Jealousy in Context: The Social Implications of Emotions in the Hebrew Bible 9781646021857

Citation preview

Jealousy in Context

Jealousy in Context The Social Implications of Emotions in the Hebrew Bible

Erin Villareal

Eisenbrauns   |  University Park, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Villareal, Erin, 1986– author. Title: Jealousy in context : the social implications of emotions in the Hebrew Bible / Erin Villareal. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2022] | Series: Siphrut : Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures Series | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Evaluates the socioliterary context of jealousy in Biblical Hebrew”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021052335 | ISBN 9781575067360 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Jealousy in the Bible. | Jealousy—Religious aspects—Judaism. Classification: LCC BS1199.J35 V55 2022 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021052335 Copyright © 2022 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ANSI Z39.48–1992.

Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose  1 History of Interpretation  2 A New Approach to Biblical ‫ קנאה‬9 Chapter 1. Methodology and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Social Implications of ‫ קנאה‬11 Emotion as Part of Social Culture  12 Emotion as Scenario and Script  17 Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬as a Script 20 Scope of Study  21 Chapter 2. ‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Social Organization in Genesis  25 ‫ קנאה‬in Genesis 26 26 ‫ קנאה‬in Genesis 30:1 30 ‫ קנאה‬in Genesis 37:11 34 The Scripts of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenarios in Genesis 43 Conclusion 45 Chapter 3. ‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Interpretive Issues  46 The Cultic-Legal Framework of ‫ קנאה‬in the Hebrew Bible 49 Numbers 5:11–31 55 The Script of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenario in Numbers 5:11–31 70 Conclusion  70

vi

Contents

Chapter 4. The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 The Legacy of Deuteronomy 32:1–43  73 The Framework of the Divine–Human Relationship  79 The ‫ קנאה‬Scenario in the Song of Moses 89 Reevaluating the Issue of Allotment and Order  100 The Script of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenario in the Song of Moses 108 Conclusion  108 Chapter 5. Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah . . . . . . . . . . 110 The Case of Ezekiel: Divine ‫ קנאה‬Toward the Israelites and Adversaries 110 Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Other Relevant Works: Psalm 79 and Zechariah 121 The Scripts of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenarios in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah 130 Conclusion  130 Chapter 6. Yahweh as ‫ אל קנא‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Attestations and Interpretations  133 The Narrative Context of ‫ אל קנא‬in Exodus 34 135 ‫ אל קנא‬in Deuteronomy 4:24 and 6:15 155 ‫ אל קנא‬in Joshua 24:19 163 ‫ אל קנא‬in Nahum 1:2 167 The Script of an ‫ אל קנא‬Scenario 169 Conclusion  171 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 ‫ קנאה‬and Jealousy: The Prototypical Scenario 172 A Summary of Biblical ‫ קנאה‬as a Socioliterary Phenomenon 174 Final Remarks  177 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Tables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Scripts of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenarios in Genesis 44 Script of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenario in Numbers 5:11–31 69 Scripts of ‫ קנאה‬Scenarios in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43) 107 Scripts of ‫ קנאה‬Scenarios in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah 129 Script of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenario in Numbers 25 150 Script of an ‫ אל קנא‬Scenario 170

vii

Acknowledgments

I reached the decision to explore the meaning of biblical ‫ קנאה‬by a roundabout path. My investigation began with an analysis of the ritual components of the so-called Law of Jealousy in Num 5:11–31 for a paper I presented at an annual conference for the Society of Biblical Literature. I had been, like so many others before me, transfixed with the evocative nature of a ritual where a woman drinks a seemingly magical potion with the goal of determining her guilt or innocence. Years later, I met my dear friend and colleague Isabel Cranz for coffee. As a ritual enthusiast, Isabel began talking about the odd legal procedure. She asked, “Well, what about the husband? What do you think is going on with his ‫ ?קנאה‬Don’t you think it’s interesting that it is identified as a ‘law of jealousy’ (‫ )הקנאת תורת‬in the text?” I was so singularly focused on the peculiar aspects of the ritual that I had never inquired into its fundamental, legal motivation: a husband’s suspicion that his wife had committed adultery. The suggestion led me on my journey in examining the different cases of ‫ קנאה‬in the Hebrew Bible, and the present book is the product of that effort. I am indebted to Isabel Cranz, who planted the seed of this monograph and helped me nurture it from a conference paper to a book. I am also grateful for the endless support, encouragement, and insight from P. Kyle McCarter on my numerous drafts, and for being a steadfast and dedicated mentor throughout my academic journey. I would also like to acknowledge Theodore J. Lewis for his feedback on the initial draft of this book and his extensive notes and comments that helped strengthen my arguments. I am thankful for my brilliant colleagues, Adam Bean, Maggie Bryson, Ioana Dumitru, Rosanne Lieberman, William Reed, and Lingxin Zhang, who have been a source of inspiration and relief. I also value Marybeth Acac for her guidance and support. I owe special thanks to T. J. Thames for his companionship and collaboration and for his assistance in reviewing the initial drafts of the manuscript. I am also grateful for

ix

x

Acknowledgments

Elizabeth Lundberg, who copy-edited this work and prepared the biblical and author indexes for this book. Finally, I will always cherish the members of my family—Bonnie Guinn, Morgan, Danny, and Amedet Macias, Elan and Brontë de la Rosa, Josué Lopez, Jin and Zoey Oey—for giving me the opportunity to pursue my passions. Thank you to my mother, Bonnie, in particular, who supported my decision to leave the deserts of El Paso, Texas to pursue my passion for ancient history and languages at the University of Chicago and then at Johns Hopkins University. I want to acknowledge my grandparents, Joe and Hope Villareal, and their central role in raising me to be the person that I am today. I also want to acknowledge the many Latinx individuals who came before me and advocated for more Latinx representation in both academic and professional fields. Finally, my love goes to my husband Terrance Oey for spending what felt like endless writing sessions in the Regenstein and Eisenhower libraries with me, but also for ensuring that we made time for quiet and joyful moments.

Abbreviations

General ASV E ESV ISV J LXX MT NASB NIV NJPS NKJV NRSV P RSV SBL

American Standard Version Elohist source English Standard Version International Standard Version Yahwist source Septuagint Masoretic Text New American Standard Bible New International Version Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text New King James Version New Revised Standard Version Priestly source Revised Standard Version Society of Biblical Literature

Reference Works AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 AKT Klaas R. Veenhof. Kültepe Tabletleri V= The Archive of Kuliya, son of Ali-abum (Kt. 92/k 188– 263). Ankara: TTK, 2010 ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Prichard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 xi

xii

Abbreviations

BASOR BDB Bib BibInt BM Boissier DA BZAW CAD CBQ CC EA

FAT GKC

HALOT

HBM HSM HUCA JAOS JBL JSOT JSOTSup KTU

LSJ

Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Biblica Biblical Interpretation Tablets in the collections of the British Museum Alfred Boissier. Documents assyriens relatifs aux presages. Paris: E. Bouillon, 1894 Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 Catholic Biblical Quarterly Continental Commentaries El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of J. A. Knudtzon. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig, 1908–15. Reprint, Aalen, 1964. Continued in A. F. Rainey, El-Amarna Tablets, 359–79. 2nd rev. ed. Kevelaer, 1978 Forschungen zum Alten Testament Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Translated by Arthur E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Study edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001 Hebrew Bible Monographs Harvard Semitic Monographs Hebrew Union College Annual Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013 A Greek–English Lexicon. Edited by Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, and rev. H. Stuart Jones. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996

Abbreviations

MSL NICOT NIDOTTE

Nineveh A

OBO OTL SAA SBLMS StBoT TDOT

VT VTSup WBC ZAW

xiii

Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937–70 New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W.A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997 Rykle Borger. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 9. Graz: Selbstverlag des Herausgebers, 1956 Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Testament Library State Archives of Assyria Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Studien zu den Bogazköy: Texten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965– Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974– Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum World Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Introduction

Purpose Most commonly translated in English Bibles as “jealousy,” in French as jalousie, and in German as Eifersucht, the Hebrew noun ‫ קנאה‬and its related verbal and adjectival forms typically appear in biblical passages describing social relations and interactions, especially conflicts, within communities. The attitudes and reactions of those involved in these relational conflicts are often described by the biblical authors as being motivated by ‫קנאה‬. In Gen 26, the Philistines’ behavior toward Isaac is driven by ‫ קנאה‬when they sabotage the patriarch’s wells. In Gen 37, ‫ קנאה‬motivates the brothers of Joseph to orchestrate his removal from the household. In Num 5:11–31, a husband is motivated by ‫ קנאה‬when he suspects his wife of adultery and brings her before a priest to perform a procedure that will determine her guilt or innocence. The term ‫ קנאה‬is also adapted into religious terminology to describe divine behavior and attitudes toward the Israelites. In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh is understood as a god who expresses and embodies ‫קנאה‬, whether it be against foreigners who attempt to usurp his authority (e.g., Ezek 36:5–6) or against Israelites who maintain the cult of a foreign deity (e.g., Deut 32:16, 21). It is in the latter context that the obligation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship, perhaps the best known of the word’s connotations, is expressed through the term ‫קנאה‬. In the Decalogue, Yahweh is identified as an ‫ אל קנא‬who will not tolerate the worship of other deities (e.g., Exod 20:2–6// Deut 5:6–10). Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬is also used by supplicants to express their acknowledgment of Yahweh’s prerogatives (e.g., Num 25:11–13). Scholarly approaches to ‫קנאה‬, whether applied as a divine or human expression, have primarily focused on its representation as an internal state, reflecting feelings of what a modern interpreter might call jealousy, envy, or zeal. As we will discuss throughout this work, this understanding of ‫ קנאה‬imposes a perspective embedded in modern psychological concepts that may have been foreign to these ancient authors. Here, we will show that the term in fact reflects categories of experience and cultural values unique to the world of the biblical authors that 1

2

Jealousy in Context

are not easily translated into a modern interpreter’s point of view. The intention of this work is to reframe our understanding of ‫ קנאה‬by highlighting its social significance and meaning and by contextualizing how it reflects and reorients social relationships and hierarchical structures. What we will find is that ‫קנאה‬ often appears when rights and expectations seem violated or threatened, particularly when the violation involves the unjustified transfer of such rights to someone else. In these passages, the offended individual(s) react(s) in a way that arises from and are largely determined by certain prescriptions inherent in and sanctioned through the social norms reflected in the Hebrew Bible.

History of Interpretation In the Hebrew Bible, the root ‫ קנא‬occurs a total of 85 times. Among these attestations, it is explicitly attributed to Yahweh 41 times, while in the remainder, it is attributed to nondivine and/or human subjects. The noun ‫ קנאה‬is attested 43 times, while the adjective ‫קנא‬/‫ קנוא‬is attested eight times—in its adjectival use, it appears only as a divine attribute, which is commonly translated as “jealous (God).” The verb ‫ קנא‬occurs 28 times in the D-stem and four times in the C-stem. We will refer to these verbal iterations by the common noun ‫ קנאה‬for the basis of discussion, unless explicitly referring to its adjectival form (‫קנא‬/‫)קנוא‬. The Lexica Before we explore how the various lexica treat and categorize ‫קנאה‬, we should note that it is not the intent of this study to frame our analysis of biblical ‫ קנאה‬as primarily an issue of translation. The problems and inconsistencies of translations of the term in English Bibles and dictionaries are merely indicative of a larger interpretive issue stemming from undervaluing the social significance of the term. However, in order to provide a complete picture of where scholarship stands today, this study will present the lexical treatments to demonstrate the interpretive complexity of the term and to show how secondary, in fact foreign, concepts have been imposed upon it in translations that overlook its full context. Etymological investigations of Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬have been fraught with difficulties. There exists little definitive evidence from early West Semitic to clarify its origins and semantic development, and the limited data from East Semitic are not easily incorporated into treatments of the term. 1 Early 1.  For example, E. Reuter asserts that etymological investigations of ‫ קנא‬are unproductive (“‫קנא‬,” TDOT 13:48). So also Küchler, “Der Gedanke des Eifers Jahwes,” 42–43. In addition to sparse comparative data, another aspect of this root that may cause etymological difficulties is

Introduction

3

interpretations relied primarily on the translations of the term found in the Septuagint, which most often rendered ‫ קנאה‬in Greek with variations of nominal ζῆλος and its verbal counterpart ζηλοῦν.2 The reflex of the lexeme ζηλ- in English is “zeal,” which resembles its meaning in Biblical Greek, but the word has a variety of different nuances, including admiration, sexual jealousy, and emulation in both Classical and Biblical Greek.3 Among the lexica, the renderings proposed in these entries are largely influenced by the Greek renderings and include emotion language related to expressions of jealousy, including envy and zeal.4

the ambiguity created by its final aleph (III-‫)א‬. Historically, it is not uncommon for final aleph roots to be indistinguishable from other final weak roots, thus complicating the process by which scholars identify attestations. While the root ‫ קנא‬does occur in later dialects of Aramaic, it has yet to be discovered in Old Aramaic or Official Aramaic texts. Lexical entries for ‫ קנא‬in Syriac include translations “jealousy,” “zeal,” and “envy” (Sokoloff, Syriac Lexicon, 1379). Other late West Semitic attestations include Ge‘ez qanʾa, “to be envious, be jealous, be zealous, be eager, emulate, imitate” (Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez, 433), Modern South Arabian Mehri qáynə (Johnstone, Mehri Lexicon, 232), Shehri (Jibbali) qéni, “to be jealous (of)” (Johnstone, Jibbāli Lexicon, 147), and Soqotri qnʾ (“être jaloux”) (Leslau, Lexique soqotri, 377). Arabic attests to a root qnʾ, which means “to become intensely red,” as in a man’s beard (perhaps by dye) or a person’s extremities (Lane and Lane-Poole, Arabic–English Lexicon, 2565), but the relationship between Hebrew ‫קנאה‬ and Arabic qnʾ is semantically unclear (Kogan, Genealogical Classification of Semitic, 89 n. 265). A recent article by Gérard Nissim Amzallag proposes that the original context of Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬in Semitic languages was metallurgic and acquired a secondary meaning dealing with the feeling of jealousy (“Furnace Remelting,” 240, 248). He follows G. R. Driver, who notes that the term occurs in the Cairo Geniza’s Ben Sira (12:11) with a metallurgic meaning and suggests that this reflects the original Hebrew manuscript (“Hebrew Notes,” 276). However, these conclusions cannot be supported since the available Ben Sira fragments found at Qumran do not contain this passage. Moreover, the Greek manuscripts of Ben Sira reflect an original ‫חלאה‬, “rust; copper” (Ezek 24:6, 11). Finally, no other cognate languages explicitly attest to a metallurgic meaning of the root. Although Arabic does suggest a meaning related to the color red, the relationship between Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬and Arabic qnʾ is uncertain, and it is more probable that the Arabic acquired a secondary meaning. Since the writing of this manuscript, Matthew Richard Schlimm came to similar conclusions regarding Amzallag’s argument and goes into great detail on the various issues with the linguistic evidence used by Amzallag (“Jealousy or Furnace Remelting”). Further, in consideration with the Akkadian cognates, it is more likely that the semantic range of the proto-Semitic root involved the emotion concept roughly resembling English jealousy. We will discuss the value of the Akkadian data in the next chapter. 2.  The only exceptions being Deut 32:16 (παροξύνειν), Ps 105:16 (παροργίζειν), Ezek 36:5 (θυμός), Prov 3:31 (κτᾶσθαι) and 14:30 (καρδία αἰσθητική). 3.  LSJ, 75. In classical literature, ζῆλος can indicate emulation, jealousy, zeal, admiration, and a number of similar emotions. For a study of ζῆλος in Classical Greek, see Sanders, Envy and Jealousy, 46–57. On a summary of ζῆλος in Biblical Greek, see Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 25–43. See also “zeal for the law” in 1 Macc 2:24, 26, 27, 50, 54, 58. There are a few instances in Ben Sira where ζῆλος resembles “envy” (compare Sir 37:10; 45:18). 4.  In many modern readings of ‫קנאה‬, jealousy and envy are casually used as synonyms, while zeal is treated separately. See, for example, BDB, 888; HALOT 2:1109–10. For a fuller treatment on the various translations of ‫ קנאה‬in the Hebrew Bible, see Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 8–20. For a critique of the inconsistences in the translations of ‫ קנאה‬in biblical scholarship and the laxity of usage of envy and jealousy in American English, see Elliot, “God—Zealous or Jealous,” 80–82.

4

Jealousy in Context

For example, The Brown–Driver–Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB) provides four possible and distinct translations for the D-stem: “to be jealous of,” “to be envious of,” “to be zealous for,” or “to excite to jealous anger.”5 The C-stem is translated “to provoke to jealous anger.” While The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) provides a similar semantic range for the term, its presentation of ‫ קנא‬provides no distinction between instances of “envy,” “jealousy,” and “rage,” and instead organizes the verbal attestations on the grammatical construction of the verb (‫קנא את־‬, ‫קנא ל־‬, ‫)קנא ב־‬.6 As for the nominal attestations, three translations are given for ‫קנאה‬, all dealing with some nuance of jealousy, zeal, and anger in both BDB and HALOT.7 ‫קנוא‬/‫קנא‬, which is only attested as an attribute of Yahweh, is translated as “jealous” or “zealous” both in the lexica and in various English translations of passages in which this term is attested.8 We will go into further detail on the limitations of these translations from an anthropological perspective in the following chapter, but for now it is significant to note that the presentation of ‫ קנאה‬in the lexica generally assumes that the expression is closely related to, if not dependent upon, its Greek rendering and primarily present the term and related attestations as a feeling or internal state related to jealousy, envy, and zeal. Interpretations of ‫קנאה‬ In treatments of ‫ קנאה‬in biblical scholarship, considerable attention is paid to its use as a divine or religious expression that is provoked by apostasy, idolatry, or foreign threats.9 In comparison, there exists minimal investigation of nondivine attestations of the term, even among commentators.10 Although instances of per5.  BDB, 888. 6.  HALOT, 2:1109–10. For example, under ‫ קנא‬meaning 1.a. (with accusative ‫)את‬, HALOT does not differentiate between to be envious (beneiden) and to be jealous (eifersüchtig sein); although the two English expressions and German equivalents share a family resemblance, they generally have slightly different meanings. More precise definitions of envy and jealousy acknowledge that the two expressions involve responses to different social situations. For the distinction between envy and jealousy, see Clanton, “Jealousy and Envy,” 411, 421; East and Watts, “Jealousy and Envy.” According to these interpretations, envy is experienced when one desires something another person possesses and may involve feelings of resentment. The motivation of envy is not to protect a valued relationship or to assert a personal right, as is often the case with jealousy. 7.  BDB, 888; HALOT, 2:1110. 8.  BDB, 888; HALOT, 2:1110. See also Exod 20:5; 34:14 in NET, NJPS, NKJV, and NRSV. 9.  For example, Küchler, “Der Gedanke des Eifers Jahwes”; Bernhardt, Gott und Bild, 86–96; Brongers, “Der Eifer des Herrn Zebaoth”; Renaud, Je suis un dieu jaloux; Dohmen, “ ‘Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name’ ”; Elliot, “God—Zealous or Jealous”; Kim, “Yhwh as Jealous Husband”; Amzallag, “Furnace Remelting.” 10.  See, however, Wagner, Emotionen, 75–100, who provides an exploration of both divine and nondivine expressions of ‫ קנאה‬in order to understand the metaphorical underpinnings of such expressions and compare with German expressions of eifer.

