqne-Ekron pendant with I tar (fig. 13) also shows that non-Egyptian goddesses could be (and were) portrayed with the lion. The second point has been demonstrated by Keel and Uehlinger and others;68 it need not be repeated. The third point, however, is intriguing. Why, given the long tradition of the goddess-lion connection, would it drop out only to recur later? These are, of course, two distinct questions that can be treated independently. The disappearance of the motif may be related to the 61 A piece from Gezer may be as late as the Hellenistic period. See Herrmann, Ägyptische Amulette I, 195 (#145). The Jerusalem piece is Iron Age IIB. 62 Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, 350. 63 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 200–6. 64 See, e.g., Herrmann, Ägyptische Amulette I, 111–31, on Isis. 65 Though one should note the 15 items catalogued by Herrmann of a lion-headed figure though the specific deity is uncertain (ibid., 395–403). These span from Late Bronze Age IIB through the Persian Period. 66 Ibid., 240–46. 67 See ibid., 316–91, but note that 13 of the 15 indeterminate lion-headed representations listed by Herrmann are classified by him as “Bes-like” (ibid., 395–401). 68 See Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, passim; Strawn, What Is Stronger, 77–228.

64

Brent A. Strawn

general decline in goddess portrayals in the Iron Age, especially when compared to the Late Bronze Age or Middle Bronze Age.69 The female deity and the lion are most clearly represented, that is, in the earlier periods.70 Although the representation of the male god with the lion continues – after a lack in Iron Age II – into the Iron Age III/Persian Period, the main exemplars represent exotic gods, imported from other regions: Bes and Heracles, especially (see fig. 7 and fig. 17, respectively).71 On the basis of these data it is tempting to conclude that Yahweh has absorbed the lion connections from elsewhere, and that, furthermore, the most likely origin of those connections was the realm of the goddess. Given their leonine profiles, it is the warlike I tar and Sekhmet that are the antecedents most similar to Yahweh, and the archaeological record bears witness to the availability of their imagery at various times in the history of the region, particularly for Sekhmet. An additional observation that must not be overlooked, however, is the fact that various goddesses were identified with each other or with some of their associates.72 For Sekhmet, for instance, there were Mut, Mehit of This, Bastet, and others.73 In Egypt, Sekhmet was identified with Astarte and worshipped as such from Dynasty 18 through the Ptolemaic period (see fig. 18). Astarte is, of course, the West Semitic equivalent of I tar.74 She is often thought to be the consort of Baal “but there is no direct evidence for this at Ugarit.”75 What is clearer at Ugarit and elsewhere, however, is the confusing mixture of Astarte with other goddesses like Anat and Asherah/Athiratu. Various mergers of these goddesses with each other and with others, including I tar, undoubtedly took place. 76 69 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 97–107; and, further, Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, 133–281. I will not take up here the second question, that of the reappearance of the motif. 70 See, e.g., Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 3.1–6 (from Late Bronze Age), and 121–23 with fig. 3.158 on the el-Khadr arrowheads (from Iron Age I). 71 For more images, see ibid., figs. 3.109–10, 3.113–19, cf. fig. 3.125. 72 But note the important cautions of Cornelius, The Many Faces of the Goddess, 100. 73 See ibid., 202–4. 74 Astarte is the Greek form as given by Philo of Byblos ( vAsta,rth). In Ugaritic it is ‘ttrt (Athtartu or the like), which comes into Hebrew variously as tr,tv[ or twrtv[ (the latter often [mis-] taken as a plural form). See Gwendolyn Leick and Alan R. Millard, “Astarte,” in Bienkowski and Millard, Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, 40; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 132, also 150; idem, “Ashtoreth (Deity),” ABD 1 (1992): 491–94; N. Wyatt, “Astarte,” DDD2 (1999): 109–14; and Fulco, “Ishtar,” ABD 3 (1992): 521. 75 Wyatt, “Astarte,” 110. Day speculates that, given the Astarte-Baal connection, perhaps this goddess was also perceived at times to be Yahweh’s consort, though he grants that “there is no explicit evidence of this” (Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 132). 76 See, e.g., RS 20.24.24 where Astarte is listed as the equivalent of I tar (Wyatt, “Astarte,” 110). Note Fulco, “Ishtar,” ABD 3 (1992): 521: other goddesses “were also gradually subsumed into the Inanna-Ishtar complex.” See also Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, 339–40; Patrick D. Miller, “Aspects of the Religion of Ugarit,” in idem, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (JSOTSup 267; Sheffield, 2000), 77; Jeremy Black and

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

65

There is, in short, a “complex pattern of relations” among these goddesses, whose “functions and roles clearly overlap, and they exist in changing and sometimes ambiguous relationships to the gods with whom they are associated.”77 The confusion is magnified when the Egyptian evidence and that of the Hebrew Bible is considered. Oden summarizes: the venerable pairings of the Canaanite deities is itself impetus for the fusing of the three great goddesses into a single figure. And this obtains not only in the Old Testament, but also, and already, in the texts from Ras Shamra. […] The conclusion is therefore inevitable that, in the words of Dupont-Sommer, though ’A erah, ‘A tart, and ‘Anat are “primitivement distinctes,” yet they are figures “qui ont tendu à se confondre et à s’identifier les unes avec les autres.”78

The confusion and identification extends, as already indicated, to the consorts of these goddesses. Iconographically, Astarte is found with Baal,79 as is Qud u,80 and also I tar.81 Sorting out all this complexity is beyond the scope of the present study. 82 Here it is enough to say that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the realm of the goddess – and to be more specific, that of I tar and Sekhmet – has as great a probability as Baal-Seth to be the origin of the leonine portrait of Yahweh. Indeed, the probability is greater with regard to the goddesses for the reasons expressed above, namely:
The continuation of other, different male gods with lions in later periods (i.e., these deities were apparently not absorbed);
The specific aspects of the lion profiles of Sekhmet and I tar, on the one hand, and Yahweh on the other (i.e., largely punitive and martial), coupled with attestation of their leonine connections as evidenced in the archaeological record; and
The identification and association of these goddesses with others in the region.

Anthony Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary (Austin, 1992), 108; and Tzvi Abusch, “Ishtar,” DDD2 (1999): 453–54. 77 Miller, “Aspects of the Religion of Ugarit,” 72; see further 76–77. Note also William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (5th ed.; Baltimore, 1968), 74, whom Miller cites on this point. 78 Oden, Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea, 98, quoting André Dupont-Sommer, “L’inscription de l’amulette d’Arslan Tash,” RHR 120 (1939): 133–59, citation from 147. 79 See Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods, 173–74, 178, 197, 203–4, 208; Pl. 45 no. BM7; Pl. 49 no. BM63. 80 Ibid., 155–57; Pl. 41 no. BR 15, Pl. 42 no. BR 16. 81 Ibid., 177–79 Pl. 47 no. BM 16: a 14–13th century piece, purchased in Aleppo. 82 A good beginning for Anat, Astarte, Qedeet (Qud u), and Asherah is made in Cornelius, The Many Faces of the Goddess.

66

Brent A. Strawn

A further consideration that makes the goddess connection attractive is that it is often the case (as previously noted) that the goddess who has leonine connections is the storm-god’s consort. Vanel, for instance, has noted the disappearance of the storm-god’s consort at Nuzi and in first-millennium Mesopotamia, that role being played, instead, by I tar, who is sometimes represented with Adad.83 Or, one might note that in the Egyptian Contendings of Horus and Seth, Astarte (along with Anat) is the wife of Seth.84 Or, consider the presentation of Atargatis (Hera) with the lions along with Hadad (Zeus) and the bulls in Lucian’s De Dea Syria. Then, at Ugarit, there are El the bull and his consort Athirat, who may – at least through subsequent deity identifications – have leonine associations,85 and Baal, the storm-god, with Astarte. The calculus of all this would be that whereas Yahweh absorbed elements of El and Baal (the latter primarily through storm-god imagery), Yahweh also absorbed leonine aspects – not from El or Baal,86 but from their female consorts, the leonine goddesses that were frequently associated with these male gods, with each other, and with other, not-originally Canaanite, goddesses – preeminently I tar and Sekhmet. In this light, the portrayal of Yahweh as a kind of lion-god is best understand as yet another example of how that which originally belonged to the realm of the goddess was incorporated into Yahweh’s persona. It is, in short, further evidence for what Othmar Keel has called “integrative monotheism”87 – the adoption and incorporation of aspects of various deities into 83

Vanel, L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage, 167. ANET, 14–17; AEL, 2:214–23. For Astarte in Egypt, see Stadelmann, Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten, 99–110. 85 That is: El (Bull) and Asherah (Lion). According to the reconstruction of Smith (The Early History of God, 57 and passim), the Asherah cult dies out relatively early in ancient Israel and is subsumed by the Yahweh cult, whereas El is early identified with Yahweh. In the meantime, Baal acquires (or gets attributed) the bull imagery. Yahweh is thus differentiated from the bull because of (still later) anti-Baal polemic but retains the lion imagery (which may have originally been via Asherah?). 86 Though, as indicated above, Baal-Seth remains a possible antecedent. 87 Oral communication (see also Othmar Keel, “Yahweh as Mother Goddess,” Theology Digest 36 [1989]: 223–36; idem, “Wie männlich ist der Gott Israels?,” Diakonia 24 [1993]: 179–86). Keel means by “integrative monotheism,” a monotheism in marked contrast to Akhenaten’s reductive sort – eliminating all other gods save the Aten. “Integrative monotheism” is the exact opposite: a type of amalgamation of many deities and their aspects into one deity. Keel is not the only one to argue such a point. See, e.g., Patrick D. Miller, “The Absence of the Goddess in Israelite Religion,” HAR 10 (1986): 239–48; and, more recently, idem, The Religion of Ancient Israel, especially 23–40. Smith, The Early History of God, 1–14 and passim, speaks of both convergence and differentiation. Robert Karl Gnuse has called the phenomenon “emergent monotheism” (No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel [JSOTSup 241; Sheffield, 1997]). Cf. also Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 241; and Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology (OTL; 2 vols.; Louisville, 1995–1996), 1:106. Integrative Monotheism is the title of a forthcoming collection of Keel’s essays in English (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns). 84

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

67

the one God, Yahweh.88 The route to Israelite monotheism did not lie in a reductionistic program like Akhenaten’s, but rather ran the route of assimilation, amalgamation, perhaps one might even say agglutination. If this judgment is correct, it would indicate that the frequently violent image of Yahweh as a lion was originally female in origin.89 Warlike goddesses like I tar and Sekhmet may well have been the progenitors or promulgators of a leonine tradition that eventually became associated with Yahweh. These goddesses, and others like them, are goddesses of war and the like, but also manifest less violent aspects. I tar, for instance, is also a goddess of love;90 Sekhmet could heal as well as cause disease.91 Such a situation is, again, not unlike – and in fact is well-suited for application to – Yahweh, who also incorporates a number of different aspects, nuances, and characteristics in his divine persona.92 The polarity of these goddesses, that is, is also found in Yahweh, even in leonine Yahweh.93 A Cautious Summation The previous arguments notwithstanding, absolute certainty is probably not to be had on the divine origins of Yahweh’s leonine profile. The complexities surrounding the goddesses involved (especially Astarte, Athirat/Asherah, Anat, and Qudu) preclude such certainty. Moreover, even as possible contrasts between the Hebrew Bible and the comparative evidence should not be overstressed,94 the value of possible similarities should also not be overestimated in interpretation. Both are at work along with a third category: transformation.95 The most notable transformation in the present dis88 Smith, The Early History of God, 7–8 defines an analogous process, which he calls “convergence,” simply as “the coalescence of various deities and/or some of their features into the figure of Yahweh. […] [T]itles and characteristics originally belonging to various deities secondarily accrued to Yahweh.” 89 The association of various goddesses with violence should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Anat’s exploits in KTU 1.3 II.3–30. 90 It is worth noting that Othmar Keel (Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary [Minnea– polis, 1994], 155, 158; cf. 39–45) has seen the presence of lion imagery in Song 4:8 as a move to give “the beloved the form and attributes of a goddess” (155), especially Itar (158). 91 See Lurker, An Illustrated Dictionary, 106. 92 See the treatments in Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 1–23, 40–44; Smith, The Early History of God, passim. 93 See, e.g., Strawn, What Is Stronger, 60–64 for a discussion of the “positive” uses of lion imagery with Yahweh in Isa 31:4; Hos 11:10; and Joel 4:16. 94 See ibid., 236–50. 95 Cf. J.J.M. Roberts, “In Defense of the Monarchy: The Contribution of Israelite Kingship to Biblical Theology,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia, 1987), 380: “It is difficult to speak of the essence of Yahwism without speaking of its ability to take up elements of

68

Brent A. Strawn

cussion would be that, in contrast to much of the comparative evidence, the Hebrew Bible employs the lion metaphor exclusively with a deity depicted, in the main, in male categories. Perhaps at this point, and for this reason, Baal-Seth reemerges as an attractive possible origin of the leonine pedigree of Yahweh. To bolster that case further, one might appeal to the syntactical, lexical, and (perhaps) onomatopoeic96 connections between the lion image and the theophanic thunderstorm. These serve to tie lion imagery to storm imagery and, consequently, to storm-deities.97 Several texts in the Hebrew Bible that apparently connect the lion and the storm do so merely by evoking lion imagery via the use of a term(s) or syntagma belonging to the semantic domain of lion imagery; hence, some passages are clearer than others (cf. Amos 1:2 and Joel 4:16 with Job 37:2, 4) and caution is thus in order. Nevertheless, these connections raise the question of whether the lion is part of the theophanic tradition of the storm. Might there be a “theophanic lion tradition” or, at the very least, does the lion play a role in the theophanic thunderstorm tradition? Again, the composite Baal-Seth who rides on the lion comes to mind, but, regardless, the possible connection between the lion and the storm may help to explain how the syntagma !tn + lwq can be used of both storm and lion imagery.98 If such a connection between the lion and storm exists, it might indicate that the Yahweh-as-lion motif is not, whatever its origins, exclusively female, as storm-gods are typically male, especially in the Levant. Even so, while Baal-Seth was associated with both the storm and the lion, the Hebrew Bible evidently uses the lion-Yahweh connection nearly as often as it does that of the storm and Yahweh, and, as shown above, the lion-Yahweh connection has as much to do with the goddess as it does with the (storm-) god.99 It must be admitted that even if a relationship between the lion-goddesses and Yahweh exists, it lies in the far distant past, if it is recoverable or discernible at all. This is to say that the female aspect per se is not highly pronounced in the presentations of leonine Yahweh. Even so, we might note its environment, even hostile elements, and transform them into supporting structures for the Yahwistic faith.” Smith, The Early History of God, would probably subsume transformation under his “differentiation” pole. But the fact that transformation is also at work in convergence reveals that it is something of a tertium quid. 96 See, e.g., Thorkild Jacobsen’s argument that the lion’s roar is connected with the thunderstorm due to similar sound (The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion [New Haven, 1976], 128–29). Jacobsen has been followed by Brown, “Symbolic Lions,” passim. Note also Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, 15, 25, and passim. 97 For major studies, see Vanel, L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage; Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens; and Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East. 98 Or is the connection between the storm (thunder) and the lion (roar) purely onomatopoeic? See note 96 above. 99 Once again, it bears repeating that the lion-goddesses are frequently consorts of the male storm-gods, so a storm-god vs. leonine-goddess may be a false dichotomy.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

69

that in Hos 13:8 the parallel to the lion image is “like a bear bereaved of cubs” (lwkv bdk). This latter image is certainly one of a mother bear. 100 Interestingly, the particular lion term employed in this passage is aybl, which many scholars have argued is a female term: “lioness.” While this latter judgment is philologically dubious,101 the parallelism at work in this particular passage may nevertheless provide some evidence that the connection of the lion with female aspects incorporated into Yahweh’s divine persona is occasionally present at some level in certain texts,102 even if that connection and those aspects are no longer completely transparent. Again, it is the unfortunate case that certainty is not to be had. To conclude this section: If Yahweh’s leonine profile is not original to Israel, if it is, in fact, derived from other deity profiles, the options are mainly two: Baal-Seth or the lion-goddess, especially the martial liongoddess – better: goddesses – preeminently I tar and Sekhmet. The archaeological evidence as well as the textual presentations of the leonine Yahweh would seem to favor the latter possibility. If so, Yahweh’s leonine profile may well be the result of absorbing what was once associated with the goddess into Yahweh’s divine portrait. One cannot be absolutely certain, however, given the complexities surrounding the goddesses that are associated with the lion as well as the enduring connections of the lion with the male god.103 To put it simply: tracing the genetic origins of deity-types or aspects is notoriously difficult given the complexities inherent in the task and in the divinities themselves. Yet, even if the leonine characteristics of Yahweh lay originally in the realm of the goddess, the fact that the Hebrew Bible applies lion imagery so extensively to Yahweh, a God mainly figured in male categories, has a certain rhetorical impact, which must now be considered.

100

See BDB 1013–14; HALOT 4:1489. See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 311–19. 102 Note further, e.g., the discussion of Ps 111:5 in Strawn, What Is Stronger, 49, 64. This verse may evoke Yahweh as the lioness providing for her cubs. However, the fact that the only developed lion-metaphor applied to a female entity (the lioness of Ezekiel 19) is largely negative (see ibid., 248–50) might warrant caution in overestimating positive female connotations in the lion image when applied to Yahweh. Moreover, one must recall the zoological fact that male lions also hunt – a fact apparently also known in ancient Israel, if a text like Nah 2:12–14 is any indication. 103 But note again that, in many cases, the male god is typically a lion-killer or lion-controller (e.g., Strawn, What Is Stronger, figs. 4.216–220) or uses the lion as a mount (ibid., fig. 4.221). Neither aspect is especially pronounced with reference to Yahweh. Note also (again) that many female deities’ associations with the lion lie mostly in the realm of fertility (e.g., ibid., fig. 4.222), another aspect that does not correspond to Yahweh’s leonine profile. 101

70

Brent A. Strawn

3. Yahweh and the Lion-Kings Before turning to that impact proper, it must be admitted that there is yet another possible source for the leonine presentation of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. That source is the venerable ancient Near Eastern tradition of lion-kings.104 In textual sources, they, too, are portrayed as lions and with violent and martial aspects very much akin to what one finds with Yahweh. While it is true that numerous monarchs are represented as lions in aspects and contexts that are quite similar to that found in presentations of Yahweh as a lion in the Hebrew Bible, this is mostly a literary phenomenon; it is rare to find iconographical presentations of such, whether from ancient Israel/Palestine (cf., perhaps, fig. 19) or beyond – that is, one has to argue the case, the depictions are seldom self-evident on this score. 105 Perhaps the clearest royal-lion representations are the sphinxes (e.g., fig. 20)106 but these frequently played apotropaic roles – roles which, to be sure, are not to be entirely divorced from threatening presentations but which, at the same time, are not coterminous with such.107 Closer parallels to the presentations of Yahweh as divine lion are clearly found in the royal inscriptions of various monarchs where lion metaphors are often used in the descriptions of the monarch’s prowess in battle.108 Despite the fact that this type of language occurs early and often, there are two main repositories that commend themselves as possible antecedents to the usage found in the Hebrew Bible. The raging royal lion metaphors are found with special concentration among the Ramessides of Dynasties 19–20 in Egypt109 and, in Mesopotamia, among various rulers in the NeoAssyrian empire – from at least the time of Adad-narari II through Esarhaddon.110 Both locales also attest examples of lions attacking humans, which may be a metaphor of sorts for the king attacking his enemies – and in Egypt this tradition is quite widespread – but it is worth noting the heavy concentration of this motif in Mesopotamia during the Neo-Assyrian period.111 The fact that there are at least these two data sets warrants caution in deciding too quickly which is the most likely to have exercised influence on 104

Strawn, What Is Stronger, 152–84, 236–50. For further images, see ibid., figs. 3.12, 4.56–58, 4.60–63, 4.84, 4.169–72, etc. 106 See further ibid., figs. 4.156–58. 107 A standard work remains Ursula Schweitzer, Löwe und Sphinx im alten Ägypten (ÄF 15; Glückstadt/Hamburg, 1948). 108 For discussion and texts, see Strawn, What Is Stronger, 174–81. 109 Ibid., 176–77. 110 Ibid., 178–80. 111 Ibid., 141–45. 105

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

71

the Hebrew Bible. One must proceed carefully: if royal lion metaphors are the progenitor of the divine lion Yahweh, it is not yet clear that those metaphors are exclusively Neo-Assyrian. The existence of the motif elsewhere, and earlier, and especially in New Kingdom Egypt, might well indicate that this is an old tradition that is functioning instead of, or at least in addition to, possible Neo-Assyrian influence. And, of course, the opposite could be said as well. In this latter vein, it is worth noting that many of the texts that employ the militant and punitive lion metaphor for Yahweh are prophetic and belong (whatever the vagaries of their final redactions) to the late NeoAssyrian or early Babylonian periods (e.g., Hos 5:14; 11:10; 13:7–8; Amos 1:2; 3:8; Isa 31:4; 38:13; Jer 25:30, 38; 49:19; 50:44).112 This might well indicate that, at least in these cases, external influence – if it is present – is most likely Neo-Assyrian in origin. Further data might be culled in support of a Neo-Assyrian connection. For example, those few texts in the Hebrew Bible where Yahweh seems to be figured as a lion-hunter, pursuing the wicked king-as-lion (e.g., Ezek 12:13; 17:20; see above) might be profitably compared with the royal lionhunt traditions.113 The Neo-Assyrian exemplars of the royal lion-hunt, given their power and familiarity, come immediately to mind (e.g., fig. 21). And yet, as is well known, the lion-hunt is ubiquitous; the same cannot be said of the (possible) presentations of Yahweh as a lion-hunter, and therefore tracing possible influence on this particular point is much more difficult, if not altogether impossible. Moreover, it is also the case that deities in the ancient Near East were portrayed as lion-hunters or killers, and were so presented in periods other than just the Assyrian.114 Here too, then, arguing for an exclusively royal referent, more broadly, or an exclusively Assyrian origin, more narrowly, is problematic. Even so, the particular nexus of at least some of the prophetic imagery and/within the Neo-Assyrian period makes it possible that traditions surrounding the human (Neo-Assyrian) king and the lion might well have been one of the factors impacting the presentation of the divine lion Yahweh.115 112

See further ibid., 58–65. Ibid., 161–74; cf. also 153–61. See further and especially Chikako E. Watanabe, Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia: A Contextual Approach (Wiener Offene Orientalistik 1; Vienna, 2002). 114 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 187–90. It is not always clear in the iconography which deity is represented, though in a number of cases it seems clear that it is the storm god (nb!). A number of Egyptian pieces depict Horus (as Shed or Harpokrates) mastering the lion. Correlation of certain textual and artistic sources indicates that leonine familiars were probably once antagonistic to the deity they now accompany. If so, the use of lions as mounts or as companions could also be considered here (see Strawn, What Is Stronger, 189–200). 115 For the notion of human kingship impacting presentations of divine kingship, see Smith, The Early History of God, 106; Marc Zvi Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTSup 76; Sheffield, 1989), 15. Brettler and others have focused mostly on Israelite 113

72

Brent A. Strawn

Again, regardless of the exact origin of the motif – whether from the realm of the gods (especially the goddesses) as in a history-of-religion analysis, or from human monarchs, as in a more social-historical and – political investigation – the application of negative, destructive leonine aspects to Yahweh has significant rhetorical impact. In particular, the biblical application of this type of imagery to Yahweh concurrent with the biblical avoidance of similar application with reference to almost all Israelite monarchs116 actually serves to bolster the image of Yahweh as king. Significantly, the Hebrew Bible shows no such reticence in using lion imagery of foreign kings (e.g., Ezek 32:2–3; Jer 50:17; 51:34; cf. Dan 7:4).117 This fact may well suggest that the avoidance of lion imagery with reference to Israelite monarchs is polemical in force.118 Be that as it may, the widespread use of leonine metaphor in ancient Near Eastern royal ideology provides a sort of royal filter through which the divine lion, Yahweh, can be seen. That filter makes the divine lion look increasingly like a divine lion-king. The image of the king is, of course, a masculine one, and its influence or presence at some level in leonine metaphorical presentations of Yahweh serves to reinforce notions of Yahweh’s kingship and, thus, his maleness. In this light, the use of the lion image, whatever its possible connections to the sphere of the goddess, may, ironically – at least by the time of the composition of the texts of the Hebrew Bible – be an image that actually serves to reinforce Yahweh’s masculine and monarchic aspects.119 And, depending on the provenance of the specific text in question, the male and royal aspects may combine to make Yahweh look distinctively like a Neo-Assyrian king.

kingship; it is obvious that notions of ancient Near Eastern kingship in various regional manifestations may also have affected presentations of Yahweh’s divine kingship, at least at certain junctures. The lion is patently one of these cases. For two studies that discuss the influence of Assyrian royal ideology (at least obliquely) on the presentation of Yahweh, see Paul-Eugène Dion, “Quelques aspects de l’interaction entre religion et politique dans le Deutéronome,” Science et Esprit 30 (1978): 39–55; and Eckart Otto, “Die besiegten Sieger: Von der Macht und Ohnmacht der Ideen in der Geschichte am Beispiel der neuassyrischen Großreichspolitik,” BZ 43 (1999): 180–203. Gary V. Smith, “The Concept of God/the Gods as King in the Ancient Near East and the Bible,” TJ 3 (1982): 18–38, is a repository of royal language applied to various deities but deals little with connecting that to specific political dynasties. 116 Ezek 19:1–6 is an unusual exception that actually proves the point. See note 102 above and, further, Strawn, What Is Stronger, 248–50. 117 See ibid., 54–58. 118 This possibility is discussed further in ibid., 236–48. 119 Here it is instructive to recall the decrease of female deities associated with the lion as one proceeds through the Late Bronze and Iron Age materials in ancient Israel/Palestine. See above.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

73

4. Conclusion To conclude: the leonine presentations of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible have two possible and plausible sources of origin. One is the realm of the gods, treated extensively above; the other possible origin is ancient Near Eastern royal ideology. Royal inscriptions celebrating the victory of the king in battle often include leonine descriptions of the monarch in question that are similar in articulation and context to those of Yahweh as lion. In light of what has been said above, it is probably not possible to decide definitively that only one of these origins is certain with the other irrelevant. Instead, given the extensive use of the lion within both realms with various referents, it is quite likely that at different points one of the realms had more impact than the other, and even that, at times at least, both exercised influence concurrently on leonine imagery and metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Such a conclusion does not obviate the importance of the diachronic and genetic endeavor so much as help to underscore the interactionist nature of metaphor, especially when it is applied to a complex subject such as the divine.120 So, instead of choosing between the royal and divine realms, it might be more useful, ultimately, to recognize that both are at work (though again perhaps not equally so in every instance). Such a combinatory idea – monarch and deity, deity and monarch – functions in a number of ways according to an interactionist understanding of metaphor theory. It would, on the one hand, make the kings (in this case, the ancient Near Eastern kings) look a good bit more divine since they would share with the gods the application of leonine metaphor;121 it would also, at the same time, make the gods (and, in this case, Israel’s God, Yahweh), look more kingly. Both subjects, deities and monarchs, also begin to look more leonine given their comparison with these creatures. Finally, the interaction of metaphorical elements means that the lion begins to look simultaneously more royal (“king of the beasts” after all!) and more divine. Whatever their origin(s), however they are combined, and in whichever ways they interact, it is important to stress that, in the main, the lionYahweh metaphors are negative and threatening in tenor. The lion that is Yahweh hunts, captures prey, rips it apart and devours it; when that lion roars, it strikes fear into all who hear it. Even possible exceptions to this rule (Isa 31:4; Hos 11:10; Joel 4:16) depend on the tenor of threat and power that the lion metaphor evokes in order to achieve their (possibly) positive reversal of expectations.122 In this light, these passages are not 120

See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 5–16. The Israelite kings, in contrast, are denied this divine benefit by avoidance of the metaphor. 122 See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 60–64. 121

74

Brent A. Strawn

exceptional but, in fact, exemplary. At the same time, however, there can be little doubt that these texts (especially Hos 11:10) do employ the lion metaphor in ways that are atypical of the Hebrew Bible and the broader ancient Near East.123 These texts take on increased significance, then, insofar as they develop and use the lion image in new, unexpected, and startling ways, even while they do so in a way that depends and builds upon the longstanding traditions of lion imagery in the ancient Near East. Part of this newness is, of course, due to the process of metaphorizing in the first place. That being granted, it must nevertheless be stressed that previous scholarship which has often spoken of the lion metaphor as ambiguous at some level is largely mistaken. The image itself is not ambiguous. In the main, it retains its threatening tenor rather unambiguously, but, given the mechanics of metaphor and the flexibility of the lion image itself, it can be differently focused and ambivalently employed. Finally, it will come as no surpise to scholars of the prophets that the majority of instances of leonine metaphor for Yahweh and its creative and unusual employment is to be found in the prophets – those gifted poets of ancient Israel. What may be surprising to some, however, is how unusually useful – even indispensable – iconography has proven to be in this particular investigation of one intriguing aspect of the history of Israelite religion.

123 Exceptions to this judgment might include guardian lions (i.e., orthostats, sphinxes, etc.), though these are not always representative of or metaphorical for deities. A clearer exception would be the lion orthostat of the goddess Allât at Palmyra where it seems clear that the lion represents the goddess and that the iconography of the piece – clarified by its accompanying inscription – is protective. See Strawn, What Is Stronger, 217–20, especially 220; and Han J. W. Drijvers, “Sanctuaries and Social Safety: The Iconography of Divine Peace in Hellenistic Syria,” in Commemorative Figures: Papers Presented to Dr. Th.P. van Baaren on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, May 13, 1982 (Visible Religion: Annual for Religious Iconography 1; Leiden, 1982), 65–75. Still, this is a rather unusual, if not singular, example.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

75

Fig. 1: Seal impression; ca. 1750 B.C.E. After Othmar Keel, Deine Blicke sind Tauben: Zur Metaphorik des Hohen Liedes (SBS 114/115; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984), Abb. 27; Brent A. Strawn, What Is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO 212; Fribourg: Academic Press and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), fig. 4.263.

Fig. 2: Cylinder seal; ca. 2150-2000 B.C.E (Ur III). After Othmar Keel, ed., Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt (BB 14; Fribourg: Verlag Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980), 71 Abb. 3; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.271.

76

Brent A. Strawn

Fig. 3: Rock relief; Yazılıkaya; ca. 1250 B.C.E. After Keel, Deine Blicke, Abb. 29; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.259.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

77

Fig. 4: Gold pendant; Minet el-Beida; ca. 1350 B.C.E. After Othmar Keel, Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden: Drei Fallstudien zur Methode der Interpretation altorientalischer Bilder (OBO 122; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1992), Abb. 218; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.251.

Fig. 5: Cylinder seal; Tell es-Safi; LBA. After Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), illus. 89; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.9.

78

Brent A. Strawn

Fig. 6: Pyramidal seal; Tel Gerisa; IA I. After Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, illus. 131; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.35.

Fig. 7: Seal; Ashkelon (surface find); IA III/Persian Period (6th-5th cent. B.C.E.). After Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, illus. 366b; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.110; cf. Othmar Keel, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Vol. 1: Von Tell Abu Farag bis ‘Atlit (OBO.SA 13; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1997), 691 Nr. 8.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

79

Fig. 8: Scarab; Lachish; IA I. After Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, illus. 138b; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.48.

Fig. 9: Clay seal impression; Tell el-Far‘ah (S.) (Stratum X); IA I (ca. 1150-1000 B.C.E.). After Izak Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al: Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c 1500-1000 BCE) (OBO 140; Fribourg: University Press, 1994), Pl. 50, BM65; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.50.

80

Brent A. Strawn

Fig. 10: Cylinder seal; Akkadian Period. After Othmar Keel, Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament: Ikonographische Studien zu Jos 8, 18–26; Ex 17, 8–13; 2 Kön 13, 14–19 und 1 Kön 22, 11 (OBO 5; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1974), Abb. 3; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.242.

Fig. 11: Cylinder seal; ca. 700 B.C.E. After Keel, Deine Blicke, Abb. 23; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.246.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

81

Fig. 12: Sculpture; Nimrud (Temple of I tar); 9th cent. B.C.E. After Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.298; cf. Dominique Collon, Ancient Near Eastern Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), fig. 186.

Fig. 13: Electron pendant; Tel Miqne-Ekron (Stratum IB); IA II. After Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen (4th ed.; QD 134; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 554 Abb. 398; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.84; cf. Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (LAI; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 350 illus. 219.

82

Brent A. Strawn

Fig. 14: Bronze; Late Egyptian Period. After Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (SBS 84/85; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), Abb. 19; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.275.

Fig. 15: Carnelian scaraboid (Hebrew) of ‘z’ son of ts (stx !b az[l ); unprovenanced (IA II?). After Benjamin Sass, “The Pre-Exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism vs. Aniconism,” in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (eds. Benjamin Sass and Christoph Uehlinger; OBO 125; Fribourg: University Press Fribourg Switzerland, 1993), 211 fig. 72; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.86; cf. Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1997), #298.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

83

Fig. 16: Amulette; Lachish (Grave 107); IA IIB (ca. 850-800 B.C.E.). After Christian Herrmann, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Mit einem Ausblick auf ihre Rezeption durch das Alte Testament (OBO 138; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1994), 152 (no. 69).

Fig. 17: Scarab; ‘Athlit (Southeast cemetery; Grave 20); IA III/Persian Period (ca. 539-400 B.C.E.). After Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, illus. 367a; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.112; cf. Keel, Corpus I, 759 Nr. 4.

84

Brent A. Strawn

Fig. 18: Relief; Edfu (Horus Temple); 1st cent. B.C.E. (Ptolemy XVI, ca. 30). After Hugo Gressmann, Altorientalische Bilder zum Alten Testament (2d ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1927), Abb. 278; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.276.

Fig. 19: Seal; Tell el-Far‘ah (S.); LBA. After Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, illus. 100; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.12.

Whence Leonine Yahweh?

85

Fig. 20: Granite statue; Soleb (Sudan) and then Gebel Barkal; Amenhotep III (1390– 1352 B.C.E.). After Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), fig. 163; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 4.158.

Fig. 21: Bulla; Samaria; IA II (probably 8th c. B.C.E.). After Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, illus. 278b; Strawn, What Is Stronger, fig. 3.93.

Nanno Marinatos Nanno Marinatos

The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals The object of this paper is to investigate the iconography of prophecy rituals in Minoan Crete and to make a suggestion about the role of the royal family in matters of divination. The very nature of the material, which consists solely of images, imposes limits upon interpretation. We have no readable texts from Crete of the 16th century B.C.E. since its scripts still remain undeciphered. The images, though, are quite eloquent in their way and may supply us with information which is unexpected. Not only do they throw light on the Minoan rites, but they may supplement the information about prophecy rituals in the Near East during the second millennium B.C.E. The scenes in question depict human figures shaking a tree or leaning over a stone. They occur only on gold rings and no other medium, such as sculpture or murals. The rings were worn by upper class officials, emissaries of the palace, and for this reason the representations must reflect the ideology of the palace. A further consideration is that gold is a very costly material; for this reason it was often the monopoly of the palace. And if this was the case in Minoan Crete, the representations themselves were commissioned by the palace. I shall next present sketchily the history of the interpretation of these rings; for further details I refer the reader elsewhere.1 They caught the attention of Sir Arthur Evans, the excavator of Knossos, already in 1901. In a ground-breaking article called “Tree and Pillar Cult”2 he tried to interpret the scenes utilizing theories of primitive religion. His focus was pillar and tree cult, as it was sketched out by William Robertson Smith in his Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (1889).3 Smith was a major influence on Evans who practically saw an illustration of Smith’s theories on the Minoan material. It looked to him as though trees were possessed by divinities and became their temporary abode and that for this reason they became the focus of ritual action.

1

Nanno Marinatos, “Minoan Epiphanies,” in Divine Epiphanies in the Ancient World (eds. Danuta Shanzer and Nanno Marinatos), ICS 29 (2004): 25–42. 2 A.J. Evans, “The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and its Mediterranean Relations,” JHS 21 (1901): 99–204, esp. 176–77. 3 William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: Burnett Lectures 1888-89. London, 1894. Reprinted by Elibron Classics 2005.

The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals

87

Slightly different was the view of Evans’s contemporary, the Cambridge scholar Jane Ellen Harrison who stressed magic as a feature of primitive religion. Shaking the tree was, according to her, a way to ensure food.4 Scholars in the following decades have followed the lead of Harrison or Evans producing variations of the theme until, in the last decades of the century, scholars became aware of weaknesses in the paradigms and they gave up on interpretation of Minoan religion altogether.5 A criticism that may be waged against theories based on magic and animism is that Crete was a theocratic monarchy in the 16th century B.C.E. and its religion was anything but primitive. Its institutions and ideas must have been similar to those of other theocratic kingdoms of the Ancient Orient. If such a Near Eastern perspective is adopted, then the rings may be best elucidated by Near Eastern texts and rituals. In sum, what will help us understand Minoan Crete in the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. is a model of royal ideology, rather than anthropological theory about primitive religions. Our first example is a gold ring from Mycenae (fig. 1). On the left side, a woman bends over a monument; on the right a man shakes the branches of a tree. The woman in the center is differentiated from the rest on account of her central position. Her arms are bent resting on her hips and she seems to be twirling much like a dervish. Also noteworthy is her large necklace, which defines her social status and shows that she was a member of a wealthy privileged class. Indeed, Evans thought she was a goddess but this cannot be the case; performing deities occur rarely (if ever) in ancient art. Our second example is a ring from a tomb in the Peloponnese at Vapheio (fig. 2). Here we have a male shaking the branches of a tree while a woman, larger than him, is performing a twirl in the center. Not all rings show the shaking of a tree. A seal from Knossos and a ring now in the Ashmolean (figs. 3 and 4) show a woman leaning over a rock but the tree is omitted. Thus, the two types of activity, shaking the branches of a tree or leaning over a rock, occur singly or in combination. Two specific but related types of ritual activity seem to be indicated. First, the space where the two activities take place is defined by two markers: an oval rock and a tree. Sometimes there are additional sacred objects present, such as a shield and garment on the right side of the 4 Evans’s view differs from that of Harrison in that he envisages a fruit offering to the goddess not magic fertility rituals; see Evans, “The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,” 176–77; Jane Ellen Harrison (1927), Epilegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, and Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1962), 167–68. 5 C. D. Cain, “Dancing in the Dark: Deconstructing a Narrative of Epiphany on the Isopata Ring,” AJA 105 (2000): 27–49.

88

Nanno Marinatos

Vapheio ring (viewer’s perspective, fig. 2). We may define this space as a Minoan open air sanctuary, perhaps equivalent to the bamah of the biblical religious landscape.6 Second, the activity may be interpreted as ecstatic divination in which a tree and/or a stone is used. The men or women who shake the tree branches also kick their legs. This behaviour may be described as frantic since the actors behave as though they are possessed. In Near Eastern texts, possession (sometimes described as madness) best fits the character of the prophet, male or female. It is implied by phrases such as “the hand of God came upon him [Elisha]” (2 Kgs 3:16). u . could indeed be translated as madness or frenzy.7 The Hebrew word [G:vm For example, it is said of Jehu: “Why did this madman come to you?” (2 Kgs 9:11). In Jeremiah the prophet is equated with a madman: “[…] every man who is demented and considers himself a prophet” (Jer 29:26; see also 1 Sam 21:15–16; Hos 9:7). Even king Saul’s madness was described as prophetic ecstasy after he was chosen to be king “[…] and the spirit of God possessed him, and he fell into a prophetic frenzy […]” (1 Sam 10:9). In Akkadian, the word for prophet is mahhû which means “frenzied.” An invaluable primary source for prophets are the letters from Mari. There is plenty of evidence there about prophets or prophetesses going into trance. In the temple of Annunitum […] a servant girl of Dagan-Malik went into trance and spoke.8 “In the temple of Annunitum, three days ago, elebum went into trance […]”9

There is little doubt, then, that in the second millennium B.C.E. possession/ madness and frenzy characterized the prophet. Using this template we may well explain the kicking of the men or women shaking the branches of a tree on Minoan rings. We can be more precise, however. When the prophet shook the branches, the leaves made noise, as though they spoke, and the prophet understood their language. I base this hypothesis on a set of texts from Ugarit which refer to “a word of tree and whisper of stone.”10 There is also evidence from the Hebrew Bible and later Greek literature which may throw light on this process, and we shall return to it later. 6 For these insights see already Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 187, 190–93 and Evans, “The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,” 176–77. 7 Cf. HAL 1315. 8 Martti Nissinen, with contributions by Choon-Leong Seow and Robert K. Ritner, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (SBLWAW 12; Atlanta, 2003), 48 no. 24. 9 Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 47 no. 23. 10 KTU 1.3. iii 19-31; translation N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues (2nd ed.; The Biblical Seminar 33; Sheffield, 2002), 78. See idem, “Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone: El’s Oracle to King Keret (Kirta), and the Problem of the Mechanics of Its Utterance,” VT 57 (2007): 483–510.

The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals

89

The second type of posture found on our rings entails leaning over an oval rock. Previous theories have explained it as either one of worship or of mourning; yet neither explanation is satisfactory.11 Worship is never expressed iconographically in this form because where are the offerings and where is the altar? As for mourning, the posture of the figures on the rings hardly fits this hypothesis either. The fact is that mourning is hardly ever expressed as a passive state of sorrow in ancient art (this is rather a western attitude); instead, mourners beat their chest and forehead or tear their cheeks and pull their hair.12 The figures on the rings do none of this. A better interpretation is they are in a passive state, in a trance, or that they are asleep dreaming visions.13 This new theory explains well the iconography on a stone seal from Knossos where the woman rests her head on a stone and covers her ears with her hands (fig. 3). The excavator’s thesis that she is kissing the stone baetyl is dependent on Evans’s 19th century paradigm of baetyl worship.14 The Knossos woman, however, does not worship but is covering her ears. Her action may best be interpreted as intensive listening to the stone: “the whisper of the stone” as the Ugaritic text tells us.15 Other scenes suggest that the figures leaning over the stone have dreams and, being in this state, they “see” visions. On a ring now in the Ashmolean we see a woman leaning over a stone; behind her a small figure hovers in the sky, whereas on her left (from the viewer’s perspective) is another woman (fig. 4). There is little doubt that this representation depicts the epiphany of a male deity to the two women. The one leaning over the oval rock does not see the god directly but rather senses his presence. What we have in front of us is likely a dream vision as a result of an incubation ritual for which we have good parallels in the Near East.16 In the Mari letters the prophets visited temples and even slept there. In a letter from Mari a female prophetess reports:17

11 Mourning was assumed by Evans, “The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,” 108, and followed by Axel Waldemar Persson, The Religion of Greece in Prehistoric Times (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1942); Peter M. Warren, Minoan Religion as Ritual Action (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature, Pocket-book 72; Gothenburg, 1988), 9. Contested by Marinatos, “Minoan Epiphanies.” 12 Examples can be found in Ancient Greek, Egyptian and Near Eastern art: Emily Vermeule, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry (Sather Classical Lectures 47; Berkeley, 1979). 13 I owe this suggestion to Dimitris Kyrtatas. 14 Evans, “The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,” 105, 121. 15 Warren, Minoan Religion as Ritual Action, 16–18 fig. 9. 16 Overview of divination practices in the Near East in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide (ed. Sarah Iles Johnston; Harvard University Press Reference Library; Cambridge, Mass., 2004), 370–80. 17 For examples of incubation in the texts of Mari see Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, nos. 35, 37–38, etc.

90

Nanno Marinatos

Dagan your lord appeared to me in a dream, even though nobody had performed an incubation ritual on me […]

Consider also a classical passage of dream epiphany in Gen 28 where Jacob sees God in a dream (Gen 28:11–13): Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in the place. And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the lord stood beside him […]

We return now to the Ugaritic text from the epic of Baal (13th cent. B.C.E.?) mentioned already above which refers to a prophetic message “a word of tree and whisper of stone.” It is a formulaic expression which occurs again and again,18 and we may ask how the formula originated. We note the remarkable coexistence of tree and stone which is presupposed in the formula, and which is evocative of stone and tree on Minoan rings and Biblical texts. In my view, coincidence is unlikely. Instead, we may postulate a relatively homogenous prophetic performance on both sides of the Aegean spanning a long period from the Bronze into the Iron Age. Such a koine of religious ritual provides the best explanation for the origin of the proverb and explains why prophets in the Hebrew Bible are often described as sitting under a tree, as does the prophetess Deborah in Judges (Judg 4:4).19 Noteworthy is the man of God who sits under an oak tree (1 Kgs 13:14). In another passage, God suggests to David how to successfully deal with the enemy troops of the Philistines. He should come upon the enemy in front of Baka trees, he is told. His instructions are that when he hears the sound of marching “at the top of the trees”, then he should advance quickly (2 Sam 5:23–24).20 The passage suggests that the trees spoke to David and that he understood their language. What is even more remarkable is that the expression is used also by the Greeks some five centuries later. The Greek poet Hesiod (8th century B. C.E.) claims that the Muses breathed in him a voice divine: “But why all this about [oak] tree and stone?” (Theog. 36).21 Moving to Classical Greek religion, it is to be suspected that the omphalos stone and laurel tree of Greek Apollo at Delphi may be part of the same nexus of religious vocabulary. We may speak, then, of an Aegean and Near Eastern koine in which two types of prophecy rituals are involved: shaking the branch leads to understanding of the language of the tree, and leaning 18

KTU 1.7 1, 7, 31-32; see Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 150. Cf. the essay of Yaakov Kupitz and Katell Berthelot in this volume. 20 I thank Thomas Staubli for the reference. The remarkable prophetic ability of trees was noted already by Roberston Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 195–96. 21 Trans. Stanley Lombardo, Hesiod, Works and Days, Theogony (Indianapolis, 1993). 19

The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals

91

over a stone leads to understanding the whisper of the stone or dreaming a vision. Note the two pictogrammes, ear and eye above the leaning prophetess on the Ashmolean ring. They point exactly to this conclusion (fig. 4).22 We come to another question now which concerns the identity and social status of the prophets. Why is the central woman on the ring from Mycenae and the ring from Vapheio larger than the men who shake the tree (figs. 1 and 2)? On the Ashmolean ring (fig. 4), the two women are adorned with the so-called sacred knot which is an ankh symbol reserved only for the queen and the chief goddess of the pantheon.23 Is it possible that the two women are the same person shown in two stages of action or two forms of ecstasy, as dancing and as leaning over the stone? Who are these women? The Mari and Nineveh texts may give a little help on this issue of social identity. It is certain from these tablets that the prophets are not figures of towering authority nor socially prominent officials but humble servants of the king who get rewarded with modest gifts if they perform well. 24 On our rings, on the other hand, the central woman is of such superior status, that Evans was tempted to identify her as a goddess.25 I shall make a case that the central woman is the queen herself and that the palace was directly involved in prophecy rituals of Minoan Crete. This idea will at first glance seem incompatible with what we know about similar situations in the Near East, where prophets are servants of the royal house. Yet, closer scrutiny may yield unexpected results. Indeed, there is some evidence that queens in theocratic societies had an involvement in prophecy in their capacity as high-priestesses of the chief goddess. In the Mari texts, for example, it is the queen who sends letters to her husband reporting favorable prophecies.26 It must be admitted that this mediation between diviner and king does not mean anything more than that she was head of an administrative mechanism; nevertheless it is not obvious why the queen, rather than some other official, was in charge. More revealing is a Biblical passage about the Israelite queen Jezebel who is said to have hosted some 400 prophets at her table (1 Kgs 18:19). It may be suspected that she did so in her capacity as the high priestess of Asherah. The suspicion is further supported by another passage in the Hebrew Bible 22

Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, “On the Authenticity of the Ashmolean Ring 1919.56,” Kadmos 10 (1971): 60–69; Evangelos Kyriakidis, “Unidentified Objects on Minoan Seals,” AJA 109 (2005): 137–54. 23 Nanno Marinatos, “The Indebtedness of Minoan Religion to Egyptian Solar Religion: Was Sir Arthur Evans Right?,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1:1 (2009): 22–28. 24 Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, nos. 53–63. 25 Evans, “The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult,” 176–77. 26 Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, nos. 17–18, 21–24, etc.

92

Nanno Marinatos

which deals with rivalry between prophets of different deities. King Ahab assembled all the prophets of Baal and the prophet of Yahweh, Elijah, at Mount Carmel. They had a contest there which Elijah won but this incited queen Jezebel’s wrath: Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying “So may the gods do to me, and more also, if I do not make your life like the life of one of them by this time tomorrow. Then he was afraid […]” (1 Kgs 19:2).

It is not stated why Jezebel was so inimical to Elijah. But it may be deduced from the context that the enmity stemmed from the fact that Jezebel was a high priestess of Asherah, the consort of Baal. And if so, Jezebel would be herself the chief prophetess of Asherah and the head of the collective prophetic group of Baal. Elijah, being Yahweh’s prophet, undermined her political authority and credibility and incited her hatred. The fact is that the office of high priestess belonged to the queen ex officio, and this might mean that the queen could also be considered the chief prophetess of the deity she served. Consider Hittite society, for example. The cult title of the Hittite queen, in her capacity as high priestess of the sun goddess of Arinna, was tawananna, and there is evidence that the tawananna was in control of divination. During the reign of Hattusili, the tawananna interpreted an eclipse of the sun as a sign of the king’s downfall and tried to institute a revolt.27 This incident shows that she was acknowledged in public as an interpreter of divine signs. A few concluding remarks now about the central females on the Minoan prophecy rings. Their large size and central position reveals their high social status. The woman on fig. 1 is adorned with a necklace; both women on fig.4 wear plumes on their heads and have ankh signs as adornments. On the Mycenae and Vapheio rings, the central woman twirls like a dervish. I suggest that the queen performed as an ecstatic: these figures cannot have been servants. The rings, then, conveyed an ideological message. They show that the queen as a chief ecstatic was perceived as the mediator between the human and divine worlds. She was however not the sole prophet in the chain of prophetic rituals. This leads us to a further conclusion. The images on the gold rings reveal the direct involvement of the royal house in prophecy rites.

27 Theo P.J. van den Hout, Purity of Kingship: An Edition of Cht 569 and Related Hittite Oracle Inquiries of Tuthaliya IV (Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui 25; Leiden, 1998), 41–42.

The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals

Figures (all courtesy Ingo Pini)

Fig. 1: Ring from Mycenae. CMS I, 126.

Fig. 2. Ring from Vapheio. CMS I, 219.

93

94

Nanno Marinatos

Fig. 3. Seal Stone from Knossos. Warren, Minoan Religion, Fig. 9.

Fig. 4. Ring now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. CMS VI, 278.

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

A New Interpretation of Judges 4:4–5* Introduction Connections between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek world have been noticed and debated by scholars for centuries.1 All kinds of theories have been imagined to explain the possible similarities between words, literary motifs and aspects of material culture. Some scholars, like Cyrus H. Gordon and John Pairman Brown, have taken into consideration the possibility of a mutual influence. Another possibility has been evoked as well, that of a common (ancient Near Eastern, Mesopotamian or Aramaic) background to both Greek and Hebrew language and culture that would explain why they share words, ideas or narratives in common.2 Among other things, John Pairman Brown mentions the example of the word “concubine” (vglyp in Hebrew, pallakh, or pallaki,j in Greek), which he considers originally a Hittite or Luvian name.3 In his view, features common to “Israel and Hellas” are also to be explained by the contacts these two peoples had with the Phoenicians.4 These issues are very complex indeed. In order to deal with the history of the cultural encounter between Greeks and Jews before the * We wish to express our gratitude to Thomas Römer, Etienne Nodet and Michaela Bauks for their remarks and suggestions. 1 In 1658, Zacharias Bogan published a book entitled Homerus ~Ebrai,wn, sive, Comparatio Homeri cum Scriptoribus Sacris, in which there are numerous parallelisms between Homer and the Old Testament. Worth noting is also M. Krenkel, “Biblische Parallelen zu Homeros,” Jahrbücher für Classische Philologie 137 (1888): 15–44. 2 See Cyrus H. Gordon, “Homer and the Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature,” HUCA 26 (1955): 43–108, who thinks about a common Ugaritic background and about mutual influences as well; John Pairman Brown, Israel and Hellas (BZAW 231; Berlin, 1995). Although he does not deal with the issue of the relationship between Israel and Hellas, and tackles only the question of parallels between Oriental and Greek Mythology, it is worth reading Walter Burkert’s “Oriental and Greek Mythology: The Meeting of Parallels,” in Interpretations of Greek Mythology (ed. Jan Bremmer; London, 1987), 10–40, an article full of illuminating remarks, especially about the possible channels of communication between these cultures. 3 Ibid., p. 65–70. There are several works on Semitic loan-words in Greek, but only a few on Greek loan-words in Biblical Hebrew (Rabbinic Hebrew is a different issue altogether). See, for example, É. Masson, Recherches sur les plus ancients emprunts sémitiques en grec (Paris, 1967), or Martin L. West, The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford, 1997); also Maurice Vernes, Les emprunts de la Bible hébraïque au grec et au latin (Paris, 1914). 4 Ibid., p. 6–8.

96

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

Hellenistic period, one needs to study linguistic and archaeological data which require very specialized skills. A literary approach remains somewhat limited from a historian’s perspective. Nevertheless, it represents an important aspect of the problem too. In the field of biblical studies, several scholars, such as Sara Mandell and David N. Freedman,5 Flemming A.J. Nielsen,6 or Jan-Wim Wesselius, 7 have written monographs focused on a comparison between biblical “historiography” on the one hand and Herodotus’ Histories on the other. Following John Van Seters, these authors (except for Wesselius) point out parallels or structural similarities between the two literary corpuses, but refrain from giving an explanation in terms of influence of one upon the other.8 Thus, the questions raised by these coincidences remain open. Very few scholars have attempted to show that the biblical writers or editors borrowed elements from Greek literature or inspired themselves from Greek history. And in most cases, the few scholars who tried to argue the case did not do it convincingly. Recently, Jan-Wim Wesselius, in his The Origins of The History of Israel: Herodotus’ Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible, has underlined several literary parallels between Herodotus’ Histories and what is called the “Primary History” (Genesis to 2 Kings), arguing that the biblical account inspires itself from Herodotus. Although his attempt is interesting, the parallels drawn are of a very general nature, and a close analysis of the details of the narratives produces a very different impression, namely that the discrepancies are more numerous than the apparent similarities. As far as the book of Judges is concerned, striking parallelisms have already been noted, such as the similarities between Samson and Heracles, 9 or between Jephtah’s daughter and Iphigenia.10 In the latter case, Thomas 5 Sara Mandell and David Noel Freedman, The Relationship between Herodotus’ History and Primary History (Atlanta, 1993). 6 Flemming A.J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 251; Sheffield, 1997). 7 Jan-Wim Wesselius, The Origin of the History of Israel : Herodotus’ Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible (JSOTSup 345; Sheffield, 2002). 8 See John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, 1983); idem, “Is there any Historiography in the Hebrew Bible? A Hebrew-Greek Comparison,” JNSL 28 (2002): 1–25; Katherine Stott, “Herodotus and the Old Testament: A Comparative Reading of the Ascendancy Stories of King Cyrus and David,” SJOT 16 (2002): 52–78. 9 The first writer to have noticed the similarity seems to have been Eusebius (Pr. Ev. 10.9.7). See also Franz Dornseiff, Antike und Alter Orient: Interpretationen (Leipzig, 1956), 354–363; and Claudia Nauerth, “Simsons Taten: Motivgeschichtliche Überlegungen,” DBAT 21 (1985): 94–120, who relies on Dornseiff. 10 See Walter Baumgartner, “Israelitisch-griechische Sagenbeziehungen”, in idem, Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Leiden, 1959), 152–54; Thomas Römer, “Why would the Deuteronomist tell about the Sacrifice of Jephtah’s Daughter?,” JSOT 77

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

97

Römer cautiously suggests an influence of Euripides’ Iphigeneia in Tauris and Iphigeneia at Aulis on the biblical writer of Judges 11. Moreover, in a recently published article on Judges 17–18, Nadav Na’aman writes: “Assuming that the latter hypothesis [scil. that of a Greek influence], admittedly uncertain, is correct, it is another case in the growing number of biblical texts […] that show signs of the influence of identified Greek historiographical and literary sources on their authors.”11 Concerning Judges 4, parallels have been drawn mostly with Ugaritic texts. Deborah has been compared to Anat, the Canaanite goddess of love and war, whereas Jael has been compared to Athtart.12 But nearly no attempt was made to cast light on the text through a comparison with Greek mythology, literature or history. The only exception known to us is an article by Bernd Jörg Diebner,13 who tries to show that there is an influence of Greek myths on Judges 4. Although we think that most of the elements or arguments he brings forward are not relevant, his article raises very good questions, that require further refletion. In this article, we would like to argue that there is a kind of isomorphism between the prophetess Deborah (who plays an important role in Judges 4– 5) and the Delphic Pythia as described by ancient sources. Moreover, it seems to us that the biblical description of Deborah contains several allusions to the famous Greek oracle.

1. A Prophetess (haybn hva, 4:4)14 Deborah is quite a unique figure in the Hebrew Bible. First, she is the only woman who performs the task of a judge.15 Second, she is the only judge in (1998): 27–38; idem, “La fille de Jephté entre Jérusalem et Athènes : Réflexions à partir d’une triple intertextualité en Juges 11,” in Intertextualités: La Bible en échos (ed. Daniel Marguerat and Alan Curtis; Monde de la Bible 40; Genève, 2000), 30–42. 11 Nadav Na’aman, “The Danite Campaign Northward (Judges 17–18) and the Migration of the Phocaeans to Massilia (Strabo 4.1.4),” VT 55 (2005): 47–60, esp. 60. 12 See Peter C. Craigie, “The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti–Ninurta,” JBL 88 (1969): 253–65; idem, “Deborah and Anat: A Study of Poetic Imagery (Judges 5),” ZAW 90 (1978): 374–81; J. Glen Taylor, “The Song of Deborah and two Canaanite Goddesses”, JSOT 23 (1982): 99–108. 13 Bernd Jörg Diebner, “Wann sang Deborah ihr Lied? Überlegungen zu zwei der ältesten Texte des TNK (Ri 4 und 5),” ACEBT 14 (1995): 106–30. He ends his article with the following words: “[…] warum sollte ‘Deborah’ hypothetisch als ‘israelitische’ ‘Anat’-Rezeption diskutiert werden können, ‘Jael’ aber nicht mit gleichem methodischen Recht als jüdische ‘Amaltheia’- und ‘Deborah’ als ‘Melissa’-Rezeption?!” The present article actually examines the connection between Deborah and Melissa (see section 2). 14 The following expression (twdypl tva) and its relationship to haybn hva hrwbd, will be discussed in section 7.1 below.

98

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

Israel who is also said to be a prophet. Finally, she belongs to the few women who are considered prophetesses, along with Miriam (Exod 15:20), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14 and 2 Chr 34:22) and Noadiah (Neh 6:14).16 Even then, an apparently insignificant detail differentiates Deborah from the other biblical prophetesses. All of them are called “X the prophetess” (haybnh ~yrm, haybnh hdlx, haybnh hyd[wn), whereas in the case of Deborah, she is described as “Deborah, a female prophet” (hva hrwbd haybn), which may also be translated “Deborah, a woman, a prophetess.”17 The word hva is redundant with the feminine ending of haybn, and it may safely be inferred that the author/editor of the text meant to insist on the identity of Deborah as a woman. 18 Another difference between Deborah and the other biblical prophetesses and prophets consists in the use of the verb hwc (to order/command) to describe the way she transmits God’s oracle to Barak. In 4:6, after having sent and summoned Barak, she says to him: “The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take position at Mount Tabor […]’” ([…] rwbt rhb tkvmw $l larfy yhla hwhy hwc alh). The interrogation implied by alh is nothing but a rhetorical device, so the NRSV rightly translates it as an affirmation, a positive order. Now, whereas in the Hebrew Bible there are many occurrences of hwc that refer to orders given by God to and through human beings, there are only two prophets who happen to speak on behalf of God using the expression “God ordered (hwc) […]”. These two prophets are Moses and Deborah. In most cases, prophets refer to what God said or says, and use the Hebrew verb rma.19 Although this does not seem to matter much from the point of view of the meaning of the prophecy delivered to the people, it is nevertheless striking that Moses and Deborah share this common feature. As far as Moses is concerned, we read for example in Exod 16:16, when the manna is given for the first time, that Moses addresses the people with the following words: “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Gather as much of it as each of you needs’” (wlka ypl vya wnmm wjql hwhy hwc rva rbdh hz). The formula hwhy hwc rva rbdh hz (or some variant of it) is characteristic of

15 That Deborah is a judge is stated explicitly at the end of v. 4, where we read: “She was judging Israel” (larfy ta hjpv ayh). The English translation we chose to use is the New Revised Standard Version (Oxford, 1995), unless otherwise stated. 16 See George F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (Edinburgh, 1895), 114. Isa 8:3 may also refer to a prophetess, but the context does not provide any information about her, not even her name. 17 See for example Tammi J. Schneider, who translates v. 4:4a in the following way: “Deborah, a woman, a prophet, a fiery one” (Judges, Collegeville, Minn., 2000, 65–67). The Septuagint translates literally: Debbwra gunh. profh/tij gunh. Lafidwq. 18 This construction can be explained in another way. See below, chapter 7.1. 19 See for example 2 Kgs 22:15–16 (the prophecy given by Huldah starts with hwhy rma hk).

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

99

Moses’ prophetic ministry.20 As a consequence, an implicit allusion to Moses may be read in Judg 4:6, when Deborah addresses Barak with the words hwhy hwc alh. Moreover, as noted by Tammi J. Schneider, “Deborah’s job is unique in that she was one of only two people to whom people went for judgement, the other was Moses when the Israelites were in the desert (Ex. 18:13).”21 While the meaning of this connection between Moses and Deborah will become more explicit later on in this article,22 one should already note that it contributes to make Deborah a very unique character in the Hebrew Bible. Now the Pythia was a well-known prophetess of the Greek world. The oracle of Delphi, located in one of the four great pan-hellenic sanctuaries, should even be considered the most important in the Greek world during the classical period.23 Just as Deborah is described as transmitting God’s orders to Barak and foretelling future events (Judg 4:6–9), according to Greek sources the Pythia delivered oracles, spoke and transmitted orders on behalf of Apollo and sometimes foretold future events. She played the role of a medium, of an intermediary between the god Apollo and the people who came to Delphi to consult the oracle.24 In Greek literature she is called ma,ntij,25 pro,mantij,26 or profh/tij,27 three words that may be considered

20

See Exod 16:32; 35:1; 35:4; Lev 9:6; 17:2; Num 30:2; 36:6. Schneider, Judges, 68. See Exod 18:13: !m hvm l[ ~[h dm[yw ~[h ta jpvl hvm bvyw br[h d[ rqbh. The parallel between Moses (in Exod 18:13) and Deborah (in Judg 4:4–5) was noted in passing by Barry G. Webb, in The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup 46; Sheffield, 1987), 134. 22 See below, chapter 5 and the conclusion (see n. 125). 23 Cf. Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, “Delphic Oracle,” in OCD (1996): 445. On the history of the Delphic oracle and its functioning, see Arthur Bernard Cook, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion (3 vols.; Cambridge, 1914–1940), see esp. Vol. 2 part 1, 1925, 169–267); Pierre Amandry, La mantique apollinienne à Delphes (Paris, 1950); Herbert W. Parke and Donald E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle, I : The History (Oxford, 1956); Georges Roux, Delphes, son oracle et ses dieux (Paris, 1976); Joseph Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses (Berkeley, 1981 [first edition 1978]); Pierre Amandry, “Propos sur l’oracle de Delphes,” Journal des savants 2 (1997): 195–209; Georges Rougemont, “Delphes hellénistique: et l’oracle?,” in Recherches récentes sur le monde hellénistique : Actes du colloque international organisé à l’occasion du 60e anniversaire de Pierre Ducrey (Lausanne, 20–21 novembre 1998) (ed. Regula Frei-Stolba and Kristine Gex; Frankfurt a. M., 2001), 65–74. 24 Whether the Pythia was just a tool in the hands of the priests-prophets who were in charge of the sanctuary, or whether she really fell into a trance which escaped the control of the priests, is a debated issue. See for example the contribution by Lisa Maurizio, who argues – against several scholars – that the Pythia truly experienced possession and uttered her own oracles, not words that were dictated to her in advance (“Anthropology and Spirit Possession: A Reconsideration of the Pythia’s Role at Delphi,” JHS 115 [1995]: 69–86). 25 See Aeschylus, Eumenides 29. 26 See Herodotus 6.66; 7.111 and 141; Thucydides 5.16.2; Plutarch, Alex. 14.6. Herodotus never calls the Pythia ma,ntij, since he distinguishes the seer, who masters an oracular technè, from the spokeperson of a god. The Pythia belongs to the second category. See Edmond Lévy, “Devins 21

100

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

equivalents of haybn. In the Septuagint, haybn is translated by profh/tij in Exod 15:20, Judg 4:4, 2 Kgs 22:14, 2 Chr 34:22 and Isa 8:3.28 According to an ancient story, told by Diodorus (16.26), a Delphian herdsman discovered a chasm in the earth which, when approached too closely, caused the people to become inspired and foretell future events. But since many people who were being seized with the prophetic frenzy fell into the chasm, the Delphians decided to appoint one woman “as a single prophetess for all” (profh/ti,n te mi,an pa,si) and “to have the oracles told through her” (§4).29 Sometimes the Pythia is described as transmitting orders emanating from the god Apollo.30 Even when it is written that she ordered the people to do something, it is implied that the god spoke through her.31 Another point worthy of attention is that in several instances, the Pythia gave oracles that had to do with military matters, and commanded the people to go to war (or, on the contrary, to refrain from going to war). For example, Diodorus reports that Philomelus, who “wished to consult the oracle for the war, compelled the Pythia to mount her tripod and deliver the oracle” (16.25.3).32 Precise instructions were sometimes given, as in the case of a battle between the Lipareans and the Etruscans, in which the Lipareans were bidden by the Pythia “to engage the Etruscans with the fewest possible ships” (Pausanias 10.16.7).33 But the oracles were often obscure. Phalanthus, a Spartan, conquered the Barbarian city of Tarentum according to an oracle et oracles chez Hérodote,” in Oracles et prophéties dans l’antiquité: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 15-17 juin 1995 (ed. Jean-Georges Heintz; Paris, 1997), 345–65. 27 See Euripides, Ion 42, 321, 1322; Plato, Phaedrus 244 a; Strabo 9.3.5; Diodorus 14.13.3 and 16.26.4; Plutarch, Mor. 414 b. On the different titles of the Pythia, see Wolfgang Fauth, “Pythia,” RE 24 (1963): 515–47, esp. 516–18; Maurizio, “Anthropology and Spirit Possession,” 70. 28 In the Septuagint (2 Ezra 16:14, corresponding to Nehemiah 6:14), Noadiah is a male prophet. The choice of profh/tij instead of pro,mantij may be explained by the translators’ perception of the latter as a term more closely associated with trance, considered a pagan phenomenon. 29 Trans. Charles L. Sherman, Diodorus of Sicily (LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1980), 311. See also Strabo, Geography 9.3.5, which sounds less legendary. 30 See Herodotus 1.167 (h` de. Puqi,h sfe,aj evke,leuse poie,ein ta. kai. nu/n oi` vAgullai/oi e;ti evpitele,ousi); 5.82 (h` de. Puqi,h sfe,aj evke,leuse Dami,hj te kai. Auvxhsi,hj avga,lmata i`dru,sasqai); 6.36 (keleuou,shj de. kai. th/j Puqi,hj …), 6.52 (th.n de. Puqi,hn sfe,aj keleu,ein avmfo,tera ta. paidi,a h`gh,sasqai basile,aj), 6.139 (h` de. Puqi,h sfe,aj evke,leuse vAqhnai,oisi di,kaj dido,nai tau,taj ta.j a;n auvtoi. vAqhnai/oi dika,swsi); Aeschylus, Eum. 179 (e;xw( keleu,w …), 235 and 714; Diodorus 8.17.1 (to,de de. pro,tero,n se keleu,ei( oivkh/sai, se Kro,twna me,gan kalai/j evn avrou,raij). The verb keleu,w is equivalent to the Hebrew verb hwc. 31 As Fauth underlines, the same terminology was applied to Apollo and to the Pythia (see “Pythia,” 517). In Aeschylus, Eum. 614–19, Apollo himself says that he was commanded by Zeus to give the oracle (which he uttered through the Pythia). 32 Trans. Sherman, Diodorus of Sicily, 309 (slightly modified). Many examples are given in Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle. See for example H5, p. 246 (in 431 B.C.E., the Spartans asked what to do about the Athenian breath of truce; see Thucydides 1.118.3, 123.1, 2.54.4 and Plutarch, Mor. 403b); see also H8, H13, H20, H48, Q155. 33 Translation by William H.S. Jones, Pausanias (LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1979), 457.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

101

from Delphi, “declaring that when he should feel rain under a cloudless sky (aethra), he would then win both a territory and a city.”34 The rain happened to be the tears of his wife, who was called Aethra. Phalanthus’ understanding of the oracle prompted him to attack his enemies and to win,35 whereas Croesus’ famous misunderstanding caused his doom. When Croesus, king of Lydia, consulted the oracle in order to know whether he should make war on the Persians or not, the answer was that if he should send an army against the Persians he would destroy a great empire. Believing that the oracle was announcing the defeat of Cyrus, he went to war and, as a consequence, destroyed his own empire.36 Deborah’s oracle is not devoid of ambiguity either. In her case, victory is predicted and the prediction happens to be true, but the way she announces Barak that glory will be given to a woman first leads the reader to believe that she is speaking about herself, whereas the prophecy is about Jael.37 So the narrative in Judges 4 combines both suspense and irony, features that also characterize some of the oracles of the Pythia. In short, in the case of Deborah as well as in the case of the Delphic Pythia, we are dealing with a prophetess who played an important role among her people and who was respected, honoured and obeyed. Both of them gave advice, transmitted orders and foretold future events, and they were even interfering in military affairs.38 Finally, both women gave oracles that could be interpreted in multiple ways, and stories about these oracles are not deprived of suspense and irony (or humour). Starting from this fundamental similarity between these two female characters, the question arises whether there are other elements in the biblical narrative that point to an analogy between Deborah and the Pythia. 34