Introduction

5

ceived sexual jealousy in the Hebrew Bible, such as the jealousy of a husband in Num 5:11–31, have incited much debate, the goal of these discussions is to illustrate how the social model of marriage relationships was adapted by biblical authors to describe Yahweh’s jealous relationship with Israel.11 Clarifying what it means to be a ‫אל קנא‬, a god who embodies ‫קנאה‬, has occupied biblical scholarship for generations as scholars have framed the obligation of exclusivity in ancient Israelite religion through Yahweh’s expression of ‫קנאה‬.12 Most significantly, religious exclusivity is traditionally viewed as the main tenet of ancient Israelite monotheism. One of the first academic works on this topic, written by Friedrich Küchler (1908), suggests that the original use of ‫ קנאה‬was in the context of conjugal relationships. In his examination, Küchler argues that the term was transferred to the religious realm to understand Yahweh’s reaction to idolatry and the veneration of images. He makes an explicit connection between ‫ קנאה‬and the book of Hosea, a work that adopts the metaphor of marriage in its presentation of the relationship between the Israelite deity and the Israelites.13 In this scenario, Israel is understood as the adulterous wife of Yahweh. His theory was later contested by Hendrik. A. Brongers (1963), who notes in his study that the book of Hosea, which provides rich material on the divine marriage metaphor, never uses ‫ קנאה‬to describe Yahweh’s reaction to Israel’s religious infidelity. Brongers argues that the original meaning of ‫ קנאה‬did not deal with conjugal or sexual love.14 Instead of attempting to find resemblances between divine and nondivine ‫קנאה‬, Brongers categorically disassociates the two, contending that divine ‫קנאה‬ is not grounded in human emotions, such as envy or jealousy. Instead, it should be interpreted “als Ausbruch von Grimm und Wut über Rechte, die verletzt wurden.”15 At least with regard to its use as an expression of religious exclusivity, Brongers situates the term in a more juridical context in which the protection of rights and honor is the primary concern. The same year that Brongers published his article on divine ‫קנאה‬, Bernard Renaud published Je suis un dieu jaloux (1963), the first and only monograph to date devoted entirely to attestations of divine ‫ קנאה‬in the Hebrew Bible. In his theological study,16 Renaud identifies the relationship of love that Yahweh maintains with his elected people as the origin of divine jealousy.17 According 11.  For example, Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme analyzes Num 5:11–31 through its relation to the divine marriage metaphor (“Kind of Magic,” 162–68). 12.  See von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:203–12 (208). 13.  Küchler, “Der Gedanke des Eifers Jahwes,” 43, 47. 14.  Brongers, “Der Eifer des Herrn Zebaoth,” 281–82. 15.  Ibid., 284. 16.  Renaud prioritizes the theological aspects of divine ‫ קנאה‬as a means to clarify Yahweh’s role as “savior” and “redeemer” of his people (Je suis un dieu jaloux, 10). 17.  Renaud, Je suis un dieu jaloux, 41, 47.

6

Jealousy in Context

to Renaud, divine jealousy developed as a way of explaining the commandment of exclusivity (Exod 20:3 //Deut 5:7), which should be understood through Yahweh’s exclusive “love” for his people. In this schema, betrayed love results in the arousal of divine jealousy and wrath. According to Renaud, Yahweh is jealous not because betrayal might cause the loss of his privileges—that is, because it would be in his self-interest to be jealous—but because it betrays the divine love on which the covenant is founded and is a direct rejection of Yahweh himself.18 In these interpretive treatments of ‫קנאה‬, there is little discussion on the relationship between divine and nondivine ‫קנאה‬. In fact, interpretive treatments of the word avoid understanding divine expressions of ‫ קנאה‬through the lens of human jealousy.19 In these investigations, attestations of nondivine ‫ קנאה‬are primarily identified as emotion states20 that are incongruent with ‫ קנאה‬in divine contexts.21 For example, in his study of ‫קנאה‬, Renaud excludes data where nominal and verbal attestations of ‫ קנאה‬are attributed to nondivine subjects. He asserts that while divine ‫ קנאה‬most likely derived from human ‫קנאה‬, the term was transposed religiously and had significantly evolved from its (primarily pejorative) human counterpart to separate it from a common meaning, thus elevating divine over nondivine jealousy.22 18.  According to Renaud, this is not like the jealousy experienced by pagan gods, who express jealousy as a defensive mechanism to protect the privileges of the deity (ibid., 39–40). Renaud analyzes divine ‫ קנאה‬on a case-by-case basis, using text and source criticism to interpret the context of the passages. Developing a diachronic study of the expression, he divides the texts into four main stages: primitive texts, the Deuteronomic movement, exilic literature, and passages from the postexilic period. To Renaud, divine ‫ קנאה‬is a passionate and violent emotion that underwent a profound semantic transformation throughout Israelite history. At first a destructive and punitive emotion in the preexilic texts, it came to develop a more tempered meaning that represented Yahweh’s ability to protect his people. Renaud posits that the meaning of ‫ קנאה‬was transformed in order to understand Yahweh’s role in shaping history after Jerusalem was ravaged by foreign powers and the people were forced to live in exile in Babylonia (ca. 586 BCE) (ibid., 25). According to Renaud, the destructive connotation of ‫ קנאה‬was tempered by the use of vocabulary related to Israel’s redemption, so that Yahweh’s jealousy became a means not for punishment but for salvation. However, over the course of this work we will see that this has less to do with semantic variation and change and more to do with the historical and social concerns of the authors. While the basic meaning of the expression remains consistent, the context in which it is used varies. 19.  See, for example, ibid., 17, 25. For a summary of the history of scholarship on this issue, see Amzallag, “Furnace Remelting,” 233–37. 20.  In its most basic sense, an emotion state is an amalgam of changes in somatic and/or neuro­ physiological (perhaps even hormonal) activity in an individual; these states are inferred and may even occur without the affected individual’s perception that he or she is experiencing an emotion state. See Lewis, “Emergence of Human Emotions,” 267–68. 21.  That is, nondivine expressions of ‫ קנאה‬are thought to reflect internal and personal states that are inappropriate as divine attributes. For example, Amzallag, “Furnace Remelting,” 234 with citations. 22.  Renaud, Je suis un dieu jaloux, 17, 25.

Introduction

7

The tendency to elevate and prioritize characteristics of ‫ קנאה‬as an expression of religious exclusivity widely persists in more recent investigations of the term. Like the works that preceded them, these examinations separate divine and human expressions of ‫ קנאה‬into different categories.23 Others confine their treatments of the term to weighing the appropriateness of the traditional translations of jealousy, zeal, and envy.24 For example, John H. Elliot critiques the treatment of ‫ קנאה‬found in dictionaries and translations for failing to distinguish between “jealousy,” “zeal,” and “envy,” which, he argues, impedes a correct understanding of divine ‫קנאה‬.25 Although discussions of nondivine ‫ קנאה‬are sometimes included in these studies, scholars have tended to emphasize divine expressions of the term and the various gradations of jealousy, zeal, and envy employed to distinguish Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬from others.26 A Comment on Scholarship The aforementioned approaches to ‫ קנאה‬are primarily concerned with theological and translational issues. Their goal, even when the human realm is taken into account, is to clarify important theological concerns with regard to divine expressions of ‫קנאה‬. Owing to its role as a fundamental divine attribute, the focus on ‫ קנאה‬in religious contexts is warranted. At the same time, the paucity of literature on its use in nondivine contexts strongly suggests that our understanding of the term is incomplete. A multitude of studies have demonstrated 23.  For example, in a recent article Gérard Nissim Amzallag views divine ‫ קנאה‬as a “specific mode of action” associated with renewal via the imagery of furnace remelting but limits his scope only to attestations of ‫קנוא‬/‫ אל קנא‬and does not include human expressions of ‫קנאה‬. The nondivine attestations, he argues, represent a negative and irrational psychological state that lacks any kind of behavioral or cognitive components (“Furnace Remelting,” 234). The ‫ קנאה‬expression is semantically differentiated between divine and nondivine attestations in Dohmen, “ ‘Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name’ ”; H. G. L. Peels, “‫קנא‬,” NIDOTTE 3:93; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 8–25. Although, as stated previously, ‫ קנאה‬in the context of marriage is often brought up in comparison with divine expressions of the term. More recently, Matthew R. Schlimm argues against understanding divine and human expressions of ‫ קנאה‬as semantically and etymologically distinct in a rebuttal against Amzallag (“Jealousy or Furnace Remelting”). 24.  Although there are those who deny any emotion content for divine expressions of the term, such as Amzallag, “Furnace Remelting,” 234; Peels, “‫קנא‬,” NIDOTTE 3:939. 25.  In Elliot’s analysis, he asserts that when ‫ קנאה‬is “jealousy” it is seen as a positive attribute, and when it is “envy,” it is always negative and self-destructive, while zeal has a bit of both aspects. He also tries to solve the cognitive dissonance that translators have with attributing envy and/or jealousy to Yahweh by suggesting that God is never envious, since it is often a destructive quality, but is instead always jealous, because it is a reaction concerned with protecting oneself and one’s relationships when there is a threat involved. However, envy is associated with covetousness and zeal can lead to destructive consequences. Whether or not the attestation of biblical ‫ קנאה‬are any of these three emotions depends on: the subject matter, narrated social context, social relations, and dynamics that are implied or stated (Elliot, “God—Zealous or Jealous,” 85). 26.  Compare Kim, “Yhwh as Jealous Husband,” 137–39; Radwin, “Adultery,” 101–5.

8

Jealousy in Context

that religious knowledge often derives its meaning from secular concepts.27 The tendency to omit discussions of the nondivine use of ‫ קנאה‬and to separate it from its divine counterpart prevents us from constructing an authentic representation of the expression.28 In order to grasp the full meaning of ‫קנאה‬, we must look at both divine and nondivine attestations in context and consider these occurrences in their entirety before any arguments are made on its semantic meaning and development. There is currently a great need for a study that accounts for both human (nondivine) and divine statements of ‫ קנאה‬and that provides a thorough and balanced examination of the expression in the Hebrew Bible. As we observed in our presentation of ‫ קנאה‬in the lexica and beyond, there is quite a bit of variation in modern translations of words related to the root ‫קנא‬ in Biblical Hebrew; scholarly efforts have focused on clarifying these translations. However, further investigation will show that these issues of translation recede in importance, and even become moot, in view of a more contextualized approach to ‫קנאה‬. The inconsistencies in translations of ‫ קנאה‬reflect a common problem pervasive in the practice of rendering ancient words into modern languages: it is not so much the meaning of an ancient word that is the primary issue in such treatments but the ability of the target language to fully accommodate what it signifies.29 By ignoring this point, we run the risk of confusing these 27.  For example, the studies on expressions of love in Deuteronomy in Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background”; the divine marriage metaphor in Hosea in Ben Zvi, “Observations on the Marital Metaphor”; the use of sexual and relational metaphors in prophetic works in MoughtinMumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors; the relationship between treaties and religious covenant in McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant; the use of juridical terminology to convey religious concepts in Wright, “Lawsuit of God”; and concepts of impurity in ancient Near Eastern thought in Feder, “Defilement, Disgust, and Disease.” 28.  In a recent article, Richard Schlimm discusses the appropriateness of separating the use of ‫ קנאה‬in divine and human contexts (“Jealousy or Furnace Remelting”). Challenging the argument proposed by Amzallag (“Furnace Remelting”), which views divine and human ‫ קנאה‬as etymologically and semantically discrete, Schlimm comes to similar conclusions as this work with regard to the fundamental commonalities between divine and human ‫קנאה‬. According to Schlimm, “In both human and divine contexts words from the root ‫ קנא‬are best understood with the traditional translation ‘jealousy,’ an emotion closely related to anger” (“Jealousy or Furnace Remelting,” 513). However, the present work seeks to expand on these commonalities not through the discussion of the translations of related emotion terms such as “anger” or “jealousy,” but through understanding the social relationships depicted in the texts under discussion. 29.  In his discussion of biblical emotions, Paul A. Kruger considers the issues in the process of translating emotional communication (“Emotions in the Hebrew Bible”). For example, in both English and German translations of ‫קנאה‬, there are variations between rendering conventions, which demonstrates that the terminology and categories used to translate ancient lexical items are fluid and adaptable to the cultural conventions of the target language (“Emotions in the Hebrew Bible,” 412–14; compare Baumgart, Jealousy, 106–13). However, as Kruger explains, scholars of ancient texts are dependent upon lexical items to discern meaning, but these texts are embedded in contexts far removed from the cultural conventions of the translator (“Emotions in the Hebrew Bible,” 413). For a broader discussion of the issue of imposing Western assumptions on interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, see Lambert, “Refreshing Philology,” 334–35.

Introduction

9

modern issues of translation with the actual meaning of the Hebrew expression in context. With regard to translational variations, in the course of our study we will discover that these variations do not necessarily reflect the different nuances of ‫ קנאה‬in Biblical Hebrew. Rather, they reflect the variability of the modern translations in the target language with respect to jealousy-type emotions. While critiques and commentaries on the translations may be useful in further understanding our current perspectives of these emotions, we risk misrepresenting ancient ‫ קנאה‬by dwelling too much on issues of translation and then adapting these translations to the context of the passages. Instead, a philological investigation of ‫ קנאה‬should take as its starting point the contextualization of the scenarios in which this term appears, and only after this contextualization may we endeavor to clarify its semantic shade.30 A final problem with the majority of treatments of biblical ‫—קנאה‬and in particular nondivine ‫—קנאה‬is that they tend to frame the term as a sensation or feeling, emphasizing the internal, psychological aspects of the expression rather than explaining its motivations or consequences through the lens of social dynamics and external processes.31 While nominal and verbal attestations of ‫ קנאה‬may include affective connotations, understanding it solely as an internal state risks missing an important aspect of the term and the biblical passages in which it appears. A careful analysis of ‫ קנאה‬will reveal that assuming a narrow affective context is unsatisfactory and may even cause the interpreter to overlook important literary representations of social, economic, and juridical concerns conveyed in the passages.

A New Approach to Biblical ‫קנאה‬ What this study proposes is to refocus attention on the social significance of Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬in itself. Biblical ‫ קנאה‬is most often used when there is conflict between two or more parties in some kind of formal relationship. The conflicts reflected in the ‫ קנאה‬passages involve fundamental social roles and expectations within the literary representations of the Israelite community, including, for example, sister-wives (Gen 30:1), brothers (Gen 37:11), a husband and wife (Num 5:11–31), rival countries (Isa 11:13), and a religious community and their god (e.g., Deut 32:16, 21). In the Hebrew Bible, the primary way this 30.  Similarly, see Schlimm, From Fratricide to Forgiveness, 34–37, who adopts this broad approach in his study of anger in Genesis. 31.  Although note that some scholars are more inclined to expand on the behavioral qualities of divine ‫ קנאה‬as it relates to the Babylonian invasion and exile, restoration, and divine vengeance. See, for example, Dohmen, “ ‘Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name,’ ” 295; Kim, “Yhwh as Jealous Husband,” 135, 139; compare Amzallag, “Furnace Remelting,” 237.

10

Jealousy in Context

word is articulated is in terms of formally structured, if not demonstrably legal, relationships, raising the question of whether framing biblical ‫ קנאה‬as a social phenomenon would better elucidate the term’s significance in ancient Israelite culture and religion. In subsequent chapters, we will discover that biblical ‫קנאה‬ reflects a complex socioliterary phenomenon, grounded in concepts and values that are found throughout Israelite literature. Our examination will be theoretically underpinned by an ethnopsychological model known as the social constructionist approach, which will assist in clarifying the sociological implications of this term. Furthermore, in addition to providing a better understanding of this ancient expression and the texts in which it appears, this study will also raise the possibility that the aims and motivations of both the divine and nondivine ‫ קנאה‬are not as incongruent as was once believed. By demonstrating a sensitivity to the social context of the term, we will discover how ‫ קנאה‬serves as an index of social relationships for the purpose of communicating ancient Israelite views concerning beliefs, values, and social expectations. Through the exploration of a number of case studies of biblical ‫ קנאה‬and by placing the term’s use in its social context, a more complete interpretation emerges that will deepen our understanding of ancient Israelite social organization and its impact on the construction of fundamental religious ideas.

Chapter 1

Methodology and Approach

The Social Implications of ‫קנאה‬ As discussed in the Introduction, one unexplored area in scholarly interpretations of biblical ‫ קנאה‬is an examination of the term in the context of the dynamic social relationships it describes. While past examinations may illuminate theological aspects of the divine expression, there is room to analyze the phenomenon exclusively through the lens of nondivine social contracts1 and formal relationships.2 Most importantly, as a relational term, biblical ‫ קנאה‬challenges us to contextualize its social implications before addressing its value in ancient Israelite religion. In doing so, we will be able to distinguish the social situations in which ‫ קנאה‬is found, the nature of the stimuli that it responds to, and the behavior associated with its expression. When we deconstruct ‫ קנאה‬in this fashion, the connections between these different passages within the biblical text will emerge, as well as the broader context these social phenomena reflect. In order to elucidate these concerns, we will develop a methodological framework that emphasizes the social nature of emotion terminology.

1.  In the ancient Near East, religious language often derives from the political realm, which adapts terminology from social and family life. Domestic relationships are sometimes reflected in political relationships, and much of the vocabulary from the domestic sphere may have been imported into the political and religious realm. See, for example, Cross, From Epic to Canon, 3–21; Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 194. 2.  For example, as we discussed in the previous chapter, while Hendrik Antonie Brongers approaches a more juridical understanding of divine ‫ קנאה‬by explaining it through divine right, what those rights are and how their infringement provokes ‫ קנאה‬remain unclear (“Der Eifer des Herrn Zebaoth,” 284). We can only obtain a clearer picture of ‫ קנאה‬by considering the expression in its entirety, whether it be expressed by Yahweh or by a human agent.

11

12

Jealousy in Context

Emotion as Part of Social Culture The methodological framework that will structure our discussion is based on the work of scholars whose ethnographic studies on emotion vocabularies demonstrate that emotions are part of a culture’s social, legal, and economic world.3 This approach, identified as “social constructionism,” reevaluates the popular Euro-American understanding of emotions as universal personal states in opposition to thought and rationality.4 In her ethnopsychological study on the Micronesian Ifaluk, Catherine Lutz cautions against privileging the private nature of emotions.5 While emotions may be experienced within the boundaries of our bodies, they may also involve evaluative and behavioral processes embedded in our social world.6 She states that “emotion can be viewed as a cultural and interpersonal process of naming, justifying, and persuading by people in relationship to each other” and that “the concepts of emotion can more profitably be viewed as serving complex communicative, moral, and cultural purposes rather than simply as labels for internal states whose nature or essence is presumed to be universal.”7 The way emotion is viewed and understood is often structured by people, and the meaning ascribed to an emotion is dependent upon the cultural system of which it is a part.8 Understanding the social significance of emotion is particularly relevant when examining emotion concepts. Lutz notes that rather than translate what we assume the other “feels,” we should “translate emotional communications from one idiom, context, language, or sociohistorical mode of understanding into 3.  Ethnopsychology is based on the premise that emotions are structured to a large extent by the meanings locally attached to them. For studies that emphasize an ethnopsychological approach, see Myers, “Emotions and the Self”; Averill, “Constructivist View of Emotion”; Averill, Anger and Aggression; Averill, “Social Construction of Emotion”; Abu-Lughod, Veiled Sentiments. Current research on emotion and emotion language is interdisciplinary and includes aspects of cognitive and evaluative psychology, neurobiology, physiology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy. For a comprehensive review of the different approaches to emotion as it relates to ancient studies, see Sanders, Envy and Jealousy, 1–7. 4.  Ethnopsychological approaches to emotion concepts have led to the development of the social constructionist approach to emotion and emotion behavior, which holds that emotions are determined to a large extent by cultural factors. For a review of social constructionism, see ArmonJones, “Thesis of Constructionism”; Lindholm, “Anthropology of Emotion,” 37–39. 5.  According to Catherine Lutz, among the Ifaluk emotion words are identified not by selfreflection of internal states but by reference to external circumstances, which involves the evaluation of the social context and circumstances of the emotion (Unnatural Emotions, 8). 6.  See, for example, the discussion of the socialized body in Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 94–98. See also, on the proposal that bodily expressions are social and learned, Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 159–70. 7.  Lutz, Unnatural Emotions, 5. 8.  For the cognitive and behavioral aspects of emotions, see also Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought, 19–88.