The story is told by Pausanias, Description of Greece 10.10.6–7 (ibid., p. 425). See also the story of the battle of Plataea (Herodotus 9.64 [in reference to 7.220]; another story including an oracle can be read in Plutarch, Life of Aristides 11.3), and the story of the siege of Phana (Pausanias 10.18.1–3; cf. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle, Q203, p. 335). 36 See Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle, Q100, p. 302; Oinomaos ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 5.20.8– 21.3; Herodotus 1.53 and 91. 37 See Judg 4:9, 17-22; Moore underlines that the woman referred to must be Jael (Judges, 116–17). Robert G. Boling understands it differently; taking for granted that the narrator and his audience “know that it will be accomplished by another woman, Jael”, he considers that Deborah is “represented as speaking better than she knows, an example of unconscious prediction, which adds poignancy to the outcome” (Judges: Introduction, Translation, Commentary [AB 6A; Garden City, N.Y., 1975], 96). Barnabas Lindars seems to understand it in a similar way, since he mentions “the irony involved in her failure to identify the woman” (Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary [ed. A.D.H. Mayes; Edinburgh, 1995], 189). Nevertheless, it is more logical to assume that Deborah, as a prophetess, knows about whom she is speaking, whereas Barak and the reader are deliberately misled by the narrator, in order to create a coup de théâtre. This is a well-known narrative device. 38 For sure, the Pythia would not leave Delphi, whereas Deborah accompanies Barak in his military expedition (not from her own mouvement though, but on his express demand). 35

102

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

2. A “Bee” The name “Deborah” means “bee,” as is almost unanimously accepted by commentators of the book of Judges. 39 It seems that “bee” is used as a proper name for women only in Hebrew40 and in Greek (Meli,ssa).41 H.J. Rose, the author of the article “Melissa” in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, writes: “Like its Hebrew equivalent Deborah, this is occasionally found as a proper name, also as a title, especially of priestesses of Demeter (according to schol. Pind. Pyth. 4.104); of Artemis (Aesch. TrGF 3 fr. 87); of Rhea (Didymus in Lactant. Divin. Inst. 1.22, from his commentary on Pindar) […].”42 Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities (5.201), already connects the two names. Among modern commentators of Judges, George F. Moore was one of the few scholars who paid attention to the existence of a Greek name “Melissa” corresponding to the Hebrew “Deborah.”43 Barnabas Lindars even writes: “Moore notes that the Greek Meli,ssa is applied to the priestesses of Delphi and of Demeter, Artemis and Cybele, but the comparison is unnecessary and irrelevant” [sic!].44 In our opinion, it is very relevant indeed, especially when Delphi is concerned. As a matter of fact, a passage of Pindar’s fourth Pythian Ode makes it clear that the Pythia was also called “bee,” since Pindar evokes “the oracle of the Delphic bee”, crhsmo.j […] meli,ssaj Delfi,doj (Pyth. 4.60). In this respect, one may pay attention to a story told by Pausanias which connects Pindar, the Pythia and bees. On his way to Thespiae, Pindar, who was still a young man, felt the need to take a nap, and laid down a little way above the road. Then, Pausanias writes, “as he slept, bees alighted on him and plastered his lips with their wax. Such was the beginning of Pindar’s career as a lyric poet.”45 Pindar 39 This does not prevent the reader to detect some word-play between the name Deborah and the Hebrew word rbd, which is used also in prophetic contexts. Since Deborah is a prophetess, a word-play between hrwbd and rbd is meaningful. See Klaas Spronk, “Deborah, a Prophetess: The Meaning and Background of Judges 4:4–5,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OTS 45; Leiden, 2001), 232–42 (see p. 240); and also Scott C. Layton, “Ya’el in Judges 4: An Onomastic Rejoinder,” ZAW 109 (1997): 93–94. Still, the literal meaning of the name remains “bee”. 40 The other example in the Bible is Rebeccah’s nurse, who is also called Deborah (see Gen 35:8). 41 See for example Herodotus 3.50; Diogenes Laertius 1.94. 42 H.J. Rose, “Melissa,” OCD (1996): 953. 43 See his commentary on Judg 4:4 (Moore, Judges, 114). 44 Cf. Lindars, Judges 1–5, 181. We have been unable to find out which passage in Moore’s commentary Lindars refers to. 45 Description of Greece 9.23.2–3, translation by Jones, Pausanias, 269. Another version of this story was that as an infant Pindar had been exposed and that bees had fed him with honey (Aelian, Var. hist. 12.45; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 64; Philostratus, Imag. 2.12); see James G. Frazer, Pausanias’ Description of Greece (2nd ed. London, 1913), Vol. 5, p. 97.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

103

was particularly honored at Delphi and, in the same passage, Pausanias also reminds the reader of the order given by the Pythia to the Delphians, who were asked to give Pindar one half of all the first-fruits they offered to Apollo. Pausanias’ story shows that there was a connection between poetic/prophetic46 inspiration and bees. In another passage of Pausanias’ Description of Greece, a Boetian delegation who asked the Pythia for a remedy against drought was sent by her to another oracle at Lebadeia. There the delegates were unable to find the oracle until they found and followed a swarm of bees, who led them to the place where they could get the answer they were looking for.47 An ancient text, the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (which should be dated from the 5th century B.C.E. at the latest),48 shows a connection between Mount Parnassus (the place of the Delphic oracle), female prophets and bees. In the Hymn, Apollo tells Hermes that he learned the prophetic art from three sisters (probably nymphs), who dwell in a hollow of Mount Parnassus, and are described as bees.49 They have “swift wings” (v. 553), “they go flying now this way, now that, to feed on honeycombs (khri,a) and make their authoritative pronouncements” (vv. 558–59); moreover, “when they speed on after consuming the yellow honey (me,li clwro,n), they are favorable and will tell the truth […]” (vv. 560–561).50 T.W. Allen, W.R. Haliday and E.E. Sikes write in their commentary of the Hymn to Hermes: “Honey gave inspiration: hence the Pythia was called me,lissa.” That bees were associated with the Delphic shrine and the prophetess herself may also be explained by the belief in their predictive ability. More precisely, according to the testimony of Aristotle in Historia Animalium 8(9) 627 b 10, “the bees foretell both wintry weather and rain.” 51 But obviously, Aristotle’s approach is rationalistic and does not address the issue of the symbolic meaning of bees.52 46

The prophecies of the Pythia were transcribed in a poetic form (in hexameters) during a long period, so that prophecy and poetic writing were closely associated at Delphi (on this issue, see chapter 6 below). Although Pindar was not active as a “prophet” in the Delphic shrine, he contributed to its fame. 47 Description of Greece 9.40.1–2. 48 See Martin L. West (ed. and transl.), Homeric Hymns (LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 2003), 12– 14. For a much earlier date (7th cent. B.C.E.), see The Homeric Hymns (ed. T.W. Allen, W.R. Haliday, and E.E. Sikes; Amsterdam, 1980; first edition Oxford, 1936), 275–76. In any case, the attribution of the Hymns to Homer is pseudepigraphic. 49 On the identity of the “Bee Maidens”, see Susan Scheinberg, “The Bee Maidens of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes,” HSCP 83 (1979): 1–28, who questions their traditional identification as the Thriae. Jennifer Larson, “The Corycian Nymphs and the Bee Maidens of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes,” GRBS 36 (1995): 341–357, proposes to identify them with the other group of sisters located on Mt Parnassus, the Corycian Nymphs. 50 Homeric Hymn to Hermes, 156–57. 51 Translation by David M. Balme, Aristotle: History of Animals (LCL; Cambridge, 1991), 367. 52 For a global treatment of the issue, see Arthur Bernard Cook, “The Bee in Greek Mythology,” JHS 15 (1895): 1–24.

104

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

According to the above-mentioned testimonies, the existence of a connection between bees and prophecy is well established in the Greek world, whereas no such connection can be found in the whole corpus of the Hebrew Bible (if we except the case of Deborah).53 Thus, if one had to suppose an influence of one cultural world on the other, the presumption would be that, in this respect at least, Greek culture influenced the Bible. So the name Deborah is not to be explained as a mere coincidence, nor through an unconvincing connection with Rebeccah’s nurse (with whom, apart from the name, she has nothing in common54), but as another clue indicating that the model which the biblical writer had in mind was the Delphic Pythia.

3. The Association with a Palm Tree A rather awkwardly formulated sentence tells us that Deborah “used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah.” As a matter of fact, a judge is spontaneously imagined as somebody who sits in a certain place where he listens to people’s claims, just as a king is traditionally represented as sitting on a throne. Yitzhak Avishur paid attention to this detail and it led him to compare Judg. 4:4–5 to an Ugaritic text, the tale of Aqhat, in which Daniel, Aqhat’s father, is described in his role as a judge in the following words: “And here is Daniel, the man of spirits. And here is the great one, the man of Harnam, Supreme, he sits (ytb) at the gate, under the tree on the threshing-floor (tt ‘adrm dbgrn). He judges the case of the widow, he tries the cause of the orphan.”55 For Avishur, “man of spirits” is equivalent to hva haybn, “the man of Harnam” to twdypl tva, “he sits” to tbvwy ayhw, “under the tree on the threshing-floor” to hrwbd rmt txt, and “he judges” to jpvml. Beyond the obvious similarity between two persons who are presented as judges, the only striking resemblance between the two texts is the fact that both characters sit under a tree. Nevertheless, as underlined by Avishur himself, three interpretations of ‘adrm have been suggested, and 53 Honey is mentioned in connection with Samson (Judg 14:8–9, 14, 18: bees produce honey in the carcass of the lion killed by Samson, and it becomes the topic of a riddle) and Jonathan (1 Sam 14:24–30: he eats honey found in the forest and his eyes become bright, probably – according to the context – because he was very hungry and tired and the honey gave him strength). There is no link to prophecy. 54 As rightly stressed by Schneider, who writes: “[…] what the connection may be between the two, or what such a reference could mean in this context is vague, if any exists at all” (Judges, 69). 55 See KTU 1.19.1, lines 22–23; Yitzhak Avishur, “A Common Formula for Describing a Judge Fulfilling his Duty: Daniel the Canaanite and Deborah the Israelite,” in idem, Studies in Biblical Narrative (Tel Aviv, 1999), 239–49 (a Hebrew version of this paper was first published in Isac Leo Seligman Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World [ed. Alexander Rofé and Yair Zakovitch, Jerusalem, 1983).

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

105

only one of them leads to the translation “tree.” Moreover, Avishur recognizes that “there is no written evidence in the ancient sources attesting to the presence of a tree on the threshing-floor,” and that such an evidence may be found only in […] rabbinic midrashim!56 To base one’s interpretation of an Ugaritic text on examples taken from rabbinic literature is highly questionable from a methodological point of view. On the whole, the comparison between the two descriptions only points to a common linguistic background, not to an influence of the Ugaritic text on the biblical one.57 Whereas the fact that Deborah is sitting may be related to her office as a judge, “in the forensic sense of the term,”58 the reference to a palm tree is striking. In the Bible, several people are described as sitting under a tree, but no one sits under a palm tree. The reason is plain enough: the palm tree does not provide much relief to someone trying to protect himself from the hot sun of the Middle East! Its shadow is projected far away from the trunk, and is not abundant anyway (except if one deals with several palm trees gathered together). Moreover, palm trees are not that frequent in the “hill country of Ephraim” (~yrpa rh). So the whole idea of someone sitting under a palm tree in this area does not make sense unless it is symbolic. The question arises of whether the reference to a palm tree is an allusion to another biblical passage. But this does not seem to be the case. For example, J. Alberto Soggin rightly writes: “The ‘oak of Deborah’, Rebecca’s nurse (Gen 35:8), is also located in the same area. Despite the homonymy, there does not seem to have been any connection between the two trees, which differ in both species and in function.”59 According to 1 Sam 22:6, Saul used to sit under a tamarisc (lva), but once again this is a wholly different tree, and one that truly protects from the sun!60 In the Middle East, palm trees symbolize fertility.61 But although Deborah is a female, she is not depicted as a mother, except as a “national” 56

Ibid., 244–45. Another methodological flaw in Avishur’s argumentation is the shift from literary influences to historical ones, as when he suggests that “the similarity between the description of Deborah the judge and of Daniel the judge is not only literary, but also indicates influence of the Canaanite judge type, such as Daniel, on the crystallization of the institution of judges in Israel” (ibid., 249). 58 Cf. Jan Alberto Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; London, 1981), 64. 59 Ibid., 64. Pace Moore, Judges, 113, who identifies the palm tree with the oak; see also Spronk, “Deborah, a Prophetess,” 236–37. 60 In 1 Sam 14:2, Saul is described as dwelling or sitting “under the pomegranate tree which is at Migron” (!wrgmb rva !wmrh txt). The author plays on the words rimon and Migron (there are both assonances and alliterations), but there is no connection whatsoever with Deborah’s palm tree. 61 See Hélène Danthine, Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacrés dans l’iconographie de l’Asie occidentale ancienne (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 25; Paris, 1937); Ariel A. Bloch, “The Cedar and the Palm Tree: A Paired Male/Female Symbol in Hebrew and Aramaic,” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. 57

106

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

mother, “a mother in Israel” (Judg 5:7). It seems dubious that the palm tree was intended to underline Deborah’s fertility. Another possibility, already evoked by S.R. Driver in 1912, is to consider the palm tree a sacred tree. 62 Moreover, the vocalisation tomer, which is unusual and probably pejorative,63 points to a religious context. Was the tree connected to a former pagan, Canaanite cult? Or did it become an idol later on, as Albert Vincent suggests?64 We would like to put forward a third hypothesis that brings us back to the Pythia. In the Greek world, the palm tree is closely associated with Apollo (and sometimes with his sister Artemis), especially at Delos. The Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollo, which is earlier than 500 B.C.E., already alludes to the way Leto clung on to a palm tree while giving birth to Apollo: “Rejoice, blessed Leto, for you bear glorious children, the lord Apollo and Artemis who delights in arrows; her in Ortygia, and him in rocky Delos, as you rested against the great mass of the Cynthian hill hard by a palm-tree by the streams of Inopus” (vv. 14–18).65 Another passage states: “And as soon as Eilithyia the goddess of sore travail set foot on Delos, the pains of birth seized Leto, and she longed to bring forth; so she cast her arms about a palm tree and kneeled on the soft meadow while the earth laughed for joy beneath” (vv. 115–18).66 Theognis also refers to the palm tree: “Lord Phoebus, when the august goddess Leto gave birth to you, fairest of the immortals, as she clasped the palm-tree with her slender arms beside the circular lake, all Delos was filled from end to end with an ambrosial aroma, the vast earth beamed, and the deep expanse of the white-capped sea rejoiced” (1.5– 10).67 Finally, the presence of a young palm tree close to Apollo’s altar in Delos is mentioned in the Odyssea (see 6.162–63). Greenfield (ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff; Winona Lake, Ind., 1995), 13– 17; Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Dieux, déesses et figures divines: Les sources iconographiques de l’histoire de la religion d’Israël (trans. J. Prignaud; Paris, 2001) 38, 59, 62–63, 79– 83. In particular, the palm tree was associated with Itar and with Asherah. 62 See Samuel Rolles Driver, “The Book of Judges: III Deborah and Barak,” The Expositor 8 (1912): 24–38 and “The Book of Judges: IV Deborah and Barak”, ibid., 120–36. 63 See Albert Vincent, Le livre des Juges, le livre de Ruth (2nd ed.; Paris, 1958), 51, note e: “L’hébreu a ponctué tomèr, au lieu de tâmâr, peut-être une ponctuation péjorative qui veut marquer une défaveur, le palmier ayant pu être plus tard l’objet d’un culte idolâtrique.” Soggin (who refers to Angelo Penna, Giudici e Rut, Turin, 1963) writes: “[…] perhaps it is a polemical vocalization with the vowels of bôshet, often used for people or elements connected with the Canaanite cult” (Judges: A Commentary, 64). 64 Ibid. 65 Trans. by Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollo (LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1914), 325. 66 Ibid., 333. For pictural representations, see for example LIMC VI.2, p. 130, no. 6, s.v. “Leto” (commentary in VI.1, p. 258). 67 In Greek Elegiac Poetry (ed. and trans. Douglas E. Gerber; LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1999), 175–77.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

107

Iconography provides plenty of evidence of the association between Apollo and his sister Artemis and the palm tree.68 Moreover, certain pictures mix Delian and Delphian symbols, such as the palm tree, the tripod and the omphalos.69 On the vase below, dated roughly from 470 B.C.E., one can discern a palm tree near the Python and the omphalos.70 On the other side of the vase, Leto holds Apollo in her arms, and the child shoots at the Python with an arrow.71 Now according to the Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo (vv. 356–374), Apollo fought the Python only when he had become an adult. But according to a different version of the story, found in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris (vv. 1234–1258), Leto brought Apollo on top of Mount Parnassus immediately after his birth. There a big dra,kwn was watching over the oracle, but the child succeeded in defeating the monster and appropriating the oracle. The painting on this vase corresponds to Euripides’ version of the myth (fig. 1). Another vase from the 5th century B.C.E. (roughly 425) represents Dionysios welcoming Apollo in Delphi, either at the later’s arrival from Delos or at his return from the land of the Hyperboreans.72 A beautiful palm-tree stands in the background between the two protagonists, whereas the omphalos is painted below, and a tripod is visible on the left (fig. 2).73 Finally, a third vase, dated from 370 B.C.E., represents the murder of Neoptolemos, Achilles’ son, who – according to the story told in Euripides’ Andromache (vv. 1085–1165) – was killed by the people of Delphi, near the altar of Apollo.74 The scene on the vase is very clear; the names of several protagonists are written. Apollo, the Pythia, Orestes, Neoptolemos and a Delphian who “raises his lance to deal the fatal blow”75 appear on the vase,

68

See LIMC II, s.v. “Apollon” (pictures in II.2). See for example LIMC II s.v. “Apollon,” no. 746 (= Artemis 1015), fully discussed in LIMC II.1, p. 698–99; the picture can be seen in LIMC II.2, p. 246, no. 746 (440–430 B.C.E.). 70 See LIMC VII.2, p. 489, s.v. “Python,” no. 3. 71 For the other side of the vase, see LIMC II.2, p. 269, s.v. “Apollon,” no. 993, and the corresponding analysis in LIMC VI.1 (s.v. “Léto,” no. 29a, p. 259). 72 On this scene, see the remarks by W. Lambrinudakis in LIMC II.1, p. 303–4, s.v. “Apollon,” no. 768. Especially interesting, in connection with the above-mentioned picture, is the following sentence: “Bei späteren Bildern dieser Gruppe mit dionysischer Umgebung darf man sich die Szene in Delphi vorstellen” (p. 303). 73 See LIMC II.2, p. 250, s.v. “Apollon,” no. 768a. According to the commentary in LIMC II.1, p. 279, it is Apollo who welcomes Dionysios. For Cook (Zeus, Vol. 2, part 1, p. 262) and Roux (Delphes, son oracle et ses dieux, 175, pl. XXVIII, fig. 52) it is the other way round; see the latter’s explanation p. 232. Jane Ellen Harrison notes: “It is perhaps not quite certain which is regarded as the first comer, but the balance is in favour of Dionysios as the sanctuary is already peopled with his worshippers” (Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion [3rd ed.; Cambridge, 1922], 390). 74 For a different version of the story, see Strabo 9.3.9. 75 See the description of the vase by Cook, Zeus, Vol. 2, part 1, p. 170. 69

108

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

as well as the omphalos, the temple, two tripods and […] a huge palm tree (fig. 3).76 This vase and the precedent one thus show that the palm tree was associated with Apollo not only in Delos but also in Delphi, and was a common symbol of the solar god.77 After their victory near the river Eurymedon, the Athenians even chose to dedicate to Apollo a bronze statue of a palm tree, which was located close to the altar of Apollo.78 In the treasure-house of the Corinthians at Delphi another bronze palm tree could still be seen by Plutarch and his friends.79 In conclusion, it seems to us that the association of Deborah with a palm tree (a strong association indeed, since the palm tree was named after her), which seems so peculiar at first glance, is to be understood as another clue given by the author/editor, pointing to the model he had in mind, that of the Pythia, the prophetess of Apollo in Delphi. The pagan connotation of “the palm tree of Deborah” was so clear to the rabbis and the Masoretes – even if the precise nature of the connotation may have eluded them – that they chose to vocalize rmt as tomer.80

4. Geographical Aspects Deborah is performing her task as a judge in a place which is not precisely located, but which is situated in a hilly area. She is said to dwell “between

76 See LIMC II.2, p. 263, no. 890, and the commentary in LIMC II.1, p. 293: “Oben im Hintergrund: auf beiden Seiten eines ionischen Tempels die Pythia mit Schlüssel und A. mit Bogen im Gelände auf seinem Himation sitzend. Unten: in der Mitte Neoptolemos auf dem Altar, angreifender Delphier, hinter dem Omphalos in rascher Bewegung Orestes mit Schwert (Namenbeischrift). Das Heiligtum ist ausserdem durch zwei Dreifüsse und einen Palmenbaum gekennzeichnet.” See also Cook, Zeus, 170–171; Roux, Delphes, son oracle et ses dieux, 84, pl. XV, fig. 27. Cook writes: “The palm-tree recalls the bronze palm dedicated by the Athenians out of the spoils won at the battle on the Eurymedon” (Zeus, 170). Even if the palm tree on this vase is a votive offering, it illustrates the link between Apollo and the palm tree in general. 77 Whether the association of Apollo with the palm tree was due to an Oriental influence will not be examined here. See Jean-Claude Margueron, “De Mari à Délos, un lien: le palmier,” Ktèma 25 (2000): 55–63. 78 See Pierre Amandry, “Notes de topographie et d’architecture delphiques,” BCH 78 (1954): 295–315; Jean-François Bommelaer, Guide de Delphes: le site (Paris, 1991), 186 (no. 420); Brill’s New Pauly (Leiden, 2004), Vol. 4, 220 (s.v. “Delphi,” no. 44). 79 See Plutarch, The Oracles at Delphi 399–400: “During this conversation we were moving forward. While we were looking at the bronze palm-tree in the treasure-house of the Corinthians, the only one of their votive offerings that is still left, the frogs and water-snakes, wrought in metal about its base, caused much wonder to Diogenianus, and naturally to ourselves as well” (trans. Frank Cole Babbit, Plutarch’s Moralia [LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 289). See also Mor. 164a; Bommelaer, Guide de Delphes, 153–55 (no. 308); Brill’s New Pauly, no. 21. 80 See for example molekh in 2 Kgs 23:10.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

109

(Ha)Ramah81 (or: the height82) and Bethel (literally: the house of God, the temple),83 in the hill country of Ephraim.” Moreover, the Israelites are said to “go up” to Deborah in order to be judged (4:5, larfy ynb hyla wl[yw jpvml), something which is not said of any other judge or leader in Israel. Thus, the verb hl[ should be understood literally; it means that she is really dwelling on top of a hill or in the highest part of the area.84 This is another similarity between Deborah and the Pythia, since the temple of Delphi was located on mount Parnassus, and people used to go up quite a long way in order to reach the temple of Apollo.85 Another topographical similarity is the geographical location of the place within the country. According to a well-known myth, Delphi was located in the center of the world, and called “the navel of the earth” (ovmfalo,j th/j gh/j).86 But, as Strabo correctly notices in his Geography, it was also located in the center of Greece: “Now although the greatest share of honour was paid to this temple because of its oracle, since of all oracles in the world it had the repute of being the most truthful, yet the position of the place added something. For it is almost in the centre of Greece taken as a whole (th/j ga.r ~Ella,doj evn me,sw| pw,j evsti th/j sumpa,shj), between the country inside the Isthmus and that outside it […].”87 It is a nice coincidence that Judg 4:5 also describes Deborah’s place as situated between two areas, hmrh and la tyb. And, as a matter of fact, the reference to “the hill country of Ephraim” leads to a localization of Deborah roughly in the middle of Eretz Israel. The same area (roughly speaking) is described as “the center of the country” (#rah rwbj) in Judg 9:37, and this expression is translated by 81 In this context, hmrh (Ramah or Haramah) is identified by Abraham Even-Shoshan as a town in the hill country of Ephraim, which is actually the native town of Samuel, and the place where he was buried (see 1 Sam 1:19; 2:11; 7:17; 8:4; 15;34; 16:13; 19:18, 22; 25:1; 28:3). See idem, A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem, 1989), “hmrh”. 82 See 1 Sam 22:6: hmrb lvah txt h[bgb bvwy lwavw, “Saul was sitting at Gibeah, under the tamarisk tree on the height […].” 83 The first occurrence of Bethel in the Hebrew Bible is Gen 12:8 (Abraham dwells in a place between Bethel and Ai, and builds an altar there). In Judg 20–21, Bethel appears as the main religious center for the tribes of Israel. Note that Jacob poured oil on the top of the stone on which he had slept in the place he called Bethel (Gen 28:18), and swore that this stone would be the house of God (28:22). The same custom (to pour oil on a stone) is attested at Delphi, near Apollo’s shrine, according to Pausanias 10.24.6. 84 In Judg 3:27 and 7:24, the Israelites who dwell in “the hill country of Ephraim” are said to “go down” (dry) from the mountain (3:27 : rhh !m larfy ynb wm[ wdryw) in order to fight against the Moabites or the Midianites. 85 See for example Pausanias 10.5.5: “From here the high road to Delphi becomes both steeper and more difficult for the walker” (trans. by Jones, Pausanias, 393). 86 See Aeschylus, Seven against Thebes 747; Sophocles, Oedipus the King 480; Euripides, Orestes 331 and Iph. in Taur. 1253–1258; Strabo, Geogr. 9.3.6; and so on. 87 Geogr. 9.3.6, transl. by Horace Leonard Jones, The Geography of Strabo (LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1954), 355.

110

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

ovmfalo,j th/j gh/j in both Judg 9:37 and Ezek 38:12 in the Septuagint. This central location is another striking similarity between Deborah and the Pythia, which, if added to the other similarities mentioned above, can hardly be due to mere chance.

5. A “National” Dimension Delphi and Deborah’s dwelling place are not only geographical centers but also political ones. In the biblical text this aspect is not very developed, but the fact that the “children of Israel” (larfy ynb) go to Deborah for judgement indicates that she is not dealing only with one or two tribes (like the Ephraimites or the sons of Naphtali), but with all of them. Moreover, this part of the verse is somehow redundant, since Deborah has already been presented as a judge of Israel in Judg 4:4 (“Deborah […] was judging Israel at that time”). Thus, the sentence jpvml larfy ynb hyla wl[yw may be interpreted as a mark of insistence. Deborah appears as a “national” leader, around whom some “national” unity was reached, because everybody in Israel went to consult her. This aspect may be compared to the pan-hellenic character of Delphi’s oracle. In Auguste Bouché-Leclercq’s words, “Le respect intéressé, les flatteries et les présents des Barbares achevèrent de donner à l’oracle le caractère d’un institut national qui pouvait être, à l’occasion, l’organe diplomatique du peuple entier traitant avec les races étrangères. La Grèce, toujours prompte à défaire les ébauches de confédération improvisées sous la pression des circonstances, n’eut jamais de capitale où elle pût plus commodément prendre conscience d’elle-même sans rien sacrifier de ses habitudes antérieures.”88 The pan-hellenic character of the sanctuary is already apparent in the Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo (388–396), according to which the god chose priests from all over Greece, including Crete, to serve at his sanctuary. As a matter of fact, everybody in the Greek world (and beyond) went to Delphi to consult Apollo through the Pythia,89 and the pan-hellenic Pythian games also played a unifying role in the Greek world. The Delphic oracle enjoyed a great authority;90 in several sources, it is even 88 Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l’Antiquité, Vol. 3 (Paris, 1880), 124–25. The italics are ours. See also Roux, Delphes, son oracle et ses dieux, 1–12. 89 The collections of oracles show that people sent requests from Thessaly, Crete, Rhodes, Cyrene, Smyrna, and so on (see Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle, 244–416, and especially 244– 67). See also the Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo 247–253 and 287–293; Aeschylus, Eum. 31–32 (the Pythia says: “And if there be any here from among the Hellenes, let them enter, in turn, by lot, as is the wont”); Euripides, Ion 91 and 366. 90 See the testimony of Plutarch in De Defect. Or. 414 b.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

111

described as the truest oracle of all.91 Moreover, it was known as a source of law, civilization and morality.92 As Parke and Wormell put it, “apart from the specific responses, Delphi became a source of moral teaching in some degree also through the legends that were told about the temple and its dedications.”93 For example, Herodotus (6.86) tells the story of a Spartan called Glaukos who was known as a just man, and to whom a deposit of money was entrusted by a man from Milet. When the children of this man came to get the money back, Glaukos told them that he did not remember the deal, and asked for a delay. Then he went to Delphi to consult the oracle and asked whether he could swear falsely and keep the money. The Pythia answered him that he would be punished with all his family for having tried to get the god’s approbation for a crime, exactly as if he had committed it. This is a good example of the moralizing stories which were sometimes associated with the oracle in Delphi.94 Commenting on Aeschylus’ Eumenides 185–195 (a passage in which Apollo rebukes the Erinyes), R. Lattimore writes: “Apollo stands for everything which the Furies are not: Hellenism, civilization, intellect, and enlightenment.”95 According to Ephorus (4th century B.C.E.), quoted by Strabo (who sharply criticizes him for inserting myths in his story), “Apollo challenged men to gentleness and inculcated self-control by giving out oracles to some, commanding them to do certain things and forbidding them to do other things, and by absolutely refusing admittance to other consultants” (Geogr. 9.3.11, LCL, p. 365).96 To paraphrase Irad Malkin, it matters little for the purpose of our discussion whether people truly believed that Apollo was the source of all the benefits to humankind attributed to him. What matters is that Greeks regarded Delphi as the proper religious source of legitimate authority.97 Moreover, a foreigner who heard about Delphi’s fame was probably not aware of the critics that could be formulated against the sanctuary, its priests or the Delphian people. According to the positive picture widely 91

See Herodotus 1.46–49 (Croesus tested the oracles located in Greece and Lybia, and found out that Delphi’s oracle was true). Euripides, in Iph. in Taur. 1254, uses the expression “throne of truth” (evn avyeudei, qro,nw/). See also Strabo 9.3.6. Even if Herodotus mentions a few cases of fraud in divination, he also testifies that the belief in the oracle remained generally unshaken. See Irad Malkin, “Delphoi and the Founding of Social Order in Archaic Greece,” Metis 4 (1989): 139. 92 See Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (trans. J. Raffan; Cambridge, 1985), 148. For Apollo as lawgiver, see already Plato, Laws 624 a. 93 Parke and Wormell, The Delphic Oracle, 378. 94 On this legend, see Parke and Wormell, The Delphic Oracle, 380–82. 95 Richmond Lattimore, Aeschylus, Vol. 1 (Chicago, 1953), 30; quoted by Aphrodite Avagianou, “Ephorus on the Founding of Delphi’s Oracle,” GRBS 39 (1998): 121–36, esp. 130, n. 33. 96 On the Athenian perspective in Ephorus’ account, see Avagianou, “Ephorus on the Founding of Delphi’s Oracle.” She also refers to the expression found in Alcaeus’ Hymn to Apollo, profhteu,{s}onta di,khn kai. qe,min, which describes Apollo’s mission at Delphi. 97 See Malkin, “Delphoi and the Founding of Social Order in Archaic Greece,” 137.

112

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

spread in the Greek world, Apollo was a deity closely associated with justice, law, order and moral values, all aspects that could make him appear as a respectable divine character, corresponding at least partly to the image of the God of Israel in biblical tradition.98 Moreover, Apollo had a kind of universal dimension; as Plato writes, he is the interpreter of religion for all mankind.99 The Delphic oracle also played an important political function. As already noticed in section 1, it was consulted in military matters, and the history of the Persian wars as told by Herodotus is full of consultations at Delphi. Moreover, Delphi was the oracle as far as colonies were concerned. According to Irad Malkin, “[…] not one foundation oracle with any claim to authenticity has come down to us from any oracle other than Delphoi […] the cumulative impression formed from all our sources, both historical and spurious, is that Delphoi was regarded in antiquity as the most prominent authority by far in matters of colonization.”100 Finally, it must be underlined that even during the Hellenistic period, the Delphic oracle continued to be influential. Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood writes: “It is not true that the oracle’s influence had diminished as a result of its suspect position in the Persian Wars. Its influence continued, only its ‘political’ role inevitably diminished in the radically changed circumstances of the Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman world.”101 All these elements may help us understand why a reference to Delphi and the Pythia was introduced at a certain stage in the redaction of the Book of Judges. This biblical book deals with a period during which unity be98

In Euripides’ Andromache, the righteousness of the oracle is questioned by the messenger who informs Peleus of Neoptolemos’ murder: “Thus he that gives oracles to the world, / He that is judge to all men of the right, / Has wreaked revenge upon Achilles’ son – / Yea, has remembered, like some evil man, / An Old, old feud! How then shall he be wise?” (vv. 1161–65, trans. Arthur S. Way, Euripides [LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1958, 1st ed. 1912], 503). 99 Plato, Republic 427b: “What part of the legislation, then, he said, is still left for us? And I replied: For us nothing, but for the Apollo of Delphi, the chief, the fairest and the first of enactments. What are they? he said. The founding of temples, and sacrifices, and other forms of worship of gods, daemons, and heroes; and likewise the burial of the dead and the services we must render to the dwellers in the world beyond to keep them gracious. For of such matters we neither know anything nor in the founding of our city if we are wise shall we entrust them to any other or make use of any other interpreter than the God of our fathers. For this God surely is in such matters for all mankind the interpreter of the religion of their fathers who from his seat in the middle and at the very navel of the earth delivers his interpretation (ou-toj ga.r dh,pou o` qeo.j peri. ta. toiau/ta pa/sin avnqrw,poij pa,trioj evxhghth.j evn me,sw/| th/j gh/j evpi. tou/ ovmfalou/ kaqh,menoj evxhgei/tai)” (trans. Paul Shorey, Plato: Republic [2nd ed.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1963], 343– 45). 100 Irad Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 3; Leiden, 1987), 17. See for example Callimachus, Hymn to Apollo 55–59. 101 Sourvinou-Inwood, “Delphic Oracle,” 445. See also Rougemont, “Delphes hellénistique: et l’oracle?”. According to him, the oracle continued to be consulted regularly, both publicly and privately, until the second half of the 2nd century B .C.E.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

113

tween the tribes, sovereignty over the territory of Canaan and national construction were crucial issues. The author/editor may have seen in (the character of) Deborah (if he inherited an already existing tradition about a female judge and prophetess) a perfect equivalent to the figure of the Pythia in the Greek world. Hence the skillful allusions, probably intended for an intellectual elite, that conveyed the following message: our national history (the history of the constitution of Israel’s identity as a people) is no less prestigious than that of the Greeks. The moral and legal aspects of Apollo made him the perfect candidate for a parallel with the God of Israel. Finally, the fact that he was the titular deity of many colonies all around the Mediterranean sea also fitted a comparison with the God of Israel, who once gave his people a land to conquer, and later on accompanied them in Exile and stayed with them in the diaspora.

6. The Mantic Process: Trance and Poetic Prophecy Before we turn to more hypothetical points of comparison, let us mention a sixth similarity between Deborah and the Pythia. This time we will also take into consideration a verse from Judges 5. Two details are worth mentioning. First, according to Judg 5:12a, Deborah seems to be immersed in a kind of mantic trance, since the text contains the following apostrophe at herself: “Awake, awake, Deborah! Awake, awake, utter a song!” (yrw[ yrw[ ryv yrbd yrw[ yrw[ hrwbd). Verse 5:12b – “Arise, Barak” (qrb ~wq) – is a reference to the words of Deborah herself before the battle (see 4:14). Although only an allusion, this sentence makes quite clear that Deborah has to wake up from a kind of trance in order to utter the prophetic words that are expected from her. Now it is well-known that, according to Greek sources, the Pythia entered in a state of trance before prophesying.102 The second point is that Deborah is urging herself to tell a poem/song (ryv yrbd). In other words, she has to deliver her prophecy in a poetic form. As to the Pythia, there are plenty of ancient texts which testify that she gave oracles in hexameter verses.103 In Euripides’ Ion, she is described as “the

102 On the prophetic frenzy of the Pythia, see Plato, Phaedrus 244 b; Strabo 9.3.5; Diodorus 16.26.4, already referred to in section 1. E.R. Dodds underlines that this phenomenon was generally interpreted in terms of possession by the god rather than in terms of trance (although the second interpretation is found in Aristotle, Cicero and Plutarch). He considers the Pythia’s trance “autosuggestively induced, like mediumistic trance today” (The Greeks and the Irrational [Sather Classical Lectures 25; Berkeley, 1951], 70–75, esp. 73). Parke and Wormell also speak of “self– induced hypnosis” (The Delphic Oracle, Vol.1, p. 39). See also Burkert, Greek Religion, 116; Maurizio, “Anthropology and Spirit Possession.” 103 See for example Strabo 9.3.5; Pausanias 10.6.7.