Methodology and Approach

13

another.”9 For example, while the Ifaluk emotion song may have broad similarities with “anger,” among the Ifaluk song evokes a “more vivid and unambiguous scene of moral transgression on the part of one person and of moral condemnation of that violation by the person who is song.”10 Song is expressed in a specific social context in order to negotiate aspects of a social reality by identifying potentially harmful behavior that threatens moral order.11 While translating song as “anger” may be useful and appropriate in providing the target audience with a means of relating to a foreign emotion concept, concluding all interpretive work here risks oversimplifying and overlooking important social and cultural aspects of the Ifaluk. Expressing song among the Ifaluk is not necessarily the same as expressing “anger” among Westerners. In popular Western ethnopsychology, emotions are often viewed as private and hidden events.12 Lutz notes that in Euro-American scholarship, “anger” is spoken of not as concepts attached to certain behavior and social interactions but as “labels for concretized psychophysical states objectivized internal ‘event-things.’ ”13 Instead of considering emotion as a passive phenomenon, Lutz’s approach frames emotion as an aspect of human experience embedded in a given culture’s social world and representative of complex social codes determining authority and relationality.14 Through this lens, emotions can serve as a guide for behavior in a society, structuring expected behavior between social experiences and emotion states.15 If certain emotions are culturally dependent social phenomena, then it is important to be aware of the numerous cultural assumptions that are embedded in our interpretation of ancient emotions. Emotions in Ancient Societies The ethnopsychological and social constructionist approach to emotions has had significant impact on studies concerned with ancient emotion terminology. 9.  Lutz, Unnatural Emotions, 8. 10.  Ibid., 10. 11.  Ibid., 156–57. 12.  Ibid., 41–42. 13.  Ibid., 9. 14.  Corrigan, “Introduction,” 11–12. 15.  Rather than being purely internal states, emotions framed from a social constructionist perspective “presuppose the concept of social relationships and institutions, and concepts belonging to systems of judgment, moral, aesthetic and legal,” and are viewed as a tool to understand human behavior (Bedford, “Emotions and Statements About Them,” 30). A cognitivist behavioral model of emotion is also adopted with the social constructionist approach, which emphasizes the evaluative aspect (emotions as judgments) of the emotional process. See Lyons, Emotion, 70; Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation, 353; Solomon, Passions, vii, xvii, 15, 60, 125–26.

14

Jealousy in Context

For example, David Konstan’s work on emotions in classical Athens challenges the imposition of modern conceptions of emotions onto ancient societies, since these experiences are culturally determined.16 In classical Athens, certain emotion expressions intrinsically contained behavioral implications, with the expectation of mediation through social, religious, and legal institutions. Konstan argues that the ways people viewed and processed emotions were embedded in their social world.17 If an interpreter of ancient texts is not sensitive to context, he or she may be led “to overlook or discount significant differences in the way the respective sentiments are conceived and experienced in the two cultures.”18 For some terms, particularly in political, cultic, or legal contexts, the passive and internal connotation of an emotion expression is secondary, while the behavioral and social aspects are primary. Similarly, work in biblical studies demonstrates that emotion language in Biblical Hebrew has performative aspects and significant social components. For example, the 1991 work of Gary A. Anderson reveals that the Biblical Hebrew expressions for joy and grief have a behavioral and evaluative component.19 Anderson understands certain examples of these expressions as “ritual” behaviors that can be invoked to prompt a particular response.20 Anderson argues that there is no universal emotion state available to all societies, and it is the philologist’s responsibility to be sensitive to social and cultural variables.21 In the past, a few biblical scholars have demonstrated such sensitivity in their work on emotion terminology. For example, William Moran’s important study on the word for “love” (‫ )אהב‬in Deuteronomy contextualizes the term, suggesting that ‫ אהב‬is grounded primarily in political language and not in psychological affection.22 Moran’s work elaborates the juridical significance of ‫ אהב‬by 16.  Konstan, Emotions of the Ancient Greeks. 17.  David Konstan demonstrates the value in the interpretation of ancient descriptions of emotion as social constructs by analyzing Aristotle’s presentation of the emotions in Rhetoric, which focuses on describing what emotions are in the social life of the classical city-state (Emotions of the Ancient Greeks, 5). 18.  As Konstan notes, an analogy of this would be the different perceptions of color among various societies (Emotions of the Ancient Greeks, 4–8). 19.  Anderson, Time to Mourn. 20.  Ibid., 96. Anderson is inspired by observations from anthropologists, such as RadcliffeBrown and Durkheim, that certain societies display emotions spontaneously at the command of their leaders. 21.  Anderson likens the Semitic philologist to a cultural anthropologist because the process of translation from the ancient dialect to the target language is part of an ethnographic analysis of the foreign culture that has produced the text (ibid., 9). See also Muffs, Love and Joy, 1–7, which explores the hidden social and legal meaning of expressions of joy in ancient Israelite literature and how they reflect basic gestures and attitudes of ancient Jewish religion. 22.  Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background,” 77–87.

Methodology and Approach

15

framing it in ancient Near Eastern conceptions of legal contracts in general. In these contexts, love is not something that completely corresponds to our modern notion (a tender personal feeling) but is something that could be commanded and expressed in terms of loyalty and obedience to the demands of the law.23 Correspondingly, ‫ׂשנא‬, “to hate,” can absolve someone from legal responsibilities or voice the intent to break a contractual relationship.24 More recently, Ari Mermelstein adopts a social constructionist view when approaching expressions of love and hate in Qumran Hebrew, arguing that such emotion terms were a kind of discourse “communicating the beliefs, values, social roles, and expectations that animate social life.”25 According to Mermelstein, it is through highlighting the role of culture in emotion expressions at Qumran that we might better elucidate the sect’s distinctive worldview. Similarly, Richard Schlimm adopts the model of “emotional communities” to understand the expression of anger in the Hebrew Bible.26 In this framework, emotional communities are social communities in which members adhere to the same norms of emotional expression, including placing similar value on the same emotions.27 As Schlimm explains, “Emotions are not objective entities, the qualities, divisions, and associative networks of which are self-evident to all peoples in all cultures. Nor are emotions so specific to individuals that interpreters must psychoanalyze particular characters. Rather, terms for emotions are given their meaning by the communities whose lives they characterize. They may have biological bases and individual groundings, but they are in many respects social constructions. Contexts—cultural, linguistic, and textual—imbue terms for emotion with an 23.  Scholars have nuanced Moran’s argument over the years. While not denying a behavioral component to the term, some maintain that it preserves an affective meaning. That is, the social and behavioral aspect of the term is secondary, while the affective is the foundational semantic meaning. For example, Susan Ackerman discusses overlap between so-called covenantal and interpersonal kinds of love (“Personal Is Political”). Similarly, Jacqueline E. Lapsley suggests that love is imported into the political realm from family life and its emotional content is transferred to the political context (“Feeling Our Way,” 355). Lapsley makes the important point that the political or legal use of a term does not disqualify it from having an affective meaning as well. More recently, David A. Lambert emphasizes the relational significance of the term, identifying it not so much as a mental state but as a “relational state” (“Refreshing Philology,” 350). 24.  Branson, “Polyvalent ŚNʾ,’ ” 6. Scholars have interpreted ‫ ׂשנא‬as a technical term for divorce with pronounced legal connotations, although this does not negate its emotional underpinnings. For its use as a legal term in Elephantine Egypt, see Nutkowicz, “Concerning the Verb ŚNʾ”; Botta, “Hated by the Gods.” 25.  Mermelstein, “Love and Hate at Qumran,” 244. See also Mermelstein, “Constructing Fear and Pride.” 26.  Schlimm adopts this approach from historian Barbara H. Rosenwein (From Fratricide to Forgiveness, 48–64). Compare Rosenwein, “Worrying About Emotions in History,” 842; Rosenwein, Emotional Communities, 2. 27.  Rosenwein, Emotional Communities, 2.

16

Jealousy in Context

array of meanings, associations, and implications. Language, the lifeblood of culture, carries the values attached to emotions.”28 These various studies on ancient emotion terminology demonstrate the cultural value and implications of emotion experiences; these experiences extend beyond an internal state of mind and potentially condition a necessary set of actions or appropriate behavioral responses within the social, cultic, and legal systems of the ancient culture.29 Depending on the society, emotions can serve as an index of social relationships, providing a means to dialogue with others. The cause and manner in which certain emotions appear are often determined by the social norms of a society. It is important to note that although the term “emotion” in contemporary English may understate the rich cultural and behavioral content that emotions genuinely represent, we can still use the category of “emotion” to frame our discussion of ‫קנאה‬.30 As others have observed, the semantic range of “emotion” as we understand it may not have existed in the same linguistic space in Biblical Hebrew.31 Nevertheless, the concept of emotion comes closest to our understanding of various related Biblical Hebrew terms, such as expressions of joy, love, hate, and anger. It may be more fruitful to reframe our understanding of these terms not as strictly “emotional” in the sense that we are used to but 28.  Schlimm, From Fratricide to Forgiveness, 46. 29.  Further studies exploring the social world of biblical emotions include Bechtel, “Shame”; Wagner, Emotionen, 49–73; van Wolde, “Sentiments”; Kazen, Issues of Impurity, 13–40; Kazen, Emotions in Biblical Law, 167–75; Kruger, “Emotions in the Hebrew Bible,” 398–400; Lemos, “Apotheosis of Rage”; Mirguet, “What Is an ‘Emotion’?” 30.  According to linguist Anna Wierzbicka, English has been a conceptual prison for the science of emotion. She explains, “English terms of emotion constitute a folk taxonomy, not an objective, culture-free analytic framework, so obviously we cannot assume that English words such as disgust, fear, or shame are clues to universal human concepts, or to basic psychological realities” (Semantics, Culture, and Cognition, 119). For a discussion of the appropriateness of “emotion” as a category in different cultures across time and space, see Dixon, “ ‘Emotion,’ ” 338–44. Dixon’s study underlines that there remains no consensus on the meaning of the term “emotion,” and from a definitional and conceptual point of view, ever since its adoption as psychological term in the nineteenth century the term “emotion” has been “in crisis” (338). 31.  For studies dealing with the category of emotion as it appears in ancient studies and whether such a category as it is understood in our modern perception can be applied to the biblical text, see Mirguet, “What Is an ‘Emotion’?” 432–65; Kruger, “Emotions in the Hebrew Bible,” 398–400. For example, Mirguet suggests that “[biblical emotion] terms are not limited to the expression of what we call emotions; rather, they also include actions, movements, ritual gestures, and physical sensations, without strict dissociation among these different dimensions. . . . [T]he experience affects the self not so much in its individuality as in its social relationships; as such, it also functions inside a given social hierarchy” (“What Is an ‘Emotion’?” 442). It is apparent that cultures provide different means of communicating, conceptualizing, and categorizing human experience, and emotion is no exception to this pattern. It is difficult to thus find strict equivalents between our vocabulary and Biblical Hebrew, as biblical authors and audiences may have lacked a comparable vocabulary and variously constructed categories of experience.

Methodology and Approach

17

as functioning within a broader range of semantic meaning that includes multiple possibilities of action, social relationships, behavior, and legal meaning, without strict delineation between these experiences. Thus, emotion remains a useful category for the reader in identifying these phenomena, and rather than jettisoning it altogether, we should instead be mindful that our conception(s) of emotion may differ from that of the biblical authors. When referring to ‫ קנאה‬as an emotion in this work, we will do so in view of its broader sociobehavioral framework. A Social Approach to ‫קנאה‬ Based on the numerous studies on biblical emotion, emotion in the Hebrew Bible can be understood as a blend of affect, physiological change, behavior, and social relationships. What we will highlight in this study is the social aspect of emotion. While there has been a great amount of progress made in biblical studies concerning the social and behavioral aspects of emotion concepts, a comprehensive evaluation of the emotion concept of ‫ קנאה‬in Biblical Hebrew has yet to be undertaken. The understanding of emotions as preeminently cultural will inform and structure our interpretation of ‫ קנאה‬in Biblical Hebrew. The point of this approach is not to ignore the internal implications of emotions but to avoid prioritizing them. The benefits of this approach are twofold. Contextualizing the use of ‫ קנאה‬in Biblical Hebrew will greatly improve our current interpretation of this emotion concept, and once a comprehensive understanding of the larger socioliterary context is obtained, we will also improve our interpretation of the passages in which this expression is attested.

Emotion as Scenario and Script Although a physiobiological component may be involved in its expression, the emotion may be part of a larger process that is fundamentally shaped by the beliefs and values of a given culture. Ethnographic and cross-cultural studies on emotion lexica and emotion expressions reveal traces of similarities in the categories of emotion, regardless of language and culture.32 At the same time, 32.  Russell, “Culture and the Categorization of Emotions,” 426. Research is still ongoing with regard to whether emotion is primarily neuro-biological or culturally determined. Most recently, Lisa Barrett Feldman has argued that emotions are constructed and determined by culture based on neuroscientific studies (How Emotions Are Made). Nevertheless, the physiobiological and evolutionary roots of basic emotional expressions advocated by Charles Darwin in his seminal work Expressions of the Emotions are widely accepted. For example, Paul Ekman led experiments maintaining the physiobiological aspect of basic emotions and their universality through the study of

18

Jealousy in Context

there are significant variations in the way certain emotions are recognized and classified. We saw this with Lutz’s examination of song among the Ifaluk. While song resembles anger, it has its own culturally dependent features so that identifying it as anger does not account for all instances of song.33 Following Lutz, the approach adopted in this study will involve the evaluation of scripts in an emotion scenario. An emotion scenario will be interpreted as (1) an event beginning with cognition about whatever event(s) triggered the emotion, or what will be identified as the antecedent condition(s).34 Cognition may be followed by (2) a physical and/or psychological response. The emotion scenario also involves (3) processing of the antecedent conditions, and may include an evaluation of the social, cultural, and personal ramifications. Finally, an emotion scenario may consist of (4) responding with verbal and physical actions and (5) a resolution.35 The socialization process of a given culture provides common knowledge with regard to how a person or group should react to specific trigger events. For example, publicly mourning at a funeral is an appropriate response to the death of a well-respected person in a community.36 In literature on emotion, this knowledge is understood as script learning, which involves an assessment of what kind of appropriate emotions should be expressed with the appearance of certain stimulus conditions.37 A script is a knowledge schema used to understand the overall structure of an emotion scenario, which is composed of a sequence of causally connected and temporally ordered subevents involving universal facial expressions (“Argument for Basic Emotions”). Ekman’s studies argue for a handful of primary universal emotions, which include expressions of happiness, fear/surprise, sadness/ distress, anger, and disgust. Emotions that are more complex, however, may vary between cultures depending on the social rules of a given culture (see also Frankel and Sherrick, “Observations,” 257). For a model on emotional development, see Lewis, “Emergence of Human Emotions,” 275–78. On the argument for the pancultural nature of emotion demonstrated through the connection of facial expression and the recognition of a given emotion, see Izard, “Cross-Cultural Perspectives.” For a recent comparison between the universal and cultural-relativist positions with regards to facial expressions, see Langlotz, “Emotions in the Face,” 67–69. 33.  On the topic of translation equivalence with emotion language and the ethnographic studies associated with this subject, see Russell, “Culture and Categorization of Emotions,” 433. 34.  While external and internal elicitors may include nonsocial events (loud noises, physiological states), what we are primarily concerned with here in our philological study of ‫ קנאה‬are elicitors that are social in nature. The omission of nonsocial triggers in this approach is primarily driven by the nature of the text under examination. As we will discover, the biblical authors were concerned not so much with the internal or personal aspects of ‫ קנאה‬but with its social, legal, and religious triggers and consequences. 35.  On emotions as experiences and prototypical scenarios, see Shaver et al., “Emotion Knowledge,” 1062; Parrott, “Emotional Experiences,” 4–6; Russell and Lemay, “Emotion Concepts,” 491–503; Sharpstein, “Organization of Jealousy Knowledge,” 36. 36.  Lewis, “Emergence of Human Emotions,” 266. 37.  Ibid.

Methodology and Approach

19

a prototypical scenario with a complex conceptual structure.38 For example, song among the Ifaluk is an expression concerned with maintaining balance by identifying potential threats to the moral order.39 Song functions like a red flag signifying a potential social disruption and signaling that certain behavior must be demonstrated in order to resolve it. In Euro-American societies, emotions like guilt and shame are thought to regulate socially undesirable behavior and contribute to the moral rules of society.40 When someone experiences song among the Ifaluk, they are experiencing it in a specific context for specific ends in order to negotiate aspects of a social reality and to create that reality; song thus has force both to the person who is experiencing it and to the person to whom song is directed. Participants in a song scenario may be compelled to perform certain actions and behaviors according to the social rules of their community. For those who are observers of this scenario, certain conditions must be met in order for the community to identify it as a conflict that warrants a song response.41 According to the script hypothesis, categories of emotion are characterized by features defined by comprehensible subevents, which include triggers, beliefs, behaviors, physiological feedback, and even the reaction of others; these features are ordered in a somewhat predictable causal sequence, similar in many ways to the script of a play.42 The script approach has benefited investigations into the emotions of classical Greece and Rome, where culturally specific emotions are elucidated through the analysis of emotions as scenarios composed of scripts.43 This approach has also been applied to biblical emotion terms, including those related to

38.  Lakoff and Kövecses, “Cognitive Model of Anger,” 210–19; Shaver et al., “Emotion Knowledge,” 1062; Russell, “Culture and Categorization of Emotions,” 442; Russell and Lemay, “Emotion Concepts,” 496. 39.  Lutz, Unnatural Emotions, 156–57. 40.  Armon-Jones, “Thesis of Constructionism,” 57. 41.  Of course, there are emotions that can result in unpredictable and unscripted reactions (e.g., the flight, fight, or freeze response of someone experiencing fear). However, psychologists and sociologists have documented various types of complex emotions that appear to follow a script. See Russell, “Culture and Categorization of Emotions,” 442; Harris, “Understanding Emotions,” 285. Harris notes studies that have demonstrated that children develop a set of scripts identifying type of situations that elicit various emotion responses and identify the type of behavior that comes with a certain emotion state. All of this relies on the understanding of the causal connections among an emotion’s sequential components, which is especially useful in cross-cultural studies where different cultures have different emotion themes. 42.  Russell, “Culture and Categorization of Emotions,” 442. See also Shaver et al., “Emotion Knowledge,” 1062; Kövecses, “Introduction,” 10. 43.  On emotion scenarios in Classical Greek, see Cairns, “Ethics, Ethology, and Terminology,” 13–19. For the application of scripts in understanding emotions in Classical Greek, see Cairns, “Look Both Ways,” 46–51, and, similarly, Kaster, Emotion, Restraint, and Community, 8.

20

Jealousy in Context

expressions of anger.44 At the same time, cross-cultural comparison is made feasible by comprehending an emotion on the basis of prototypical scenarios. The script of an emotion, with its subevents or stages, can be compared to other scripts of similar nature and then categorized into a prototypical scenario.45

Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬as a Script Following Lutz, the thesis presented here will frame our discussion of ‫ קנאה‬in terms of scenarios that follow a script. We will investigate the expressions of ‫ קנאה‬as they play out in a passage, from the conditions that trigger their expression to the behaviors and actions that accompany them. Understanding ‫קנאה‬ will require us to understand the process of its constituent parts, starting from its perception and evaluation to response(s). For the bulk of our analysis, we will not rely on potentially misleading lexical labels and, in most cases, this study will not directly translate ‫קנאה‬. An advantage of the script approach to emotions is that it avoids the pitfalls of a purely lexical approach, which seeks to render a one-to-one cross-cultural correspondence.46 Instead of attempting to find exact equivalence through emotion language, we will instead view emotions as scenarios composed of a script in which the emotion scenario plays out. This will permit us to evaluate the expression values and actions of the entire context in which the emotion is embedded. In this work, ‫ קנאה‬will be recognized as an ancient Israelite phenomena represented through prototypical examples in narrative and cultic-legal texts by the biblical authors. While the emotion ‫קנאה‬ may not completely correspond to our modern notions of American English envy, jealousy, or zeal, the present study will enhance the ability of a translator to evaluate whether biblical ‫ קנאה‬bears a general resemblance to the emotion

44.  Schlimm, From Fratricide to Forgiveness, 48–64. Ellen van Wolde notes that the prototype of an emotion is “the most representative instance of a schema, and a scenario is the (narrative) pattern or chain of events that constitutes the content of an action, idea, or sentiment, so that a prototypical (cultural) scenario can be seen as the most representative series of actions, events, or behaviors in a culture that constitutes the content of an idea” (“Sentiments,” 3–4). 45.  In analyzing the prototype of anger, George Lakoff and Zoltán Kövesces note that it is unwise “to try to find a single cognitive model for all instances of a[n emotion] concept. Kinds of anger are not all instances of the same model; instead they are variants on a prototypical model. There is no common core that all kinds of anger have in common. Instead, the kinds of anger bear family resemblances to one another” (“Cognitive Model of Anger,” 218). For the implementation of the script approach in order to achieve an understanding of the emotion’s prototype in classical studies, see Sanders, Envy and Jealousy, 5–7, 13–21. 46.  On the drawbacks of a purely lexical approach to understanding ancient emotions, see Cairns, “Look Both Ways,” 46.

Methodology and Approach

21

language in her or his target language.47 Breaking down the ontology of an emotion lends itself not only to a better understanding of the meaning of the emotion in a given culture but also to the undertaking of a comparative understanding.48 The goal of this method is to highlight previously overlooked aspects of ‫קנאה‬ and provide an interpretive structure to understand them. By adopting a script approach, we will be able to define the social, cultural, and legal structures associated with the ‫ קנאה‬scenario and how these structures relate to one another. This method advocates a descriptive approach to the scenarios represented in the ‫ קנאה‬script(s), allowing for an investigation into the rich cultural content of the emotion.

Scope of Study The focus of this study will be on a select number of ‫ קנאה‬attestations in the Hebrew Bible. We will not attempt to compare biblical ‫ קנאה‬with attestations found in cognate literature unless appropriate, since the limited number of attestations of the lexical field qnʾ in Akkadian will not provide a fully contextualized investigation of the emotion in Mesopotamian thought.49 Furthermore, the majority of the texts in which the Akkadian cognate appears are ambiguous or difficult. As a result, Akkadian comparative data should not be used to derive any conclusive evidence concerning the semantic or historical development of the Biblical Hebrew term.50 Because there is not enough data to propose an 47.  There are those who ascribe to the constructionist understanding of emotion who reject any attempts to find approximate relations between emotions cross-culturally, arguing that emotions are unique. While this study will appreciate the uniqueness of ‫קנאה‬, such an approach that advocates for the singularity of emotion concepts will not be adopted here. It is only after we completely understand the ‫ קנאה‬scenario that we will attempt to find emotion language in American English that conveys an approximate sense of the emotion. While we may not find an exact equivalence, finding a suitable translation will help the reader to conceptually relate to the emotion concept of ‫קנאה‬. 48.  See Lakoff and Kövecses, “Cognitive Model of Anger,” 210–14, which uses the prototypical model of anger to elucidate this point, although, of course, there are nonprototypical cases that do not fit a basic model (214–19). 49.  There are eleven secure attestations of the Semitic root qnʾ in Akkadian. See MSL 3, 134: 58; MSL 14, 135: 25 and 455:28′; StBoT 7, 10: 36; AKT 5, 18:12; RA 12, 74:28—32′; BM 41005 ii 10 and iii 18; SAA 19, 91: 22′; Boissier DA 19 iii 45; Nineveh A i 23; SAA 2, 6: 328. These attestations appear in lexical lists, letters, ritual texts, royal inscriptions, and one treaty. For the reading of Boissier DA 19 iii, 45, see Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 81 n. 403; Koch-Westenholz, Babylonian Liver Omens, 33. 50.  While there may be a family resemblance between Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew ‫קנא‬, we cannot come to any conclusions on the nature of this relationship without thoroughly examining the social norms of qnʾ in East Semitic cultures. Nevertheless, it is significant to note the possibility of an original Semitic *qnʾ reflex in Akkadian and a linguistic and semantic correspondence

22

Jealousy in Context

understanding of Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬based on an etymological approach, a contextual, script-based approach is adopted in this study. Furthermore, our focus will be on ‫ קנאה‬passages in Biblical Hebrew rather than the corresponding Greek of the Septuagint. As previously discussed, in the majority of cases the writers of the Septuagint translate ‫ קנאה‬as ζῆλος, and developing an ethno­ psychology of ζῆλος is not within the scope of this study.51 Our examination will implement a case study approach. Expressions of ‫קנאה‬ are attested throughout the Hebrew Bible and are not limited to one specific genre of the biblical text. As such, different literary scenarios will be examined to provide an understanding of ‫ קנאה‬in various social, religious, and legal contexts, and we will explore how the term is used to navigate and communicate expectations in various types of social relationships. The case studies that we will focus on will consist of narrative-type scenarios, including the patriarchal narratives, prophecies, and cultic-legal passages that are part of larger narratives, like the material in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Narrative texts will allow us to examine the entire ‫ קנאה‬scenario from its motivation and trigger to its consequences and outcome. It would be difficult to achieve such a comprehensive examination of the emotion scenario in wisdom and poetic texts. Wisdom and poetic literature often rely on allusion and metaphor, with the understanding that the reader is able to derive meaning by understanding the poetic references involved. For our script-based approach, we will examine passages that provide exposition and explanation: the patriarchal, cultic-legal, and prophetic narratives will provide a good starting point for our analysis. These passages provide information on the social roles and between the Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew iterations of qnʾ. Wolfram von Soden originally pointed to West Semitic influence for the appearance of the lexical field in Akkadian (“Aramäische Wörter in Neuassyrischen,” 2–4). At the time of this proposal, only late attestations were known, with no knowledge of any occurrences of the root before the Neo-Assyrian period. However, the root is also attested in earlier Akkadian texts. Early noncanonical proto-Ea (ca. 1750 BCE) and Middle Babylonian lexical lists equate Sumerian NINIM (ŠÀxNE) “jealousy” with Akkadian qí-nu-um (qīnum). On the reading in the lexical lists, see Civil, “Ninmešarra 90,” 44–45. There are also numerous Old Assyrian attestations of qnʾ, which has been translated as “envy,” but only one of these texts has been published (Veenhof, Kültepe Tabletleri V, 112). Although attestations of the word field are rare in Akkadian, what the available data suggest is that the Akkadian represents a reflex of an original Semitic *qnʾ with a meaning similar to that of Biblical Hebrew. For example, the qīnu expressed in a case of sibling rivalry in Nineveh A demonstrates a family resemblance between East and West Semitic qnʾ (see Gen 37:11). However, the fact remains that qnʾ is a rarely attested word field in Akkadian. Due to this, we must be cautious in coming to any final conclusions based on limited data. As such, we will incorporate the Akkadian data only when relevant. 51.  While such an undertaking may reveal how the early Jewish writers understood the expression during the Hellenistic period, the intent of this study is to elucidate the meaning of ‫ קנאה‬as it is applied by the Israelite and/or Judean authors of the biblical text. However, it is interesting to note that the versions do not distinguish between human and divine expressions of ‫ ;קנאה‬in most cases, ζῆλος is used to express ‫ קנאה‬regardless of agent.

Methodology and Approach

23

relationships of the referents, and although a few of these texts could be read discretely, the nature of the biblical editorial process necessitates a thorough appreciation of the literary and narrative context in which these passages are embedded. In these texts we are dealing with ideal social models and not necessarily their practice or how these models were realized in ancient Israelite society. Nevertheless, the proposed models are useful to illuminate similarities and differences among the passages and identify the underlying socioliterary phenomena that they all preserve. Thus, when examining these passages, we will be able to trace the entire script of a ‫ קנאה‬scenario, facilitate comparisons between different scripts, and identify what constitutes (a) prototypical ‫קנאה‬ scenario(s) in the Hebrew Bible. By nature, the biblical material lends itself to the examination of this material through scenarios. Although the biblical editorial process spans hundreds of years, covering different perspectives, and includes expansions, rewritings, and recastings of traditional stories, these texts reflect fundamental aspects of ancient Israelite ideology concerning social and legal norms.52 Biblical Hebrew ‫ קנאה‬spans redactional layers of the Hebrew Bible, with multiple biblical authors using various forms of the term. However, these authors did not exist in isolation from their social contexts and community, and the present work presupposes that the conceptual framework of the biblical writers resonated with its audience. It is by investigating the scenarios in which ‫ קנאה‬occur that we will come to a better understanding of the systems of values and expectations of this community.53 In other words, in evaluating these texts we are viewing the social context of ‫ קנאה‬through the idealized lens of ancient biblical writers and redactors.54 It is widely recognized in critical approaches to the Hebrew Bible that the biblical text functions as a memorialization of the past in order to inform and address the writers’ contemporary concerns. From this perspective, aspects of ancient Israelite social identity may be reconstructed, and in our investigation we must decode information regarding the social and cultural systems in 52.  In particular, the books of Genesis–2 Kings appear to be reworked much later and at different stages than the periods they depict. The composition of the Hebrew Bible had begun at the very least from the beginning of the period of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah (ninth–eighth centuries BCE) to as late as the Persian or early Hellenistic periods (fifth–third centuries BCE), with much of the compilation and reworking of these texts taking place after the fall of the kingdoms (post-586 BCE). Biblical scholarship has developed a critical approach to the Hebrew Bible in order to pinpoint different sources and editorial layers (Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 13–33; 246–50). On the related issue concerning current studies in Pentateuchal and source criticism, see the collected essays in Gertz et al., Formation of the Pentateuch. 53.  For example, according to Barbara H. Rosenwein, although we may only have information about an emotional community from one author, that author cannot be separated from the social norms of which he or she is a part (Emotional Communities, 80). 54.  Stavrakopoulou, “Historical Framework,” 27–32.

24

Jealousy in Context

which these texts originate.55 Thus, the representations of ‫ קנאה‬we find in these passages will be viewed as reflections of certain social and cultural situations. These representations will be understood as products of Israelite authors and their communities, echoing their perspectives regarding their society, beliefs, and ideals. When possible, we will historically contextualize the passages under study (either through content or language) and note historical-critical traditions whenever relevant, while also appreciating the final editorial form of the biblical texts. Finally, a case study approach will benefit our endeavor since the focus will be on examining passages that provide prototypical representations of ‫קנאה‬ from across different narrative genres. As we will see, the primary way the ‫קנאה‬ expression is articulated is in terms of structured relationships, and in order to unpack the social content of ‫קנאה‬, we will need texts with exposition explaining these relationships. The purpose of our analysis is to place values regarding ‫קנאה‬ in their cultural milieu. As such, this study will focus on scenarios from passages that have not been treated previously or have not been treated with social considerations of ‫ קנאה‬in mind. It is only by thoroughly investigating the social circumstances found within these passages that we can appreciate the motivations and consequences of biblical ‫קנאה‬.

55.  Southwood, “Social and Cultural History,” 54–61.

Chapter 2

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

Three passages in Genesis serve as instructive case studies for the purpose of our examination: the ‫ קנאה‬of the Philistines of Gerar toward Isaac concerning the issue of wells (26:1–33), the ‫ קנאה‬of Rachel toward Leah concerning their household hierarchy (29:1–30:24), and the ‫ קנאה‬of Jacob’s sons toward their younger brother Joseph concerning issues of primogeniture (37:1–36). These passages contain features that make them exceptionally suitable for analyzing the social context of this term. As part of the patriarchal narratives, these texts primarily deal with concerns over property, genealogical continuity, and inheritance, and decisions about these concerns have direct bearing on group and family behavior.

Social Organization in Genesis Social organization plays an important role in the literary representation of communal and familial relationships in the book of Genesis.1 In this work, social organization indicates the systematic ordering of a society with regard to roles, duties, and positions in order to provide a template for the coordination of social behavior and relations.2 The patriarchal narratives provide a literary representation of the social framework of ancient Israelite culture and the social systems embedded within this framework as understood by the biblical authors. For example, we can obtain a general understanding of the formal and informal structure of ancient Israelite opinions and behavior regarding inheritance rights, endogamy and exogamy, principles of succession, sibling unity, and social responsibility.3 What we will find by exploring the case studies of ‫ קנאה‬in this 1.  For a discussion of critical and contextual readings of the book of Genesis, see the collected essays in Evans, Lohr, and Peterson, Book of Genesis. 2.  Firth, “Some Principles of Social Organization,” 1–2. 3.  The analysis presented here follows Raymond Firth’s definition of social responsibility: “By social responsibility is meant obligation to envisage a situation in terms of the interest of others, of

25

26

Jealousy in Context

chapter is that the status of social relationships is at the core of these scenarios. These conflicts revolve around three concerns that will be detailed and contextualized: property rights, first-wife rights, and hereditary rights. Decisions regarding these concerns include property transmission, which has a direct impact on the structure of the family household and its behavior. The passages also provide ample narrative context for us to begin clarifying the social meaning of biblical ‫ קנאה‬and gather critical information concerning the conflict between the social groups, the motivations of the aggrieved party, the social roles of those involved, and the actions required to resolve the dispute. These narratives reflect what was privileged by the various authors and editors to be a literary representation of Israelite experiences in legitimate social contexts.4

‫ קנאה‬in Genesis 26 Genesis 26 recounts the prosperity and ensuing social struggles of the patriarch Isaac in Philistine territory.5 The context of the narrative is set during a period of severe famine. Having received the divine blessing ensuring his prosperity, Isaac seeks out the Philistine king Abimelech in order to reside in Gerar as a ‫גר‬ or nonnative resident (vv. 1–6). In the course of the narrative, Isaac comes into conflict with the Philistines three different times. The first is when Isaac misleads them concerning the identity of Rebekah, his wife, whom he previously presented as his sister (vv. 7–8). Abimelech discovers the deception and orders the Philistines of Gerar to refrain from molesting (‫ )נגע‬Isaac and his wife, threatening death to those who disobey. Abimelech recognizes that only Isaac has rightful claim to Rebekah and that any attempt to usurp that claim would bring “guilt” (‫ )אׁשם‬on Abimelech and his people (vv. 10–11). The second conflict arises the widest group concerned, and to take decisions which shall be conformable to those interests. It also involves a readiness to be held accountable for the implications of those decisions, at least in so far as they are foreseen” (ibid., 7). The exercise and degree of social responsibility are not uniform among members of a society but depends on different variables such as social roles. 4.  Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 33. 5.  This passage has a long history of interpretation with regard to corresponding accounts within Genesis (12:10–20; 20:1–18; 21:22–34). On the relationship between these passages, see Hoffmeier, “Wives’ Tales,” 83–87. For the narrative structure of Gen 26, see Nicol, “Chronology of Genesis”; Nicol, “Narrative Structure.” For whatever reason, ‫ קנאה‬does not occur in the parallel passage describing Abraham’s conflict with the Philistines (Gen 20:1–18), although note that there may be a literary dependence of Gen 26 on Gen 12 and 20 (Dozeman, Pentateuch, 177–78). Tradi­ tionally, our passage has been attributed to the J(ahwist) source (Dozeman, Pentateuch, 89–91; Levin, Der Jahwist, 201–6).

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

27

after Isaac accumulates more wealth and prosperity than anyone else in the land (vv. 12–16). The Philistines’ reaction is described here as an expression of ‫קנאה‬ toward Isaac (‫ויקנאו אתו פלשתים‬, v. 14). The ‫ קנאה‬of the Philistines motivates them to sabotage Isaac’s wells and leads to his expulsion by Abimelech from Gerar proper (vv. 15, 27). The third disagreement with the Philistines occurs when Isaac settles on the fringes of the royal domain (vv. 19–21).6 The natives enter into a dispute (‫ )ריב‬with him concerning the proper ownership of the wells he is currently using.7 Outside the boundaries of Gerar, the dispute between Isaac and the Philistines is resolved when Abimelech and his retinue travel to meet Isaac in Beersheba (v. 26). Isaac interprets the Philistine behavior toward him as acts of repudiation or hatred (‫ׂשנא‬, v. 27). However, the Philistines and their king assure Isaac that they meant him no harm, and they secure a nonaggression pact with Isaac (vv. 28–30). In order to understand the use of ‫ קנאה‬in the narrative, we should first consider the social roles of those involved in this relationship and what this implies about the juridical framework of this story. The Significance of the ‫גר‬ The Philistine’s perspective of Isaac and the nature of their relationship is determined by the patriarch’s social and legal status as a nonnative resident (‫ )גר‬in Philistine territory.8 In the Hebrew Bible, nonnative residents are often portrayed as destitute and poor due to their lack of kinship relations, and provisions such as tithe and charity are made to ensure their survival.9 With these considerations in mind, it would be most unusual for a nonnative resident to become more successful than his neighbors.10 Confirming this point is a curse in Deut 28:43–44, which threatens to privilege the ‫ גר‬with wealth and prestige over the native residents. The passage elaborates on this reversal, stating that the 6.  The Philistines are identified here as the “shepherds of Gerar” (‫)רעי גרר‬. 7.  The author provides an aetiology for the names of the wells under dispute, identifying them as ‫“( עׂשק‬argument”) and ‫“( ׂשטנה‬adversary”) (vv. 20–22). ‫ ׂשטנה‬is also used in Ezra 4:6 to describe a formal legal accusation against someone. 8.  For studies focusing on the legal and social aspects of this term, see van Houten, Alien in Israelite Law, 11–22; Ramírez Kidd, Alterity and Identity in Israel, 34–71. For the interpretation of ‫ גר‬as “client,” see Stager, “Archeology, Ecology and Social History,” 229–32. For various works related to the ‫ גר‬and the ancient Near Eastern law, see the collected studies in Achenbach, Albertz, and Wohrle, Foreigner and the Law. 9.  For example, Lev 19:10, 33; 23:22; Deut 1:16; 14:29; 24:14, 19–21; 26:12; 27:19. 10.  It matters little about whether the historical Philistines had the concept of ‫ גר‬with its social parameters. Rather, in his literary creation, our Judean author addresses the social context such that readers expect the Philistines to have a ‫גר‬-sensitive social understanding. For a similar situation in which ‫ גר‬laws are applied to an Israelite living in a foreign country, see the narrative of Elimelech’s sojourn to Moab in the book of Ruth (1:1–3).