114

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

Delphian woman who sings to the Greeks whatever Apollo utters.”104 Plutarch (who was a Delphian priest) even reports that, according to some, the first hexameter (or heroic verse) was heard at Delphi.105 In his days, however, the verse form of response had gone out of use. It may be argued that many prophets and diviners experience states of trance and that this is a universal feature of the mantic process in general (although one may point to exceptions too). It is true as well that many prophecies are put into verse. These features may thus be considered common to a lot of seers, prophets and diviners of the ancient world (and beyond).106 But once they are added to the striking similarities mentioned above, their presence in Judg 4–5 becomes more significant. Some scholars will probably argue that Judges 5 is much more ancient than Judges 4. Or, in a more general way, that the two texts were not written by the same redactor. This problem cannot be discussed in detail here, but two things at least should be kept in mind. First, Judg 5:12 could have been inserted or rewritten by the redactor of Judges 4.107 Alternately, if Judg 5:12 was indeed more ancient than Judges 4, it could have been understood by the redactor of Judges 4 as an allusion to the Pythia, which would have reinforced his literary project.

7. Some Hypothetical Points Four other points are worth mentioning. Although only hypothetical, they may be relevant in view of the evidence accumulated so far. 7.1 “Wife of Lappidoth”? Most of the commentators understand twdypl tva as an expression referring to Deborah’s husband, a man whose name was Lappidoth.108 A parallel 104 See also Callimachus, Iambi IV, frag. 194, vv. 26–27: “The Pythian priestess has her seat on laurel, laurel she sings, and she has laurel for a couch” (trans. C. A. Trypanis, Callimachus [LCL; London, 1958], 121). Sometimes it is Apollo himself who is said to “sing;” see Ion 6 and 681. 105 Plutarch, De Pyth. orac. 17 (402 d). 106 See for example Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, 92–93, n. 70. 107 This could be true of other verses from Judges 5 as well. See below, section 7.4. 108 See Moore, Judges, 110, 113; Boling, Judges, 92, 95; Soggin, Judges, 61, 72; Christiano Grotanelli, “The Story of Deborah and Barak: A Comparative Approach,” in idem, Kings and Prophets: Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership and Sacred Text in Biblical Narrative (New York, 1999), 73–86 (first published in Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 11 [1987], 149– 64); Lindars, Judges 1–5, 182; etc.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

115

may be drawn with the prophetess Huldah in 2 Kgs 22:14, of whom it is written: ~ydgbh rmv sxrx !b hwqt !b ~lv tva haybnh hdlx . As for Miriam, we know nothing of her husband, probably because she had none, since she is described in Exod 15:20 as “the sister of Aharon,” !rha twxa. Noadiah is only one of several prophets who oppose Nehemiah, and nothing else is said about this pejoratively connotated character. Although the traditional interpretation of twdypl tva seems quite sound, it is not devoid of problems, as has been recognized by several exegetes. First, Lappidoth does not play a role in the story, and is never heard of again.109 Neither is there another man called by this name in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the feminine plural ending is strange (although not impossible). In the biblical corpus, the plural of the word lappid (“torch”) is always lappidim.110 This has led several exegetes to reconsider the issue and opt for a different, metaphorical understanding of twdypl tva, according to which the word lappidoth characterizes Deborah and the way she acts, thus leading to the translation “a fiery woman”111 or “a spirited woman.” 112 This translation makes sense and is indeed satisfactory, but the word Lappidoth may also be understood in a different way. The verse introducing Deborah in Judges 4 is also worth comparing with the verses that introduce other judges. In most cases, the name of their father is indicated,113 and sometimes their genealogy is slightly more developped (as in the case of “Tola, son of Puah son of Dodo”, Judg 10:1). Their geographical/tribal origin may also be mentioned (Tola is also described as “a man of Issachar”), and it is sometimes the only element of identification beyond the name (as in the case of “Jair the Gileadite” (Judg 10:3),114 “Ibzan of Bethlehem” (Judg 12:8), “Elon the Zebulonite” (Judg 12:11), etc.). Finally, additional information concerning the judge may be provided in the introductory sentence, as in the case of Ehud, who is said to be “a left-handed man” (wnymy dy rja vya, Judg 3:15). In opposition to all the other judges, Deborah is first characterized by her activity as prophet-

109

Except if one considers that Lappidoth is Barak’s nickname, a rather doubtful assumption (see for example Boling, Judges, 92, 95). 110 KBL 484 indicates an occurrence of tdpl vak in Nah 2:4, but Kittel has a different text, tdlp vab, which is translated as follows in BDB 811: “like fire the steel (fittings) of the chariots.” 111 Following Schneider, Judges, 66. 112 Cf. J.D. Martin, The Book of Judges (Cambridge, 1975), 55 (he mentions it as a mere possibility). 113 Of Shamgar we only know that he is “son of Anath” (Judg 3:31). 114 The next judge after Jair, Jephthah, is also called “Jephthah the Gileadite”, and the text strikingly adds: “Gilead was the father of Jephtah” ( xtpy ta d[lg dlwyw, Judg 11:1). This clumsy sentence casts doubts as to whether Jephthah’s father was originally known.

116

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

ess, and not by her genealogy or her tribal origin.115 Moreover, if one considers that a married woman would be designated by her husband’s name and not by her father’s, and if one understands twdypl tva to mean “wife of Lappidoth”, then the sentence introducing Deborah should be composed as such: “Deborah, wife of Lappidoth, […]”. True, in Huldah’s case, haybnh hdlx comes first, before the reference to her marital relationship, ~ydgbh rmv sxrx !b hwqt !b ~lv tva. Still, in the context of Judges, the sentence introducing Deborah is odd; it does not fit the “norms” of this book.116 Moreover, if Lappidoth was Deborah’s husband, it would be odd not to get more information about this otherwise unknown character. Compare this with Huldah’s husband, whose genealogy (two generations!) and profession (a rather modest one) are indicated. Could Lappidoth be even less significant than Shallum? Now Klaas Spronk has suggested that haybn hva “can be regarded as the counterpart of the bwa tl[b tva of 1 Sam 28:7.” The expression refers to the medium at En-dor whom Saul requested to consult the spirit of Samuel.117 We would like to argue that it is rather twdypl tva that should be compared with bwa tl[b tva. In other words, it seems to us that the expression twdypl tva should be understood as a further characterization of Deborah’s prophetic art. Parallelism is a well-known phenomenon in biblical literature, especially in poetic texts. In most cases, the two parallel expressions mean the same thing, so that the second one sheds light on the first.118 Although Judg 4:4 is not a poetic text, we think that there is a parallelism between haybn hva and twdypl tva, and that both expressions relate to the same topic.119 The formulation twdypl tva haybn hva hrwbd is somewhat awkward and redundant. As already said in section 1, the normal way to introduce a female prophet is the expression “haybnh X.” We thus would expect to read “twdypl tva haybnh hrwbd.” The author/editor chose the strange wording haybn hva hrwbd because he wanted to introduce a parallelism between haybn hva and twdypl tva, which he made even stronger through the use of the word hva in both nominal groups. Thereby he indicated the connection between the two expressions.

115

See the similar remarks by Schneider, Judges, 65: “Deborah’s primary affiliation is not a family or a spouse, as would be expected for a married woman, but to her profession, prophecy.” 116 And, as already underlined in section 1, it does not correspond to the usual way of introducing a prophetess either. 117 Spronk, “Deborah, a Prophetess,” 238. The expression in the Septuagint is gunh. evggastri,muqoj (1 Kgs 28:7). 118 See for example Isa 32:5. 119 As M.Z. Kadari concludes: “[…] non–poetical texts can be constructed in the style of semantic parallelism” (“A Semantic Approach to Biblical Parallelism,” JJS 24 [1973]: 167–75, quotation p. 175).

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

117

But what can twdypl tva possibly mean? Considering – according to our working hypothesis in this article – that the author/editor of the passage under consideration had the model of the Pythia in mind while presenting Deborah to his readers, that he was acquainted with Greek classical literature and therefore knew Greek, we suggest that twdypl tva should be read twypld tva, “(like) a/the woman of Delphi” (with metathesis).120 This kind of metathesis is possible in biblical Hebrew.121 Moreover, that “Delphi” should be translated by a plural in Hebrew is only too natural, since the Greek name is a plural too (Delfoi,). Alternately, the author could have actually written twdypl, alluding to “Delphi” only in a cryptic way. Whatever the case, the meaning of the sentence would then be: “Deborah, a female prophetess, (comparable to/in the manner of) a/the woman of Delphi [i.e., the Pythia],122 was judging Israel.” In Euripides’ Ion (v.91), the Pythia is in fact called “Delphian woman”, gunh. Delfi,j.123 Thus, this way of referring to the Pythia was known in the Greek world and should not be considered unusual. If this interpretation of twdypl tva is accepted, the problems posed by the biblical text, which have received no wholly satisfying solution until now, simply vanish. “Lappidoth” is not Deborah’s husband, it is an allusion to Delphi, and the expression “woman of Delphi” means that Deborah is a prophetess in the manner of the Delphic Pythia, and of the same importance.

120

Hebrew frequently uses the construct state to characterize people, as in the expression tva bwa tl[b quoted above. Moreover, the construct state is frequently used to express the origin or the ethnic affiliation of people, as in the expression yltpn ynb and !lbz ynb in Judg 4:6, or $lm rwcx in Judg 4:17. 121 For example, hlmf becomes hmlf (see BDB, s.v. “hmlf,” p. 971). As is well known, the hitpa’el form of verbs starting with s or c implies a metathesis. Metathesis occur also between Greek and Hebrew. In rabbinic Hebrew, lmn (“harbour”) comes from limh,n, a Greek word, through metathesis (see E.Y. Kutscher, hytwdlwtw ~ylm [Jerusalem, 1965], 45). This kind of transformation happens also when words travel from Greek to Latin, as in the case of morphè, which becomes forma. 122 “The Pythia” or “a Pythia”, since it is a generic title for all the women who were chosen as prophetesses of Apollo at Delphi. 123 In this case Delfi,j is an adjective, as in the verse of Pindar quoted above, crhsmo.j […] meli,ssaj Delfi,doj. One example of Delfi,j as a noun designating the territory of Delphi is given by LSJ; it comes from Wilhelm Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum (3rd ed.; Leipzig, 1915), Vol.1, no. 534. The inscription, a honorary decree, was found in Delphi, and dates from 218 B.C.E.; it ends with the following formula: dedo,sqai de. auvtw/i kai. evk go,n[xx]oij kai. evpinomi,an evn ta/i Delfi,di to.n pa,nta cro,non.

118

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

7.2 A Woman with no Known Family Ties If the translation of twdypl tva as “wife of Lappidoth” is rejected,124 we may point to another similarity between Deborah and the Pythia: both are women with no family ties, with no husband and children (they had parents of course, even if their names are unknown). Nothing is said about Deborah being married or having children. This silence is peculiar, since biblical women rarely lived in an independent way, without being linked to a man (father, brother or husband), except in the case of some widows. The most simple solution is to suppose that Deborah was single or that she was a widow. At Delphi, the Pythia was chosen among young virgins, although some texts describe her as an elderly woman.125 Insofar as she was in charge of the oracle for a long period, she would reach an old age anyway.126 In any case, the Pythia was forbidden to have sexual relationships with men, and she lived in a special place within the area of the temple. Most of the Greek priestesses were living under similar rules, but it was all the more true of the Pythia as Apollo was supposed to “possess” her in the mantic sense of the term, implying an unusual degree of proximity between a human being and a god. That explains why she was sometimes described as a “bride” of Apollo.127 Thus, even if precise informations about Deborah’s family ties are lacking, the general picture is similar in both cases: we are dealing with a woman who is known to others only through her prophetic ministry, because of her public role as a medium between the deity and human beings, especially (though not exclusively) in political and military matters. Note that in the Hebrew Bible we hear about prophetesses who are married women, as in the case of Huldah, and maybe in the case of the prophetess mentioned in Isa 8:3. Thus, in the context of the Hebrew Bible, a woman’s prophetic ministry does not imply celibacy or chastity. The absence of

124 That is, if one understands twdypl tva in a metaphorical way (“a fiery woman”) or, eventually, as an indication of origin (a woman from a place called Lappidoth), or if one accepts our interpretation (“a/the woman of Delphi”). 125 See Diodorus 16.26.6, who explains that the rule was changed at some point because the virgin who was uttering the oracle was raped. 126 This is the case in Euripides’ Ion, in which the Pythia calls Ion her son, since she took care of him when, as a baby, he was abandonned near the temple. She must be an elderly woman when the action of the play starts (see vv. 1320–68). 127 See Plutarch, De Pyth. orac. 22 (405 c); Cook, Zeus, Vol.2, part 1, p. 207–10, evokes “the Pythia as Bride of Apollo.”

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

119

marital ties in Deborah’s case is problably to be explained by the Greek model the biblical writer had in mind.128 7.3 “She Used to Sit …” The verb bvy has several meanings in the Hebrew Bible; it may be translated as “to sit” (literaly), but also as “to dwell” or “to live” (in a certain place), and finally it may be connected to a specific function. Interestingly enough, the judges of the biblical Book of Judges are in fact never described as “sitting” (bvy), except in the case of “Tola, son of Puah son of Dodo, a man of Issachar”; “he lived at Shamir (rymvb bvy awhw) in the hill country of Ephraim” (Judg 10:1). As far as Tola is concerned, the meaning “to live” or “to dwell” is clear enough. When it comes to Deborah, the question must be raised of what tbvwy exactly means, all the more so as the following words say “under the palm of Deborah.” J.A. Soggin considers that it is related to her office as a judge, “in the forensic sense of the term.”129 This is obviously a possibility (see Moses in Exod 18:13), but it could also relate to her function as a prophet (and the two options should not be considered exclusive of each other). With our working hypothesis in mind, it makes perfect sense. The Pythia used to sit on the tripod when she was supposed to give an oracle. According to the story told by Diodorus (16.26), the tripod had been designed to prevent her from falling during the mantic process. In any case, as shown by Diodorus 16.25.3 and several other texts and pictural representations, no prophecy could be given without the Pythia sitting on her tripod; what appears to be only a detail was in fact an integral part of the mantic process (fig. 4).130 We do not suggest that Deborah sat on a tripod as the Pythia did, since the text does not mention anything of the kind, and the verb bvy makes perfect sense in the context of her office as a judge. Still, it is worth underlining this point, because of the accumulation of details pointing to an analogy between Deborah and the Delphic Pythia. Even if the author/editor of the biblical text uses a very common Hebrew verb, he may also have al128 Miriam and the necromancer of En-Dor (1 Sam 28) do not seem to have been married either, but they could have been widows. In any case, the fact remains that, according to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, a woman did not have to be a virgin or to be single in order to be a prophetess. 129 Cf. Soggin, Judges, 64. 130 See Aeschylus, Eum. 29 (where the word qro,noj is used); Diodorus 16.27.1 (where tri,pouj is used). For iconography, see Cook, Zeus, Vol. 2, part 1, p. 202–7 (“The Delphic Tripod”); Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle, 205; LIMC I.2, p. 274, s.v. “Aigeus,” no. 1 (= “Themis,” no. 10) (the picture on the plate represents Themis, who sits on the tripod and gives her famous prophecy to Aigeus, king of Athens).

120

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

luded to the position of the Pythia during her mantic trance. Of course, this remains an hypothesis; the point can not be proven, and the comparison is relevant only if related to the context of the numerous parallelisms between Deborah and the Pythia. 7.4 A Prophecy Concerning a Woman who Defeats a Man A prophecy concerning a woman who defeats a man is exceptional in the ancient world. We have in fact been unable to find any example of such a prophecy, apart from Judg 4:9 and an oracle attributed to the Pythia and recorded by Herodotus in the 6th book of his Histories. The context is the Spartan attack of Argos under the leadership of Cleomenes, at the beginning of the 5th century B.C.E. (Herodotus 6.76–80). According to Herodotus, the Argives were afraid to be defeated through a stratagem, because the Pythia had delivered the following oracle to them: Woe for the day when a woman shall vanquish a man in the battle, / Driving him far from the field and winning her glory in Argos: / Many an Argive dame her cheeks shall be rending in sorrow. / Yea, and in distant days this word shall be spoken of mortals: / There lay slain by the spear that thrice-twined terrible serpent.131

This oracle is particularly obscure, and its elements (the woman, the snake, the spear, and even the Argive women tearing their faces to pieces) are not related to anything else in the story that follows, which only tells about the military defeat of the Argives. The snake has generally been identified with Argos, whereas the woman is supposed to symbolize Sparta. But in Herodotus’ account, Cleomenes is said to leave the battlefield without having actually seized Argos. As a consequence, some later Greek writers completed the story by adding new elements, such as the role of the poetess Telesilla, who was supposed to have expelled Cleomenes from Argos with the help of the other Argive women. She was then identified with the victorious woman of the oracle. 132 In any case, Herodotus himself does not explain the Pythian oracle, and the reader remains puzzled. It could be that the author/redactor of Judg 4–5 knew the prophecy as told by Herodotus, and used it for his literary purposes. As a matter of fact, the prophecy makes more sense in the context of Judg 4–5 than in the context of Herodotus’ Histories! In Judg 4:21 and 5:26 we have a real woman, Jael, who kills the general of the enemy army by smashing his head with a 131

§77, trans. Alfred Denis Godley, Herodotus: The Histories (6th ed.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1963, 1st ed. 1922), 227. 132 See Plutarch, Mor. 245 c–f; Pausanias 2.20.8–10; Paul Maas, “Telesilla,” RE 5A/1 (1934): 384–85.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

121

kind of spear,133 as one is supposed to do in order to kill a snake. We do also find women (including Sisera’s mother) who await the return of the soldiers and will soon be moaning over their dead bodies (see Judg 5:28–30). Sisera himself, whose name phonetically evokes the hissing of a snake, is adequately symbolized by the “thrice-twined terrible serpent” of the prophecy. Finally, the words “winning her glory in Argos” in the Greek prophecy are echoed by Judg 5:24: “Most blessed of women be Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed.” Thus, the main elements of the Pythian prophecy are to be found in a literal way in Judg 4–5. Obviously, such a skillful allusion to this particular prophecy could only be the work of a very cultured writer, and had to be intended for an intellectual elite. If one acknowledges the allusion, then Deborah, who gives the prophecy, is implicitly compared to the Pythia, who uttered the oracle quoted by Herodotus.

8. Conclusion First, it must be underlined that Deborah is an original character, and not a copy of the Pythia. There are several differences between the two prophetesses. For example, the Pythia never left Delphi to go to war with a general. And Deborah is not described as sitting in a sanctuary. On the other hand, there are too many striking similarities between Deborah and the Pythia (which, combined together, do not fit any other prophetess known in the ancient world) not to assume that the biblical writer had the Pythia in mind when describing Deborah. Even if one retains only four similarities (a prophetess called a bee and associated with a palm tree, who played a unifying role for a “nation” in the making), no other example can be found. Whatever historical elements or previous traditions the biblical writer may have known, he created a literary figure built on the model of the Delphian prophetess, and he intended the educated reader to understand his point. But which message did he want to convey? If one thinks about the main theme of the Book of Judges, a threatened “national” unity linked to the recognition of the authority of God and his Law, as well as that of the leaders chosen by God, the comparison between Deborah and the Pythia makes sense.134 As already mentioned in section 5, the Delphic shrine played a great role in the unity of the Greek world and in the building of a panHellenic identity. In the eyes of a 5th or 4th century B.C.E. Israelite historian 133 The Greek term in Herodotus is do,r u, whereas in the Septuagint it is pa,ssaloj, but they refer to something similar, be it a real spear or a wooden/metal tent peg, stake or pale. 134 As well as the comparison between Deborah and Moses, alluded to in section 1.

122

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

writing or re-writing the history of a period which he saw as the period during which a pan-Israelite identity developed in spite of many threats, the analogy with the Greek world could have been meaningful. It may be that, in the context of the Persian rule over Judaea, he wanted his readers to boast their Israelite (Judean) identity by suggesting that Israelite national history was in every way comparable, and even superior to, the history of the Greek world that so valiantly opposed the Persian empire. Or, if one were to date his work from the beginning of the 3rd century B.C.E., one could imagine that it was the context of the Hellenistic kingdoms which prompted him to rewrite ancient Israelite traditions in order to elaborate a kind of historiography that would cope with the challenges put out by Greek historiographical narratives. But the example of Judg 4:4–5 does not allow us to go so far. A more systematic analysis of the book of Judges, and even of the whole corpus of the so-called historical books, would be needed in order to reach a safe conclusion. Still, in our opinion, the puzzling allusions to the Pythia in Judg 4:4–5 illustrate the need to open ourselves to the possibility of Greek influences on the biblical authors or editors at some point during the process of redaction of the biblical books. Such influences could have existed as early as the 5th century B.C.E., and do not necessarily imply a Hellenistic date. Moreover, in the case of Judg 4:4–5, nothing allows us to affirm that the cultured writer familiar with the Greek world who introduced the allusions to the Pythia did not use a pre-existing text which was much older. Thus, at this stage, the issue of the date can not be solved, and future research on the book of Judges should rather focus on other precise literary motifs.

Deborah and the Delphic Pythia

Fig. 1a: Python, omphalos and palm tree (LIMC VII.2 “Python” n°3). Circa 470 B.C.E. Paris, Cabinet des médailles 306. Photo courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

123

Fig. 1b: Leto holds Apollo in her arms while the child shoots at the Python (LIMC II.2 “Apollo” n°993). Circa 470 B.C.E. Paris, Cabinet des médailles 306. Photo courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

Fig. 2: Dionysios welcomes Apollo at Delphi. Attic red-figurine bowl krater. Circa 400 B.C.E. St. Petersburg Hermitage Museum. Reproduced from A.B. Cook, Zeus, vol. 2 part 1, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1925, plate 17 facing p. 262.

124

Yaakov S. Kupitz / Katell Berthelot

Fig. 3: The murder of Neoptolemos at Delphi. Red-figurine volute-handled krater. Circa 370 B.C.E. Museo Jutta Naples. Reproduced from A.B. Cook, Zeus, vol. 2 part 1, Cambridge Univ. Press 1925, Fig. 117 on p. 171.

Fig. 4: The Pythia (called Themis) sitting on the Delphic tripod in front of king Aigeus. Red-figurine kylix from Vulci. Circa 440 B.C.E. Berlin Mus. 2538. Reproduced from A.B. Cook, Zeus, vol. 2 part 1, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1925, Fig. 125 on p. 207.

Rolf A. Jacobson Rolf A. Jacobson

A Rose by Any Other Name A Rose by Any Other Name

Iconography and the Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1–6

The oracle in Isaiah 28:1–6 includes its share of interpretive cruxes.1 The oracle is addressed to the ~yrpa yrkv twag trj[. To what or whom does twag trj[ refer? To what does the parallel phrase wtrapt ybc lbn #yc refer? Who is the yndal #maw qzx of v. 2? What is the meaning of the rav in v 5? How do vv. 5–6 complete the oracle? In the process of exploring these interpretive problems, I will examine how iconography can inform understanding of this passage and propose a coherent interpretation of it. 1. trj[

twag

1.1 The Crown of Ephraim It is obvious that ~yrpa yrkv twag trj[ in 28:1 is a metaphor. But to what does the metaphor refer? As Willem Beuken has noted, “‘The crown of the drunkards of Ephraim’ is not a clear figure.”2 One interpretation that has achieved widespread agreement is the view that trj[ means “garland” or “wreath,” and that it refers to the walls of Samaria, the capital city of Ephraim. One signal that a particular interpretive view has managed to achieve something close to scholarly consensus is when the notes in major study Bibles reflect that interpretation. Consider these notes on Isa 28:1 from various popular study Bibles: – “Garland, a metaphor for the walls of Samaria, capital of the Northern Kingdom” (Harper Collins Study Bible, Revised Edition).3 – “Garland, walls of Samaria” (New Oxford Annotated Bible).4 1 An early draft of this essay was written for J.J.M. Roberts’ “Exegesis of First Isaiah” seminar at Princeton Theological Seminary in the fall of 1997. I wish to thank Dr. Roberts, who is a teacher without equal and whose boots I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I also wish to thank Justin Schlesinger-Devlin and Laura Kaslow for help with the illustrations. 2 Willem A.M. Beuken, Isaiah II/2 (trans. Brian Boyle; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven, 2000), 17. 3 J.J.M. Roberts, “Note on Isaiah 28:1,” The HarperCollins Study Bible, Revised Edition (New York, 2006), 946.

126

Rolf A. Jacobson

– “Wreath. Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom, was a beautiful city on a prominent hill” (NIV Study Bible).5 The purpose of citing the notes of these three popular study Bibles is simply to underscore how widespread is the view that the metaphor of the “proud crown of Ephraim” refers to Samaria, whose walls supposedly bore a resemblance to a crown. In light of Beuken’s earlier caution,6 Otto Kaiser probably overstates the degree of scholarly consensus on this issue, but as a foil, his conclusion is worth citing: “Modern commentators are unanimous in relating this prophecy of warning, taking the form of a stylized proclamation of woe, to the city of Samaria, and in attributing it to Isaiah.”7 The most comprehensive expression of this interpretation is that of Hans Wildberger.8 Wildberger argues that twag trj[ has a double meaning; it means both “proud crown” and “proud garland.” On the one hand, Wildberger argues that the twag trj[, “proud crown,” refers to the city walls of Samaria. Wildberger bases this argument on a perceived visual similarity between a crown atop a head and the walls of Samaria atop its hill. In Wildberger’s mind’s eye, the two images coincide: “It makes sense to compare a city to a crown upon a head when one considers how a city is positioned on the upper part of a hill, with its walls looking very much like a crown […].”9 Wildberger further argues that the Hebrew word hrj[ carries a second, or double meaning in addition to crown, which is closer to “garland.” “The hrj[ (here: “crown”) is, of course, not exactly what we think a crown to be, but […] a wreath of flowers, and the boozers in ancient times loved to crown themselves with flowers that had been interwoven.”10 Building on his belief that the “proud garland of the drunkards of Ephraim” is a reference to the practice of drunks crowning themselves with garlands, Wildberger says that crowning oneself is an act of grandeur born of “high spirits.” Thus, Wildberger understands Isaiah 28:1ff. to be a prophecy of 4 Victor Gold and William Holladay, “Note on Isaiah 28:1,” New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York, 1991), 901 (OT); note that the 3rd edition of the NOAB no longer offers an interpretive gloss on the “garland,” but does refer to the passage as an “oracle against the Northern Kingdom” (1014 [Hebrew Bible]). 5 Herbert Wolf, “Note on Isa 28:1,” NIV Study Bible in The Concordia Study Bible (St. Louis, 1986) 1055. 6 Although note that in the end, Beuken agrees that the “crown” here refers to Samaria (Isaiah II/2, 24). 7 Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, 1974), 237. It should be noted that Otto Kaiser differs in part from this majority interpretation. He dates the prophecy to the post-exilic era. Kaiser does take “proud crown” as a reference to a city, although he is not sure if it is Samaria. 8 Isaiah 28–39: A Continental Commentary (trans. Thomas Trapp; Minneapolis, 2002), 1–13. 9 Ibid., 8. Note Wildberger’s original: “Der Vergleich mit einer Krone auf dem Kopf ist von der Anlage einer Stadt mit ihren Kronenartigen Mauern am obern Rand eines Hügels durchaus einleuchtend” (Jesaja 28–39, [BKAT 10/3; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982], 1044). 10 Ibid.

A Rose by Any Other Name

127

Isaiah of Jerusalem against the people of Samaria, who like high-spirited drunkards were hiding from the harsh reality of Tiglath-Pileser’s impending invasion. “Because of the double meaning of hrj[ Isaiah can speak initially about the wreath of the drunks and then still use the same word to speak about the crown that is perched above a lush valley.”11 Thus for Wildberger the crown is both a metaphor for the city of Samaria (because the city walls look like a crown) and also a metaphor for the people (because drunks in antiquity allegedly crowned themselves with garlands). Either way, Wildberger understands the target of this oracle to be Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom. 1.2 twag

trj[ as City Walls

It is unlikely that Isaiah of Jerusalem’s original audience would have connected the metaphor of “the proud crown” with either of Wildberger’s two proposed meanings. I will deal with each of his proposed interpretations in order, beginning with the argument that the twag trj[ is a visual simile for the city walls. Based on both lexicographic and iconographic data, this interpretation is unlikely. 1. Lexicographic Data. As Wildberger himself notes, in the modern German language, one can speak of a hill being “crowned” by a castle or a city.12 In the English language also, people speak of the crown of a hill. Thus in English or German, the metaphor might function linguistically as Wildberger proposes. The relevant question here, however, is whether in Biblical Hebrew the word hrj[ ever carries the semantic sense of a hilltop or of city walls or that Isaiah’s ancient audience would have connected the semantic field denoted by the word hrj[ with the concept of a hill being crowned by a city. The brief answer to the question is that in Biblical Hebrew the word hrj[ never refers to a hilltop or city walls. The semantic realm indicated by hrj[ is that of royalty; the basic sense of the word is a crown, usually made of precious metal.13 In Zechariah 6, the term occurs in an oracle in which the prophet is told to make a crown of silver and gold and then coronate Joshua Ben-Jehozadak as king. In 2 Sam 12:30 (//1 Chr 20:2), David takes the golden crown from the head of Milcom (MT: “their king”) and places it on his own head. In Ezek 21:31, Ezekiel prophesies against the “wicked prince of Israel,” saying “lift off the crown.” In Song of Solomon 3:11, the 11

Ibid. Ibid., 11. 13 This also seems to be the sense of the root ‘tr in Phoenician (KAI 60.1ff.). 12

128

Rolf A. Jacobson

daughters of Zion are told to look “at King Solomon, at the crown with which his mother crowned him.” In Ps 21:4, hrj[ refers to the king’s crown of gold. In Est 8:15, Mordecai is given a crown of gold and other symbols of royalty by King Ahasuerus. The fact that Mordecai receives the crown and other signs of royalty are intended to show that he bears the king’s authority. In Jer 13:18, the king and queen mother are told, “your splendid crown (~ktrapt trj[) has descended from your heads.” In all of these texts hrj[ is mentioned in the same context as the king or queen, and often the crown is specifically described as being composed of precious metal. This suggests that the meaning of hrj[ within the semantic field of the monarch/monarchy. There is no reason to think that in Isaiah 28:1 hrj[ connotes anything other than a royal crown. In Biblical Hebrew, hrj[ is so intimately connected with the person of the sovereign that it is most likely that Isaiah’s original audience would have understood “the proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim” as a reference not to the walls of Samaria, but to the king of Ephraim.14 There is one Old Testament passage in which hrj[ does refer specifically to a city. In Isa 62:2–3, an oracle concerning the restoration of Jerusa14

In addition to this concrete meaning of hrj[ to refer to a physical crown, biblical Hebrew often uses hrj[ metaphorically. Most commonly, hrj[ is a metaphor for the presence or absence of dignity, prosperity and pride. In Lam 5:15, the singer mourns that “the crown has fallen from our head.” Similarly, Job cries out in 19:9 that the crown has been taken from his head. In Job 31:36, Job cries that if an adversary had written a charge against him, “I would tie it on myself as a crown.” Job adds, “like a prince I would approach him.” (Note again that hrj[ is directly associated with the monarch.) The crown is a favorite metaphor in Proverbs. Children are called the crown of age (17:6); a diligent woman is the crown of her husband (12:4); a father instructs his children to seek wisdom who will set a “splendid crown” (trapt trj[) on their heads (4:9); gray hair is said to be a “splendid crown” (trapt trj[, 16:31); and wisdom is said to be the crown of the wise (14:24). In Ezekiel 16 the prophet offers a long parable in which God is compared with a faithful husband who finds a naked, bloody woman and clothes her, marries her and adorns her with jewelry. Included among the long list of gracious deeds which God the husband does for Jerusalem the wife is, “I placed […] a splendid crown ( trapt trj[) on your head” (v 12). In terms of the argument of this essay, it is important to note that in this passage the woman stands for the city of Jerusalem, and the crown stands for the prosperity and honor God had granted it. When a biblical writer wishes to describe a situation of pride or prosperity, the writer can use the image of the crown sitting on the head. Thus in Proverbs when a father tells his children that Wisdom will “bestow you with a splendid crown,” it means that wisdom will grant you prosperity and dignity. On the other hand, when a biblical writer wishes to express disgrace or falleness, the writer can say that the crown has fallen from the head (Lam 5:15, Job 19:9, etc.). When hrj[ is used metaphorically in these ways, there is no direct connotation of royalty. Rather, it seems, the honor and glory of the monarch have been abstracted and the crown now serves as a symbol of that honor. That is to say, the king’s life is regularly portrayed in the Old Testament as one of honor. When the psalmist wishes to describe God’s saving action, the claim is made that Yahweh “lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes, with the princes of his people” (Ps 113:6b–7, NRSV). Because the life of the royalty was seen as honorable and prosperous, and because the crown was a symbol of royalty, the hrj[ served as the symbol of prosperity and honor. But note that this metaphorical function of hrj[ as a symbol for prosperity is dependent on its primary semantic association with royalty.

A Rose by Any Other Name

129

lem, hrj[ refers to Jerusalem. In this passage, Trito-Isaiah speaks of the vindication promised Jerusalem: Nations shall see your righteousness and all of the kings your honor, And you will be called by a new name, which the mouth of Yahweh will appoint, And you will be a splendid crown (trapt trj[) in Yahweh’s hand, a royal turban in your God’s palm.