28

Jealousy in Context

nonnative resident “will become the head, while you (the Israelites) will become the tail” (‫)הוא יהיה לראׁש ואתה תהיה לזנב‬. This suggests that the situation depicted in Gen 26 would have been not only undesirable for the native residents but perhaps even disruptive to their social order. Since the context of the narrative is set during a period of severe famine (v. 1), Isaac, being legally vulnerable, could have easily provoked suspicions of wrongdoing with his rapid and disproportionate accumulation of wealth. The issue here concerns the balance of wealth in the community; when someone’s wealth becomes too great or excessive it may lead to social discord. For example, Lot is forced to leave Abram because the land could not support him and his household (Gen 13:6–7).11 Family households may become fractured over property rights, and these property claims may extend beyond the family household to larger groups, as we see with the Philistines in Gen 26. Besides expressing ‫ קנאה‬toward Isaac, the Philistines are also described as expressing another significant emotion, often translated as “hatred.” The use of ‫ ׂשנא‬by Isaac to characterize the Philistine behavior toward him during his time as a sojourner in Gerar may have juridical connotations (v. 27). Rather than interpreting this “hatred” solely as a sentiment, we should instead understand it as a reflection of Isaac’s expectation that the Philistines, by their previous actions, were actively severing all relational obligations and associations toward him, thus no longer recognizing him as a legitimate ‫ גר‬in their lands. The polyvalent character of Biblical Hebrew ‫ ׂשנא‬has long been recognized. Although the term may reflect a personal sentiment, it is also found in contexts where it is used to express the termination of a social arrangement and of any obligations expected from one party to another.12 The ‫ ׂשנא‬of the Philistines is therefore a formal repudiation and an extension and result of their ‫ קנאה‬toward Isaac. The litigious nature of this dispute is further emphasized by the use of the root ‫ריב‬, a term known to have juridical connotations, to characterize Philistine hostility toward Isaac (vv. 20–21).13 The ‫ קנאה‬of the Philistines In light of the previous discussions, we can now turn our attention to the nature of the Philistines’ ‫קנאה‬, which the passage implies is one of the main factors that 11.  Compare the tensions that arise between Esau and Jacob’s households and the balance of wealth in their communities in Gen 36:6–7. 12.  Branson, “Polyvalent ŚNʾ,” 13. 13.  For example, see Exod 23:2; Isa 3:13; 50:8; 57:16; Prov 25:8; Jer 2:9; Hos 4:4. Refer also to the aetiology of the wells in vv. 20–22, which reveals the legal character of the dispute as seen from later traditions. For a discussion of the name of the wells in Gen 26, see Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, 37.

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

29

motivates the Philistines’ behavior against Isaac (v. 14). It may be tempting to understand the ‫ קנאה‬expressed here according to our modern notions of petty envy and assume that it primarily represents the malicious, personal sentiments of the Philistines, who resent Isaac’s wealth.14 However, in light of the previous discussion underscoring the economic and juridical implications of the passage, a superficial interpretation would misrepresent the broader concerns depicted in the narrative. The Philistines’ actions against the patriarch are motivated not by simple sentiments but by the concern that the balance in their community has been disrupted by the rapid accumulation of wealth by a nonnative resident. In fact, the text implies by Abimelech’s official expulsion of Isaac after the second dispute that the Philistine king was similarly concerned (v. 16). The Philistine reaction is not considered the kind of harassment against Isaac that would warrant punishment in the form of execution (v. 11) but is instead a legitimate reaction to a perceived threat that required immediate intervention. After placing the passage in its proper context and clarifying the broader concerns of the Philistines, undervaluing the social significance of ‫ קנאה‬in this passage distorts our understanding of the motivation of the Philistines in the narrative. The primary concern is not about Isaac’s wealth provoking feelings of animosity or resentment but how this seemingly disproportionate share in prosperity by a nonnative resident impacts the Philistine community. The reading presented here is not suggesting a complete absence of negative feelings toward Isaac. On the contrary, personal reactions like anger or feelings of hostility are natural accompaniments when values are threatened. However, when misunderstandings created by an imperfect interpretation of ‫ קנאה‬and hatred are clarified, there exists very little indication in the narrative that the Philistines actions were driven by irrational anger or envy. From the perspective of the Philistines, Isaac is not integrating into the social expectations of a sojourner in a foreign land. The statement made by Abimelech justifying Isaac’s expulsion, “You have become too big for us” (‫ )עצמת־ממנו מאד‬in v. 16, illustrates this concern. The problem of excessive wealth is found elsewhere in Genesis. Lot is forced to leave Abram because the land could not support him (13:6–7), and Esau departs from Jacob for similar reasons (36:6–7). In these passages, there exists the concept that excessive prosperity and status could lead to social discord as family households could potentially fracture over property rights. In our passage, property claims extend beyond the family household to a larger group. Moreover, the Philistine self-assessment of their actions in v. 29—they did not molest Isaac (‫)לא נגענוך‬, did only good (‫)עׂשינו עמך רק־טוב‬, and sent Isaac 14.  For “envy,” see NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV. The commentaries are widely silent on the Philistine’s expression of ‫ קנאה‬in Gen 26, presenting their translations without comment or discussion of the social significance of the expression.

30

Jealousy in Context

away in peace (‫—)ונׁשלחך בׁשלום‬suggests that they view their actions as well within their rights. Clearly what is at stake in the passage is not simply personal reactions on the part of the Philistines but rather issues concerning property and water rights that have legal and social ramifications for the Philistines living in the region. The Resolution of ‫קנאה‬ The dispute between Isaac and the Philistines is resolved when Abimelech and his retinue travel to meet Isaac in Beersheba, securing a nonaggression pact with Isaac that is concluded with a feast. Once their suspicions are tested and Isaac is proven to be successful even outside the boundaries of Gerar, Abimelech and the Philistines rationalize that his previous successes resulted from Yahweh’s divine blessing (vv. 28–29).15 Their treaty with Isaac seeks to resolve the ‫ קנאה‬issues that had previously motivated their repudiation against Isaac, thus redefining the boundaries of their social arrangement and repairing their relationship. In sum, the ‫ קנאה‬of the Philistines in this passage seems concerned with property, possessions, and their potential loss or misuse. In this particular context, ‫קנאה‬ should be identified as an expression grounded in practical and justifiable social and economic concerns relating to the rights of members of a community.16

‫ קנאה‬in Genesis 30:1 Generally speaking, the narratives in Genesis share a similar socioeconomic concern regarding the preservation of the unity of the family household and reveal strategies for the economic and social survival of its members. We see the belief in these passages that any fragmentation of the family property diminishes its ability to thrive economically and socially. One case study that exemplifies these concerns is the ‫ קנאה‬expressed by Rachel toward her sister-wife Leah. The ‫ קנאה‬of Rachel is embedded in a blended narrative that recounts the birth and naming of Jacob’s children and the ensuing rivalry between the sister-wives of 15.  In the narrative, Yahweh bestows his blessing upon Isaac prior to his arrival in the lands of Gerar (26:1). 16.  While it seems that biblical ‫ קנאה‬in general deals with legal issues, we cannot outright identify ‫ קנאה‬as a “legal term” as it never explicitly occurs in a legal passage outside of the so-called law of jealousy (‫ )תורת הקנאת‬in Num 5:11–31. What is evident, however, is that in most passages ‫ קנאה‬deals with concerns of property and ownership and/or the disruption of social expectations. Consider, for example, the ‫ קנאה‬expressed by the elder brothers of Joseph (Gen 37:11). While spiteful feelings may be involved, it is also possible that there is more at stake. As the eldest in the family, there are social and legally sanctioned rules concerning their firstborn rights of inheritance, and these are being disrupted by Joseph.

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

31

Jacob, Rachel and Leah. In particular, the passage focuses on providing background for the naming of Jacob’s children through the lens of this rivalry.17 The artificial etymology of the names derives not from a popular etymology but from the literary construction that is secondarily adapted to the context.18 The Broader Context of the Sister-Wife Rivalry The struggle between the sisters is based on two concerns, which may reflect the different interests of their authors.19 The first deals with the relationship between the sisters and their husband. The text states, “Jacob had relations with Rachel as well. He loved Rachel more than Leah, and (so) he worked for Laban for seven more years” (Gen 29:30). After being misled by Laban and receiving the eldest sister Leah as a wife instead of Rachel, Jacob continues to serve Laban so that he can claim Rachel as his wife. The original intent of his agreement with Laban is to secure his marriage with Rachel; according to the narrative, he had no intention of making Leah his primary wife and so favors Rachel over Leah (29:18, 20, 30). This brings us to the second point, which concerns the circumstances of Leah’s fertility and Rachel’s barrenness. Observing that Leah is the “hated” (‫ )ׂשנואה‬wife, Yahweh opens her womb but allows Rachel to remain barren (v. 31). Leah bears four children: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. With the birth of her and Jacob’s firstborn, she acknowledges that she conceived through divine intervention and expresses the hope that her husband will now acknowledge and love her (29:32, 34; 30:20). Remaining barren, the “loved” (‫ )אהב‬wife Rachel expresses ‫ קנאה‬against her sister-wife. Rachel’s ‫ קנאה‬and her subsequent behavior are described as follows:20 “When Rachel saw that she did not bear Jacob any children, Rachel expressed ‫ קנאה‬toward her sister. She said to Jacob, ‘Give me children or I will die!’ ” (Gen 30:1). According to the narrative, this incites Jacob’s anger. The text continues, “Jacob became furious with Rachel and said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (Gen 30:2). The situation that causes Rachel to experience ‫ קנאה‬drives her to enlist the help of her slave Bilhah, who acts as a surrogate and bears the sons Dan and Naphtali. Not to be outdone, the 17.  For further discussion, see Havrelock, “Myth of Birthing the Hero,” 167–77. 18.  For proposals on the editorial history of this section, see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 471. 19.  These two perspectives are probably the result of the intertwining of two different sources, traditionally attributed to J (Gen 29:31–35) and E (Gen 29:30; 30:1–2) (Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 16). 20.  Unlike Gen 26:14, here the object of ‫ קנאה‬is expressed with the preposition ‫ ב־‬rather than ‫ל־‬. For a discussion of the beth instrumenti used to introduce the object of a verb in Biblical Hebrew, see GKC § 119q.

32

Jealousy in Context

now barren Leah uses her slave Zilpah as a surrogate, who bears Gad and Asher (vv. 9–13). The eldest son of Jacob, Reuben, gives Leah, his mother, mandrakes in order to induce fertility (vv. 14–21). After an argument concerning Rachel’s monopolization of the marital bed, the sisters come to a compromise. In return for the mandrakes, Rachel permits Leah access to the marital bed. Leah finds divine favor and gives birth to Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah (vv. 17–21). The conflict is eventually resolved when God “remembers” (‫ )זכר‬Rachel and opens her womb so that she bears Joseph, thereby removing her “shame” (‫ )חרפה‬and securing her status in the household (v. 22–24). The ‫ קנאה‬of Rachel: Social Implications and Unity of the Household In order to better understand the social context of the passage, we must investigate the expectations and norms concerning the status of primary and secondary wives in Israel and the ancient Near East. This rivalry between wives of different status is a motif in the Hebrew Bible. In Gen 16, the rivalry between Sarah and Hagar revolves around the fertility of the latter and the competition Hagar’s sons might pose to the sons of the first wife, Sarah. In 1 Sam 1:6–17, one of the wives of Elkanah, Penninah, is able to bear her husband children, which aggravates the favored and primary wife Hannah, who remains barren. In our passage, the status of Rachel as the beloved wife and the status of Leah as the hated wife reveals the sister-wives’ relative roles within the household.21 If we consider the legal connotations of “love” (‫ )אהב‬and “hate” (‫)ׂשנא‬, it is reasonable to assume that Rachel’s status as the favored wife makes her the primary wife, while Leah, despite being married to Jacob first, had the status of second wife. Even if we were to posit that they are, legally speaking, co-wives of equal status, Leah is treated as a second wife despite bearing his first born. We can surmise Rachel’s status as chief wife in Gen 33:1–7, which recounts the meeting between Jacob and Esau. The text depicts a procession from least to most important positions within the family hierarchy: the maidservants and their sons are placed in the front, followed by Leah and her children, and then finally Rachel and Joseph, thus placing those whom the patriarch valued most in the rear as it protected them from attack (32:11–12).22 Furthermore, the fact that Leah had to go through Rachel to access the marital bed reveals her limited conjugal rights (30:15). 21.  The literary representation under discussion presents a very positive presentation of Rachel over Leah, although the social-historical reality of the tribes of Israel reveals that the progeny of Leah actually held a much larger influence and prestige. For example, Leah is presented as the mother of the tribes of Judah and Levi, which both represent significant territories in Israelite history. For further discussion, see Chapman, House of the Mother, 200–228. 22.  Spanier, “Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim,” 408.

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

33

In this rivalry, the women are vying for position and status in their family, and Rachel’s ‫ קנאה‬is motivated by the threat that Leah and her progeny pose to her status. In Genesis, motherhood establishes the socioeconomic worth of a woman and her place in her husband’s household, and in this context family stability is dependent upon progeny.23 Her statement to Jacob, “Give me children, or I will die” (30:1), emphasizes her concern with the memory of her own lineage and her disgrace in not bearing the firstborn son.24 Upon giving her servant Bilhah to her husband, she justifies her decision by stating that Bilhah “will give birth on my knees so that I also will be built up through her” (30:3). Being the favored wife, Rachel is not receiving the benefits of her marital arrangement; perhaps this is why she addresses her issues directly to Jacob as opposed to her sister, as he determines the status of the wives. Although, in general, much of the legal material from Mesopotamia demonstrates that provisions were made to protect barren wives, the narrative framework of Genesis depicts the fertility of Leah as a real threat to Rachel’s status.25 Leah hopes that by providing her husband with his first legitimate children, she will increase her reputation within the family and secure her status as chief wife. In naming her son Zebulun she states, “Now my husband will honor (‫ )זבל‬me because I have borne him six sons” (30:20).26 Although the given aetiology of Jacob’s son Zebulun is secondary, it nevertheless reflects ancient ideas regarding the expectation of preferential treatment to wives who bear multiple sons. The social discord that might arise in cases where a man marries two sisters is recognized in the biblical legal material. Leviticus 18:18 prohibits the marriage of one man to sisters in order to avoid enmity between the two women and prevent disorder in the household.27 In other material, there is an attempt to circumvent the tension that arises between the firstborn son produced by the “hated” (‫ )ׂשנא‬wife and the successive sons produced by the first wife. Deuteronomy 21:15–17 requires that in a situation within the family household that has both a loved and hated wife and the hated wife bears the eldest son, the father is 23.  Gen 16:1–6; compare 1 Sam 1:11. However, the socioeconomic reality of ancient Israelite women demonstrated through archaeological data and extra-biblical evidence reveals that women held significant roles within their household and society. For further discussion, see Meyers, Rediscovering Eve, 125–46; Meyers, “Was Ancient Israel a Patriarchal Society?” 16–26. 24.  Koepf-Taylor, Give Me Children, 33–64. 25.  For example, in ancient Near Eastern legal texts a husband cannot arbitrarily demote or divorce his first wife without legal compensation (Roth, Law Collections, LH §138). For the protections given to barren wives, see Westbrook, “Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” 61. For a summary of literature on the legal status of barren wives in the ancient Near East, see Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 126–28. 26.  On this interpretation, see Albright, “Zabul Yam,” 18. Alternatively, we could emend to the root ‫ זבד‬instead of ‫ זבל‬and translate “dwell” (BDB, 2535). 27.  The practice of marrying sisters (biological and adopted) is attested in ancient Near Eastern legal material. See, for example, Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law, 103.

34

Jealousy in Context

to grant the birthright to his biologically oldest son rather than arbitrarily grant it to the son of his favored wife. The biblical legal framework demonstrates an awareness of the potential discord that could arise in the family over issues of hereditary rights between the sons of the loved and hated wife.28 The narrative thus represents Rachel and Leah’s struggle for family primacy. Ultimately, divine intercession is required in order to mediate this disruption. As stated, there are other biblical examples that represent similar familial disruption. In 1 Sam 1:11, Hannah is the favored wife of Elkanah, but Yahweh closes her womb. The fertile Peninnah, the rival wife, provokes (‫ )כעס‬Hannah because of Hannah’s state of barrenness. Eventually, through prostration and prayer, Yahweh “remembers” (‫ )זכר‬Hannah, and she conceives a child. It is important to note that ‫ קנאה‬and ‫ כעס‬are found in parallel with each other elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Deut 32:16, 21), which suggests that the two emotion concepts bear some resemblance to each other. Both Rachel and Hannah are responding to the same kind of threat to their status within the household. Similarly, we can observe the threat the surrogate Hagar poses to her mistress Sarah in Gen 16:1–6. Hagar becomes insolent upon producing the firstborn heir (Ishmael), and viewing herself as the primary wife she antagonizes Sarah.29 With regard to ‫קנאה‬, we should be cautious not to sentimentalize the conflict between Rachel and Leah. Rachel’s expression of ‫ קנאה‬represents broader concerns revolving around the expectations of a primary wife in a situation where her status or rights are threatened. More significantly for the overarching narrative, however, is the fact that Rachel, as primary wife, did not give birth to the firstborn son. The conflict between Rachel and Leah foreshadows the problem of heirship among the children of Jacob. As we will see in the next section, this issue is eventually resolved with the primacy of Joseph, but this gives rise to its own conflict between the sons of Leah and Rachel. With the birth of Rachel’s son, the balance of power within the family deviates from the general expectations of fratriarchal order of succession.

‫ קנאה‬in Genesis 37:11 The passage in Gen 37 is set within the Joseph narrative, which recounts how Joseph, the eleventh son of Jacob and first born of Rachel, was sold into slavery 28.  For a history of interpretation of this passage and its juridical significance in the context of ancient Near Eastern law, see Wells, “Hated Wife.” Bruce Wells harmonizes the contradiction between Jacob’s preference for Joseph and Reuben’s demotion in Genesis with this law. He argues that Reuben commits a legal breach by sleeping with one of his father’s wives, Bilhah, leaving the way clear for Jacob to demote Reuben (145). 29.  For a discussion of the type-scene of the barren wife in Genesis, see Williams, “Beautiful.”

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

35

by his brothers, gained prominence in Egypt, and eventually reconciles with his family and establishes the house of Jacob in Egypt (vv. 37–50). This narrative has a long history of interpretation, and there is much discussion of its complex literary and redactional history.30 The final form of the Joseph narrative is most likely the result of a long process of textual transmissions and redactions, but for the purposes of this discussion, unless this history is relevant for our analysis of ‫קנאה‬, we will approach the narrative as a literary whole in order to appreciate the entirety of the ‫ קנאה‬scenario and outline its script. The Broader Context of the Conflict Between Brothers At the beginning of the passage, Jacob is living in the land of Canaan and his sons are pasturing their flocks. After working in the field with his brothers, Joseph brings disturbing information (‫ )דבתם רעה‬to his father concerning the older brothers (37:2). The passage goes on to note that Jacob “loved” (‫ )אהב‬Joseph more than his brothers, and he makes this distinction by giving the youngest son a special garment (v. 3). Because of this outward display of favoritism, the brothers “hate” (‫ )ׂשנא‬their little brother and are unable to speak “peacefully” )‫ (ׁשלם‬with him (v. 4).31 The conflict escalates when Joseph reveals two dreams that portray him as the chief of the household. The brothers interpret these dreams as a threat, which causes the brothers to experience ‫( קנאה‬v. 11).32 They eventually decide to sell him to a group of passing traders, but not before stripping him of his special garment that his father had given him (37:12–36). They return the garment to his father dripped in goat’s blood in order to give the impression that Joseph had been killed (vv. 31–33). The novelistic features of the Joseph story have long been regarded as one of its distinctive features.33 One of the driving forces of the narrative is the ‫קנאה‬ of Joseph’s brothers. Within the narrative framework, the brothers’ ‫ קנאה‬triggers 30.  For the redactional composition of the Joseph narrative and Gen 37 in particular, see Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 24; Schwartz et al., “How the Compiler,” 263–78. Gen 37:11 has traditionally been attributed to J (Schwartz et al., “How the Compiler,” 265–66). For a review of the application of source and form criticism to Gen 37, as well as the hypothesis of redactional updating, see Genung, Composition of Genesis 37, 3–22 with citations. For further reading regarding the redactional history of the text, see Coats, “Redactional Unity”; Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis, 79–97; Campbell and O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch, 120–21, 175. Other relevant studies relating to the analysis of the story’s origin and composition include von Rad, “Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom” (see, however, Coats, “Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom”); Whybray, “Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism”; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 122–50, 237–46; Fung, Victim and Victimizer, 19–30; Jacobs, “Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil.” 31.  The hatred the older brothers have for Joseph is emphasized three times in the passage (Gen 37:4, 5, 8). 32.  On the motif of the dreams in this passage, see Grossman, “Different Dreams,” 719. 33.  Skinner, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 440.