This passage does refer to a city – Jerusalem – as a “splendid crown.” Thus, at a first glance it seems as if this passage supports Wildberger’s interpretation that in Isa 28:1 the hrj[ is a reference to Samaria. But recall that Wildberger bases his interpretation on the visual similarity between the city of walls of Samaria on its hill and a crown on a king’s head. In Isa 62:2–3 nothing of the sort is implied. Isa 62:3 says that Jerusalem will be a “splendid crown” (trapt trj[ ) and a “royal turban” (hkwlm @wnc) in Yahweh’s hand. How could a @wnc, which carries the sense of a cloth wrapped around the head15 (thus a turban) be visually confused with a city wall? Thus the parallel use of hrj[ and @wnc to refer to Jerusalem requires that the interpreter find a better explanation for why a hrj[ can refer to a city. Following Ockham’s razor, a more simple explanation is to be found in the fact that Jerusalem was the royal city, and that “crown” and “royal turban” are both symbols of royalty. As noted above, hrj[ has to do with royalty. The fact that the @wnc is specifically modified by hkwlm confirms that the issue here is that Jerusalem is the “royal” city. Trito-Isaiah is drawing on the traditional tenets of Zion theology to prophesy the restoration of the delapidated Jerusalem. In the Zion theology of Judah, Jerusalem was the residence of Yahweh the great king (Ps 48:3) and thus the royal city of God. Yahweh’s choice of Jerusalem as his royal dwelling place meant that Yahweh would keep Jerusalem safe and protect her citizens.16 The point to be underscored here is that TritoIsaiah’s oracle that Jerusalem will be a “splendid crown in Yahweh’s hand” is dependent not on the visual similarity of crowns and city walls, but on the connection between the hrj[ as a royal symbol and Jerusalem as the royal city. Based on the parallel in Isaiah 62:3, one still might choose to understand hrj[ in 28:1 as refering to Samaria. But then one would have to understand that the metaphor is not based on a visual similarity between crown and walls. Rather, one would have to understand the metaphor to be based on the connection between the crown as a symbol of royalty and Samaria as the royal city of Ephraim. 15

See HALOT 3:1038–39. For a fuller exposition of Zion theology see J.J.M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, (ed. Tomoo Ishida; Winona Lake, Ind., 1982), 93–108. 16

130

Rolf A. Jacobson

2. Iconographic Data. Iconographic data from the ancient Near East offers further reasons to doubt the argument that the hrj[ refers to the city walls of Samaria. Recall again that Wildberger based his argument on a perceived visual similarity between a hilltop “crowned” with walls and a crowned head. The visual aspect of the argument can be tested by examining whether ancient iconographic representations of crowns bore any resemblance to fortified cities. The data can be summarized in advance by stating that crowns in antiquity did not visually resemble fortified city walls.17 Royalty wore a stunning variety of crowns in the Ancient Near East. The singular impression one gains from a survey of iconographic representations of crowns, however, is that kings did not wear the stylized, battlemented crowns that would later become popular in medieval Europe.18 Neither of the well-known crowns of Egypt – the Blue and White Crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt – are reminiscent of city walls. Fig. 1 shows a line drawing of the Blue Crown. The drawing is taken from a relief of the temple of Seti I; the relief dates from ca. 1301 B.C.E.19 Fig. 2 shows a line drawing of the White Crown, reproduced from of a relief at Kohns Temple made during the reign of Ptolemes II, 246–221 B.C.E.20 Likewise, statues and figurines from Ugarit offer evidence that at Ras Shamra the crown may have looked very similar to the White Crown, consisting of a tall, cone-shaped crown, perhaps topped with a spherical ornament similar to the White Crown of Egypt. Although not shown here, both Baal and Anat are portrayed in crowns of this fashion.21 In a relief that shows the King of Ugarit presenting an offering to El, the king also is adorned with a crown of this type. Clay figurines that may depict the King of Ugarit show analogous crowns. Thus, the iconographic data from Egypt and Ugarit demonstrate the crowns known in these locales did not bear a resemblance to city battlements. The iconographic representations of Mesopotamian crowns continue to cast doubt on any visual similarity between city walls and crowns. Fig. 3 shows a line drawing detail of King Hammurabi based on the famous relief from the top of Hammurabi’s stele. This stele dates from the early second millennium and shows one type of crown well attested in Mesopotamia – 17 For a summary description of ancient Near Eastern crowns, see Piotr Bienkowski, “Crowns and Royal Regalia” in The Dictionary of the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia, 2000), 83–84. 18 One gains the suspicion that the visual analogy between crowns and city walls is an anachronistic comparison based on later battlemented medieval crowns. 19 Drawing reproduced from Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, Ind., 1997), 278. 20 Ibid., 287. 21 These figures are not shown here, but see Claude Schaeffer, Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-Ugarit (London, 1939), plates 30 and 35. See also Maurice Dunand, Fouilles de Byblos (Paris, 1926–1932), plates 67–69.

A Rose by Any Other Name

131

the top is shaped like a dome, the brim of the crown is high but very thin.22 Fig. 4 depicts a line drawing of Ashurnasirpal II’s head and crown, based on one of a series of reliefs discovered at Nimrud and dating to the 9th century B.C.E. In all of the reliefs of Nimrud, the king is consistently shown wearing a crown that is conical, marked by its pointed top-piece and its sloped frontal piece.23 The Mesopotamian iconographic data is especially relevant, because it provides us with visual renderings of crowns comtemporary with Isaiah of Jerusalem.24 Fig. 5 shows a line drawing based on a relief of Sargon II (721–705 B.C.E.) taken from his palace at Khorsabad.25 Sargon’s crown – similar to Ashurnasirpal’s – is conical, with a flattened top and smaller conic top-piece protruding above the flat area. Further examples need not be multiplied. The number of crowns displayed here may seem like overkill, but the task of proving a negative – that Isaiah’s audience would not have associated the images of crown and city walls with each other – requires a concentration of evidence. The iconographic data may be summed up by stating that no known Egyptian, Palestinian, or Mesopotamian crown would support the proposal that an ancient audience would have made a connection between a crown and a visual identification of the walls of a city. Together with the lexicographic data, it is safe to conclude that it is unlikely that Isaiah’s audience would have understood twag trj[ to refer to the walls of Samaria. 1.3 twag

trj[ as Drunkards’ Garland

Recall that a second meaning Wildberger posits for hrj[ is “garland.” Wildberger understands the phrase ~yrpa yrkv twag trj[ as referring to the garlands with which drunks crowned themselves in antiquity. Based on the assumption that this practice was common and known in Israel and Judah, Wildberger argues that Isaiah employs the image to portray Samaria as a city that refuses to see the impending doom that Tiglath-Pileser would bring down on them. Like drunks who drink in order to hide the truth from 22 Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore, 1955), plate 65. King Gudea is also portrayed in a similar crown, see plates 48–49. 23 J.E. Curtis and J.E. Reade, ed., Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum (London, 1995), 54. 24 One well-known image relevant to this study that is not reproduced here shows TiglathPileser III in procession. Tiglath-Pileser III reigned ca 744–727 B.C.E., and campaigned in Palestine. He may well be the “strong and courageous one” spoken of in Isa 28:2 (see below). The upper register of this relief shows a fortified city (Astartu); note that the king’s crown bears no resemblance to the city. The image may be seen in Curtis and Reade, Art and Empire, 63. 25 James Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1954), plate 446.

132

Rolf A. Jacobson

themselves, they were hiding their eyes from the harsh reality of Assyria’s imminent invasion. 26 Wildberger asserts that while the primary evidence for the custom of “wreaths being worn during drinking parties [comes] from the country of Greece […] Evidence for the same practice is found in the OT in Ezek. 23:42.”27 But does Ezek 23:42 support the conclusion that this ancient Greek custom was known in Israel? This text is part of the larger parable of Oholah and Oholibah. The two women, who are said to represent Samaria and Jerusalem respectively, are wives of Yahweh who play the whore with foreign nations. In 23:42, drunken men come from the wilderness and adorn the women with bracelets and place “splendid crowns” (trapt trj[) on their heads. It is crucial to note, however, that in the Ezekiel passage the drunken men do not wear crowns themselves, rather they enter and place crowns on !hyvar – “their heads” – that is, on the heads of Oholah and Oholibah (who are never said to be drunk).28 The 3. pers. fem. pronominal suffix on the noun allows no other interpretation. Ezek 23:42, therefore, cannot be used as evidence that the practice of drunks crowning themselves with garlands was known in Israel. Thus this passage does not support Wildberger’s argument about the second meaning of ~yrpa yrkv twag trj[. Another interpretation must be found.29 26

Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 8. Ibid. 8. 28 The broader meaning of Isaiah’s reference to drunkenness here is clear – he is using the metaphor to symbolize those who fail either to discern or to follow the will of the Lord. In verses 1 and 3, Isaiah uses the epithet “the proud crown of the drunks of Ephraim,” and in verse 1c Isaiah refers to the people of Samaria as “those struck down by wine.” Wildberger wanted to understand the reference to drunkeness as Isaiah’s judgment on a nation that – like highspirited drunks – would not acknowledge the truth of its precarious situation. Several other passages in Isaiah that refer to drunkenness suggest a more nuanced meaning. In the well-known passage in Isa 5:11–12, Isaiah castigates those who “pursue beer” (NRSV: strong drink) because “they do not consider the work of Yahweh and do not see the work of his hands.” In Isa 28:7, the prophet cries out against priest and prophet who are so drunk that they “err in vision and stumble in giving a decision.” Isa 29:9–11 contains an oracle against prophets and seers who behave as though drunk (“Be drunk, but not from wine”) in that they cannot discern the meaning of their visions. In all of these passages, Isaiah uses the metaphor of drunkeness to portray those who fail to discern the will of Yahweh. Isa 28:1–6 should be understood analogously. Isaiah is saying that the men making policy for the northern kingdom can be likened to drunks who cannot understand a sign from Yahweh. Yahweh has given sign and portent, but the leaders either refuse to regard them or are unable to see them. Therefore they will be swept away by the one who is to come. 29 Wildberger bases part of his argument on the textually difficult phrase that is found in verses 1 and 4: ~ynmv-ayg var-l[ rva. The textual problem is with the word ayg. In both verses 1 and 4, 1QIsaa has yag, presumably related to the root hag, “to be high/arrogant.” LXX offers some support for following Qumran, since the Greek u`yhlou/ translates hag in Isa 2:12 and other places. The parallel phrase !yy ymwlx also supports reading yag. Wildberger believes that ~ynmv-ayg is an interpolation that does not belong in v 1, because it was imported later from verse 4 (thus the verse reads: “upon the head of those who are under the influence of wine,” pp. 2–3). This emendation, for which there is no external evidence, must be rejected as speculative. Regarding verse 4, Wildberger retains the MT, conluding, “The proud crown of the drunks of Ephraim refers to Samaria 27

A Rose by Any Other Name

133

1.4 The King of the Ephraim Often in interpretation, the most simple explanation is the best. Since the basic sense of hrj[ is of a king’s crown, I believe that Isaiah’s reference to the “proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim” is a reference to the king of Ephraim. In the rest of this essay, I will offer supporting reasons for this suggestion and show how this interpretation makes better sense of the oracle in 28:1–6 and also helps understand the original rhetorical function of the oracle.

2. wtrapt 2.1 lbn

ybc lbn #yc

#yc: “Fading Flower”

Another problematic issue is what one is to make of the compound phrase wtrapt ybc lbn #yc, translated by the NRSV as “the fading flower of its glorious beauty.” First, how shall one understand lbn #yc? This phrase occurs parallel to “proud crown” and may best be understood synonymously. No matter how one interprets “proud crown,” one needs to have a convincing explanation for how “fading flower” functions in parallel to “proud crown.” As almost every commentator points out, the flower is a favorite biblical symbol for transitoriness (cf. Isa 40:6ff.; Job 14:2; Ps 103:15; etc.), and thus it is possible to apply the metaphor to the city of Samaria, understanding that Isaiah is here employing the metaphor to announce that Samaria will be destroyed. But there is good reason to understand lbn #yc not as a reference to the city of Samaria but to the king who dwells there. Doubtless it is true that Isaiah is drawing upon the flower as a symbol of transitoriness. But Isaiah, who is accomplished at the art of double entendre, may also be drawing upon the flower as a symbol of royalty. In this context the #yc should be understood as a “rosette” – which was a symbol for royalty in the ancient Near East. There is considerable evidence that both in Israel and its surrounding cultures the rosette was a symbol of the monarchy.30 Outside of Israel, the itself in this passage” (p. 4). But if ~ynmv-ayg meant “fat valley” would one not expect !mv rather than ~ynmv? Isaiah 25:6 and Amos 6:6 both have the plural ~ynmv occurring in parallel with a word for wine, as here in 28:1. In Isa 25:6. ~ynmv refers to rich foods; in Am 6:6, it refers to oils. This suggests that one must read ~ynmv as it is. Reading the MT as it is suggests the meaning “valley of rich foods/fat things.” 30 W.F. Albright, Editorial Note, BASOR 80 (1940): 21, n. 51. Jane M. Cahill, “Rosette Stamp Impressions,” IEJ 45 (1995): 230–52; “Royal Rosettes Fit For a King,” BAR (September/October 1997): 48–57, 68–69; Gabriel Barkay, “A Group of Iron Age Scale Weights,” IEJ 28 (1978): 209–

134

Rolf A. Jacobson

rosette emblem is attested as a royal symbol as early as the Hittite empire, where seal impressions have been found with the motif. Fig. 6 shows a 9thcentury B.C.E. statue of a king that was recovered from Malatya. The key feature is the ring of eight-petalled rosettes that adorn the crown.31 Fig. 7 shows a bust that is presumed to be a 9th- or 8th-century B.C.E. representation of an Ammonite king; this bust also has a ring of rosettes lining the crown.32 These two crowns suggest that the rosette was an emblem denoting royalty – and tellingly, because the rosette was an emblem that adorned ancient Near Eastern crowns. Another telling use of the rosette motif comes from the Neo-Assyrian kings, some of whom were contemporaries of Isaiah. Fig. 8 shows Ashurnasirpal II depicted with rosettes on the bracelets on his wrists, with rosettes on his crown, and with his rosettes completely covering his robe.33 Almost every Neo-Assyrian king following Ashurnasirpal is likewise depicted wearing the rosette emblem. Some scholars have held that the rosette is merely an artistic decoration. But David Ussishkin has argued that the rosette is a royal emblem. Ussishkin points out that a relief showing Sennacherib was defaced at two places – the crown and the wrist.34 Based on numerous parallel images, Ussishkin concludes that the crown and wrist were once adorned with rosettes. Because the relief was only vandalized at those two places, Ussishkin concludes that the vandals intentionally defaced the wrist and crown precisely because the rosette was a symbol of royalty. Thus Ussishkin concludes, “The rosette was a royal Assyrian emblem […].”35 Within Judah, almost 250 ceramic jar handles bearing rosette impressions have been discovered from twenty-three different sites (for an example, see fig. 9).36 The rosettes consist of a varied number of petals arranged evenly around a central dot. The jar handles date to the 7th century B.C.E., and Jane Cahill and others have argued persuasively that in the mid-seventh century the rosette stamp replaced the $lml stamp on royal storage jars and decanters.37 The rosette motif is also attested on a seal found in Jerusalem that bears the inscription $lmh tb hnd[ml “[belonging to] Ma’danah, daughter of the king.”38 On the seal there is a twelve-stringed lyre; on the 17; Nahman Avigad, “The King’s Daughter and the Lyre,” IEJ 28 (1978): 146–51. The rosette is related to the sun emblem, which functioned as a symbol for both gods and royalty. Both the rosette and the sun emblem signify the protection and blessing of the gods. The rosette may have been derived secondarily from the use of the sun emblem. 31 Cahill, “Fit For a King,” 54. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., 55. 34 Ibid., 56. 35 David Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel Aviv, 1982), 115. 36 Cahill, “Fit For a King,” 48. 37 Cahill, “Fit For a King,” and “Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions.” 38 Avigad, “The King’s Daughter.”

A Rose by Any Other Name

135

lyre is a ten-petalled rosette. The orthography of the seal suggests a 7thcentury B.C.E. date.39 The existence of the rosette emblem on the seal of a daughter of the king supports the use of the rosette as a symbol of royalty in Judah. Gabriel Barkay has published a scale weight bearing the rosette impression.40 The scale’s shape and size suggest an 8th- or 7th-century date. Other similar scale weights exist with the $lml inscription. As was the case with the storage jars, Barkay concluded that the rosette replaced the $lml as the royal stamp. To summarize, the use of the rosette emblem as a royal symbol is well testified in Judah, particularly in the Neo-Assyrian period. In addition, the widespread use of the rosette motif on crowns suggests a possible connection between the “crown” and “flower” of Isa 28:1–6. Therefore, there is strong warrant for associating the phrase lbn #yc with the rosette emblem – and, in fact, for understanding it as a reference to the crown of the northern king.41 To summarize the argument regarding the lbn #yc, the rosette was a symbol for royalty in Judah as well as in its neighboring cultures. Use of the symbol is widely attested during Isaiah’s time. Further, there seems to be good reason to associate the word #yc with the rosette. It seems then that the lbn #yc of Isaiah 28:1 is a reference to the rosette as a symbol of royalty. Based on the Neo-Assyrian crowns which were adorned with rosettes and the fact that lbn #yc occurs here in parallel with “proud crown,” it is even possible that we have here a reference to the actual crown of the King 39

Ibid., 151. Barkay, “Iron Age Scale Weights,” 209–17. 41 In several biblical texts, #yc is used to describe the ornamental headware of the high-priest. Exod 28:36–38 and 39:30–31 describe that on the high priest’s turban there was a bhz #yc on which was inscribed “holy to Yahweh.” Lev 8:9 says that Moses placed a turban on the head of Aaron, “and on the front of the turban, at the front of his face, he set the golden flower of the holy crown (vdqh rzn bhzh #yc).” This description purports to be about Aaron’s turban, but should be taken as representing the later high priest’s headware. Although these passages describe the high priest’s turban and not the king’s crown, they give us evidence that #yc can refer to an emblem on a crown. All three passages also interpret the #yc as a symbol of divine favor – an interpretation that fits in well with the rosette as a symbol of royalty. 1 Kings 6 contains a description of Solomon’s temple. According to 6:18, 29, 32 and 35, there were ~ycyc yrwjp (“opened blooms”) carved on the walls of the nave, on the inner sancturary doors, and on the nave doors. A Persian royal palace, the Tripylon at Persepolis, provides a parallel that may help us understand the meaning of these carved flowers. The palace was designed as a royal center to which foreign nations would come to seek audience with and bring tribute to the king. Along a stairway up which foreign processions would have climbed when they approached for an audience, carved into the walls along the stairs were scenes of foreigners bearing tribute. Above the figures in procession is an endless row of rosettes. The carvings on the wall would have had an obvious propagandistic effect on foreign dignitaries who had come to bring tribute. The rosettes were part of the propaganda, a signal of who was the true king. The “opened blooms” in the temple can be understood analogously. They may have functioned as a symbol that Yahweh was the great king and that the temple was his dwelling place (Ps 46:4; 48:3). The careful designation of the flowers as “opened” and the instructive parallel from Persepolis suggest that we should understand these flowers as rosettes. 40

136

Rolf A. Jacobson

of Ephraim. Isaiah was apparently drawing on both the common understanding of the #yc as a symbol for royalty and as a symbol for the transitoriness of human life. Isaiah was saying that as quickly as the flowers of the field fade, so too the King of Ephraim would disappear. I am suggesting that when Isaiah called out to the “fading flower” of Samaria, his original audience would have heard this as an ironic reference to the King of Israel, in which Isaiah was playing on the use of the flower/rosette emblem as a symbol of royalty and also as a symbol of transitoriness. Isaiah was annoucing that the royal plans – and indeed the person – of the northern kingdom would soon pass away. 2.2 wtrapt

ybc: “Glorious Beauty”?

The phrase wtrapt ybc lbn #yc, as noted above, is a compound phrase. In terms of the last two words of the phrase, Mordechai Gilula has argued that wtrapt ybc “must mean some kind of a head ornament.”42 ybc can either refer to a gazelle (Deut 12:15, 22; 14:5; 1 Kg 5:3; Isa 13:14; etc.) or to an ornament/splendor (Isa 13:19; 2 Sam 1:19; etc.). Gilula points out that the “Canaanite god Reshef is usually depicted on Egyptian monuments as wearing a head-gear in the likeness of a deer […] it seems possible that the prophet Isaiah had such an ornament in mind.”43 It should also be noted that the 3. masc. sing. suffix on trapt must refer to Ephraim, which is the only logical masculine singular antecedent to which it can refer; the point being that the glory or crown here is the glory of Ephraim, not of the drunkards or of the crown or of some other antecedent. To the present interpreter, it seems likely that Isaiah was again exercising his well established penchant for double entendre, employing a word that both meant “glory” but also evoked the idea of a crown.44 Thus, when Isaiah cried out against the “fading flower of his glorious beauty,” his original audience would have heard both the phrases “fading flower” and “glorious beauty” as ironic references to the King of Israel.

42

Mordechai Gilula, “ybc in Isaiah 28,1: A Head Ornament,” TA 1 (1974): 128. Ibid. Gilula cites an image of Reshef with such a deer ornament, in A General Introductory Guide to Egyptian Collections in the British Museum (London, 1964), fig. 42. 44 On Isaiah’s use of double entendre, see J.J.M. Roberts, “Double Entendre in First Isaiah,” CBQ 54 (1992): 39–48. 43

A Rose by Any Other Name

3. yndal

137

#maw qzx

The one to come is described as #maw qzx who will come like a storm to trample the proud crown, who will pluck him like a ripe fruit. There is no doubt that Isaiah is thinking of the King of Assyria. Isaiah uses the imagery of a storm elsewhere to describe the King of Assyria (5:7–8; cf. 28:17–18): Yahweh is raising up against them the waters of the mighty and powerful river, the king of Assyria and all his glory, he will rise up out of his channel and overflow his banks, he will sweep into Judah, he will flood and reach up to the neck; and his outstreched wings will fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel.

Likewise, Isaiah uses the harvest imagery elsewhere to prophesy the destruction that Assyria will wreak upon the northern kingdom (17:4–6): The glory of Jacob will be brought low […] it will be like when one gathers standing grain, when his arm reaps the ear of grain; it will be like when one gleans ears of grain in the valley of Rephaim.

In chapter 28, Isaiah emphasizes that the “strong and courageous one” (the King of Assyria) will cast down the “proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim.” The removal of a crown from the head is a standard metaphor for destruction or disgrace (Lam 5:15; Job 19:9; Jer 13:18). Assyria is coming specifically to bring judgment to Israel. The pairing of #maw qzx is common in the Bible. Most often the roots occur together as verbal imperatives. The pair #maw qzx is particularly associated with Joshua. Seven times Joshua is urged either by Moses or Yahweh to be “strong and courageous” (Deut 3:28; 31:7, 23; Josh 1:6, 7, 9, 18).45 One time Moses exhorts the people to be “strong and courageous” in following Joshua (Deut 31:6). One time Joshua calls on the leaders of the people to be “strong and courageous” (Josh 10:25). It is striking that the language that Isaiah employs to portray the coming of the King of Assyria is the same as the formulaic language with which the tradition portrays Joshua – the leader of the holy war of conquest of Palestine. It is not clear, of course, whether the language in Joshua 1 predates Isaiah 28. If one believes, as I do, that Isa 28:1–6 is an authentic Isaianic oracle and is to be dated to the time of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis (ca. 734 B. C.E., more on this dating below), it is likely that the Isaiah passage predates the final form of Joshua 1. It is also possible, of course, that the language in Joshua 1 may preserve a tradition about Joshua that predates Isaiah, but this cannot be established with any certainly. But for the present 45 Other occurences of the dual imperatival forms of #maw qzx are addressed to those who wait on Yahweh (Ps 27:14; 31:25), to King Solomon by his dying father (1 Chr 22:13; 28:20), to the people of Jerusalem by Hezekiah when Sennacherib is attacking (2 Chr 32:7).

138

Rolf A. Jacobson

point, it does not matter whether Joshua 1 or Isaiah 28 is older. The point is that just as the Bible presents the invasion that Joshua led as the work of Yahweh, using parallel language, Isaiah 28 presents the coming invasion of the king of Assyria as the Lord’s work. Yahweh will be fighting against Ephraim this time, not for her (cf. Isa 28:20 and the “strange work” of Yahweh). The imagery of the storm – “like a storm of hail, a destroying gale, like a storm of furious, scouring waters” – underscores how complete the coming destruction will be. The waters will destroy, overflow, cast down and trample. The harvest imagery – “like a first-ripe fig before the summer; the one who sees it, swallows it as soon as it is in his palm” – emphasizes the narrow timeframe within which Isaiah expected this to come about. (The hrwkb are part of the first fruits that ripen on the first blooms. As a rule, fig trees blossomed twice a year and the major summer harvest came on the second blossom. The early figs that ripened on the first blossom were a delicacy that were quickly consumed.) Isaiah expected that the Assyrian invasion of Israel would be both swift and complete. This short timeline expectation supports the view that this oracle is to be dated to the Syro-Ephraimite crisis of 734 B. C. E. (cf. the short timeline in Isa 7:14–16). 4. jpvmh-l[

bvwyl jpvm xwrl … wm[ rav

Many commentators take verses 5–6 to be an addition from a later hand. For example, Childs concludes, “Verses 5–6 are thus judged to be extremely late additions […].” One reason for this viewpoint is that vv. 5–6 are introduced by awhh ~wyb, which links these verses with undoubtedly late passages such as Isa 4:2ff. (“On that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious […] ”). A second reason for the view that verses 5–6 are a later addition is that some commentators detect an “eschatological” theology in these verses, presumably in the promises that the Lord will be a crown for the remnant of his people (remnant understood here as the remnant that returns from the exile) and that the Lord will provide a spirit of justice. Yet neither of these conclusions is compelling. It is noteworthy that awhh ~wyb is well attested Isaianic vocabulary (cf. 7:18, 20). Indeed, verses 5–6 are replete with common Isaianic terms, such as twabc hwhy, rav, and jpvm xwr. Moreover, in the conclusion to the oracle in 28:5 several of the words used earlier are transformed into new formulations, a common Isaianic slight of hand and thus a signal that these verses are part of one composition – twag trj[ and wtrapt ybc become ybc trj[ and trypc hrapt, respectively. To repeat, this is good Isaianic style, as the adaptation of “root” and “Jesse” from 11:1 to 11:10 or the transformed sense of ybc from 13:4 to 13:9 indicate. Furthermore the supposed detections of eschato-

A Rose by Any Other Name

139

logical theology prove unconvincing. The term “remnant” (rav) is not used here in an eschatological sense, but in a solidly attested Isaianic style (see below). Similarly, the phrase in 28:6 jpvm xwrl hardly need be understood as “eschatological,” as the parallel to the six-fold spirit of the ideal king in Isa 11:2 indicates – indeed, the spirit of jpvm is mentioned in both passages. Likewise, the dual emphases of justice and warfare in 28:6 are typical of Isaiah (cf. 11:4, etc.). In the absence of more compelling evidence, it is best to assume that verses 1–6 were composed as a unit and should be interpreted as such. The rav is a common Isaianic motif. But too often when rav occurs in Isaiah, interpreters understand the term as referring to the remnant of the Judean population who returned following the Babylonian Exile. The term is used more fluidly than that in Isaiah. In 10:20–23, Isaiah employs the term to announce that a “remnant of Israel […] will lean on the Lord […] a remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.” In this context “Israel” and “house of Jacob” refer specifically to the northern kingdom. The NRSV chooses to translate rwbg la as an epithet for Yahweh; however, it should be noted that in 9:5 rwbg la is one of the throne names of the Judean king, and thus the announcement that the remnant of Jacob would return to rwbg la might be understood as a promise that the remnant would return to the Davidic monarchy. Considering Isaiah’s penchant for double entendre, it is likely that in 10:20–23, Isaiah is implying that the remnant from the north would return both to God and to the Davidic king. Similarly, it is also likely that the name of Isaiah’s son Shear (rav)-jashub (7:3) should be understood with a double meaning: as an oracle to Ahaz that only a remnant of the besieging Syro-Ephraimite armies would return to their home countries, and as an oracle that a remnant of the northern kingdom’s population would return to join the kingdom of Judah. Note that in 7:17 Isaiah promises Ahaz that “Yahweh will send upon you and your people and your father’s house days such as have not come since the days when Ephraim turned away from Judah.” The specific connection between the fortunes of Ahaz’ father’s house (the Davidic monarchy) and the split of the two kingdoms implies that Isaiah is announcing that a remnant of the north would return to Jerusalem and accept the Davidic monarchy. Jan Ridderbos is surely correct when he writes that in 28:5 rav refers to “the ‘remnant’ of Samaria’s survivors and that as in Isa 10:20–23, Isaiah is announcing that a remnant of the northern people would return to Judah after the northern kingdom is destroyed.”46 But in light of the above passages, it is also probable that the rav in Isaiah 28 also carries the double sense that a remnant of the soon-to-be-defeated northern kingdom will 46

Jan Ridderbos, Isaiah (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1985), 221.

140

Rolf A. Jacobson

return also and join with the Davidic monarchy. Isa 28:5 says that “the Lord of hosts will be a crown of glory and a diadem of splendor for the remnant of his people.” The announcement that the Lord will be jpvmh-l[ bvwyl jpvm xwrl further supports this conclusion. This phrase need not be understood eschatologically, but as a reference to the Davidic king dwelling in Jerusalem. The phrases in 28:6 jpvm xwrl and hrwbgl (xwrl) are paralleled in Isaiah’s description of the ideal Davidic king. In Isa 11:2–4, Isaiah promises the ideal king will be marked by hrwbgw hc[ xwr and will qdcb jpv (cf. Isa 32:1)47 In light of this information, it seems best to understand these verses as announcing both that a remnant of the northern kingdom will return to fellowship with the Davidic monarchy (note that Isaiah 7:1–17, 10:20–23 and 28:1–6 show that Isaiah of Jerusalem believed that Ephraim’s return to God was bound up with the acceptance of the Davidic monarchy) and that the Lord would sustain Jerusalem’s Davidic king until that time. One vital question to ask is, what audience can be imagined for this oracle and how would this oracle have functioned? Obviously Isaiah was not literally addressing the Ephraimite king in Samaria. There is no evidence that Isaiah ever ministered in the Northern Kingdom. On the other hand, Isaiah commonly couched his oracles as fictively addressed to foreign powers in order to address local concerns (cf. 14:3–21; 17:1–6; 19:1–15; etc.). The northern king here is only the fictive audience. So who is the actual audience? The actual audience that makes the best sense for this passage is the Davidic king of Judah. The royal language in 28:6 and the promise that the Ephraimite remnant will rejoin with the Davidic monarchy (if this interpretation is accurate) both support a royal audience for the oracle. The “one who sits in judgment at the gate” is likewise royal language. In 1 Sam 15:1ff., where Absalom is portrayed as turning the hearts of the people away from David, we see that the king was the one who sat in judgment over disputes. The people would bring their disputes to the king for justice. Absalom is said to have plotted against his father by saying, “If I were set as the one judging in the land, everyone who had a dispute could bring it to me and I would grant him justice” (v. 4). Likewise, when 1 Sam 8 tells the story of how the elders of the people first asked for a king, we are told that they asked “for a king to judge [NRSV: govern] us” (v. 5, English: 6). The king was the one who sat to judge the land. Thus when Isaiah promises that Yahweh will be a “spirit of justice for the one who sits in judgment,” this is a promise for and about the king. Likewise, the promise that the Lord will be a spirit of “might for those who turn back battle at the gate” (28:6b) 47

etc.).

Note that the dual emphases of justice and warfare in 28:6 are also typical of Isaiah (cf. 11:4,

A Rose by Any Other Name

141

reflects both the royal responsibility to lead in war and also employs the Isaianic royal vocabulary hrwbg. The occurrence of the masculine plural participle ybyvm need not imply a plural audience, because the poetic balance of singular (bvwyl) and plural (ybyvm) is common poetic style, as Isa 32:1 indicates: “See, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule with justice.”

5. Translation and Explanation This study of Isa 28:1–6 has argued that the passage should be understood as an authentic oracle of Isaiah of Jerusalem, dating to the time of the SyroEphraimite crises. Further, it has been argued that our understanding of the passage can be fruitfully informed by iconography. The passage is a seamless unit. It may be translated as follows: 1

Ah!48 O Proud Crown of the drunkards of Ephraim, O Fading Flower of its glorious beauty! Who is upon the head of a valley of rich foods, of those overcome with wine! 2 A strong and mighty one from the Lord is about to come49, Like a storm of hail, a destroying gale, Like a storm of furious, scouring waters; He will hurl them to the earth with his hand. 3 Trampled underfoot will be The Proud Crown of the drunkards of Ephraim. 4 The Fading Flower of its glorious beauty, Who is upon the head of a valley of rich foods, Will be like a first-ripe fig before the summer; the one who sees it, swallows it as soon as it is in his palm! 5 On that day, the Lord of hosts will be A crown of glory and a glorious diadem for the remnant of his people, 6 A spirit of justice for the one who sits in judgment, And of might for those who turn back battle at the gate.

The oracle in Isa 28:1–6 was fictively addressed by Isaiah of Jerusalem to the King of Israel, but the real intended audience of the oracle was the King of Judah. Although many commentators misidentify the passage as an “oracle of woe,” the passage is in fact an oracle of salvation, with a content similar to Isa 7:1–17. Set at the time of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis (ca. 735– 48

It is inaccurate to label the passage is a “woe oracle,” as so many scholars do. The Hebrew

ywh does not properly mean “woe,” as the occurrences in 1 Kgs 13:30; Isa 1:24; and especially Isa 55:1 (“Ah! All who thirst, come for water! You that have no money, come, purchase and eat!”) indicate. The term is a neutral attention-getting exclamation, such as “Yo!” or “Hey!” are today. 49 The particle hnh does not mean “see,” but rather indicates imminent action.

142

Rolf A. Jacobson

732 B.C.E.), during which Israel and Aram attacked Judah and plotted to depose Ahaz and force Judah to join them in rebellion against Assyria (cf. Isa 7:1ff.), the oracle promises that the invading King of Israel would be destroyed by the arrival of the King of Assyria. Further, the oracle promises that a remnant of Ephraim would both return to God and accept the Davidic monarchy. Finally, the oracle promises that Yahweh would be with the King of Judah to uphold him in his royal tasks of sitting in judgment and leading in battle. Just as Isa 7:1–17 contains an oracle of salvation in which Isaiah asssures King Ahaz that the attacking kings’ plans will not come to pass (7:7–9), Isa 28:1–6 should be understood as a stylized oracle of assurance spoken to the King of Judah during the same crisis. Isaiah refers to the invading king as the “proud crown” and “fading flower” of Ephraim, playing on the flower as both a symbol of royalty but also as a symbol of transitoriness. The message being that the momentary invasion would wither like a flower in the heat of day. In this oracle the destruction of the invading king is foretold in order to reassure the local king. Thus the kings in question in Isa 28:1–6 are King Pekah of Israel (the proud crown/fading flower), King Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria (the Lord’s strong and courageous one) and King Ahaz of Judah (the one who sits in judgment and turns back battle at the gate).

A Rose by Any Other Name

143

Fig. 1: Detail of the Blue Crown, based on relief from the temple of Seti I at Abydos in Egypt (ca. 1317–1301 B.C.E.). Line drawing reproduced by Hildi Keel-Leu in Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, Ind., 1997), 278.

Fig. 2: White Crown, based on a relief from Kohns Temple at Karnak in Egypt (ca. 246–221 B.C.E.). Line drawing reproduced by Hildi Keel-Leu in Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, Ind., 1997), 287.

Fig. 3: Detail of King Hammurapi’s head, based on a relief atop his famous basalt stele on display in the Musée du Louvre (ca. 1792–1750 B.C.E.). Line drawing reproduced from Henri Frankfort, The Art of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore, 1955), plate 65.

144

Rolf A. Jacobson

Fig. 4: Detail of the Assyrian king Assurnasirpal II’s head, based on a series of reliefs discovered at Nimrud (883–859 B.C.E.). Line drawing reproduced from J.E. Curtis and J.E Reade (ed.), Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum (London, 1995), 54.

Fig. 5: Representation of Sargon II’s head, based on a relief taken from his palace at Khorsabad (721–705 B.C.E.). Line drawing reproduced from James Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton, N.J., 1954), plate 446.

A Rose by Any Other Name

145

Fig. 6: Detail of a rosette adorned crown, based on a limestone statue of a king excavated from Malatya, in northern Syria (ninth century B.C.E.). Line drawing reproduced from Jane M. Cahill “Royal Rosettes Fit For a King,” BAR (September/October 1997): 48–57, 68–69.

Fig. 7: Rosette adorned crown, based on a bust of a presumed Ammonite king (nintheighth centuries B.C.E.). Line drawing reproduced from Jane M. Cahill “Royal Rosettes Fit For a King,” BAR (September/October 1997): 48–57, 68–69.