36

Jealousy in Context

the chain of events that will lead to the fulfillment of his dreams. Genesis 50:20 explains, “You (the brothers) had intended to do evil against me (Joseph), but God had intended it for good.” Because the story revolves around this purpose, it would benefit our analysis of ‫ קנאה‬to understand its role within the narrative as a whole and how it assists in developing this theme. The Rupture in Familial Relationship: The Arousal of ‫קנאה‬ English Bibles and commentaries have traditionally rendered the ‫ קנאה‬of the brothers as some kind of feeling of envy or malice.34 Their attempt to rid themselves of their brother is interpreted as a crime of passion arising from feelings of insecurity and hostility.35 While the revenge itself has garnered much attention, there has been no discussion regarding the ‫ קנאה‬of the brothers and its broader social significance. Before we approach the larger cultural implications of the ‫ קנאה‬expression in the Joseph story, we should first discuss the social roles of those involved in this familial dispute. We know that the family is divided over the favoring of the youngest son. Joseph is identified as a “young man” (‫ )נער‬in v. 2, which may indicate that he was socially and professionally subservient to the other brothers, either as some sort of attendant or assistant.36 After Joseph tended to the family’s flocks with the sons of the slave-wives, he delivers a disturbing report (‫ )דבתם רעה‬to his father about his older brothers. While basically meaning “bad report,”37 the phrase ‫ דבתם רעה‬may also carry the connotation of “rumor” or even “slander.”38 Furthermore, the narrator sets the stage for conflict between the brothers by unequivocally indicating that there is a hierarchy of affection in the family 34.  For example, ASV, ISV, NJPS, and NKJV. For commentaries, translations include “wrought up” (Speiser, Genesis, 288); “wrought up” and “passionate hatred” (Sarna, Genesis, 257); and “incensed” (Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 33). See similarly Alter, Genesis, 211; Sacks, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 308–9. 35.  Skinner, Genesis, 442; Jacobs, “Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil,” 314. 36.  Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 36, who cites Exod 33:11. 37.  Num 14:37. 38.  Refer to ‫ דבה‬in Jer 20:10; Ps 31:14; Prov 10:18. See, however, Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 36; Jacobs, “Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil.” Both scholars argue that from the story’s perspective it is not the “bad report” that causes the conflict but more so Jacob’s preferential love. Jacobs states that the narration exhibits tension between two different traditions—one in which Joseph contributes to the conflict, and another in which preferential love is the main motivation for the conflict. This is explained by the juxtaposition of two different sources in the narrative (P and J) (“Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil,” 322). Claus Westermann argues that the “bad report” has little to do with the hatred of the brothers, and vv. 3–11 deals more with the rivalry between Jacob’s wives (chs. 29–30) (Genesis 37–50, 36). Regardless, the report builds tension in the narrative, and it seems plausible that Joseph’s report exacerbated the brothers’ suspicion.

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

37

relationship.39 In the text, Jacob is said to have loved Joseph more than his brothers since he bore him in old age (v. 3). Jacob makes Joseph a special garment )‫)כתנת פסים‬, which visibly sets Joseph apart as the favored child among the brothers. This bestowal is a demonstration of the father’s preference for the youngest son, thus disturbing the natural hierarchy in the family. As we know from our previous discussion, Genesis presents Rachel as the favored wife, which may account for this favoritism.40 Joseph’s role as the youngest son does little to sanction his father’s favor. We should note, however, that this is a literary tale where a reversal of expectations can be used for dramatic effect. In fact, the legal tradition gives primacy to the eldest son, regardless of whether or not his mother is a favored wife in Deut 21:15–17.41 Furthermore, throughout the Joseph story there is an awareness of birthright hierarchy. In Gen 43:33, Joseph’s brothers are seated according to their birth (“the first one according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth”). In Gen 44:12, the brothers’ bags are checked from oldest to youngest, indicating an awareness of the importance of the hierarchy. Genesis 48:5–19 describes a situation in which the family hierarchy has been breached. While bestowing a blessing on Joseph’s son, Jacob blesses the younger Ephraim over Manasseh. This displacement offends Joseph, who protests the estrangement of the eldest son’s rights by the youngest. Despite this theme of birthright hierarchy, there are examples throughout Genesis in which there is a subversion of the tradition of primogeniture. In addition to Joseph, we see this with Jacob when he is confirmed as heir in the patrilineal descent of the Israelite lineage over his older brother Esau (Gen 25:23).42 Thus, there exists tension in the patriarchal narratives between the expectations concerning primogeniture and the reality of the youngest son assuming primacy, which is depicted as being the root cause of family breakdowns and fissions.43 The book of Genesis establishes that only one son from each generation assumes the status of Israelite lineal heir, who asserts a claim over the family name and household, and the narrative precedent builds tension in the Joseph story.44 39.  McConville, “Forgiveness,” 638. 40.  Accounts of Jacob’s affection for Rachel are referenced in Gen 29:18, 20, 30. 41.  Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy consistently establish the position of the firstborn, presenting a consensus in the legal material on primogeniture (Knoppers, “Preferential Status,” 116). However, note the following discussion of whether ‫ בכור‬in Biblical Hebrew means “firstborn” or rather “designated heir” in Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together, 59–60. 42.  Compare with the following examples where the norms of primogeniture were ignored or disrupted: Cain and Seth (Gen 4–5); Ishmael and Isaac (Gen 21); Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 48:5–19); David and his brothers (1 Sam 16); and Adonijah and Solomon (1 Kgs 1). 43.  Attempts to reconcile the Genesis passage with the legal material can be examined in Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status,” 39 n. 6; Wells, “Hated Wife,” 144–45. 44.  Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 123.

38

Jealousy in Context

It comes as no surprise then that the favoritism of Joseph over the older brothers is met with protest. Their animosity is portrayed as repudiation (‫)ׂשנא‬ of their younger brother. Like the Philistine “hatred” of Isaac, this repudiation is not so much a state or attitude but an expectation that their obligations to their brother have been broken. The lack of peace between them represents the rupture in fellowship of the house of Jacob.45 While favoritism plays a significant role in this disruption, the ‫ קנאה‬of the brothers is triggered when Joseph attempts to legitimize his favored position by talking about his dreams. These dreams insinuate that he will dominate them and that both his brothers and parents will bow down before him (vv. 5–11). In the first dream, Joseph’s sheaf is said to stand tall, and the other sheaves (the brothers) bow down before him, implying that the brothers would serve Joseph as a master and foreshadow the events in Egypt (vv. 6–7). The brothers hate him even more and doubt the possibility of this dream coming to pass (v. 8). The final dream includes both his brothers (metaphorically represented as stars) and his parents (sun and moon) paying obeisance (‫ )מׁשתחוים‬to Joseph (vv. 9–10). If taken as prophetic visions, the situation presented in his dreams threatens the natural hierarchy of the family. The dreams suggest the ascendancy of the youngest son over his father’s house. Jacob even rebukes (‫ )גער‬Joseph for his son’s arrogance, derisively inquiring whether the family should bow down before Joseph (v. 10). His brothers are also incredulous and demand to know whether Joseph is to rule over their father’s household (v. 8). These reactions over the implications of the dreams suggests a refutation of Joseph’s claims. Although the brothers (excluding Reuben) had planned to kill Joseph, they ultimately decide to strip him of his special garment and follow Judah’s suggestion to sell him into slavery (vv. 27–28).46 It appears that Judah is motivated not by compassion but by pure self-interest. He states, “What gain (‫ )בצע‬is there if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?” (v. 26). By abandoning him to the caravan traders, the brothers fulfill two goals. The first is to rid the family of Joseph in order to ensure that his dreams do not come to pass. The second aim is to right the social disruption created by the special garment. By stripping it from him, they symbolically strip Joseph of his favored position. Throughout the Joseph story, dress is used to mark social transitions.47 Both the dreams and 45.  Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 37. 46.  It is important to note that when Reuben speaks in E’s depiction of the brothers’ conflict (Gen 37:22), it is for the purpose of saving his little brother. As first born, Reuben actually has the most to lose with regard to primogeniture disruption, yet is set apart by E as the only brother who acts on behalf of Joseph’s interests. In J’s representation of the conflict, however, hatred and ‫קנאה‬ collectively drive the brothers to strip him of his tunic and sell him to passing traders. For discussion, see Kim, “Reading the Joseph Story,” 230–35. 47.  In Gen 39:12–18; 41:14, 42, clothes mark Joseph’s social transition from slave to prisoner and from prisoner to vizier of the Pharaoh. See also Gen 45:22, when Joseph outfits the brothers with garments in Egypt, which may be taken as a sign of their reconciliation.

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

39

garment affect Joseph’s social standing in relation to his brothers, threatening the stability of the family (v. 20). The Broader Context of Primogeniture Disruption in the Ancient Near East In Gen 37:11, the ‫ קנאה‬against Joseph is collective, signaling the breach of fellowship among the brothers and the suspicion of a disruption to the established social order of their community.48 By understanding ‫ קנאה‬as something more than feelings of resentment and emphasizing the social nuance of the term, we are able to understand the motivation of the brothers’ actions against Joseph. This social disruption motivates the brothers to act out of the need to preserve the self-interests of the community order of the family.49 Experiencing ‫ קנאה‬in a situation in which a younger brother disrupts hierarchical succession is also known in Neo-Assyrian texts dated to the reign of Esarhaddon (681–69 BCE). In one historical inscription recounting the circumstances of Esarhaddon’s succession, he states that his brothers were overwhelmed with ‫( קנאה‬qīnu) upon his appointment and drove him from the capital.50 Esarhaddon, being the younger brother, disrupted the norms of primogeniture. The inscription is generally identified as an apologetic text, which purports to describe the events leading up to the enthronement of Esarhaddon. His appointment contradicted the norms of primogeniture as he was not the eldest son of his father Sennacherib,51 which provoked a dispute between him and his brothers concerning succession.52 It is for this reason that the text seeks to legitimize his kingship by stating that 48.  The brothers are introduced as a collective unit (37:2, 4) and are usually spoken of in terms of the collective (Gen 37:12, 17, 18, 31; 42:3, 6–17, 18, 21, 30–32; 43:18–22; 44:7–9; 50:15–18, 20, 24). There are cases where Reuben or Judah speaks or acts alone (Gen 37:21–22, 26, 29; 42:22, 37; 43:3–5; 44:14–19). 49.  Claus Westermann elaborates, “It is a social order that stands in opposition to the community order of the family where the only authority is parental. The brothers (and the father too in vv. 9–11) represent the old order which they see threatened by the youngest brother’s arrogance arising in his dream” (Genesis 37–50, 32). However, Westermann ignores the social and legal undertones of ‫ קנאה‬and dedicates no discussion to the term. 50.  Following the reading proposed by Frahm, “Warum die Brüder Böses planten,” 29, 39–41. As a counterargument to Eckart Frahm’s proposal, Andrew Knapp asserts that Frahm’s option “struggles from forcing poorly attested interpretation on two words whose surface meaning seems clear” (Royal Apologetic, 310 n. 28). Knapp further notes that we should expect qí-nu-ú and not qí-nu to represent the final aleph of the root. However, it should be noted that the nominal form ostensibly derives from the pattern qitl. In Akkadian, the loss of aleph in a consonantal cluster causes the lengthening of the immediately preceding vowel. In this case, Frahm’s vocalization qīnu is tenable. See Huehnergard, Grammar of Akkadian, 38. What is peculiar is that the form is otherwise attested with the n assimilated, as in qiʾʾu and qaʾʾu, in the two other Neo-Assyrian attestations, although the form qīnu is attested in Old Babylonian lexical lists. 51.  Nineveh A i 8. 52.  For discussions on the norms of primogeniture in Assyria and the ancient Near East, see Garelli, “État et la légitimité royale sous l’empire assyrien”; Porter, Images, Power, and Politics, 15 n. 22; Pongratz-Leisten, “Genealogien als Kulturtechnik.”

40

Jealousy in Context

his succession was divinely determined and approved by his father Esarhaddon, who, it is said, enforced a succession treaty on the people of Assyria and the royal family after appointing Esarhaddon as crown prince.53 Prior to his enthronement, the heated rivalry between Esarhaddon and his brothers forced Sennacherib to leave Nineveh and seek refuge in the western provinces. The crown prince only returned to the capital after his father’s assassination in order to assume control of Assyria and quell rebellion. Although the text never mentions Sennacherib’s assassination, scholars have suggested that the murder of his father was orchestrated by Esarhaddon’s older (half) brother Arda-Muliššu, who colluded with his other brothers.54 In the text, Esarhaddon depicts the disloyalty of his brothers as a violation of divine laws.55 In Esarhaddon’s succession treaty ensuring his own younger son’s appointment as crown prince, he similarly warns against a person with ‫( קנאה‬bēl qiʾʾu) (i.e., those who might opposes his younger son’s succession).56 Both Neo-Assyrian texts deal with familial estrangement between father and younger son by brothers or family members who have reservations concerning the legitimacy of the chosen crown prince. Furthermore, these concerns were probably underpinned by the social norms of succession. Returning to our biblical passage, we cannot deny that the narrator is exploiting emotional imagery to strengthen and move the story forward. It is natural to react emotionally to a situation threatening the harmony of a community, but the ‫ קנאה‬expressed by the brothers and their subsequent actions signal the social significance of this emotion concept. It not until Joseph meets his family in Gen 45 in Egypt that their issues are resolved. Reconciliation is reached among the brothers when their suspicions against Joseph are tested and his dreams from his youth are legitimized and realized, thus demonstrating that Joseph holds the key to the family’s survival. The brothers accept the reality that they are faced with because the prominence of Joseph is legitimized through divine will. Moreover, the brothers also understand that his prominence does not hinder the family unity but actually supports it. Shortly thereafter, Joseph establishes an agreement with his brothers that ensures the protection of the house of Jacob and reaffirms their family unity. Both the Neo-Assyrian and biblical passages represent ‫ קנאה‬as a normal reaction to a disruption in primogeniture. Yet, in

53.  Nineveh A i 9–19 (9–10, 13, 17–18). 54.  Parpola, “Murder of Sennacherib,” 174. 55.  The apology of Esarhaddon was written long after he took the throne in his eighth regnal year (673 BCE). One interpretation is that the ultimate goal of the apology was to provide precedent for his decision to appoint a younger son as crown prince (Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology,” 37, followed by Pongratz-Leisten, Religion and Ideology in Assyria, 344). In contrast, Andrew Knapp proposes that it was to cushion military setbacks that had led to the resurgence of rumors surrounding Esarhaddon’s royal qualifications (Royal Apologetic, 324). 56.  SAA 2, 6:328. Refer also to Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology,” 37.

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

41

these cases divine will takes precedence over the normal, expected rules of succession. The Foreshadowing of Intertribal Tensions The Joseph story deals with relationships in which the family unit determines community structure. The ‫ קנאה‬of the brothers reveals the nature of this relationship and represents the rift established between Joseph and his brothers. There is a trajectory from initial, hostile familial relationship to a restoration of the unity and integrity of the family community. The larger role of ‫קנאה‬ in the narrative is to signal the family rift, moving the story forward by providing the motivation for the brothers’ actions. At the same time, the conflict represented within the Joseph narrative also speaks to Israelite perceptions of identity. Whatever the origin and background of this narrative, one thing to remember is that these are not just brothers who have birthright positions in the family; they also represent the tribal patriarchy. While this is a family story, it is also a representation of the political positions of the different tribes. This larger scope—the agenda of the narrative—is always in the background. We see subtle hints concerning the intertribal relationships through these issues of betrayal and reconciliation. The intertribal tensions among the sociopolitical groups of Israel and tribal hierarchies are represented through Joseph’s relationships with his brothers.57 These personalities represent regions of larger social and political polities in which there existed rivalry for authority and political power. For example, important parts of the narrative focus on the conflict between Joseph and Judah. It was, after all, Judah who encouraged the brothers to sell Joseph into slavery. In prophetic literature, Joseph, like Ephraim, symbolizes the northern kingdom.58 Meanwhile, Judah represents the southern kingdom. The historical strife between the northern and southern kingdoms is legitimized through the rivalry between Joseph and Judah.59 For any ancient audience, Joseph would be understood as the territories of Ephraim and Manasseh, the center of “Israelite” authority and economic breadbasket, while Judah, on the other hand, would represent the smaller, southern kingdom, which never reached the same political and economic superiority that their northern brethren achieved.60 The rivalry 57.  On the typological aspect of sibling rivalry and tribal tensions in Joseph story, see Brettler, Creation of History, 48–61. Brettler states, “Viewed typologically, the drama between these brothers at the end of Genesis reflects the relationship among the later tribes that carry the brothers’ names” (55). 58.  Ezek 37:16; Amos 6:6. 59.  1 Chr 5:1–2. 60.  For a historical survey of the rivalry between Israel and Judah, see McCarter, “Divided Monarchy.”

42

Jealousy in Context

between the two kingdoms is thus projected backward, and we see this through the various correspondences between the family relationships depicted in the Joseph story and the later political and social reality of Israel and Judah.61 This rivalry is portrayed as an intrinsic feature of the relationship between the two tribes. We see this reality reflected in Isa 11:13, although here the ‫ קנאה‬is expressed not by Judah, as it is in Gen 37, but by Ephraim: The ‫ קנאה‬of Ephraim will depart, And the hostility62 of Judah will be cut off. Ephraim will no longer express ‫ קנאה‬against Judah, And Judah will not express enmity against Ephraim. (Isa 11:13) In this verse, the political turmoil of the period and the strife between the northern and southern kingdoms was due to their mutual rivalry.63 It is only through cooperation, reconciliation, and the removal of enmity that the two kingdoms will be able to overcome their enemies and pave the way for peace and reunification.64 In the Joseph story, there exists this underlining issue of contemporary political realities reflected among these characters. Furthermore, the main concern is not merely the objection of Joseph’s primacy or behavior but that disunity threatens the harmony and unification of the entire tribal organization. When the brothers experience ‫קנאה‬, it implies that the twelve-tribe system is at risk. Their repudiation indicates an absence of loyalty and allegiance, and their ‫ קנאה‬and the resulting behavior signal a disruption in the tribal system, implying that the current system of imbalance cannot continue to exist. This is perhaps why the resolution of familial conflict culminates with the family fusion represented in Jacob’s blessing in Gen 49. All brothers are included as heirs, and emphasis is placed less on property and exclusivity of heirship and more on the social survival of Jacob’s lineage in a new land (Egypt). Lacking land as a means of determining descent, the brothers’ direct relation to Jacob validates them as members of this lineage, thereby decentralizing heirship.65 While the author expresses the

61.  Brettler, Creation of History, 58. 62.  Scholars seem divided as to whether to take this as an abstract plural meaning “hostility” or as its more “traditional” meaning “adversaries.” Yet the parallel couplet that follows suggests that Judah’s hostility toward Ephraim is in view, so the translations reflects “hostile ones from Judah.” This interpretation would favor the immediate context of the verse rather than general usage of the term, but see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 266. 63.  See also Isa 9:20–21. For the historical context of this rivalry, see the proposal by Blenkinsopp, ibid., 268. 64.  See also Isa 10:20–34; Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 266. 65.  Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 130–31.

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

43

Joseph narrative as a family story with sibling rivalry, we should also consider the broader issues concerning tribal organization in view in these passages.