146

Rolf A. Jacobson

Fig. 8: Representation of the Assyrian king Assurnasirpal II’s rosette covered crown and robe, based on a relief from Nimrud (883–859 B.C.E.). Line drawing reproduced from Jane M. Cahill “Royal Rosettes Fit For a King,” BAR (September/October 1997): 48–57, 68–69.

Fig. 9: Detail of a wine jar stamped with a rosette emblem, uncovered by Yigal Shiloh’s directed excavations of “Area G” in the City of David (1978–85). The fragment dates to the late seventh or early sixth century B.C.E. After Jane M. Cahill “Royal Rosettes Fit For a King,” BAR (September/October 1997): 48–57, 68–69.

Christl M. Maier Christl M. Maier

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City 1

Awake, awake, clothe yourself with your strength, Zion! Clothe yourself with your beautiful garments, Jerusalem, holy city! For the uncircumcised and the unclean shall enter you no longer. 2 Shake yourself from the dust, arise, ascend to the throne1 Jerusalem! Loose yourself2 from the bonds of your neck, captive Daughter Zion! (Isa 52:1–2)

The prophet called Second Isaiah delivers a message of salvation to Jerusalem, the destroyed capital of Judah. Throughout the Book of Isaiah, Jerusalem is often addressed as Daughter Zion (!wyc tb3). Especially the latter half of the book focuses on the change of fortune for the city. “Daughter Zion” is a metaphor that personifies a place “Zion,” often called “Mount Zion” (Isa 4:5; 8:18; 10:12; 18:7; 24:23; 29:8; 31:4), as a woman. In the context of Israelite society, the “daughter” signifies a woman who is under the protection and control of her father. Thus, the titular use of Daughter Zion personifies the populace of Jerusalem in its relationship to YHWH as symbolic father. In this article, I will explore texts from the second half of the Book of Isaiah that transform the daughter metaphor and attribute the role of queen to Jerusalem. In this context, the crown appears as a symbol of royalty. My thesis is that the metaphor of Jerusalem as queen is not only influenced by a female role but also by an iconographic tradition, the mural or turreted crown in the shape of a city wall with towers. Surely, I am not the first one to explore the icon of the mural crown.4 My research project on 1 Reading an imperative fem. > bvy with 1QIsaa, LXX, Vulgate, and Targum. The privilege to sit refers to a royal status. 2 So with the Qere reading. 3 The Hebrew construct chain is an appositional or explicative genitive, see GKC § 128k; Joüon § 129f, r. For a full discussion of the syntax see William F. Stinespring, “No Daughter of Zion: A Study of the Appositional Genitive in Hebrew Grammar,” Encounter 26 (1956): 133–41; Maria Häusl, Bilder der Not: Weiblichkeits- und Geschlechtermetaphorik im Buch Jeremia (HBS 37; Freiburg, 2003), 59–65. 4 Cf. Monika Hörig, Dea Syria: Studien zur religiösen Tradition der Fruchtbarkeitsgöttin in Vorderasien (AOAT 208; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1979), 182–85; Christoph Uehlinger, “‘Zeichne eine Stadt … und belagere sie!’ Bild und Wort einer Zeichenhandlung Ezechiels gegen Jerusalem (Ez 4f),” in Jerusalem: Texte–Bilder–Steine, Festschrift Hildi Keel-Leu und Othmar Keel (ed. Max Küchler and Christoph Uehlinger; NTOA 6; Freiburg, 1987), 111–200; Peter Calmeyer, “Mauerkrone,” RLA 7 (1987–90): 595–96; Jutta Börker-Klähn, “Mauerkronenträgerinnen,” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: XXXIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Hei-

148

Christl M. Maier

portraits of Jerusalem in the Hebrew Bible, however, enables me to relate this iconographic tradition to a broader discourse about ancient Near Eastern precursors to Jerusalem’s female personification. In this article, I do not aim at simply illustrating well-known biblical passages by images. Instead, I intend to explore the metaphor of Jerusalem as a queen by analyzing an iconographic relationship between the city and the crown. First, I would like to discuss the relation between the female personification of a city and the mural crown. Second, I will interpret Isa 52:1–2, 54:11–13, and 62:1–5.

1. The Mural Crown as Symbol of the City With regard to the personification of cities in the Hebrew Bible, Aloysius Fitzgerald offers a thesis that has gained much attention.5 He argues that in West Semitic thought capital cities were regarded as goddesses who were married to the patron god of the city. In Israel, the idea’s polytheistic background would be ignored, but Samaria and Jerusalem would still be considered wives of the national god YHWH, a personification that later was used for the land.6 While Fitzgerald refers to titles such as “lady,” “mother,” “virgin,” and “holy one” used for goddesses and cities alike, his argument mainly rests on Phoenician coins of the Hellenistic period which depict a woman wearing a turreted crown. He interprets this image as tuch. po,lewj “the deified fortune of the city.” In my view, Fitzgerald’s reasoning is anachronistic because the deification of cities attested in Hellenistic times postdates most biblical references.7 Mark E. Biddle who followed Fitzgerald attempts to corroborate Fitzgerald’s thesis for an earlier period by argudelberg, 6.–10. Juli 1992 (ed. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann; Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 6; Heidelberg, 1997), 227–34 and Taf. 13–16; Marion Meyer, “‘Neue’ Bilder: Zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis von bildlichen Darstellungen in der Levante,“ in Hellenismus: Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters (ed. Bernd Funck, Tübingen, 1996), 243–64; eadem, “Anthropomorphe Bilder von Städten in der altgriechischen Kultur,” in Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971), Heidelberg, 18.–21.Oktober 2001 (ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, and Hugh G.M. Williamson; Münster, 2003), 169–78. 5 See Aloysius Fitzgerald, “The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the Old Testament,” CBQ 34 (1972): 403–16; idem, “BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities,” CBQ 37 (1975): 167–83. For a similar assessment cf. Julius Lewy, “The Old West Semitic Sun God Hammu,” HUCA 18 (1944): 436–43. 6 Fitzgerald, “Mythological Background,” 405. 7 See also the insightful critique of Fitzgerald’s endeavor by Peggy L. Day, “The Personification of Cities as Female in the Hebrew Bible: The Thesis of Aloysius Fitzgerald, F.S.C.,” in Reading from this Place, Vol. 2: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in Global Perspective (ed. Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert; Minneapolis, 1995), 283–302.

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City

149

ing that texts which mention Jerusalem in connection with a crown (Isa 54:11–13; 62:1–5; Jer 13:18–21; Lam 5:16–18) refer to the iconographic motif of the mural crown and thus are familiar with the identification of city and deity.8 In order to claim this idea as an influential predecessor for exilic or post-exilic biblical texts, however, the iconographic tradition has to be traced back further. Such an exploration demonstrates that the tradition is rather complex and involves iconographic as well as epigraphic sources. 1.1 The Iconography of the Mural Crown On old Syrian cylinder seals dating to the 19th–18th century B.C.E., a Syrian goddess appears either enthroned or standing with a characteristic gesture of blessing or greeting.9 While her headdress is often a horned cap, contemporary seals from stratum VII of the Syrian city of Alalakh show a goddess with similar gestures who wears a top hat.10 The famous thirteenth century Hittite relief from YazÕlÕkaya in Anatolia features the weather god Teshub and the “Lady of heaven” Hebat wearing a polos-like headdress (fig. 1). Whether Hebat’s crown, which is reiterated on the heads of minor goddesses in the relief, is indeed a mural crown is disputed.11 If so, the mural crown would originate in Southern Anatolia. Clearly visible examples of mural crowns appear on first-millennium Neo-Assyrian reliefs and stelae. The mural crown adorns the heads of the king Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 B.C.E.) and of royal women (fig. 2).12 In the famous garden scene of Ashurbanipal (668–627 B.C.E.) and his wife Aššur-šarrat (“Aššur is queen”) who celebrate the king’s victory over Elam, the mural crown on the queen’s head appears in the context of war and victory. The wife of the Assyrian king either represents the invincible city, as does her name, or the goddess 8

Mark E. Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification and Personification of Cities in the Ancient Near East,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (ed. K. Lawson Younger et al.; Lewiston, N.Y., 1991), 173–94, esp. 182–85. 9 See Urs Winter, Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt (OBO 53; Fribourg/Göttingen, 1983), 425–28 and fig. 432–39. 10 See Winter, Frau und Göttin, 420–21 and fig. 421–26. 11 The first explorers of YazÕlÕkaya designated the headdresses as mural crowns, cf. K. Bittel et al. Yazilikaya: Architektur, Felsbilder, Inschriften und Kleinfunde (WVDOG 61; Berlin 1941), 116–18. In contrast, Hörig, Dea Syria, 182, and Uehlinger, “Zeichne eine Stadt,” 154, doubt this assessment. Börker-Klähn, “Mauerkronenträgerinnen,” 231–33, offers a new interpretation of the headdress as a veiled mural crown. She interprets the Hittite bearers of the mural crown as priestesses in the tradition of the NIN.DINGIR of Emar and the mural crown as a symbol of royal power and attribute of the queen mother. 12 For example, the wife of Sanherib, Naqi’a-Zaknjtu, cf. Börker-Klähn, “Mauerkronenträgerinnen,” pl. 13, fig. 1. 22; then Aššur-šarrat, the wife of Assurbanipal, cf. Uehlinger, “Zeichne eine Stadt,” 157, fig. 7.

150

Christl M. Maier

Ištar who is the patroness of royal warfare in Assyria.13 In neither case is the city itself deified. Moreover, the mural crowns on the heads of Assyrian rulers or their wives are hardly distinguishable from city models on relief scenes of Syrian tributaries handing over their cities to the Assyrian king (fig. 3). Similar city models appear on the garments of King Sargon II (721–705 B.C.E.).14 A small group of Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals depict a city gate with towers in front of a human figure with an adoring gesture (fig. 4).15 Even on these seals, the city is not deified, but a symbol of power and protection.16 A variant of the mural crown, the crown with pinnacles, appears on the head of the Persian king Darius I (522–486 B.C.E.) who tried to adopt the Neo-Assyrian way to demonstrate royal power.17 This brief review of the iconography of the city indicates that the Neo-Assyrian rulers transmitted the image of the mural crown to the Levant and thus influenced the perception of cities as separate entities.18 The earliest coins with a woman’s head wearing the mural crown were minted by the city Cypsela in Thracia in 386/85 B.C.E.19 and by the kings of Salamis on Cyprus starting in the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. The coins of Salamis depict the goddess Aphrodite who on earlier coins appeared with a polos-like headdress.20 Since the middle of the third century B.C.E. coins of the Phoenician cities Arados and Sidon depict the goddess Astarte with a mural crown (fig. 5). The identification of the female head with a deity is due to the prominent role of Astarte in both cities and to a divine attribute in the coin’s caption.21 Around 300 B.C.E., the Greek sculptor Eutychides created the figure of the newly founded city of Antiochia at the Orontes (fig. 6).22 Sitting on Mount Silpios with her foot resting on the Orontes river symbolized in a young lad 13

For the second interpretation see Börker-Klähn, “Mauerkronenträgerinnen,” 228. Cf. Uehlinger, “Zeichne eine Stadt,” 158–60 with fig. 8–9, 166–70 with fig. 13–14. Later, the city appears as a pattern on the garments of the Persian palace guards. 15 Uehlinger, “Zeichne eine Stadt,” 161–64 with fig. 10–12. 16 In Neo-Assyrian prophecy, the goddess Ištar who is closely associated with the major cities of the empire – Arbela, Assur, Nineveh, and Calah – appears in a distinctive relationship to the king. Thus, these cities are embodiments of the divine presence and the king’s reign. Cf. Martti Nissinen, “City as Lofty as Heaven: Arbela and Other Cities in Neo–Assyrian Prophecy,” in “Every City shall be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak; JSOTSup 330; Sheffield, 2001), 172–209. 17 See Hörig, Dea Syria, 192–93; Keel, Deine Blicke sind Tauben: Zur Metaphorik des Hohen Liedes (SBS 114/115; Stuttgart, 1984), 38. 18 I would like to thank Othmar Keel for an exchange of ideas on the tradition of the mural crown in personal communication. 19 Cf. Hörig, Dea Syria, 181. 20 See Meyer, “‘Neue’ Bilder,” esp. 247 and fig. 7. 21 For a list of terms used cf. Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem,” 179. 22 Cf. Meyer, “‘Neue’ Bilder,” 243–44 with bibliography. 14

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City

151

and her hand holding wheat sheaves, the figure wears a mural crown. Her gestures connote that she dominates the mountain and the river. According to Marion Meyer, these local specifics and the nurturing symbolism of the sheaves demonstrate that Eutychides’ statue is not a goddess but a personification of the city that receives her characterization by the mural crown.23 In the second century B.C.E., the woman wearing a mural crown blends into the portrait of the Greek figure of tu,ch. Originally, tu,ch has been a personification of individual or collective fate, an ambivalent figure signifying also change and bad luck. The cult of avga,qe tu,ch “the good fortune” emerged in Thebes and Athens in the fourth century B.C.E. and slowly became associated with other cities that dedicated temples and sacrifices to her.24 Tu,ch was depicted as a woman steering a rudder and holding a cornucopia. In 162 B.C.E., the Seleucid king Demetrius I (162–150 B.C.E.) introduced a sitting tu,ch with cornucopia on coins that demonstrated his kingship and showed his head on the front side.25 His successors on the throne used the motif of a standing tu,ch with a polos-like headdress. Becoming autonomous around 100 B.C.E., the city of Tripolis transformed this coin type by showing a tu,ch wearing a mural crown and thus creating the figure of tuch. po,lewj, the personified fortune of the city.26 In 109/8 B.C.E., the Syrian city Seleucia, a neighboring city of Antiochia, used the tradition of the Phoenician cities Sidon and Arados by presenting a female head with mural crown on its coins. Since the main deity of Seleucia was Zeus, this image does not represent a goddess, but a personified city. In the following centuries, the female head with the mural crown became the iconographic prototype of a city portrait on coins minted all over the Roman Empire. The tuch. po,lewj is also attested on Roman coins of Jerusalem, on which the figure holds a cornucopia or a scepter and busts of the reigning kings, yet always wears a mural crown.27 While most types show her standing in a tetrastyle or hexastyle temple, or sitting on a throne, there are also some coins depicting only her crowned head (fig. 7).28

23

Cf. Meyer, “‘Neue’ Bilder,” 248–49. For the anachronistic naming of the figure as tuch. po,lewj see Meyer, “Anthropomorphe Bilder von Städten in der altgriechischen Kultur,” 170–72. 24 Cf. Luther H. Martin, “Tyche,” in DDD2 (1999): 877–78. 25 Cf. Meyer, “‘Neue’ Bilder,” 251. 26 Cf. Meyer, “‘Neue’ Bilder,” 251–53. 27 Cf. Yaakov Meshorer, The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem, 1989). The coins collected by Meshorer date from the founding of Roman Jerusaem by Hadrian (130/31 C.E.) to the middle of the third century C.E. 28 Cf. the different types in Meshorer, Coinage: tetrastyle temple type no. 20, 52, 53, 78, 79, 86, 102; hexastyle temple no. 10, 11; enthroned tu,ch no. 137, 148–49, 154–55, 162; standing tu,ch with altar and legionary eagle no. 129–31, 152–53, and the head of tu,ch no. 21, 66, 123–24, 145– 46, 158, 176.

152

Christl M. Maier

A sort of exaggerated variant of the turreted crown even appears in a Jewish context, on the head of Queen Esther depicted in a wall painting of the synagogue at Dura-Europos as late as the third century C.E.29 Summing up these observations, iconographic attestations of a mural crown reach from the thirteenth century B.C.E. (if the headdress of the goddesses on the YazÕlÕkaya relief is counted as such) to at least the third century C.E. Although the mural crown seems to emerge from a polos-like headdress, its first clear attestation in the form of a turreted city wall appears in Neo-Assyrian manifestations of kingship or as a city model. In Hellenistic times, the mural crown becomes an emblem of autonomous cities and merges with the Greek figure of tu,ch. Thus, the deification of the city’s fate in the figure of the tuch. po,lewj is a late development starting in the second century B.C.E. Parallel to this iconographic tradition, there are references to a crowned city in inscriptions and texts. 1.2 Epigraphic Attestations of the Mural Crown Several scholars have collected references to a crown in texts and inscriptions dating from ancient Sumer to the sixth century C.E.30 Sumerian temple hymns already compare the temple to a crown on the head of a deity or describe the city as crowned.31 Akkadian texts use the term kilƯlu (in Mari texts kulƯlu) “circlet, headband” for the battlement of a city.32 A prayer addressed to Bel (Marduk), which was probably recited during the New Year festival, mentions Borsippa as the tiara of Marduk (ANET 331, 15). A thirteenth century inventory of the queen of Ugarit’s personal possessions mentions a piece of jewelry named with a Sumerian logogram URU GUŠKIN “a city of gold” (RS 16.146+:4). The expression refers to a mural crown of the queen although the weight of 215 shekels, i.e., more than four pounds, may have prevented her from wearing it often.33 The expression URU-LUM KÙ.BABBAR “a city of silver” in a contemporary Hittite text (KUB XV, I, iii, 29 Cf. The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: Final Report VIII, Part I. The Synagogue (ed. Carl H. Kraeling; New Haven, 1956), pl. LXV and 159, fig. 44; cf. Joseph Gutman, The Dura-Europos Synagogue: A Re-evaluation (1932–1992) (Atlanta, 1992), 123. 30 Cf. Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem,” 178; Shalom M. Paul, “Jerusalem of Gold – A Song and an Ancient Crown,” BAR 3/4 (1977): 33–36; Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “The ‘City of Gold’ and the ‘City of Silver’,” IEJ 19 (1969): 178–80. 31 Cited by Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem,” 178. The Sumerian terms are MUŠ “turban” or MEN “royal crown.” 32 Cf. CAD s.v. kilƯlu and kulƯlu B. 33 Cf. the publication of the text by Jean Nougayrol, Le palais royal d’Ugarit, vol. III (Paris, 1955), 182–86; his interpretation is followed by Hoffner, “The ‘City of Gold’,” 178; Paul, “Jerusalem of Gold,” 33.

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City

153

20, 25, 30) either refers to a city model or a mural crown.34 The text addresses various deities, among them two male ones, to dedicate such a precious item as well as animals if the city of Ankuwa would be spared from destruction. Hoffner corroborates the plausibility to donate a mural crown to a male deity by pointing to Hittite texts that describe cultic images of deities of both genders as wearing crowns.35 Hoffner also refers to the Greek word krh,demnon “crown, headband” that is twice used for Troy’s walls by Homer (Il. 16:100; Od. 13:388) as well as by Hesiod ([Scut.] 105) in order to describe the city of Thebes. The idea of a city “crowned” by walls and towers is further used by the fifth century B.C.E. poets Euripides (Tro. 508) and Bacchylides (Frg. 16). Between the Hittite texts and the Greek texts there is a gap of about 450 years, yet the analogy between the city wall and a crown is attested in the Akkadian texts and the NeoAssyrian images of royals and cities mentioned above. The Latin authors cited by Hoffner apply “turreted” as an epithet of the goddesses Cybele and Roma and are most probably influenced by the Hellenistic-Roman tuch. po,lewj.36 In the Jewish context, a “city of gold” is known as a piece of jewelry worn by upper class women as attested in several rabbinic passages.37 With regard to these iconographic and epigraphic sources, the turreted or mural crown can be understood as a symbol that reflects either royal power or the autonomy of a city. The crown may be worn by a deity, a royal person, a personified city or an affluent woman, yet it does not render its bearer divine. Historically, the female personification of Zion may have been influenced by the idea of a female patron deity of the city which is attested in the Phoenician city of Byblos from the fourteenth to the fourth century B.C.E.38 as well as in the Phoenician cities Sidon and Arados.39 The authors of the biblical text may also have known Neo-Assyrian images of royal persons or city models. The Hellenistic personification of the city’s fortune as tuch. po,lewj, however, is a late phenomenon that links West 34

See Hoffner, “The ‘City of Gold’,” 178–79. Hoffner, “The ‘City of Gold’,” 179. 36 Hoffner, “The ‘City of Gold’,” 180, refers to Ovid (Metam. 10:696; Fast. 4:219–20, 224; 6:321), Propertius (IV 11:52), Lucretius (De Rerum Natura II 606) and the fifth century C.E. Sidonius Apollinaris (Carmina 5:13). 37 Cf. m. Kelim 11:8; m. Shabbat 6:1; b. Shabbat 59b; b. Sotah 49b; y. Shabbat 6:1; y. Sotah 9:16, 24c and the parallel expression “a Jerusalem of gold” in b. Nedarim 50a. For a discussion of these texts see Paul, “Jerusalem of Gold,” 32–33. 38 The title “Lady of Byblos” is attested in several Amarna letters from Byblos (e.g. EA II 1583), in Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos dating to the tenth to fifth cent. B.C.E. (KAI III 57), and on the Jehimilk stela dating to the 5th/4th century (KAI 10), in the pediment of which the king stands before the enthroned goddess (cf. ANEP 177). 39 For a more comprehensive discussion of possible precursors for the female personification of Zion see Christl M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, 2008), 60–70. 35

154

Christl M. Maier

Semitic, Neo-Assyrian, and Greek traditions. Second Isaiah’s description of Jerusalem can hardly be influenced by this Hellenistic concept.40

2. Jerusalem Crowned in the Book of Isaiah Having shown that the mural crown symbolizes a city without necessarily deifying it, I would like to analyze three passages of the latter half of the Book of Isaiah that personify Jerusalem and mention a crown or a royal status of female Zion. The passage Isa 52:1–2 cited at the beginning of this article addresses the personified city explicitly and with utmost urgency by using her familiar names Zion, Jerusalem, and Daughter Zion. The prophet announces that Zion’s situation as a fettered captive has now changed. He calls her to act like a queen, namely to dress in beautiful garments and sit on the throne. According to Odil Hannes Steck, this designation of Zion as queen makes the city assume a position which in pre-exilic time had been occupied by the Davidic king.41 While Isa 52:1–2 does not mention a crown, Isa 54:11–13 envisions the rebuilding of the city with precious stones and thus likens Jerusalem’s impressive city wall to a mural crown. 11

O afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, Behold, I am about to set your stones in antimony, and lay your foundations with lapis-lazuli42. 12 I will make your pinnacles43 of gemstone44,

40 In contrast, Klaus Baltzer sees Second Isaiah influenced by the tu,ch concept, cf. idem, “Stadt-Tyche oder Zion-Jerusalem? Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Göttern der Zeit bei Deuterojesaja,” in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie (ed. Jutta Hausmann and HansJoachim Zobel; FS H.D. Preuß; Stuttgart, 1992), 114–19. In a recent review of the subject, Baltzer emphasizes the parallels between Zion and cities emerging in Persian times, among them cities in Asia Minor that have female patron deities. He dates Second Isaiah to the time of Nehemiah (450– 400 B.C.E.), cf. Baltzer, “‘Die Stadt als Frau: Personifikation versus Stadtgöttin’ – am Beispiel der Figur ‘Zion/Jerusalem’ bei Deutero-Jesaja (Jes 40–55),” in Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums »Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne« anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971), Heidelberg, 18.–21.Oktober 2001 (ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, and Hugh G.M. Williamson; Münster, 2003), 137–47, esp 143–45. 41 Odil Hannes Steck, “Zion als Gelände und Gestalt: Überlegungen zur Wahrnehmung Jerusalems als Stadt und Frau im Alten Testament,” ZThK 86 (1989): 261–81, 276. 42 Cf. HALOT, 764; lapis-lazuli is a deep blue stone mainly composed of lazirite that has been mined in the Indus valley and widely used by the ancient empires; in contrast, sapphire is a crystal form of aluminium oxide that occurs in different colors and was unknown in antiquity. 43 The Hebrew term tvom.vi “sun discs” (cf. Akkadian šamšatu[m]) most probably refers to shields in the shape of the sun-disc; see the discussion below and the textual references to the custom in Ezek 27:11 and Cant 4:4.

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City

155

your gates of beryl stones45, and your entire wall46 of pleasant stones. 13 And all your children shall be taught by YHWH, and great shall be the well-being of your children47.

Isa 54 consistently addresses a single female entity without giving a name. Vv. 1–8 portray the figure as a barren woman whose former husband takes her back, makes her forget her current disgrace and brings her children back to her. Because terminology and metaphors are analogous to texts about Daughter Zion, the whole chapter obviously talks to personified Jerusalem. Characteristic for Isa 54 is the link between a gendered and a spatial description of the city. The female portrait of Zion as a forsaken and desolate woman (vv. 1–8) parallels the portrait of the storm-tossed and razed city (vv. 11–17): The prophetic announcement of reconciliation between YHWH and Zion (vv. 7–8) corresponds to the re-building of the former capital (vv. 11–12); the declaration of the return of Zion’s offspring (vv. 1– 3) corresponds to the repopulation of the city (v. 13); the promise that Jerusalem’s children will possess the nations (v. 3) correlates to the idea that they will live in peace and (v. 13) and that the city will not be razed any more (vv. 15–17). The distinctive features of the reconstructed city in Isa 54:11–13 are the precious and costly stones. The image presented to the readers resembles the city model in the Neo-Assyrian reliefs: a massive city wall with fortified towers and gates. Since the announcements of Neo-Assyrian prophets and Second Isaiah use similar genres and topics,48 the adaptation of a NeoAssyrian representational icon seems plausible, too. The Hebrew term tvom.vi may even refer to shields in the shape of sun discs that are suspended from fortified towers, for example in the Neo-Assyrian relief showing the hard-fought Judean city Lachish (ANEP 372, 373). The gemstones in different colors liken this city model to a turreted crown ornate with jewels. Thus, the image of Jerusalem as a mural crown in this prophetic announcement underlines the royal status of the city that will be rebuilt soon. 44 The stone occurs only here and in Ezek 27:16; LXX reads “jasper” and in Ezek takes it as a proper name Corcor. It is unclear whether the stone is agate (so DCH VI, 362 and the KJV) or karkand, a red stone (Ges18, 528). 45 The precious stone is a hapax legomenon; LXX refers to Hebrew xr:q, “ice, frost” (cf. Ezek 1:22) and translates kru,stalloj. 46 The Hebrew term means “border, boundary,” which in a city refers to the surrounding city wall. 47 1QIsaa adds a superscript w changing “your children” into “your builders” (ykynwb). For a similar variant see note 51 on Isa 62:5. 48 Cf. Manfred Weippert, “‘Ich bin Jahwe’ – ‘Ich bin Ištar von Arbela’: Deuterojesaja im Lichte der neuassyrischen Prophetie,” in Prophetie und Psalmen: Festschrift für Klaus Seybold (ed. Beat Huwyler et al.; AOAT 280; Münster, 2001), 31–59.

156

Christl M. Maier

Moreover, Isa 54 calls YHWH her husband or master ($yl[b, v. 5) and the city “the wife of one’s youth” (~yrw[n tva, v. 6), thus employing the marriage metaphor explicitly. A similar connection between marriage, royal status, and the crown can also be found in Isa 62:1–5. 1

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be still, until her righteousness goes forth like daylight, and her salvation burns like a torch. 2 Then, the nations will see your vindication and all the kings your glory; and you will be called by a new name that the mouth of YHWH will designate. 3 You will be a crown of beauty in the hand of YHWH and a royal diadem in the palm of your God. 4 You will no more be named “the Forsaken One” and your land will no more be named “the Desolate One”49; for you will be named “My Delight Is in Her” and your land “Married”; for YHWH delights in you and your land will be married. 5 As50 a young man marries/masters a young woman, so will your sons51 marry/master you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Although Isa 62 is traditionally attributed to Third Isaiah, many scholars acknowledge the thematic and terminological affinities between Isa 60–62 and Second Isaiah.52 My observations support the thesis of a strong thematic link between Isa 62 and Second Isaiah. The speaker of this passage is obviously the prophet who tries to use the time until the oracle will be fulfilled (cf. d[ in vv. 1 and 7) with assuring Jerusalem of a change in YHWH’s relation to her.53 YHWH will honor and

So with 1QIsaa, Peshitta, Vulgate, and Targum, which translate a fem. sing. participle of ~mv “to be desolate” as in Isa 54:1 and 61:4 whereas MT punctuates the form as the fem. noun hmmv. “wasteland, wilderness” (cf. Isa 1:7; 64:9), a reading that is supported by LXX. 50 1QIsaa reads l[ob.K,i thus introducing a comparison that is also present in LXX, Peshitta, and Targum. The MT reading l[;b.yI-yKi may have be influenced by the preceding two causative clauses in v. 4. 51 So MT; BHS suggests %nEBo %le-l[b.yI “so will your builder marry you” (cf. Ps 147:2). LXX, Vulgate, and Targum retain the “sons” but mitigate the verb “to marry, rule over” into “to live with.” See the discussion below. 52 Cf. Willem A.M. Beuken, “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55,” in The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d’Isaïe (BEThL 81; Leuven, 1989), 411–42; Odil Hannes Steck, Studien zu Tritojesaja (BZAW 203; Berlin, 1991), 14–19, 119–39; Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches (BZAW 225; Berlin, 1994), esp. 22–117. 53 For a discussion of the speaker’s identity cf. Klaus Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie (WMANT 62; Neukirchen– Vluyn, 1990), 123–24. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction 49

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City

157

receive her like a bride. As in Isa 54, gendered and spatial aspects are linked in the portrait of the city. The passage has startled many interpreters on two counts. First, v. 5 holds an interpretive problem. The idea of Jerusalem’s sons marrying their mother (MT: $ynb $wl[by) seems inappropriate and vv. 4, 5b insinuate a marriage relationship between the city or land and YHWH. While the Masoretic reading is supported by the ancient versions, the editors of BHS suggest the reading “so will your builder marry you” (%nEBo %le-l[b.yI), which follows a proposal of Robert Lowth in 1833 and refers to Ps 147:2 where YHWH is called “the builder of Jerusalem.” An emendation is, however, unnecessary if one assumes a word play on the double meaning of the Hebrew verb l[b “to marry, rule over.”54 With this reading, the MT circumvents a direct identification of YHWH with Zion’s husband while at the same time mentioning Jerusalem’s repopulation and resurgence as a capital city. The second interpretive problem is v. 3, which interrupts the topic of renaming and identifies Jerusalem with the crown although Jerusalem is supposedly the bride to be crowned.55 Also, a crown belongs on the head and not in the hand.56 T. David Andersen proposes a solution by suggesting that the passage intertwines a royal wedding ceremony with a symbolical renaming of Jerusalem.57 Although the term “a new name” vdx ~v in Isa 62:2 is a hapax legomenon, literary parallels to the symbolic renaming of Jerusalem can be found in Isa 1:26; 60:14, 18.58 According to Andersen, Jerusalem is the bride at a royal wedding and soon to be installed as a queen (cf. Cant 3:11); YHWH officiates the marriage while the people receive the crown, yet either YHWH or the sons can assume the role of the husband. Why this confusion of roles? In my view, the confusion is due to the metaphor of female Zion which creates a triangular relationship between the city, its population, and God. Within this triangle, multiple roles are possible especially since the female city stands not only for the people as a collective but also for a place that and Commentary (AB 19B; New York, 2003), 233–34, takes the self-referential phrasing as a clue for a prophetic anxiety about the non–fulfilment of the prophecies. 54 Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 233. 55 Cf. Claus Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–66 (ATD 19; Göttingen, 1966), 298– 99; Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie, 122 n. 388. 56 Ibn Ezra conceded that tr,a,p.Ti here means an ornament of the hand, cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 236. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (5th ed.; Göttingen, 1968), 459, argues that the prophet refrained from positing the crown on YHWH’s head in order to distinguish him from images of other deities. 57 Cf. T. David Andersen, “Renaming and Wedding Imagery in Isaiah 62,” Bib 67 (1986): 75– 80. 58 Cf. also Jer 3:17; 33:16; Ezek 48:35.

158

Christl M. Maier

has been destroyed. On the one hand, the city is related to the surrounding land, which in this passage is also personified as female. Since in ancient Israel the marriage metaphor connotes a hierarchical relationship, the “married” land now has a new master, Zion’s homecoming sons. On the other hand, Isa 62:3 alludes to the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Isa 54:11–17. The city wall with its towers represents a safe place that is in the hand, that is, in the power of YHWH. Thus, the female personification of Jerusalem allows for symbolizing Zion’s ascent through two perspectives: With regard to the gendered aspect that connotes her societal function, the city will be exalted like a queen; with regard to the spatial aspect, the city will be rebuilt like a precious mural crown. Both characteristics, the queen and the crown allude to a royal status, yet neither one makes Jerusalem divine. The prophet who speaks in Isa 62 envisions YHWH retaking the role of a patron deity of Jerusalem and compares God’s joy with the rejoicing of the bridegroom. Contrary to Isa 54:5, however, this speaker hesitates to call YHWH Jerusalem’s husband and thus he uses the marriage metaphor in a more subtle way. This exploration of the female personification of Zion as queen in the latter half of the Book of Isaiah demonstrates that a metaphor is most plausible for readers who know its societal and cultural background. Exploring this personification and especially the different roles of Jerusalem in the Hebrew Bible, I came to see that multiple ideas, social values, and iconographic traditions have influenced the portrait of Judah’s capital, which links gendered and spatial aspects. The portrait of Zion in Isaiah rests on old traditions while announcing a new message of salvation. In later Biblical and extra-Biblical texts, Jerusalem emerges as a symbol of peace and prosperity, as a center of world-wide pilgrimage. While Zion is never deified in the Bible, its function as a haven for the faithful and oppressed is based on a convergence of the city’s role with God’s protective power and kingship.

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City

159

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City

Fig. 1: Detail of YazÕlÕkaya relief, ca. 1250 B.C.E.; Othmar Keel, Das Hohelied (2nd ed.; ZBK 18; Zürich, 1992), Abb. 90. Image Courtesy of Othmar Keel.

Fig. 2: Stela of Aššur-šarrat with mural crown, 7th cent. B.C.E.; Keel, Das Hohelied, Abb. 79. Image Courtesy of Othmar Keel.

160

Christl M. Maier

Fig. 3: City model on relief of Sargon II (721–705 B.C.E.) in Khorsabad; Uehlinger, “Zeichne eine Stadt,” 167, Abb. 13. Image Courtesy by Othmar Keel.

Fig. 4: Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal; Uehlinger, “Zeichne eine Stadt,” 161, Abb. 10. Image Courtesy by Othmar Keel.

Daughter Zion as Queen and the Iconography of the Female City

161

Fig. 5: Astarte with mural crown, coin of Sidon (first century B.C.E.); 1000–Bilder-Bibel © German Bible Society.

Fig. 6: Antiochia at the Orontes river, Roman copy (second century C.E.) of the bronze statue created around 300 B.C.E.; Keel, Das Hohelied, Abb. 111. Image Courtesy by Othmar Keel.

162

Christl M. Maier

Fig. 7: Coin of Jerusalem with head of Tyche (180–192 C.E.); © Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien.