The Scripts of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenarios in Genesis Now that we have contextualized our three case studies, we will outline their respective scripts in order to make broader thematic connections between the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios in Genesis. The script tables found in this study are intended to provide a general outline of the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios found in our case studies.66 In these charts, we will identify the scenario, the motivation or trigger of the ‫קנאה‬ scenario, the reaction or behavior that is depicted, and the outcome or resolution of this event, if one is obvious. Furthermore, we will note the norm or expectation that is disrupted by whatever triggered the individual or group to experience ‫קנאה‬, and the general framework of the social relationship depicted (or adapted) in the scenario. We can observe from this table a few discrete similarities between the ‫קנאה‬ scenarios in the narratives. First, all three scripts share similar motivational triggers involving a perceived threat to accepted social norms. Second, the subsequent behavior of those expressing ‫ קנאה‬manifests through some kind of expulsion or restriction that seeks to address a perceived imbalance and remove the social threat. Finally, at their core all three scenarios involve socioeconomic conflicts that ultimately involve concerns over community or family property and the rights accrued from structured relationships granted through sanctioned social roles. The ‫ קנאה‬expressed in these passages results from a perceived breach in these structured relationships. When seen from this perspective, it is possible to view the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios within their broader social framework and group expectations. In particular, the literary episodes in Gen 30 and 37 allude to broader societal concerns involving Israelite lineal heirs and claims to land and reflect the authors’ understanding of the development of the rivalry between the northern and southern kingdoms. At the same time, ‫ קנאה‬also represents in these situations an intention to break down a relationship, thereby isolating the parties involved from each other, which is perhaps why various forms of “hatred” are communicated in these ‫ קנאה‬scenarios. The suspicions that drive these narratives and the actions of the Philistines, Rachel, and Jacob’s sons—or more specifically their ‫—קנאה‬signal a dangerous situation that must be resolved in order to maintain social harmony. 66.  The script tables found throughout this study are not intended to convey or suggest any structural or form-critical significance among the passages under study. Indeed, these charts reflect a general narrative pattern that can be found in a variety of biblical passages without ‫ קנאה‬attested. The charts instead serve as useful guides for the reader and outline the various ‫ קנאה‬scenarios for ease of access.

Motivation

Nonnative resident threatens social order of community through the rapid accumulation of wealth and status.

Hated wife threatens integrity of household by bearing sons before the loved wife.

Adherence to fratriarchical order of succession.

Youngest brother threatens eldest brothers’ rights of succession and social order of the family.

Genesis 37: Brothers’ ‫ קנאה‬toward Joseph

Loved wife has primacy over hated wife.

Genesis 30: Rachel’s ‫ קנאה‬toward Leah

Nonnative resident abides by social norms set by community.

Genesis 26: Philistines’ ‫ קנאה‬toward Isaac

Expectation

Brothers drive out youngest brother (reaction foreshadows tribal tensions).

Loved wife confronts the head of the household, and limits hated wife’s access to the marital bed.

Community sabotages nonnative resident’s wells.

Reaction

Table 1: Scripts of the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios in Genesis

The blessing of the patriarch redefines the relationship between brothers.

Birth of Joseph confirms the primacy of loved wife.

Formal contract redefines the parties’ social and legal relationship.

Outcome

Conflict regarding status and inheritance rights within a household.

Conflict regarding social order within a household.

Socioeconomic conflict regarding land, property, and status concerns between a nonnative resident and community.

Framework

44 Jealousy in Context

‫ קנאה‬in the Patriarchal Narratives

45

Conclusion The basic concerns conveyed in the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios in Genesis are thematically similar and reveal a general resemblance to each other. These literary themes involve socioeconomic concerns that involve rights regarding property and structured relationships. The major interests of the author or group of authors of these passages were the representation of social imbalance and conflict and the means by which a community or individual within a community handled them. We might even say that when ‫ קנאה‬is expressed by members of a community or household, these members are upholding core values of a group. Indeed, rather than a feeling that is experienced within the boundaries of the body, ‫קנאה‬ as it appears in Genesis is an expression with important social implications and ramifications and overlaps with the socioeconomic concerns regarding communities and households throughout the book of Genesis. In these stories, family households and communities are presented as maintaining strategies for the social and economic survival since fragmentation of social relationships within the household or community diminishes family and communal holdings and puts their survival at risk. Through the literary imagination of their authors, the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios provide insights regarding the loss or disruption of property, hierarchy relations, social status, and hereditary rights in ancient Israel and Judah.

Chapter 3

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

In the previous chapterwe saw how contextualizing the social concerns in the patriarchal narratives of Genesis led to a deeper understanding of biblical ‫ קנאה‬in a literary context. We will now apply this understanding in our discussion of biblical passages in which the term appears and uncover the term’s deeper role within these passages. The example that we will explore here is the prescribed ritual for a case of suspected adultery in Num 5:11–31.

Interpretive Issues The meaning and significance of the ritual procedure described in Num 5:11–31 remain elusive despite decades of scholarship. In the passage, any man who suspects his wife of being unfaithful is required to bring her to a priest who will preside over a series of ritual acts in order to determine her guilt or innocence. The motivation of the husband is described in terms of ‫קנאה‬, usually translated as “jealousy.” Thus in vv. 14–15, for example, the NRSV reads: “if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife . . . then the man shall bring his wife to the priest.” After the husband provides an offering (‫)קרבן‬, the priest has the woman drink a potion made from holy water (‫)מים קדׁשים‬, the dust of the tabernacle floor, and the remnants of an oath-curse formula written in ink and dissolved in the draught (vv. 17–23). The priest then submits the wife to divine judgment. The oath stipulates that if the woman is innocent, she will be unharmed and “bear seed” (‫נזרעה זרע‬, v. 28), but if she is guilty, a curse will physically manifest (v. 27).1 This discrete passage is situated in the larger context of Num 5, which deals with the purity and sacrality of the community. These passages describe a variety of situations that disrupt the religious integrity of the

1.  Yahweh will cause her “thigh to fall” and her “belly to swell” (‫בתת יהוה את־ירכך נפלת ואת־בטנך‬ ‫( )צבה‬v. 21), although the exact circumstances of the woman’s punishment are still debated.

46

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

47

camp and prescribe the appropriate rituals to safeguard against these potential threats. How Num 5:11–31 fits into this broader framework, however, is still unresolved in modern scholarship, and it remains unclear what is at stake for the community and how its integrity is restored through the completion of the ritual.2 This lack of consensus is perhaps due to the overwhelming emphasis on the many provocative and unique features of the passage, which have been debated by interpreters since the Mishnaic period.3 Virtually every modern commentator considers the ritual procedure in Num 5:11–31 unusual within the corpus of Israelite law.4 A feature of the passage that has occupied scholars is the issue of adultery. In fact, past studies have often understood the polluting potential of adultery as the primary concern that the procedure seeks to address.5 The complex ritual components of the procedure and their “magical” features have also been widely discussed, with particular attention paid to the potion, the oath, and its curse.6 The classification of this procedure as a ritual ordeal, which would make it the only explicit ordeal in the

2.  For example, Jacob Milgrom suggests some connection between Num 5:6–8 and Num 5:11–31 in that the term ‫מעל‬, “offense,” appears in both texts, thus providing a “link between these two otherwise unrelated cases” (Numbers, 38). Baruch Levine posits that the issue at the heart of the ritual procedure in Num 5:11–31 is the wife being pregnant and the child being illegitimate, resulting in a sexual transgression (Numbers 1–20, 181). However, there is no evidence that the wife is pregnant in the passage. A more general connection among the passages is made by other scholars. In his commentary, Timothy R. Ashley identifies Num 5:1–6:21 as “Various Legal Enactments” under the larger rubric of “Matters Concerning the People and the Camp (1:1–6:27)” (Book of Numbers, 15). For those who see little continuity between the rituals in Num 5–6, see Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, 39; Noth, Numbers, 44; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 128. 3.  This passage forms the basis for the tractate Sotah in the Mishnah (ca. second century CE). For further discussion, see Grushcow, Writing the Wayward Wife, 1–4. 4.  Tivka Frymer-Kensky notes, “Like the case of the decapitated heifer (Deut xxi 1–9) [the passage] is one of the few instances in which we have a detailed description of a ritual to be performed in answer to a crisis in the legal system: in the case of the decapitated heifer, the problem of an unsolved murder; in that of the Sotah, the issue of a suspected adulteress” (“Strange Case,” 11). Baruch Levine more explicitly emphasizes the magicolegal quality of the procedure, arguing that Num 5:11–31 “presents an integrated phenomenology” of prayer, magic, and the judicial ordeal (Numbers 1–20, 212). 5.  For example, see Kennedy, Leviticus and Numbers, 214–15; Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, 43; Elliot-Binns, Book of Numbers, 30; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 128; Sturdy, Numbers, 43; Budd, Numbers, 60; Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” 27; Milgrom, Numbers, 350; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 192–212. 6.  For example, is she suspected of adultery because she is pregnant (McKane, “Poison,” 474)? If guilty, does her punishment result in a miscarriage (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 66) or pelvic prolapse (Frymer-Kensky, “Strange Case,” 20–21)? Is the potion she is instructed to drink poisonous (McKane, “Poison,” 476–78) or harmless (Sasson, “Numbers 5,” 249–51), and are the waters actually bitter (Miller, “Another Look,” 14–15)? The following works alone focus on the identification of the so-called waters of bitterness that bring about a curse (‫ )מי המרים המאררים‬in vv. 18, 19, 22, 24, and 27: Driver, “Two Problems,” 73–77; Sasson, “Numbers 5,” 249–51; Pardee, “mārîm in Numbers V”; Kitz, “Effective Simile,” 451–54; Feinstein, “ ‘Bitter Waters.’ ”

48

Jealousy in Context

Hebrew Bible, has been discussed extensively among scholars.7 That adultery and ritual have been the main interest of modern scholarship is demonstrated by the ways major commentaries and translations characterize the passage.8 Numbers 5:11–31 has been identified as “The Ordeal of Jealousy,”9 “The Divine Judgment in Cases of Suspected Adultery,”10 “Priests and the Ordeal,”11 “The Case of the Suspected Adulteress,”12 “The Ordeal of the Errant Wife,”13 and “The Case of Suspected Adultery.”14 Subheadings in Standard English bibles identify it as “The Test for Marital Unfaithfulness” (ISV), “The Test for an Unfaithful Wife” (NIV), or “Concerning an Unfaithful Wife” (RSV). A few works in the past decade have focused less on the topics of adultery and ritual and more on the motivation of the procedure, identified in the text as ‫קנאה‬.15 In the passage, the husband experiences ‫ קנאה‬regardless of whether the woman has committed adultery or not.16 Instead of identifying the procedure 7.  Relying on ancient Near Eastern parallels, some have argued that it should be identified as an ordeal procedure (see Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” 27–28; Milgrom, Numbers, 346–48; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 204–5), while others have identified it as a purgatory oath (see Brichto, “Case of the Sota,” 55; Frymer-Kensky, “Strange Case,” 21–24). For a review of the oath/ordeal debate, see Lipka, Sexual Transgression, 111–20. The identification of this ritual as an ordeal has led to a debate concerning the origins of the ritual. Some identify the procedure as fundamentally Yahwistic, with magical elements embedded within its ritual components (Miller, “Another Look,” 14–16). Baruch Levine also emphasizes the magical character of the ritual procedure, identifying it as a “magical ordeal” (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 105). However, there are others, such as Jacob Milgrom, who argue that the ritual is not originally Yahwistic and is instead a modification of a “pagan ordeal” used by priestly legislators to address the problem of suspected adultery (Numbers, 350–54; compare Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, 47–49). 8.  Briggs, “Reading the Sotah Text,” 293. 9.  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, 43–56; Wenham, Numbers, 79–85. 10.  Noth, Numbers, 47–52. 11.  Budd, Numbers, 60–67. 12.  Milgrom, Numbers, 37–43. 13.  Levine, Numbers 1–20, 200–212. 14.  Olson, Numbers, 48–57. 15.  For example, Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme argues that “there are good reasons not to adopt this [viewpoint]”—that is, referring to the procedure as a ritual for adultery—“since the ritual has little to do with adultery but much about jealousy” (“Kind of Magic,” 150), following the interpretations of Britt, “Male Jealousy”; Boer, “Law of the Jealous Man”; and Briggs, “Reading the Sotah Text.” The cited works primarily focus on the issue of hermeneutics in the passage. For example, Richard S. Briggs discusses the tendency of interpretations of the passage to overlook the man’s jealousy in favor of emphasizing the woman’s suspected adultery (“Reading the Sotah Text,” 294). He also notes that the labeling and perspective of the ritual procedure was likely influenced by rabbinic tradition, which labels this tractate as “Sotah.” For others who have noted the motivation of the procedure as “jealousy” in passing, see Frymer-Kensky, “Strange Case,” 18; Ellens, “Numbers 5.11–31,” 74. 16.  Tivka Frymer-Kensky sees two cases presented in the passage: one in which the woman is in fact guilty (vv. 12–14) and one in which the woman is innocent (v. 14) (“Strange Case,” 17 n. 7). Both situations involve some expression of ‫קנאה‬. See, however, Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” 31–35, who argues that the two cases in the procedure are one of public suspicion and accusation and the other of “jealous” suspicion on the part of the husband.

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

49

as a ritual of adultery, these scholars identify it as a ritual of ‫קנאה‬, or what is widely translated as “jealousy.” The text itself supports this position, identifying the procedure not as a “a law of adultery” (‫ )תורת הׂשטה‬but as a “a law of ‫קנאה‬ (pl.)” (‫ )תורת הקנאת‬in v. 29. While these studies fill a gap in the scholarship on Num 5:11–31 by focusing on the major concern of the procedure, they provide no discussion of the meaning of ‫ קנאה‬in context and frame it as a personal issue rather than an issue that may have a greater social impact.17 By ignoring contextual considerations, traditional translations and interpretations of the term undervalue the social significance of the expression and the wider context and placement of this ritual in Numbers. For example, with regard to the ritual in Num 5:11–31, scholars have tenuously identified ‫ קנאה‬as a psychological affliction that is remedied through some psychotherapeutic effect of the procedure.18 However, we must be cautious in how we understand the term ‫ קנאה‬and its effect on the husband. Treating ‫ קנאה‬as a destructive emotional or psychological affliction has led to arguments that the ‫ קנאה‬of the man is irrational,19 and that the procedure functions as a means for the husband to vent his rage.20 These conclusions provide very little insight into the role of ‫ קנאה‬in the cultic-legal procedure and what is truly at risk for the community.

The Cultic-Legal Framework of ‫ קנאה‬in the Hebrew Bible As demonstrated in the previous chapter, ‫ קנאה‬often arises in situations where the self-interests of an individual or group are threatened by a perceived interloper or rival; this disruptive agent also threatens the integrity of some kind 17.  While Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme does acknowledge “jealousy” as the motivating force, she does not elaborate on its meaning or significance. In her study, she reviews the same questions and issues that scholars before her have covered, but she attempts to provide a new perspective through the application of ritual theory to the procedure—focusing particularly on the oath-curse procedure. The first part of her study attempts to demonstrate how the ritual is a “kind of magic,” owing its existence to other ancient Near Eastern magical ordeal procedures. The second part of her study provides an intertextual reading of the procedure, in which she argues that the ritual is a literary technique and the ordeal is a metaphor for the breakdown in the divine–human relationship (de Hemmer Gudme, “Kind of Magic,” 167). 18.  Ellens, “Numbers 5.11–31,” 73–75. 19.  Boer, “Law of the Jealous Man,” 89; Briggs, “Reading the Sotah Text,” 312. However, compare Levine, Numbers 1–20, 66, who justifies the ordeal procedure by arguing that the woman is pregnant. 20.  For example, in her description of the ‫רוח קנאה‬, Deborah L. Ellens identifies it as a “malady” that “overtakes a man who suspects his wife of infidelity,” and the aim of the ritual is to “rescue a single male from his condition” (“Numbers 5.11–31,” 73–75). For Jacob Milgrom, the procedure represents a kind of legal innovation where “the community and, especially, the overwrought husband may not give way to their passions to lynch her” (Milgrom, “Case of the Suspected Adulteress,” 74; see also Briggs, “Reading the Sotah Text,” 295–96).

50

Jealousy in Context

of social arrangement that the individual or group values. In our discussion of the Genesis passages, we observed that ‫ קנאה‬is conceptually underpinned by important aspects of social organization. With the Philistines in Gen 26:14, ‫קנאה‬ is provoked by a rival who disrupted the balance in their community. Rachel’s ‫ קנאה‬toward her rival sister-wife Leah in Gen 30:1 represents a concern for her rights as the favored wife of Jacob, while the ‫ קנאה‬of the brothers of Joseph in Gen 37:11 articulates a concern for the protection of the norms of primogeniture. Such situations, as we saw, create a perceived inequity or imbalance, experienced as ‫קנאה‬, that must be resolved. Discussions on the social implications of biblical emotions note how the behavioral dimension of emotion vocabulary is most explicit in cultic-legal material.21 For example, scholars have noted that the political and legal significance of the words of “love” (‫ )אהב‬and “hate” (‫ )ׂשנא‬in Biblical Hebrew is most obvious in the biblical legal material.22 The fact that Num 5:11–31 is both a cultic and legal procedure challenges us to understand ‫ קנאה‬within this context. In this study, we have identified ‫ קנאה‬as a relational term that is experienced by those who perceive social transgressions. It may exist between rival residents, wives, and siblings. However, the term’s juridical connotation remains elusive. As we come closer to its use as a divine expression representing the command of exclusivity in Israelite religion, ‫ קנאה‬takes on a more obvious cultic-legal quality. The scenario represented in Num 5:11–31 provides an appropriate bridge between the use of divine and nondivine ‫קנאה‬. Although it is expressed by a man who suspects his wife has committed adultery, the context of the expression is set in a cultic-legal situation involving divine intervention and the community. Moreover, the use of ‫ קנאה‬in Num 5 involves concerns over relational exclusivity within a socially sanctioned relationship, which is one of the primary issues also represented in its use in religious contexts. In these situations, ‫ קנאה‬is occasioned by the desire for exclusivity, both in the context of human relationships—in our case this would be reflected in the marriage between a husband and wife, where the wife is expected to maintain loyalty to her husband—and in the relationship between a community and its god. When one partner in the relationship expresses ‫קנאה‬, the reaction signifies a concern for a breach in the social contract. For the purposes of contextualization, we will explore examples that deal with ‫ קנאה‬in situations where relational exclusivity is involved before delving deeper into our passage. The first group of examples deals with ‫ קנאה‬in the framework of the divine–human relationship, providing a general representation of how this social arrangement is represented in the biblical text as a legally 21.  Anderson, Time to Mourn, 13. 22.  Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background”; Branson, “Polyvalent ŚNʾ.”