Helen Dixon Helen Dixon

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles It may seem that a study on the books of Chronicles has no place in a volume which takes prophecy as its central theme. Certainly these biblical books are infamous for their dry, historical character and largely redundant content.1 In this piece, I do not intend to argue that the author(s) of the books of Chronicles were prophets, nor do I wish to dwell on the Chronicler’s2 treatment of a particular historical prophet or prophetic message.3 However, I do propose that the historiographical process of rewriting the material preserved in 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings4 might be understood as similar in nature to the literarization process applied to the words of the prophets elsewhere in the biblical canon. Further, reading the books of Chronicles in light of current scholarship on prophecy serves to draw attention to imagery used by the Chronicler to foreshadow events contemporary to the writing of 1 and 2 Chronicles. In other words, I propose that the Chronicler’s rewritten history of the religious community of Israel was shaped by two major influences. First, by the West Semitic prophetic spirit and the process of its literarization – that is, the treatment of prophetic reports by the literati of Yehud.5 Second, by 1 What Ben Zvi called “the bad PR that has accompanied this book for centuries […] the book is considered more often than not as, at best, of peripheral importance from historical, literary or theological perspectives. The book is often described as being boring, inferior to other biblical narrative works – never mind to books such as Isaiah or Hosea […]” and so on (Ehud Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles [London, 2005], 20). 2 I use this term as shorthand for an unknown entity – an author, authors, school of thought, or redactor who was primarily responsible for the shaping of 1 and 2 Chr in the form preserved today. 3 Schniedewind has summarized and added to scholarship on this subject most successfully in his discussion of the Chronicler’s characterization of the prophets as historians; see William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 197; Sheffield, 1995), esp. p. 22–29, 228–30. 4 Along with some other sources now lost to us, see below. 5 The term “Yehud” is here used interchangeably with “Judah” as the name for the territory surrounding Jerusalem. Though the conquest of the southern kingdom by Babylon certainly resulted in the loss of territory formally controlled by the elites in Jerusalem, I mean to emphasize the continuity between the pre- and post-exilic (or Persian Period) populations of this area. The northern kingdom, now known as “Samaria” after its capital city, is also here considered to have maintained an essential continuity with its former identity as “Israel,” though the vast population movements resulting from its conquest by Assyria (both emigration of Samarians and outside groups resettled in Samaria by the Assyrians) mark enough of a break that the term “Samaria” will be used exclusively to discuss the

164

Helen Dixon

the Persepolitan royal imagery6 disseminated throughout the Persian Empire of the 6th–4th centuries B.C.E. Through a detailed investigation of 2 Chr 6:13, I will show that the Chronicler aimed to renew and strengthen existing images of Israel’s ideal king – personified in the image of King Solomon. In doing so, the Chronicler produced an innovative textual iconography of Israelite kingship, meant to resonate with contemporaries familiar with Achaemenid symbols of power and prestige.

Writing the Word of YHWH: The Literarization of History and Prophecy Although prophecy7 as a phenomenon is recognized as one common to Mari, Mesopotamia, and other Near Eastern contexts, “the huge process of collecting, editing, and interpreting prophecy that took place as a part of the formation of the Hebrew Bible is virtually without precedent in the rest of the ancient Near East.”8 Indeed, the problems of literacy and writing are now widely recognized as central to understanding the transmission, redaction, audience, and use of all components of the biblical text, including both historiographic and prophetic texts.9 Despite recent debates on literacy rates in pre- and post-exilic Israel, it can be said that those who composed and redacted biblical texts held special status, and that the texts they produced reflect specific ideological purposes – purposes which were inseparable from their written-ness.10 Those prophetic works that were written down northern neighbor of Yehud. When I use the term “Israel” or “Israelite,” I will for the most part be signifying the religious community of Israel as perceived by the Chronicler. 6 That is, the iconographic tradition as displayed at Persepolis (as an administrative hub and the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire), as well as the program of Achaemenid selfrepresentation it embodied. 7 As understood in current scholarship, variously defined but generally connoting a human transmitter who communicates a certain message or messages from a deity to a human recipient; see Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (SBLWAW 12; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) for a summary of variations on this definition. 8 Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 5. 9 “[…] the way from the spoken word to a written record may be long and twisting, often employing several intermediaries between the prophet and the addressee. The messages transmitted by the prophets are exposed to all the stylistic, ideological and material requirements active in the process of transmission, which may carry beyond the oral stage into the written. Hence, the socalled ipsissima verba of the prophets are beyond reach, which only stresses the need to pay attention to the socioreligious preconditions of the whole process instead of the personality of the prophet.” Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 5; Cf. also idem, “Spoken, Written, Quoted and Invented: Orality and Writtenness in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi & Michael H. Floyd; SBLSymS 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 235–71. 10 “ […] within a society in which the vast majority is illiterate and the total number of highly literate people is minuscule, the explicitly written character of particular instances of the word of

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

165

must have been considered relevant not only for an audience contemporary with the prophet himself, but also for future generations: […] the written text, as it was composed, redacted, studied, stored, read, and reread by the literati of the period was – from their point of view at least – ‘a word of YHWH.’ As such, its material presence, in the form of the text to which they had direct access, was likely to communicate symbolically and metaphorically a sense of the divine presence among them. The world of the text reflected and shaped a social memory of YHWH’s interaction with Israel in the past; the actual presence of the material text and their dealings with it constructed an image of YHWH’s interaction with Israel as it was conducted in their times, from their own perspective.11

As Ehud Ben Zvi,12 Philip R. Davies,13 and others have pointed out, we are talking more about transformation of these source texts than simple preservation in many cases; and in this sense the two corpora of biblical history and biblical prophecy are fundamentally linked. The source material adapted by each seems to have been considered in some sense sacred, linked as it was to the story of YHWH’s guidance of the community of Israel, and yet in each case the written word is altered again and again to create a continually relevant telling of the past. Because of the unique features of the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles – chronologically, ideologically, and in the preservation of texts so closely related to their production elsewhere in the biblical canon – they represent an excellent case study for exploring the application of methodologies developed for prophecy and iconography to a historiographical text.

YHWH – that is, ‘the prophetic books’ themselves – cannot be considered a theological or literary feature of secondary importance. Rather, it is one of the most salient features of this literature, and it should be treated as such by historical-critical scholarship. In fact, this feature has a substantial bearing on the social role of these books, the status of their composers and readers (as opposed to those to whom the text must be read), the social function of high literacy, the construction of language and discourse, and the role of writing in the propagation of theological/ideological viewpoints, including particular views of society and its hierarchy.” Ehud Ben Zvi “Introduction: Writings, Speeches, and the Prophetic Books – Setting an Agenda,” in Ben Zvi and Floyd, Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, 1–29, esp. p. 8. 11 Ben Zvi, “Introduction,” 12. 12 See Ben Zvi, “Introduction,” 13–14: “It is worth stressing, however, that the literati who shared this discourse, copying, storing, retrieving, reading, and rereading these written texts, were the same literati who also redacted, edited, and even composed them. Thus the written character of the prophetic books (among other books of the time) led to both actual textual fluidity and discursive as well as symbolic permanence. […] the process of composing, redacting, and editing prophetic books, along with the use of written sources for these purposes, would have had much to do with the literati’s self identification as animators of the prophets and YHWH, or in other words, with a quasi-prophetic status.” 13 See, for example, Philip R. Davies, “‘Pen of Iron, Point of Diamond’ (Jer 17:1): Prophecy as Writing,” in Ben Zvi and Floyd, Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, 74–77.

166

Helen Dixon

The Chronicler’s Project The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles are collectively one of the few books of the Bible that can be dated with near consensus by biblical scholars. The author of this work is no longer thought to be the same as that of EzraNehemiah;14 instead he is thought to have lived in Yehud during the middle of the 4th century B.C.E.15 The Achaemenid Persian Period in Yehud has of late become the subject of a great deal of speculation in the study of ancient Israel. The flurry of scholarship emerging on the social, political, and literary activity that did (or did not) take place during the late 6th–late 4th centuries B.C.E. in the territory east of the Jordan River has already made promising strides toward fleshing out a time and a place which had rarely appeared on the radar of early 20th century scholarship.16 It has been common more recently to talk about Judah in the Persian period or Judah as part of Herodotus’ ninth satrapy, for example, though exploring the Achaemenid Empire as more than just a temporal or political phase of Judah’s development is rarely undertaken in biblical studies. This project attempts to view Yehud during the period of Achaemenid rule not only as subject to Persian military presence, taxes, or other imperial policy, but as participant in and part of an ideological empire as well. The evidence seems to indicate that the elites in Yehud were fully aware of the Achaemenid program of deliberate artistic and symbolic representation of their distinct brand of kingship (see below). Though located on the periphery of the empire, Yehud and its neighbors were surrounded by images of the imperial center (as represented most paradigmatically by the reliefs at the heartland capital of Persepolis), and would inevitably be negotiating with, and responding to these images and their symbolic referents in their own “Judahite” artistic and literary productions during this period of two hundred years. Yehud was situated at the far west of the Achaemenid Persian Empire relative to its center in Iran. And yet the texts produced in Yehud during the Persian period present a different type of center-periphery model. To the 14 A long-prevailing hypothesis convincingly disproved by Sara Japhet (“The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 [1968]: 330-71) and further invalidated by Hugh G.M. Williamson (1 and 2 Chronicles [NCB, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1982]). 15 Ackroyd defines the “Age of the Chronicler” as falling between the dedication of the Second Temple (515 B.C.E.) and the time of Alexander the Great (330 B.C.E.), considering the Chronicler’s viewpoint to be generally indicative of that of elites affiliated with the Temple throughout this period. Aside from the Chronicler’s focus on the First Temple (in order to legitimize the institutions and rituals of the Second Temple in his own time), other references in the text help establish these dates; e.g., 1 Chr 29:7 references “ten thousand darics of gold,” a Persian coin not minted before 515 B.C.E. 16 Note, for example, the 1924 reports of the Harvard Excavations at Samaria, which adopted a periodization consisting of “Israelite,” “post-Israelite,” “Preherodian,” and “Roman” levels.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

167

biblical authors, Jerusalem was the true center – not only as the primary political seat of Yehud, but as the seat of YHWH’s Temple and in its permanent sacredness as the place of YHWH’s choosing. As Melody D. Knowles recognized, “in the biblical texts, centrality is constructed and enacted through both divine choice and human maintenance of sacred spaces.”17 In investigating these texts, it may be worthwhile to inquire how the Chronicler’s conception of Jerusalem as once-and-future “center” may have caused him to incorporate notions of king and kingship then in common currency throughout the Achaemenid Empire. I suggest that the picture painted by Persian period authors of Israel in its heyday – the period of the united monarchy under David and Solomon – would have been influenced by 6th–4th century notions of what “empire” looks like: that is, Achaemenid kingship and its relationship to the collective of ruled peoples, as disseminated by the Persepolitan program of Achaemenid self-representation. Ostensibly, the Chronicler sets out to rewrite the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, using the earlier sources of 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings (with the books of Joshua and Judges, known collectively as “the Deuteronomistic History”) along with some other sources now lost to us. Most have argued that he is doing so in order to make an old history relevant for a new age. As summarized by Yigal Levin: […] in the postexilic period, the monarchy was gone; the Judean province was ruled by Persian-appointed governors, some local and some not. The priesthood was becoming more and more powerful, assuming a role in political leadership. The northern kingdom was replaced by the usually hostile [18] province of Samaria. This was the reality known to the Chronicler’s intended readers.19

Literary redactions or “layers” in the Deuteronomistic History have been dated variously from the 8th century B.C.E. to the 6th century B.C.E. exile. The issues are complicated and their resolution is still without consensus,20 but even according to the lowest scholarly estimates, the Deuteronomistic History can be dated at least 150–200 years before the Chronicler’s mag17 Melody D. Knowles, Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud and the Diaspora in the Persian Period (Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 16; Atlanta, 2006), 6. 18 The hostility between Yehud and Samaria was mutual – those in Samaria may well have been amongst the remnant of Israelites who remained in the land after the destruction of Samaria (the capital) by the Assyrians, and after the Babylonian exile of elites from the southern kingdom of Judah. Worshipping YHWH at a Temple on Mt. Gerizim, the Samarians were seen as a threat to the cultic centrality of Jerusalem and the Second Temple there by the elites (especially the priestly elites) who had returned from exile in Babylon. 19 Yigal Levin, “Who Was the Chronicler’s Audience? A Hint from His Genealogies,” in JBL 122 (2003): 229–45, esp. p. 237. 20 Cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History,” in JBL 114 (1995): 607–22, esp. p. 607–8 for summary.

168

Helen Dixon

num opus. Whatever the historiographic goals of the Deuteronomistic History had been – perhaps to explain the Babylonian exile as the result of the failure of Israel’s kings to follow the Mosaic covenant – the changing times must have seemed, to the Chronicler and to later traditions which preserved his work alongside the Deuteronomistic History, to require a new record and interpretation of this history. The motivations underlying this work’s production and alteration of its source material have been subject to thorough scholarly analysis for over 100 years. For the most part, focus has been on the Chronicler’s theological position – what he is telling us about his understanding of the relationship between YHWH and Israel.21 This has involved locating the Chronicler in the historical and religious continuum of Israelite thought: how the Chronicler’s project relates to histories and prophetic works that preceded him, as well as to those which came after his period of literary activity. To a lesser extent, this has also produced speculation as to the Chronicler’s position on Achaemenid authority over Yehud, often in a very literal way – did the Chronicler see Cyrus as the next occupant of the throne of YHWH? What was the extent of Cyrus’ role as fulfiller of YHWH’s plan for Israel? Because the Chronicler’s history ends with what is presented as the text of Cyrus’ decree to the exiled Judahites to return and rebuild the Temple (without commentary), this question has produced opposing answers from biblical scholars;22 though all agree it is significant for understanding the Chronicler’s goals. Thus, the following points of contact in the relationship between 1 and 2 Chronicles and the Achaemenid Empire have been discussed by biblical scholars: – Temporal relationship: The Chronicler wrote his history during the Persian Period. – Circumstantial relationship: The Chronicler was motivated to re-write Israel’s history following the rebuilding of the Temple (and probably was closely associated with Temple administration). The Persians were responsible for permission (and funds?) to rebuild the Temple, thus the Chronicler is dependent on their policies for his position. – Political relationship: There is no king in Jerusalem. The Persian king ostensibly rules Yehud, along with the rest of the empire, at the time the Chronicler is writing. 21 Here I mean “Israel” as a religious community as perceived by elites in Jerusalem. In this sense the term serves to signify an emic identity (the term is used to self-refer throughout the Chronicler’s history, though his ultimate position is that only those who worship YHWH at Jerusalem—thus those in the province of Yehud – represent the true inheritors of this identification). 22 That is, that the Chronicler was either “optimistic” or “pessimistic” about Yehud’s position under Persian rule.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

169

– Textual relationship; possibly political/religious/theological relationship: The Chronicler ends his history with Cyrus’ decree to rebuild the Temple. This is certainly significant as a chosen ending (but has been interpreted in various ways). Lacking in the scholarship on the books of Chronicles is any sense that the Chronicler’s work would, by its very nature, be an active partner in an ideological relationship with Achaemenid iconography, symbols, and webs of meaning. The Achaemenid presence in the text should not be read simply as an imperial framework within which Yehud functions more or less on its own trajectory, responding only when faced with physical stimuli from above (for example, taxation and military presence). Instead, 1 and 2 Chronicles should be read with a mind open and attenuated to Persian tropes and themes throughout. Alongside the Chronicler’s “Israelite” sources (the Deuteronomistic History, along with what may have been other records kept at Jerusalem), it may be useful to attempt to read his Achaemenid sources – the texts and images which inform his sense of what is “modern,” “relevant,” or “powerful” in a real and tangible manner. As an elite of Yehud closely associated with the Temple, the Chronicler would have been aware of Achaemenid images of kingship and how to use them.23 Scholars have agreed that the Chronicler’s purpose for re-writing history was that history of Israel written in exile lacked relevancy – it is time to consider more closely what would have been “relevant” with respect to kingship in 4th century Yehud.

Achaemenid Images of Kingship in the History of Judah In considering how Achaemenid notions of kingship play into the history of Israel as written by the Chronicler, it is important to note that the Chronicler is by no means adopting the Achaemenid program of kingship iconography in its entirety, nor is he explicitly referencing many of his sources (whether textual or otherwise). Thus his text represents an amalgam of referents – some images will resonate with the long-established trope of the Israelite king and those qualities which made him powerful in the days of the monarchy; other textual images may be speaking to Achaemenid kingship, the kingship which is most present for the Chronicler and his contemporaries. 23 That is, that he would have known what they “meant,” or what messages they were meant to convey. There is no reason to assume that images associated with the center of an empire would have been “degraded” or “misunderstood” when adopted or adapted by elites in other parts of the periphery of that empire.

170

Helen Dixon

Methodologically, it may be useful to think more broadly about the tools of textual studies and those of art history; that is, to think metaphorically about the Chronicler’s work as if each scene were an artistic rendering, a portrait or a relief. In this way I hope to study the image of Solomon in 2 Chronicles as “iconography,” just as Margaret Cool Root24 has shown us the benefit of reading artistic representation as “text” – to proceed as if every detail has meaning. Since both the Chronicler’s final text and his main source material (the Deuteronomistic History) were preserved, we are in a unique position to appraise his alterations to the portraits of David and Solomon he inherits. Those who have written on the Chronicler’s historiography in the past have focused on the centrality of the figure of David in the narrative. Summaries like Gwilym H. Jones’ are common: The divine establishment of David’s reign was of undoubted importance for the structure of the Chronicler’s work, a point that is affirmed by the attention given to it in many expositions of his purpose. It was with David that he began his history; most Pentateuchal traditions have been ignored; traditions about the conquest and the period of the judges have not been mentioned; the reign of Saul has been summarized in a single chapter. On the other hand the Chronicler’s coverage of David is copious and his presentation of the founder of the dynasty is highly developed. Because this was the divinely established dynasty, the history of the northern kingdom could be ignored. God had chosen “Israel” as represented in the Judaean dynasty of David (1 Chron. 28:4).25

It is certainly true that the history of David’s reign – his capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, his moving the Ark, his battles with the Philistines, his covenant with YHWH, and his preparations for the Temple – take up a large number of chapters in the Chroniclers history (1 Chr 11–29), just as they did in the Deuteronomistic History (2 Sam 1–24; 1 Kgs 1–2). And it is also true that the Chronicler’s ideological concerns are at work in his treatment of the Deuteronomistic Historian’s David. Certain ignominious episodes are eliminated altogether (for example, the story of David and Bathsheba), other portions are modified (sequences altered, speeches added or changed, etc.), and more attention is given to David’s relationship to Temple preparations (setting aside materials or monies for its future construction). But one fundamental character flaw remains prominent in the Chronicler’s presentation of David as king of Israel: David is told explicitly that his reign was too bloody for YHWH to grant him permission to build the Temple in Jerusalem. 24 Margaret Cool Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire (Acta Iranica 19; Leiden, 1979). 25 Gwilym H. Jones, I & II Chronicles (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield, 1993), 107–8.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

171

Instead, Solomon – as David’s son – is fated to do so. This promise is not made unconditionally, but Solomon’s wisdom and piety throughout the Chronicler’s description of his reign (2 Chr 1–9) prove him worthy for the task. None of the black marks on Solomon’s reputation known from 1 Kgs 11:1–40 are included or alluded to. Instead, Solomon is made to be the Israelite king par excellence, the king who ensures that YHWH’s covenant with David’s line will be honored. Because of this relationship between what David began and Solomon finished, much of the scholarship from the last fifteen years has read the Chronicler’s work on David and Solomon as one literary or ideological unit, with both kings serving one purpose in the Chronicler’s theological narrative.26 But such a reading obscures the individual attributes of these two figures. Recognizing the centrality of the Temple and the ultimate importance of its construction in the history of Israel as put forth in 1 and 2 Chronicles does not preclude reading these two figures as representing different paradigms of kingship. The fact remains that David the conqueror was not chosen to provide a home for YHWH. This privilege was reserved for a king of peace (šlm), a wise king, King Solomon (šlmw). I argue that the author of the books of Chronicles presents Solomon as the ideal Israelite king,27 and that the changes he makes in the Deuteronomistic Historian’s account of Solomon’s reign work toward supporting this characterization. What might the Chronicler’s choice of Solomon as ideal king say to his contemporary audience? Certainly painting a portrait of Solomon as the perfect Israelite king adds prestige to the legitimacy of the first Temple (destroyed in 586 B.C.E.) as both a building and an institution. By extension, this might advocate in favor of adopting (or accepting, or legitimizing) similar institutional features in the second Temple (established in the 5th 26 Perhaps mirroring the relationship between Moses and Joshua – the former does the hard work of bringing the Israelites to a homeland, but is not himself allowed to enter into it; the latter inherits leadership of Israel and participates in the final culmination of YHWH’s promise to his people. 27 This conclusion was originally drawn by Rudolf Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburger theologische Studien 92; Freiburg, 1973), who was criticized for “rejecting” David as the paradigmatic king of Israel. Critique of his arguments focused mostly on the continuing use of the term “line of David” to describe the dynastic line at Jerusalem. In my estimation, recognizing Solomon as ideal king as conceived during the pax persica says nothing negative about David’s violent establishment of the state. This might have been considered something like the necessary “birth pangs” of Israel’s statehood. There is no question that David’s contributions were seen as valiant and valuable. Note Steven Schweitzer’s most recent study (Reading Utopia in Chronicles [LHBOTS 442; New York, 2007], 81): “whereas David is not without his faults, Solomon is presented as the nearly perfect ruler who exceeds the success of his father, and is presented in categories that are not only utopian but also ideal. Solomon is first and foremost ‘chosen’ (rxb) by God, just as his father David was. It is significant that in Samuel–Kings only David receives such laudatory claims, while in Chronicles the term is applied to both David and Solomon—but to no one else.”

172

Helen Dixon

cent. B.C.E.). Further, Solomon’s kingdom was a wide-reaching empire according to these texts. Ambassadors (like the Queen of Sheba) came from far and wide to see the wealth and wisdom of Israel’s king. And large-scale building projects were said to have been undertaken throughout Israel. In other words, the literary version of Solomon’s kingdom seems most like the Persian period reality known to the Chronicler’s audience. The Chronicler seems to be coaxing those who would read his text to imagine Israel’s king in the shoes of the Achaemenid rulers. Though the physical size of the empire under Solomon may be similar in the Deuteronomistic History, Solomon’s worship of multiple gods, inspired by his multiple, foreign-born wives, severely qualify any nostalgic feelings for “golden days” that might otherwise have been inspired. The Chronicler is very clear in making the kingdom of Solomon out to be a perfect, ideologically consistent time in the history of Israel; the days when YHWH had chosen an Israelite to rule on His (YHWH’s) throne. The metaphorical throne or seat of kingship in question is explicitly YHWH’s throne in 1 and 2 Chronicles. YHWH seems to be considered the true ruler of Israel, and anoints earthly representatives only when they have proven worthy. Note the following alterations of this expression from the Chronicler’s source text: Chronicles And from all my sons, for YHWH has given me many sons, he chose Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of YHWH over Israel. So Solomon sat on the throne of YHWH as king in place of David his father; he prospered and all Israel obeyed him. May YHWH your God be blessed who delighted in you by setting you on His throne as king for YHWH your God. Since your God loves Israel and he established it forever, he has set you over them as king to enact justice and righteousness.

1 Chr 28:5 (part of a speech made by David)

Deuteronomistic History No parallel

1 Chr 29:23

So Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father and his royal power was firmly established.

1 Kgs 2:12

2 Chr 9:8 (spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba)

May YHWH your God be blessed who delighted in you by setting you on the throne of Israel. Since YHWH loves Israel forever he has put you as king to enact justice and righteousness.

1 Kgs 10:9 (spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba)

Not only does this kind of language allow for the preservation of Israel’s identity in a post-monarchical world (as YHWH, who was truly king “all along” is still ruling), it also hearkens to a stronger notion of divine investi-

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

173

ture than was present in the earlier text. The ultimate choice of a king in Israel (and arguably the world) belongs to YHWH, who could (hypothetically) choose anyone, even someone from outside David’s line. The physical throne of Israel has become a metaphorical seat of kingship; the throne of Israel need not sit in Israel. This new construction or formulation of Israel’s kingship strengthens Solomon’s successes all the more. YHWH’s relationship with Solomon is an intimate one, and throughout Solomon is said to be supported in his deeds by “all the assembly of Israel.” The significance of this particular image, “all the assembly of Israel,” is complex and may have resonated with the Chronicler’s audience on a number of different levels. On one hand, his audience may have heard in such a phrase an argument invalidating the Deuteronomistic History’s claim that Solomon’s ascendancy to the throne was not automatic – that he was not the only son of David who claimed the legitimate right to rule. On the other hand, it may have spoken to contrast the days of Solomon with the situation in 4th century Yehud – the division between Samarian and Yehudite, or the separation between those still in Babylon and those in Yehud. But the term “all the assembly of Israel” may also have resonated in a third way for the Chroniclers’ audience. It may have summoned images known from Achaemenid representations – images of a wide ranging empire, with diverse peoples, all witness to the power and piety of the Achaemenid king. Root28 has described the paradigmatic visual images of this theme known from the Achaemenid heartland – a theme she calls “The King on High” (fig.1). The theme involves a number of elements: a hierarchical arrangement (in which the king is larger than his subjects, and is held aloft by them), a certain stylistically represented emotional stance (in which the relationship between the figures is consistently expressed as “a cooperative effort of voluntary support of the king by the subject peoples”29; fig. 2), as well as unrealistic details that marks the image as metaphorical (subjects lifting the king on their fingertips, subjects smaller than the furniture legs of the king’s platform, etc.; fig. 3). The most striking examples of this theme can be found on the tomb facades of Darius and his successors (fig. 4), in the Central Building of Darius, and in the Throne Hall of Xerxes-Artaxerxes, though representations like the statue of Darius mentioned above also evoke this theme. As Root has noted, these images are as striking for the relationship between king and peoples that they portray as they are for what they do not portray – scenes of subjugation, imperial force, or other aspects of “calculated frightfulness” known from other Near Eastern art. 28 29

Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art. Ibid., 131.

174

Helen Dixon

Just as in these images, the people of Israel play a relatively passive and supportive role throughout the narrative of Solomon’s reign in 2 Chronicles. They are present for each of his triumphs, and act as one voice in supporting him. As Hugh G.M. Williamson noted, “There is, it is true, a tendency towards ‘democratisation’, in that we frequently find the king consulting with his people and involving them closely in the major events of the history.”30 Though text is not as poetic as artistic image in its ability to represent the concept of “support” for a ruler, it is worth exploring this further in order to understand what the Chronicler may be intending. At one particular point in the text, the Deuteronomistic History itself mentions the presence of the assembly of Israel. This is, by all scholarly accounts, the dramatic height of both texts – the dedication of the Temple. The Chronicler preserves almost all of his source text, lifting the scene of Solomon’s speech to Israel right out of the Deuteronomistic History. But the scene is quite complete, it seems: the Chronicler adds a single verse, introducing some piece of bronze furniture (rwOYKi). My translation of the relevant passages follows:

30

Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 28.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles 2 Chronicles 6 1 Then Solomon said, “YHWH said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. 2 And I have surely built a house of loftiness for you, and a place for your dwelling forever.” 3

And the king turned his face, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, and all the assembly of Israel was standing. 4 And he said, “Blessed be YHWH, God of Israel, who spoke by his mouth with my father David, and fulfilled it with his hands, saying […] vv. 5–9: Recounts the exodus from Egypt, the choice of Jerusalem as holy city, and David (Solomon’s father) as leader of Israel. 10 YHWH has lifted up his word that he spoke, for I have risen up under David my father, and I sit on the throne of Israel, as YHWH said, and I have built the house for the name of YHWH, the God of Israel. 11 And I placed the ark there, where there is the covenant of YHWH, which he made with the sons of Israel.” 12 And he stood before the altar of YHWH across from all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands. 13 For Solomon had made a bronze rwOYKi, five cubits long, and five cubits wide, and three cubits high, and put it in the midst of the court. And he stood on it and knelt on his knees before all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands toward heaven, 14 And he said, “YHWH, god of Israel, there is no god like you in heaven or earth, keeping covenant and mercy with(?) your servants, who walk before you with all their heart.”

175

1 Kings 8 Then Solomon said, “YHWH said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. 13 And I have surely built a house of loftiness for you, and a place for your dwelling forever.” 14 And the king turned his face, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, and all the assembly of Israel was standing. 15 And he said, “Blessed be YHWH, God of Israel, who spoke by his mouth with my father David, and fulfilled it with his hands, saying […] vv. 16–19: Recounts the exodus from Egypt, the choice of Jerusalem as holy city, and David (Solomon’s father) as leader of Israel. 20 YHWH has lifted up his word that he spoke, for I have risen up under David my father, and I sit on the throne of Israel, as YHWH said, and I have built the house for the name of YHWH, the God of Israel. 21 And I set there a place for the ark, where there is the covenant of YHWH, which he made with our fathers when he brought them out from the land of Egypt.” 22 And Solomon stood before the altar of YHWH across from all the assembly of Israel, and spread his hands [to] the heavens. 12

23

And he said, “YHWH, god of Israel, there is no god like you in the heavens above or the earth beneath, keeping covenant and mercy with(?) your servants, who walk before you with all their heart.”

The verse has been considered problematic – why should the Chronicler have added this verse here, without any perceptible purpose? The Chronicler typically adds descriptive content only to clarify, or to create harmonization between two versions of a story. But “nothing is said about this platform anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, not even in the earlier specifications of the furnishings of the Temple in C[hronicles].”31 The following is a summary of previous scholarly interpretation of the verse, presented in biblical commentaries ranging from 1910 to 2005 (without consensus):

31 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 1: 1 Chronicles 1 – 2 Chronicles 9: Israel’s Place among the Nations (JSOTSup 253; Sheffield, 1997), 341–42.

176

Helen Dixon

Treatments of 2 Chr 6:13 in the commentaries: Curtis and Madsen (1910)32

Chronicler’s addition

Rudolph (1955)33

Dropped from Kgs

Lemke (1965)34 North (1968)35

Dropped from Kgs Chronicler’s addition Chronicler’s addition Addition made to Kgs in a version which is not extant but was known to the Chronicler

Mosis (1973)36 Williamson (1982)37

McKenzie (1985)38

Dropped from Kgs

DeVries (1989)39 Japhet (1993) 40

Dropped from Kgs Chronicler’s addition

Johnstone (1997)41

Chronicler’s addition

32

“May have arisen from the desire to remove Solomon from the place before the altar as a place sacred for the priests.” a) The fact that the dimensions of the platform are given contrasts with the Chronicler’s practice elsewhere. b) Solomon’s kneeling position seems to be presupposed by 1 Kgs 8:54, but without the “lost” verse it might be thought he was standing (cf. 1 Kgs 8:22) c) the loss of this verse can be explained by homoioteleuton (note “and spread forth his hands” in both v. 12 and 13) Follows Rudolph In response to Rudolph, 1 Kgs 8:54 is more likely a later addition. The repetition of “and spread forth his hands” betrays verse 13 as a later addition “Since we know that his [the Chronicler’s] Vorlage was not always identical with the MT of Samuel and Kings, it seems best on balance to regard this verse as an addition indeed to 1 Kgs 8, but made prior to the Chronicler in a textual tradition of that chapter no longer preserved for us.” Result of homoioteleuton (scribe skipped copying verse 12 to the end of verse 13, as it were). Follows Lemke “If the insertion of the ‘bronze platform’ is, as it seems to be, an intentional correction, with the point of changing the place of Solomon’s addressing the people, then both I Kings 8.54 and v. 13 would be secondary to the original narrative of Kings […]. This change of place is combined with the practical point of providing the kneeling Solomon with an elevated position ‘above the people.’” a) Provides a more elaborate setting of the scene than is found in Kings.

E.L. Curtis and A.A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh, 1910), 342. 33 Wilhelm Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 1/21; Tübingen, 1955), 213. 34 Werner E. Lemke, “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History,” HTR 58 (1965): 349–63. 35 Robert North, “The Chronicler: 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (ed. Raymond E. Brown et al; London, 1990 [1968]), 373. 36 Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, 145. 37 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 218. 38 Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta, 1985), 95. 39 Simon De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL 11; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1989), 258. 40 Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.:Westminster John Knox, 1993), 590.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

Kalimi (2005)42

Chronicler’s addition

177

b) Serves to point out that “[Solomon’s] petition in the presence of the people cannot take place in the inner court of the Temple where the altar of burnt offering is, but must be in the outer concourse.” The Chronicler repeats the phrase “in the presence of all the congregation of Israel and spread out his hands” in 6:13b to serve as a resumptive repetition linking verses 12 and 14. “Because of the frequency of the use of resumptive repetition in the book of Chroniclers and because of the following signs43 of late language employed in 2 Chr 6:13, we must conclude that this passage is the Chronicler’s own creation […]”

Clearly the issue cannot be resolved using only the Chronicler’s verse and the absence of this verse in his source material. Could the addition of a third, imaginary text – the Achaemenid image of the King on High – help understand the presence of a large bronze platform? What does this verse add to the scene of Solomon before his people?

Iconography of Kingship: The Achaemenid Program To explore this dynamic, I will follow Root44 and subsequent Achaemenid scholarship in positing a conscious, deliberate program of self-representation undertaken by Darius I (521–486 B.C.E.) and his successors – a program which was expressed not only by the creation of an elaborately decorated capital city and series of monumental tomb carvings at the center of the Achaemenid empire, but also through the exportation of this imagery outward from the center and into the provinces in a variety of representational contexts. Examples like the statue of Darius I made for display in Egypt,45 or the Behistun monument erected in Babylon to commemorate a series of

41

Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 341. Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, Ind., 2005), 277–78. 43 Cf. Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, 277–78: The use of the word hrz[ “court” appears in the Hebrew Bible 9 times (3 in Chronicles with no parallel; 6 in Ezekiel), and is very common in Rabbinic Hebrew and in the Aramaic Targumim. The syntactical form vwlv twmaw (noun preceding cardinal number) is “widespread in later Hebrew in general and in the Chronicler’s language in particular.” 44 Margaret Cool Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire (Acta Iranica 19; Leiden, 1979). 45 In which Darius represents himself as Pharaoh (with Egyptian titulary); this was unearthed at Susa, after being moved in antiquity. Cf. Margaret Cool Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire (Acta Iranica 19; Leiden, 1979), 61–72. 42

178

Helen Dixon

Achaemenid victories46 are well-known, but here I will compile evidence for the presence of this kind of Achaemenid kingly iconography in Yehud, Samaria, and Phoenicia. Establishing the extent and nature of these depictions as extant in the Levant may be insightful in understanding the kind of iconography the Chronicler may have been trying to conjure.

The Throne of the King: Achaemenid Throne Fragments in the Periphery In 1973, Miriam Tadmor published a series of three throne fragments from Samaria47 in a Hebrew publication. The article came out a year later in English,48 and presented a description of the three objects: 1. Bronze lion’s paw (Israel Museum No. 70.92; acquired in Samaria by Mr. S. Ben-Haim) 2. Bronze cylinder with concave moldings (Israel Museum No. 70.92; same as above) 3. Bronze lion’s paw II (Israel Museum No. 69.8.428; acquired by the Israel Museum from a Jerusalem dealer; fig. 5) Tadmor wrote that the bronze objects all seemed to be from the same bronze-and-wood throne, which bore striking similarity to Achaemenid thrones known from the reliefs at Persepolis (fig. 6).49 Tadmor was also able to locate other examples of the Achaemenid lion’s paw throne foot, from locations ranging from Egypt to Russia (see below). In the late 1970s, another throne fragment turned up in an ancient shipwreck excavated off the coast of Athlit (just south of Haifa).50 The lion’s 46 Also erected by Darius I; though often characterized as the sole example of Achaemenid representation of historical events, Margaret Cool Root (“Persian Art,” ABD 1 [1992]: 440–47, esp. p. 442) points out that “this rock relief is in essence highly abstract in its depiction of history.” 47 Though all the fragments seem to have been purchased or otherwise acquired outside of legal excavation. 48 Miriam Tadmor, “Fragments of an Achaemenid Throne from Samaria,” IEJ 24 (1974): 37– 43. The Hebrew original was published in Qadmoniot 6 (1973): 57–60. 49 Tadmor, “Fragments of an Achaemenid Throne,” 37. 50 Before the 1980’s antiquities laws passed in Israel, underwater archaeology in the area of Athlit was done by volunteers racing against amateurs scavenging for saleable objects. The shipwreck in question was located following a Dec. 1, 1977 storm, after which a survey of the area (both shoreline and underwater) was taken. While volunteers tried to collect visible metal objects at this time, conditions worsened and some objects, already bagged, were lost. Two years later attempts were made to locate more of the items; Ehud Galillee of the Center for Marine Oceanography at Haifa University conducted an underwater survey, rescuing more of the bronze/copper objects, many of which were broken (probably in order to be melted down). The seven Achaemenid throne fragments were said by the author to appear as though they came from the same throne. My thanks to Zohar Raviv for assisting me in the translation of Avner Raban’s Hebrew publication (“A Group of Objects from a Wreckage Site at Athlit,” Michmanim 6 [1992]: 31–53).

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

179

paw, upright scrolled throne leg, and cross pieces (five fragments in all) were part of the remains of the cargo of an ancient vessel carrying what were called mostly Phoenician-style metal vessels and scrap, dated to the 7th–5th centuries B.C.E. The throne fragments struck Avner Raban, who published the fragment in Hebrew in 1992, as clearly Achaemenid (fig. 7). Furniture in the Persepolitan style was already known from Macedonia and elsewhere closer to the Achaemenid homeland – but these pieces, along with the Samaria fragments, found so far from Achaemenid centers yet so closely mimicking royal pieces, were something new for the Levant. They were made of hollow bronze – and would have been used in conjunction with wooden legs and cross pieces to create a kind of Achaemenid throne that could have been disassembled and moved. These thrones evoked Achaemenid kingship on a lesser scale – they were symbols of kingship, governorship, or loyalty to the Persian king on a local level. What is so striking about these throne fragments is not only the fact that they echo the major stylistic features of one another, but also that they bear such striking resemblance (with enticing locally adapted details) to the Achaemenid throne as depicted throughout the reliefs of Persepolis (fig. 8). The individual elements of the throne leg can be traced to Assyrian, Babylonian, or Urartian examples,51 but the series taken as a whole – from the ball base, up the leg to the wreath ring, lion’s paw (with rosette), and cylinder with the characteristic ringed pattern – represents an Achaemenid innovation. The series seems to have remained constant throughout its dissemination, and it is thus reasonable to assume the throne would have been recognizably Achaemenid to those who viewed it. The provincial versions, though for the most part representing the lion’s paw element (as the most recognizable element when separated from the rest of the sequence), consistently present the same sequence of elements as the thrones depicted at Persepolis (fig. 9). Parivash Jamzadeh, in a 1991 dissertation on the iconography and symbolic nature of the Achaemenid throne wrote, “the concept of the throne to the Achaemenids, it may be argued, 51 Cf. Parivash Jamzadeh, The Achaemenid Throne: Its Significance and its Legacy (Ph. D. Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1991), 9–21, who traces the earliest occurrences of lion and bull feet in furniture to 3rd millennium B.C.E. Egypt, but sees closer antecedents for the Achaemenid throne in Urartian furniture legs from Toprak Kale, Altintepe, Kayalidere and Nimrud. Cf. also the thorough work of Helmut Kyrieleis, Throne und Klinen: Studien zur Formgeschichte altorientalischer und griechischer Sitz- und Liegemöbel vorhellenistischer Zeit (Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft; Berlin, 1969), as well as the more recent explorations of Peter Calmeyer, “Achaimenidische Möbel und IS̞Kussû ša Šarrute,” in The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional, Papers of the Conference held at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, June 28–30, 1993 (ed. Georgina Herrmann; Mainz, 1996), 223–31 and Stavros Paspalas, “On Persian-Type Furniture in Macedonia: The Recognition and Transmission of Forms,” American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000): 531–60.

180

Helen Dixon

was more than just a piece of furniture. It was important only as long as it signified the seat of the king, whether as a furniture object, as a palace complex, or as an entire province.”52 Notably, the appropriation of this throne leg sequence in later times also supports its use as a symbolic trope in the Achaemenid period: An interesting phenomenon is the creation of an iconic device (the throne-leg) that endures well beyond its time and carries its significance and its intended original portent into future times. This device became a legitimizing emblem for subsequent dynasties; it served as a link to the Achaemenid line and its composition was seen to bear the essence of older traditions of kingship. This emblem succeeded in establishing a fixed point of reference for the representation of Iranian kingship in art.53

Examining the Samaria, Athlit, and other throne fragments from outside of Persepolis and other Achaemenid power centers forces us to consider the throne leg sequence’s meaning in more detail. Certainly, we wonder what these multiple thrones at the periphery of the empire could have been for – display, ritual use, or some other performative value. Were they simply a reminder of who was in charge, that is, a physical symbol – even something like a relic – of the might and power of the Achaemenid King of Kings? Or were they thought to represent not the king that was abroad, but the legitimacy of his representative in the province? Was each city that sported one of these treasures a kind of “little Persepolis,” with its own Achaemenidstyle figurehead and its own throne hall? Unfortunately, no primary archaeological context was preserved for any of these throne fragments. Our only other clue is a half a mold for a similar ringed cylinder piece, found during the early Harvard Excavations at Samaria (Registration No. 2934; fig. 10). At the time of its publication, it was described by Reisner as a “pottery mold of coarse black-brown ware, with a red wash. The ware seems to be Israelite and the mold was found with Israelite pottery.”54 Tadmor reanalyzed the fragment in light of its similarities to the Samaria throne fragment, dating it to the Achaemenid period (though she was unable to reexamine it, as it had gone missing from the Harvard Semitic museum). A careful reading of the 1924 published excavation reports supports this re-dating – the mold fragment was found in 52

Jamzadeh, The Achaemenid Throne, x. Jamzadeh, The Achaemenid Throne, viii. 54 G.A. Reisner, C.S. Fisher, and D.G. Lyon. Harvard Excavations at Samaria (2 Vols., Cambridge, 1924), Vol 1, 338: See Pls. 64 m; 68 l 5. Found on June 22, 1910. It is unclear how many of the objects in collection l were found with the mold fragment (Vol. 2 pl. 68, 1). The collection is identified in the plate index of Vol. 2 as consisting of five round “clay weights,” one small round grinding stone (? called a “stone rubber”), and another fragment, described as a “pottery mold,” though not apparently connected to the throne cylinder mold discussed above. Plate 68 as a whole is entitled “miscellaneous objects, mainly Hellenistic.” 53

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

181

fill beneath an Herodian tower with a variety of discarded objects, most of which were, in fact, of relatively late date: June 21–25 [1910]. S[outh] G[ate] T[errace]. Clearing through black debris evidently formed by dumping. It contained Israelite potsherds, Greek red-figured pottery (Reg. No. 2914), Rhodian jar-handles, Hellenistic pottery, an agate cone-seal (Reg. No. 3017), a coin of Ptolemy II (Reg. No. 3105), and one of Antiocha ad Orontem (Reg. No. 3024). The construction trench of the Herodian tower cut through this black dump (see Pls. 46a and 54 c), showing that the debris was deposited previous to the construction of the tower […]. Under the black debris was a semicircular mound of yellow debris centering on the gateway. In this yellow debris, the Assyrian letter sealing (Reg. No. 2925) was found together with a few small Israelite potsherds.55

Although the Samaria cylinder mold fragment was found in secondary context, it is still relevant for our purposes. Its presence seems to indicate that something like the throne cross-pieces or cylinders was being made at Samaria itself. Whether the mold was used to produce the very cross-pieces used in the bronze throne (or other versions of it) which is now at the Israel Museum, or whether it was used to produce other furniture pieces with similar patterns, the fact remains that the ringed leg pattern associated with the throne leg sequence – more specifically, that pattern as produced in bronze – was known at Samaria, just as it was known somewhere else in the Mediterranean world as evidenced by the version from the Athlit shipwreck.56 These, along with the other known throne fragments found throughout the empire, certainly speak to the nature and extent of the Achaemenid program of iconographic dissemination. A summary of known Achaemenid throne fragments follows:

55 This excerpt is taken from the entry for June 21–25 on p. 406, describing progress at the Gateway, 1909–10. I determined the find spot of the item by collating the object’s find spot (“S.G.T. 1”) and date (June 22, 1910) with the “Progress of the Excavations” diary, Vol. 1. 56 The majority of the items were described as “Phoenician” in style, and it is not unreasonable to assume the throne may have been put on board with the rest of the cargo from the Phoenician coast. Still, the imprecision of the term “Phoenician” as a stylistic label necessitates reservation in making a positive identification of the throne’s origin.

182

Helen Dixon

Throne Fragment Samaria Throne fragments

Provenance

Description

Publication

Samaria (one purchased in Jerusalem)

Two bronze lion paws with 16–petalled rosettes, flanked by scrolls; with a cylinder with 6 moldings.

Athlit throne

Underwater shipwreck off the coast of Athlit

Louvre lion paw

Unknown provenance

British Museum lion’s paw

Egypt

Lion’s paw fragment

Toprakkale (Lake Van), Caucasus

Parts of two cross-pieces, a section of a two-member base, and “part of a leaf wreath that has been reconstructed as sitting below a torus-scotia element on which rests a lion’s paw, above which, in turn, there rises a shaft consisting of six tori alternating with five scotiae.”58 Shows the “drooping sepals above the concave interval, supporting the lion’s paw, the carved twelve petalled rosette and the flanking scrolls.”60 Bronze lion’s paw with rounded knuckles, the twelve petalled rosette, and flanking scrolls. 11.2 (12.2? Barnett gives both) cm. high. Variant with winged sun disk in place of Rosette. Of massive size, 19.5 cm. high.

Tadmor 1973 and 197457 (currently in Israel Museum; fig. 5) Raban 199259 (fig. 7)

Hamadan fragment

Hamadan (ancient Ecbatana in NW Iran) Egypt?

Lion’s paw fragment

Herzfeld 1988 (1941); Kyrieleis 196961 (fig. 11) Barnett 1950 (fig. 12)62

Only upper portion (with scrolls and rosette) remains)

Herzfeld 1988 (1941); Barnett 1950; Kyrieleis 1969.63 (fig. 13) Herzfeld 1988 (1941)64 (fig. 14)

Bronze lion’s paw with 14–petalled rosette

Tadmor 197465 (fig. 15)

Though the function, purpose, or origin of these bronze thrones are not well understood, it is not necessary to know what particular use (or uses) they served in their respective destinations in order to make certain observations about them: a. The throne fragments are extremely similar to one another, while showing local adaptations of the form. This suggests that they were adapted 57

Tadmor, “Fragments of an Achaemenid Throne.” Paspalas, “On Persian-Type Furniture in Macedonia,” 538; with picture of reconstructions of both the Athlit and Samaria thrones. 59 Raban, “A Group of Objects from a Wreckage Site at Athlit.” 60 Jamzadeh, The Achaemenid Throne, 7. 61 Ernst Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East (London, 1941), 262, fig. 364; Kyrieleis, Throne und Klinen, Abb. 29, Taf. 8, Fig. 2. 62 R.D. Barnett, “The Excavations of the British Museum at Toprak Kale near Van,” in Iraq 12 (1950): 1–43, esp. p. 30, pl IV:1. 63 Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East, fig. 364; Barnett, “The Excavations of the British Museum at Toprak Kale,” Pl. III:1; Kyrieleis, Throne und Klinen, Abb. 29, Taf. 8, Fig. 1. 64 Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East, p. 262, Fig. 364. 65 Tadmor, “Fragments of an Achaemenid Throne,” Pl. 6a. 58

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

183

from one source (be that a geographical location, artistic school, or paradigmatic example from which they were copied). b. The throne fragments, especially the throne leg sequence each exhibits, mirror the leg sequence of the thrones depicted throughout the reliefs of Persepolis. Since the reliefs at Persepolis represent the canonical Achaemenid images of kingship, their duplication in the thrones from the provinces can be assumed to represent a conscious duplication of what were recognized as characteristically Achaemenid thrones.66 c. All the known Achaemenid throne fragments from outside the Iranian heartland are made of hollow bronze.67 This is surely significant – the importance of portability (and durability) may have been a motivating factor, or the local production of the thrones (as the Samaria throne mold fragment may suggest) may have necessitated this metal choice. Whatever the functional considerations, it is also worth noting what these throne fragments were not made from, that is, they were not gold, silver, or ivory thrones. They very probably were not the primary thrones of local kings,68 nor should it be assumed that the Persepolitan throne images were meant to be seen as equal to these provincial thrones, whether or not the latter duplicated the former in style and form.

More Achaemenid Thrones: “Peripheral” Coinage as a Medium for Images of the Center Throne fragments were not the only medium for images from the center of the Achaemenid Empire which ended up in Yehud, Samaria, and their neighbors. Coins, struck first in the western Levant ca. 450 B.C.E. in Sidon 66 It was brought to my attention by Prof. Margaret Cool Root that in 2004 Mehr News reported the discovery of fragment of a lapis lazuli throne leg (which Iranian archaeologists have called part of the throne of Darius) in one of the ancient water canals/drainage ditches which ran under Persepolis’ takht area. Though I know of no publication of this object, its style would be an extremely valuable piece of comparanda for our purposes; the news article from Dec. 20, 2004 recorded only Alireza Askari’s observation that, “the figures carved on the stone are similar to the relief works in different parts of Persepolis.” 67 For this point I am indebted to Ben Rubin, whose comments on the subject of a “hierarchy of thrones” helped me develop this point. 68 Unlikely for Samaria or Yehud, which had lost their kings centuries before, but in Sidon and Tyre rulers continued to be called “kings” throughout the Persian period: “The reliability of Herodotus’ tradition about the submission of the Phoenician kings, of their own free will, to the Persians is supported by the fact that we never hear of any Persian administrators in the Phoenician city-states. These towns were permitted to keep their local kings, whose rights were similar to those of a satrap: they could pass on the crown to their sons, mint their own (silver) coins, etc.” H. Jakob Katzenstein, “Tyre in the Early Persian Period (539–486 B.C.E.),” Biblical Archaeologist 42/1 (1979): 23–34, esp. p. 26.

184

Helen Dixon

(and followed in the ensuing century in Tyre, Byblos, Jerusalem, Samaria, Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon), also sometimes bore Achaemenid images of kings and kingship that resonated in the periphery. The images used on coins during the Persian period vary extensively, and seem to have been chosen locally.69 Often coins were inscribed with the name of the province or city where they were minted (for example, YHD = Yehud), and sometimes included a governor’s name as well (for example, that of MZDY, the satrap of “Beyond the River” from 344–334 B.C.E., who often appears on coins of Tarsos and Sidon, and is known from three Samarian coins70). Coins from both Yehud and Samaria are relevant for my purposes, and it is especially interesting to note what isolated corpora they seem to have been in practice: Remarkably, no fractional coins from Judea and almost none from the Samarian series have been discovered outside the border of ancient Samaria (a few have been found in modern Jordan). This implies that both coinages were used exclusively for local exchange within each province. More importantly, it suggests that the two provinces had minimal and possibly no economic interaction with one another during the fourth century BCE. Another curiosity is that almost no Persian imperial coins, the silver siglos or gold daric (P-14), have been found in either Judea or Samaria. This suggests that neither Judea nor Samaria required substantial bullion coins, both had minimal trade with Persia, and neither perhaps was engaged in large scale commercial activities with other polities as were the affluent Phoenician city-states, who minted substantial quantities of larger coins as well as fractionals.71

This makes the choice of coin imagery all the more interesting – these coinages do not seem to have been meant to compete with a significant corpus of Persian coins,72 nor were they (apparently) used for long distance trade with other parts of the Achaemenid Empire. Though these conclusions are contingent upon our current numismatic evidence being 69 Most scholars writing on Yehud and Samaria coin corpora assume this, almost by default, due to the wide variation of coin types during such a short period, as well as the “mixed referents” – Persian images on one hand, Athenian owls on the other, with Paleo-Hebrew script on either. In my mind this requires a more thorough comparative study, but is a useful working hypothesis in the meantime. 70 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE (Jerusalem, 1991), 25. 71 Stephen N. Gerson, “Fractional Coins of Judea and Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE,” Near Eastern Archaeology 64 (2001): 106–21, esp. p. 116; note also Meshorer and Qedar’s comment (The Coinage of Samaria, 32 and elsewhere) that Yehud coins mainly imitate Athenian types (like the Athenian owl), while Samarian coins follow Sidonian and Cilician prototypes as well. 72 Note that Persian imperial coins have been found in Babylonia, Anatolia, and on the coast of Cilicia, Greece, Cyprus and Egypt; thus Stern’s opinion that this distribution pattern is the result of the accident of discovery; see Ephraim Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.) (New York, 2001), 227. The biblical evidence (1 Chr 29:7; Ezra 8:27) also indicates darics were in use in Yehud at this time.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

185

representative of something close to reality, the corpus of coin imagery and its direct Achaemenid resonances provide support for a thesis that Achaemenid images of kingship were in wide circulation in Yehud and Samaria regardless. All known coins from Samaria have been collected and published in Meshorer and Qedar’s 1999 and 1991 works. They see the period of numismatic production in Samaria as 375–332 B.C.E., during which time the Samarians used Paleo-Hebrew script to inscribe their coins with “Samaria” (ŠMRYN), and sometimes the name of a governor or high priest (who usually have a recognizably Hebrew name).73 Coupled with these aspects of “local” identification, a number of Achaemenid themes recognizable from the reliefs at Persepolis dot the coin corpus. The images of the figure on an Achaemenid-style throne, the “royal hero” (a crowned figure fighting an animal, sphinx, or winged beast), and also the lion attacking a bull (or, in a local variant frequent on Samarian coins, the lion attacking a stag).74 As Dusinberre has discussed in her work on the symbol of the Persian archer and the numismatic tiarate heads, images known from Persepolis show up in coinage produced throughout the west, in each location retaining the most prominent symbols despite some variants in design. She notes, “this constancy of image had several ramifications, including not only a long-lived circulation […] but also a very high degree of recognition of image among ancient viewers.”75 The images were being adapted to local contexts, probably in a complex manner that involved both encouragement from above (in order that Achaemenid images of kingship might dominate) as well as independent impetus from “below” (from individuals outside of the Achaemenid heartland wishing to incorporate their own identities in some way into the framework of empire). A thorough study of the numismatic evidence from Samaria and Yehud (perhaps in conjunction with Sidonian/Cilician and Athenian coins, respectively)76 in light of Achaemenid iconography would be of great use in understanding how Achaemenid images of kingship were manipulated and 73

Meshorer and Qedar, The Coinage of Samaria, 13. Though I have read no arguments as to why the variant of lion-attacking-stag would have been more prevalent in Samaria than lion-attacking-bull, it may be worth considering the other meanings the symbol of the conquered bull may have had to those in Samaria. Notably, of course, the idea that YHWH may have once been worshipped in the form of a bull or bull-calf (golden or otherwise) in this area may explain its absence here. 75 Elspeth R.M. Dusinberre, “King or God? Imperial Iconography and the ‘Tiarate Head’ Coins of Achaemenid Anatolia,” in Across the Anatolian Plateau: Readings in the Archaeology of Ancient Turkey (AASOR 57, Boston, 2000), 157–71, esp. p. 164. 76 As Meshorer and Qedar assume throughout their work The Coinage of Samaria that the die cutters of Samaria and Yehud are simply imitating these prototypes; “misunderstanding” the motifs where variants occur. 74

186

Helen Dixon

understood in the Levant. For my purposes, this evidence serves to strengthen the case that these symbols and their accompanying semantic field of meaning were well known in Yehud during the 4th century B.C.E. Though the purpose or usage of the bronze throne fragments cannot be recovered without a find in its primary archaeological context, it is certain that these thrones were not the only images of the Achaemenid throne in circulation – the known corpus of Yehud coins and the nearly 600 published Samarian coins show us that the Achaemenid throne, as well as other images known from Persepolis at the center of the Persian empire, were being locally produced and exchanged at this time.

Other Resonances: Achaemenid Kingship in the Periphery These kinds of Achaemenid images of kingship can also be located in the seals and seal impressions found in Samaria and Yehud. Seals, like coins, represent a corpus that involves both images from the heartland of the Persian Empire, as well as from local or regional contexts. Because they involve personal choice in image selection, they are especially interesting in understanding how images of Achaemenid kingship were conceived in peripheral areas of the empire. In analyzing the corpus of seals from the Persepolis fortification tablets, Mark Garrison and Margaret Cool Root attempted to trace variations and symbolic meaning of the “Heroic Encounter” (images of a kingly figure fighting an animal, or otherwise controlling or combating animals in varying ways). They were able to survey other seal corpora from around the empire, and counted nine seals out of some 61 from the Wadi ed-Daliyeh bullae in the territory of Samaria which also bore the distinctly Achaemenid theme.77 These seal impressions are notable not only because of the break they make with previous glyptic art in the region,78 but also because, as Garrison and Root also noted, of the way subtle changes or omissions in the original Persepolitan prototype were made: […] even for those seals that are Achaemenid in style and iconography the avoidance of specific religious icons such as the winged symbol suggests a particularistic social environment in which certain Achaemenid images integral to the heartland repertoire were muted. If indeed anything can be made of this phenomenon, it suggest that in regions embraced by the Achaemenid Empire individuals had some systematic capac77 That is, 15–16.4% of the corpus; Mark Garrison and Margaret Cool Root, Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (2 Vol.; OIP 117; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2001), 55. 78 Cf. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God In Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas Trapp; Minneapolis, 1998), who discuss the lack of royal portraits in Babylonian art, and thus the lack of such imagery in Pre-Achaemenid Palestine as well.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

187

ity to maintain their own identities in glyptic symbolism even as certain groups were incorporating themselves into the framework of the realm in various ways.79

In fact, as Garrison and Root go on to point out, it may have been the ambiguity of the image itself which allowed for its popularity (and adaptability) – but this does not preclude the symbol’s consciously Achaemenid referent. Even in local contexts, these images were valued for their elite connotations and their ties to the reigning power: Achaemenid kingship was, during the 6th–4th centuries, the overarching and truly powerful kingship. Adaptation of these images for local usage does not represent their rejection as Achaemenid images, but should instead be considered a message about their ultimate value. To use a seal which represented one’s presence or signature with the symbol of the “Persian Man”80 in combat with a fierce animal was to identify with such an image as potent and meaningful – to signify one’s participation in the ideology of an Achaemenid empire and its “hero.” Recalling the image of King Solomon in 2 Chr 6:13, what might we make of this bronze object now that we are armed with an arsenal of Achaemenid images? What picture is the Chronicler attempting to paint for his audience? The object is large, and made of bronze, and it elevates Solomon off the ground. It seems to have been a temporary installment, and is not mentioned elsewhere in the text, or in any other descriptions of the Temple buildings. While kneeling on the platform, Solomon is placed in a mediating position, raised between the people of Israel (whom he faces) and YHWH (to whom he addresses his dedicatory speech). Solomon is being supported by his people, not physically as dais bearers, but in spirit through their presence and attention. His control over them comes not from his physical power over them, but from the nature of his chosenness by YHWH; thus they stand before him willingly. Compare, then, this scene in the Temple courtyard to that on the Tomb of Darius (fig. 16). Arms outstretched to their patron deity, both kings stand held on high – in the latter manifestation of the theme, the king stands on a raised Achaemenid dais; in the former, biblical manifestation, he kneels on a bronze platform.81 The scenes both represent a critical moment for ruler and ruled. One seems metaphorical, the other paradigmatic. Each is “carefully designed to convey the aura of a sacral covenant between king and 79

Garrison and Root, Seals on the Persepolis Fortification, 55. Cf. ibid., e.g., 57. 81 The term kiyyǀr is a rare one, and thus it is not entirely clear what this object could be. Translations include platform, scaffold, or structure. Also worth noting is Williamson’s observation that “[t]he same word is used of the bronze basins in 2 Chr 4:6 and presumably implies that the platform was like an upturned hollow vessel,” (1 and 2 Chronicles, 28), though it is not clear why a dome-shaped platform would be either functional or meaningful. 80

188

Helen Dixon

subjects.”82 I argue that the Chronicler chose this imagery purposefully, adding a detail that does not affect the central thread of his history so much as its setting, and may well have conjured for his audience an associative web connoting royal power, wealth, and piety.

Conclusions: Retelling a Prophetic Past The Chronicler’s added verse does not explicitly discuss lion paw bases, stylized cylinder cross pieces, or actual dais bearers. Still, I would argue that this verse is meant to resonate with the powerful images of Achaemenid kingship that had become widespread and well-known in Judah by the time of the Chronicler’s authorship. Solomon, as ideal king – the apex of Judaean power and the favorite of YHWH – has been written in glowing terms in this history. Apparently, it was not enough that he be shown standing before the Temple’s altar, surrounded by all the assembly of Israel, in order to address YHWH and show him to his new home. The bronze structure, along with its specific physical dimensions, somehow strengthened this image for the Chronicler, and presumably, for his audience. If this superficial foray into Achaemenid iconography as it was adopted and adapted in the Levantine provinces has currency, then the Chronicler’s writings are much more than a retelling of history: he reshapes the image of Israel’s ideal king; distances the symbolic and metaphorical “throne of YHWH” from any physical throne; and infuses the apical scene of Solomon’s Temple dedication with imagery that would resonate with a contemporary audience. Schniedewind, writing on the Chronicler’s addition of speeches to the prophetic narratives, argued as follows: I believe that the Chronicler saw himself in a role similar to that of his inspired messengers […]. The various aspects of the Chronicles composition – speeches, narrative style and theology – all serve a homiletic function. As a corpus, the speeches in Chronicles cannot be understood simply by the context of their First Temple period referents; they are primarily speeches to the post-exilic community.83

I add only that details of the physical environment can speak as loudly as added dialogue – these small additions illustrate the influence of both Israelite prophecy and Achaemenid iconography in shaping the Chronicler’s project.

82 83

Root, King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art, 131. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 250.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

189

Fig. 1: Oriental Institute P-321, Throne Hall, Throne Relief on W. Jamb of E. Doorway in S. Wall, Adapted from http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran_paai_per_th/ index.php/ 2F6_72dpi.png?action=big&size=original

Fig. 2: Oriental Institute P-323 a & b, Throne Hall, Throne Bearers on W. Jamb of E. Doorway in S. Wall. Adapted from http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/ pa_iran_paai_per_th/index.php/2F7_72dpi.png?action=big&size=original

190

Helen Dixon

Fig. 3: Oriental Institute P 58562, Naqsh-I-Rustam, Tomb of Darius. Detail of Left Portion of Throne-Bearer Register. Adapted from http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/ pa_iran_paai_per_rtom/index.php/7D7_72dpi.png?action=big&size=original Fig. 4: Oriental Institute P 58503, Naqsh-I-Rustam, Tomb of Darius I. Adapted from http://oi.uchicago.edu/ gallery/ pa_iran_paai_per_rtom/index.php/7C12 _72dpi.png?action=big&size=original

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

191

Fig. 5: Bronze leg of a throne, Samaria, Persian period, IMJ 70.92.612 and IMJ 69.8.428. From Tadmor 1974, Plate 3a and Plate 4a. Photos © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Used by permission. Fig. 6: Oriental Institute P 57121, Treasury. S. Portico of Courtyard 17. Adapted from http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/ pa_iran_paai_per_tre/index.php/ 3B10_72dpi.png?action=big&size=original

Fig. 7: Athlit Throne Fragments. From Stavros Paspalas, “On Persian-Type Furniture in Macedonia: The Recognition and Transmission of Forms,” American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000): 531–60, esp. p. 538 (Drawing by Hooten after Raban 1992, fig. 10). Used by permission.

192

Helen Dixon Fig. 8: Oriental Institute P 56563, Treasury. Relief in E. Portico of a Courtyard. Adapted from http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/ pa_iran_paai_per_tre/index.php/ 3C5_72dpi.png?action=big&size=original

Fig. 9: Oriental Institute P-315a, Throne Hall. East Doorway in N. Wall, W. Jamb. Adapted from http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/ pa_iran_paai_per_th/index.php/ 2E9_72dpi.png?action=big&size=original

Fig. 10: Samaria Throne Mold Fragment (Figure 64m Reg. No. 2934, mold, Stone C 1a). Figure reprinted by permission of the publishers from Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910, by George Andrew Reisner, Clarence Stanley Fisher, and David Gordon Lyon, Cambridge, Mass. © 1924 by Harvard University Press. Used by permission.

Writing Persepolis in Judah: Achaemenid Kingship in Chronicles

193

Fig. 11: Louvre Bronze, Unknown Provenance. Ernst Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East (London, 1941), p. 262, Figure 364

Fig. 12: Egypt Throne Fragment. R.D. Barnett, “The Excavations of the British Museum at Toprak Kale near Van,” in Iraq 12 (1950): 1–43, Plate IV: 1. Used by permission.

Fig. 13: Throne Fragment from Toprakkale (Lake Van), British Museum 91164. R.D. Barnett “The Excavations of the British Museum at Toprak Kale near Van,” in Iraq 12 (1950): 1–43, Plate III: 1. Used by permission.

194

Helen Dixon

Fig. 14: Hamadan Fragment, British Museum. Ernst Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East (London, 1941), p. 262, Figure 364 Fig. 15: Throne Fragment in the British Museum (possibly from Egypt). From Miriam Tadmor, “Fragments of an Achaemenid Throne from Samaria,” IEJ 24 (1974): 37–43. Plate 6a. Used by permission.

Fig. 16: Oriental Institute P 58528, Naqsh-I-Rustam. Tomb of Darius: Left Portion of Top Register Adapted from http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran _paai_per_rtom/index. php/7D3_72dpi.png?action=big&size =original

Margaret S. Odell Margaret S. Odell

Creeping Things and Singing Stones Creeping Things and Singing Stones

The Iconography of Ezek 8:7–13 in Light of Syro-Palestinian Seals and The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

This essay seeks to explain an enigma by setting it alongside two puzzles. The enigma: in the second of four episodes in Ezekiel’s vision of temple abominations, Ezekiel sees elders of the house of Israel offering incense to “creeping things, and loathsome animals, and all the idols of the house of Israel” (Ezek 8:10 NRSV). Although this episode appears to be a straightforward account of clandestine idol worship, the elders’ statement seems rather more Yahwistic than idolatrous, at least in the sense that the subject is YHWH’s absence, and not a request for aid from other deities: “YHWH does not see us; YHWH has forsaken the land” (8:12). In an earlier study, I drew attention to these statements in order to argue that the idols need not be construed as rival deities.1 Yet the fact that Ezekiel describes them by using his customary terms for idols raises the question: if they are not rival deities, what are they? The present essay addresses this question by examining the nature and function of the iconography of these “detestable beasts and creeping things.”2 I draw on two other types of evidence, each puzzles in their own right. First, I compare Ezekiel’s combination of “beasts and creeping things” with the pre-exilic Syro-Palestinian iconographic record. To date, meaningful iconographic parallels to Ezekiel’s phrase have been difficult to find, but a recent study by Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger of Syro-Palestinian cylinder and stamp seals allows for a better account of the iconographic background.3 What Ezekiel so polemically categorizes as “beasts and creeping things” have their closest parallels in ancient Syro-Palestinian iconogra-

1

Margaret S. Odell, “What Was the Image of Jealousy in Ezekiel 8?” in Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis, JSOTSup 408; London, 2004), 134-48, esp. 144; see also my comments in Ezekiel (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary, 16; Macon, Ga., 2005), 109. 2 I am grateful to Martti Nissinen and Gary Stansell for their comments on earlier drafts of this essay. Remaining errors and oversights are, of course, my own. 3 Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis, 1998; German edition: Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole; Freiburg: Herder, 1992).

196

Margaret S. Odell

phy. Their presence in Ezekiel 8 attests to their longevity and may even suggest a degree of normativity that Ezekiel’s polemic obscures. Second, I interpret the function of Ezekiel’s “beasts and creeping things” in light of The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, whose painstaking reconstruction from hundreds of fragments found primarily in Qumran Cave 4, has been one of the great gains of Qumran scholarship.4 Almost since the publication in 1960 of the first fragments, scholars have commented on the connection between Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezek 40–43) and these poetic texts, which envision angelic priestly service in the heavenly temple over the course of the first thirteen sabbaths of the year. Whereas much of the discussion has revolved around the extent to which The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are literarily dependent on Ezekiel 1, 10, and 40–43,5 verbal and functional parallels with the more unorthodox Ezek 8:7–13 suggest that both draw on a common memory of pre-exilic cult practice. That the Songs preserve this memory, albeit in a mystic account of a heavenly temple, raises interesting questions about the continuing need not only for intermediation between the divine and human realms, but also for its iconographic representation even after the iconographic traditions were suppressed.

Ezekiel and Pre-Exilic Glyptic Evidence In their attempts to explain the nature of Ezekiel’s “detestable beasts and creeping things,” commentators prefer text-critical and literary explanations to Near Eastern comparative ones, if only because the evidence seems more certain. The Masoretic Text differs from the Septuagint in its awkward insertion of the phrase hmhbw fmr tynbt into the Septuagint’s more compact and typically Ezekielian designation for idols, ylwlg lkw #qv lk larfy tyb (“every worthlessness and all the dungballs of the house of 4

For critical editions, see Carol A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS, 27; Atlanta, 1985), and James H. Charlesworth and Carol A. Newsom et al., Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations 4B; Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen/Louisville, 1999). 5 John Strugnell, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran: 4Q Serek ŠÎRÔT ‘ÔLAT HAŠŠABBAT,” Congress Volume, Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden, 1960), 344–45; Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 52–58; eadem, “Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” JJS 38 (1987): 10– 39. In her most recent study of the correspondences between Ezekiel and The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Newsom has retreated somewhat from her earlier assessment and has concluded that it is “difficult to determine whether ShirShabb engage in exegetical transformation of passages from Ezekiel 40–48 or whether those chapters simply serve as a source of vocabulary, images, and motifs” (Angelic Liturgy, 8).

Creeping Things and Singing Stones

197

Israel”).6 Given this text-critical evidence, commentators are inclined to regard the reference to “images of beasts and creeping things” as a secondary interpretation. That the imagery does not correspond to what is known of Solomon’s temple casts further doubt on the historical veracity of Ezekiel’s report.7 Finally, since the terms used in the Masoretic text’s expansion are also found in the prohibition against idols in Deut 4:17–19, a compelling case can be made for an exegetical explanation for the origin of Ezekiel’s “creeping things.”8 So, for example, Leslie Allen explains, An annotator has identified the subjects of the engravings with the prohibited images of Deuteronomy 4:17–18 and may also have had in mind the ritually unclean creatures of Leviticus 11. The note is a valuable ancient interpretation, filling out what is left tantalizingly unexplained in the basic text. The figures contrast with the orthodox temple engravings of 1 Kgs 6:29, 32, 35.9

By Allen’s account, then, Ezekiel’s reference to images of beasts and creeping things is a secondary interpretation dependent on Deuteronomy and a departure from the more historically reliable account of temple decoration in 1 Kings. Allen only directly states what others are at a loss to explain. Thus, while commentators will occasionally mention the animals on the Ištar Gate in Babylon or the Egyptian theriomorphic tradition, they offer these parallels only as illustrative suggestions, not as solid evidence confirming Ezekiel’s report.10 While one may concede that there is nothing to link Ezekiel’s imagery to these Mesopotamian and Egyptian counterparts, one must also question whether Ezek 8:10 is literarily dependent on Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy does contain all three of the terms unique to Ezek 8:10: tynbt, fmr, and 6 Following Daniel Block, I regard #q