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

51

binding contract. By briefly examining the obligation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship, we will discover that ‫ קנאה‬is not out of place in cultic-legal contexts, particularly when relational exclusivity is involved. Although these passages will be discussed in the following chapters in more detail, for our purposes here they serve as appropriate references that will help broadly contextualize the ‫ קנאה‬of the husband in Num 5:11–31. The second example, Prov 6:32–35, involves the only other attestation of ‫ קנאה‬in a conjugal context outside of Num 5:11–31. Through our discussion of these passages, it will be shown that ‫ קנאה‬in these contexts represents a relational term concerned primarily with the maintenance of a relationship that is bound by social, religious, and legal norms. Biblical ‫ קנאה‬and Relational Exclusivity in the Divine–Human Relationship Deuteronomy 32:16, 21, also known as the Song of Moses, may provide one of the oldest references to divine ‫ קנאה‬in the Hebrew Bible, where it is presented as an aspect of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel.23 We will examine this passage in more detail in the following chapter, but for the purposes of our discussion of ‫ קנאה‬in Num 5:11–31, we will briefly discuss the characterization of relational exclusivity in Deut 32. The passage provides a cosmological explanation for the relationship between Israel and Yahweh and the subsequent breach of that relationship, which is expressed in terms of ‫קנאה‬:

They provoked his ‫ קנאה‬with foreign gods, With abominations they provoked him.24 (Deut 32:16)

‫יקנאהו בזרים בתועבת יכעיסהו‬

In the passage, the divine–human relationship is legitimized and understood cosmologically.25 Since mythological antiquity and even prior to its creation, Israel and its people are designated as Yahweh’s portion, and this arrangement is viewed as the proper order of the world (vv. 7–10).26 The passage emphasizes 23.  For the dating of the Song of Moses, see Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 852–59; Joo, Provocation and Punishment, 29 n. 39. 24.  The C-stem of ‫ קנא‬is in parallel with the C-stem of ‫כעס‬, “to provoke,” supplementing the nuance of provocation inherent in the ‫ קנאה‬reaction. For more on the role of ‫ כעס‬in Deut 32, see Joo, Provocation and Punishment, 28–36. 25.  As we will examine in detail in the next chapter of this work, the relationship described here is one of patronage and adoption, and, regardless of whether the covenant is intended, ‫ קנאה‬is not necessarily a covenantal term invoked when there is a covenantal breach but a specialized relational term that can apply to a variety of noncovenantal contexts. Although, see Radwin, “Adultery,” 104–5, who argues that there exists a phenomenon identified as “covenantal” ‫קנאה‬. 26.  For a discussion of this topic, see Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 875–79.

52

Jealousy in Context

the divine election of Israel as Yahweh’s “portion” (‫חלק‬, v. 9). This allocation is established with the expectation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship (one god for one people). Yet the people betray this relationship by becoming arrogant (v. 15) and serving what is described as no-gods (‫לא־אלה‬, v. 17), thus failing to perform their role in the divine–human relationship appropriately.27 These actions contribute to their “corruption” (‫ׁשחת‬, v. 5), which distorts the world order that was determined by the allocation of the peoples and lands among the gods in the divine assembly (vv. 8–14).28 The corruption of the people and their failure to fulfill the obligations required of their relationship provokes Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. As a measure-for-measure punishment, Yahweh threatens to provoke the ‫ קנאה‬of Israel with a “no-people” (‫ )לא־עם‬and to bring ruin upon both land and populations (vv. 19–22).29 The “no-people” are people who lack a special relationship with Yahweh.30 If Yahweh favors the no-people, then this would provoke the ‫ קנאה‬of Israel, since it is Israel who is supposed to receive the benefits of their special relationship with Yahweh. In addition to describing the reaction of the deity when there is a breach in the divine–human contract, ‫ קנאה‬also signals a need to address a potential disruption in the social order and expectations in the community. We will see this more clearly in the following chapters, but for the purpose of our discussion of the broader cultic-legal character of ‫קנאה‬, it is important to note that Deut 32 presents the view that unresolved ‫ קנאה‬threatens the Israelite community at large and must be reconciled through the proper channels. In the text, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is pacified by bringing justice upon those who “hate” (‫ )ׂשנא‬him (i.e., those who have scorned the terms of their relationship) (v. 41).31 In vv. 34–43, Yahweh will reconcile and cleanse both his land and a remnant of his people from any guilt they have incurred. He does this by bringing judgment and punishment (‫)נקם‬32 upon his enemies and the idolatrous Israelites, making atonement (‫)כפר‬ and reparation (‫ׁשלם‬, vv. 35–36, 43).33 These references suggest that through this 27.  These gods are also identified as ‫ זרים‬in v. 16 and ‫ ׁשדים‬and ‫ חדׁשים‬in v. 17. 28.  In Gen 6:11, the root ‫ ׁשחת‬is used to represent something twisted and out of shape. The passage in Genesis assumes that there is a fixed order and ‫ ׁשחת‬distorts that order. This distorted world is identified as ‫חמס‬, which we will also find in prophetic texts detailing Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬resulting from land defilement via apostasy. 29.  The punishment alludes to various destructive elements, from natural calamities to implements of war and violence in v. 25. 30.  For the possible identification of ‫לא־עם‬, see Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 856–57, 888. 31.  Note the use of ‫ ׂשנא‬as a technical term for those who break the terms of a relationship (Branson, “Polyvalent ŚNʾ,” 10–11). 32.  For the juridical use of the root ‫ נקם‬in the Hebrew Bible, see Peels, Vengeance of God, 61–86, 271. 33.  The cleansing of the land might be required since idolatry and the shedding of innocent blood pollutes the land (Lev 18:24–30; Jer 3:1–2, 9; Ps 106:38); it is atoned for by shedding the

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

53

process, Yahweh resolves his ‫ קנאה‬that he experiences as a result of Israelite betrayal.34 Since Yahweh had “acquired” Israel as a possession, which involved the creation of a formal relationship defined by certain boundaries, the deity is understood as having the right to invoke indictment and punishment against his people upon their betrayal. In other examples from the Hebrew Bible and in Deuteronomy in particular, the formal relationship between Yahweh and his people is explicitly mentioned before or after ‫ קנאה‬or ‫קנא‬.35 These examples deal solely with the obligation of exclusivity, as directed in the first and second commandments of the Decalogue (Deut 5:1–10; Exod 20:1–6).36 Like Deut 32, ‫ קנאה‬is accompanied with warnings against reneging on agreements involving prohibitions against religious betrayal and idolatry.37 In such cases, it is ‫ קנאה‬that provides justification for (potential) retaliation. By nature, Yahweh is an ‫אל קנא‬, a god who embodies ‫קנאה‬, and in the context of relational exclusivity with Israel, Yahweh is subject to ‫ קנאה‬when protecting his rights of exclusivity as its divine patron.38 blood of the polluters or designated animal sacrifices in their stead (Num 35:33; Deut 21:8–9; 2 Sam 21:1–14; Ezek 36:17–18) (Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 903). 34.  The legal character of this passage has long been noted. See especially Wright, “Lawsuit of God,” 44; Moran, “Deuteronomy,” 274–75. Note, for example, v. 1, which invokes the heavens and the earth to give witness to the judgment of Yahweh (Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 872). 35.  See Exod 20:5; 34:14; Num 25:11; Deut 5:9; 6:15; 29:19 [20]; Josh 24:19; Ps 78:58; Ezek 16:38. 36.  See chapter 6 of this work. 37.  For example, in Deut 29:19 [20] Yahweh’s “burning ‫ ”קנאה‬threatens the people. The verbal attestations of the D-stem (1 Kgs 14:22; Deut 32:21) and C-stem (Deut 32:16; Ps 78:58; Ezek 8:3) of ‫ קנא‬are often associated with violent rage, and as a result some scholars have argued that the best translation of the verb is “to provoke to jealous anger” (Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 18). There are also numerous attestations of the root ‫ קנא‬found in parallel with terms designating wrath or fire in contexts where apostasy has been committed. See Num 25:11; Deut 4:24; 29:19 [20]; 32:16, 21; Job 5:2; Pss 37:1; 78:58; 79:5; Isa 59:17; Ezek 16:38; 35:11; 36:6; 38:19; Zech 8:2; Nah 1:2. The relationship between ‫ קנאה‬and divine wrath is obvious in the prophetic texts, where the term is used in situations of both apostasy and metaphorical adultery. In Ezek 16, for example, the wrathful deity rouses up past lovers of the Israelites against Jerusalem and Samaria. For further discussion of this topic, see chapter 5 of this work. 38.  In summary, biblical ‫ קנאה‬seeks to protect the rights of the partner(s) in a relationship in two ways: either by exposing potential threats to a valued relationship, thereby providing an opportunity for mediation, or by upholding the expectations of the relationship. The latter nuance of ‫ קנאה‬is most obvious when ‫ קנא‬is used with the preposition ‫ל־‬, when ‫ קנאה‬is expressed on behalf of something or someone. Thus, a supplicant can express ‫ קנאה‬for or on behalf of Yahweh, or Yahweh can express ‫ קנאה‬for his own name, honor, or holy abode, protecting his rights as a participant in the divine– human relationship and as patron of Israel (e.g., Ezek 39:25; Zech 1:14). Moreover, when someone expresses ‫ קנאה‬on behalf of Yahweh, they are attempting to guarantee the fulfillment of the obligations inherent in the terms of the relationship, demonstrating a concern for the preservation of the social contract and for the maintenance of social harmony by highlighting unacceptable behavior in the community. Later in this chapter, we will discuss a ‫ קנאה‬scenario where a priest expresses ‫קנאה‬ on Yahweh’s behalf when inappropriate acts occur in the camp in Num 15.

54

Jealousy in Context

Marital Exclusivity and the Case of Proverbs 6:32–35 The nuance of ‫ קנאה‬as a relational term associated with obligations of exclusivity is not limited to divine contexts. It is articulated in Prov 6:32–35 when a husband’s reaction to a case of adultery is characterized as ‫קנאה‬. Proverbs 6:34 advises the reader against committing adultery and states, “For ‫ קנאה‬is the rage (‫ )חמה‬of a man, and he will not show compassion on the day of vengeance (‫)נקם‬.” The following verse explains that the husband will not accept any monetary ransom (‫ )כפר‬or bribe (‫ )ׁשחד‬from the adulterer. Most scholars understand ‫קנאה‬ here as describing the husband’s emotional instability and rage over his ruined marriage, using this rage to convey the danger of adultery.39 According to this interpretation, the husband’s “day of vengeance” (‫ )יום נקם‬is a warning of blood revenge in which the furious spouse avenges his violated honor by eliminating his rival, taking the law into his own hands.40 However, upon closer examination of the immediate context and the use of ‫יום נקם‬, it is likely that this issue extends beyond the two men and involves the wider community. In v. 33, the punishment allotted to the adulterer involves “beating” (‫)נגע‬, “insulting” (‫)קלון‬, and “shaming” (‫)חרפה‬, behaviors that encompass social stigmas that could only be expressed by community members.41 These are sanctions used when one member of the community violates the rights of the other members.42 Instead of identifying the “day of vengeance” as a form of private blood-revenge, we should instead understand its use within the legal framework of justice and authority.43 In ancient Israel, the punishment for adultery was a public matter since adultery breached both religious and social boundaries, threatening community cohesion.44 The ‫ יום נקם‬in v. 34 thus deals with the legal repercussions imposed by both the husband and community. Moreover, v. 35 implies that reconciliation is only achieved through the community’s sanctioned legal or social process. Once the husband is subject to ‫קנאה‬, a process is triggered that cannot be circumvented either through unsanctioned monetary ransom or bribery (v. 35) but instead must be dealt with through the appropriate legal or social channels.45 Unlike other cases presented in the biblical wisdom 39.  For a discussion of the various interpretations of this passage, see McKane, Proverbs, 330–31. 40.  Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 236. 41.  Clifford, Proverbs, 78–81; Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 237. 42.  Lipka, Sexual Transgression, 162. 43.  Peels, Vengeance of God, 271. 44.  Exod 20:14; Lev 18:20; 20:10; Deut 5:18; 22:13–22. See also Lipka, Sexual Transgression, 163. For adultery as a cultic offense, see Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 168–90. 45.  For the use of ‫ ׁשחד‬in this sense, see Phillips, “Another Look at Adultery,” 17–18, and especially Lipka, Sexual Transgression, 162 n. 164, who states that ‫“ ׁשחד‬usually denotes a bribe, often specifically for the purposes of miscarriage of justice.” For ‫ ׁשחד‬in the Hebrew Bible, see Exod 23:8;

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

55

literature where a person’s anger could be pacified through unofficial monetary means, here the ‫ קנאה‬of the husband is understood as requiring the process of ‫נקם‬ in order to be reconciled.46 Thus, the phrase ‫ יום נקם‬functions in conjunction with ‫קנאה‬: it is the day in which ‫ קנאה‬is resolved through public condemnation and punishment of the individual who violated a formal relationship. It is the day the husband presents his case in a public forum so that the social institution(s) can execute the sentence, thereby protecting the honor of the husband and the community while shaming the behavior of his rival and unfaithful spouse.

Numbers 5:11–31 In the passages discussed, ‫ קנאה‬expresses a concern for the boundaries of a relationship that imposes social or religious exclusivity by law or divine will and protects the rights and status of one who suspects that relational obligations have been renounced by means of infidelity and/or through the interference of an interloper. These issues are clearly demonstrated in the ritual procedure in Num 5:11–31. The root ‫ קנא‬occurs ten times throughout the passage in three different but related capacities. In the first of these capacities, it describes the state of the husband (vv. 14, 30). In the second, it qualifies the offering that initiates the rite as an “offering of ‫( ”קנאה‬vv. 15, 18). Finally, it is used to categorize the ritual prescription as “the law of ‫( ”קנאה‬v. 29). The following is a translation of the prescribed ritual in Num 5:11–31:47 The Case Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If any man’s wife is alleged to have gone astray and she commits an act of betrayal against him (‫)מעלה בו מעל‬, in that a man had sex with her, it being concealed from the eyes of her husband and she remains undiscovered, Deut 16:19; 1 Sam 8:3; Isa 1:23; 5:23; Mic 3:11; Prov 17:23. Although ‫ כפר‬can be used as a legitimate form of ransom to avoid punishment (Exod 21:30; 30:12; Isa 43:3), it can also be used in the sense of “bribe” (1 Sam 12:3; Amos 5:12). 46.  According to certain passages, anger or wrath can be appeased through restitution (‫)כפר‬ (Prov 16:14) or pacified with a bribe (‫( )ׁשחד‬Prov 21:14). However, our proverb presents an entirely different situation for ‫קנאה‬. The emotion term ‫חמה‬, “wrath,” is used in this passage in the same way it is used with Yahweh: righteous or justified anger provoked by some breach in a contractual relationship, which leads to legal, cultic, or social repercussions. The ‫ חמה‬expressed by man is also something that “stirs up strife” in the community in Prov 15:18. However, it is its accompaniment with ‫ קנאה‬that provides it with a more social dimension and is perhaps why simple restitution cannot be accepted. 47.  The structure of this translation is based on the interpretation presented in Milgrom, “Case of the Suspected Adulteress,” 69–71.

56

Jealousy in Context

and she has defiled herself, there being no witness against her nor was she caught in the act, and should a suspicion (‫ )רוח‬of ‫ קנאה‬overtake him and he experiences ‫( קנאה‬toward) his wife when she has (in fact) defiled herself, or should a suspicion of ‫ קנאה‬overtake him and he experiences ‫( קנאה‬toward) his wife when she has not defiled herself, (5:11–14) The Instruction of the Procedure and Preparation Action undertaken by husband then the man should bring his wife to the priest and bring an offering (‫ )קרבן‬on her behalf, that is 1/10 of an ephah of barley flour. He must not pour oil onto it nor place frankincense for it is an offering of ‫קנאה‬, an offering of remembrance (‫)מנחת זכרון‬, a memorial of guilt (‫)מזכרת עון‬. (5:15) Preparations undertaken by priest Then the priest will bring her near and make her stand before Yahweh. The priest will take holy water in an earthenware vessel, and the priest will take from the dust from the bottom of the tabernacle and place (it) in the water. The priest will make the woman stand before Yahweh and let loose the (hair of the) head of the woman and place in her hand the grain offering of remembrance, that is the grain offering of ‫קנאה‬. The waters of bitterness (‫)מי המרים‬, which brings about a curse, will be in the hand of the priest. (5:16–18) Oath and Curse A. Innocent Then the priest will place the woman under oath saying to the woman, ‘If no man has had sex with you and if you have not gone astray into a state of impurity while under your husband, be free from the charge of this water of bitterness, which brings about a curse. (5:19) B. Guilty But if you have indeed gone astray under your husband and have indeed defiled yourself, and a man other than your husband has given you his semen . . .’ (Then priest will put the woman under the oath of the curse and say to the woman, ‘May Yahweh make you a curse and an oath among your people by Yahweh’s causing your thigh to fall and your belly to swell.’) This water, which brings about a curse, will enter your bowels and cause (your) belly to swell and (your) thigh to fall.’ The woman will reply, ‘Amen, Amen.’ (5:20–22) Writing of the Oath and Imprecation and Consumption (Potion Making) Then the priest will write these curses on the scroll and then wipe (them) out in the waters of bitterness. Then he will make the woman drink the waters of bitterness which brings about a curse and the water which can bring about a curse will enter her to produce bitterness. (5:23–24)

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

57

The Execution of the Ritual The priest will take from the hand of the woman the offering of ‫ קנאה‬and wave the offering before Yahweh and bring it to the altar. The priest will take a handful from the offering, its token portion (‫)אזכרה‬, and he will burn (it) on the altar and afterward he will make the woman drink the water. When he has made her drink the water, then if she has defiled herself and has truly offended (‫ )תמעל מעל‬her husband, the water, which brings about a curse, will enter her and produce bitterness and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall and the woman will become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and she is clean, then she will be free (of the oath/curse) and she will bear seed. (5:25–28) Summary This is the law of ‫ קנאה‬when a wife is alleged to have gone astray while under her husband and she defiles herself or when the suspicion of ‫קנאה‬ overtakes him (‫ )תעבר עליו‬and he experiences ‫( קנאה‬toward) his wife, he must have the woman stand before Yahweh and the priest will perform all this law upon her. The man will be immune from guilt (‫)נקה האיׁש מעון‬, but that woman will bear her guilt (‫)תׂשא את־עונה‬.’ ” (5:29–31) In the following sections, we will adopt a script approach for our analysis of ‫ קנאה‬in Num 5:11–31. We will begin by investigating ‫ קנאה‬in context and considering the motivations and consequences of its arousal as it plays out in the ritual procedure. Despite the ambiguity of the ritual, one thing seems clear: ‫ קנאה‬plays a significant role in the procedure. By better understanding this Hebrew term, we will improve our understanding of the law of ‫ קנאה‬and its broader role in the book of Numbers. The Suspicion of ‫קנאה‬ Interpretations of ‫ קנאה‬in this passage have focused on the internal state of the husband, primarily identifying it as a feeling involving irritation, anger, and anxiety. Baruch Levine understands the ‫ רוח קנאה‬in vv. 14 and 30 as a “fit of envious possessiveness.”48 Similarly, Jacob Milgrom translates ‫ רוח קנאה‬as a “fit of jealousy.”49 Herbert C. Brichto interprets ‫ קנאה‬as a “passion of suspicion” and suspects that the verb ‫ קנא‬is more of a “possessive emotion” rather than “effective behavior stemming from that emotion.”50

48.  Milgrom, Numbers, 11. 49.  Levine, Numbers 1–20, 38. 50.  Brichto, “Case of the Sota,” 58 n. i.

58

Jealousy in Context

Since most analyses have overlooked the social significance of ‫ קנאה‬and its performative qualities, my interpretation will prioritize the external and behavioral nature of ‫קנאה‬.51 Observe, for example, the use of ‫ רוח‬as the nomen regens in the genitival construction ‫רוח קנאה‬, which differs from such genitival constructions as ‫קצר־רוח‬, “quick tempered” (Prov 14:29), or ‫מרת רוח‬, “griefstricken” (Gen 26:35). While ‫ קנאה‬is something the husband experiences or is subject to, it is also operational within the social norms of his community.52 Taken in consideration with the passages concerning exclusivity that were discussed in the previous sections, we can surmise that ‫ רוח קנאה‬in Num 5:11–31 is the suspicion or sense that a legal arrangement or relationship of great importance has been broken. In the passage, the ‫ קנאה‬of the husband has legal ramifications—had the divination that it necessitated indicated adultery on the part of the wife, it would prove that his rights had been violated. We might even speak here of his “‫ קנאה‬rights”—his rights honoring him as a participant in an exclusive relationship involving marriage. Similar to its use with reference to Yahweh, the ‫ קנאה‬of the husband does not deal with hurt feelings but instead reflects the obligation of exclusivity the woman must demonstrate to her husband. Although at first we might be tempted to allow modern perceptions of marriage and romantic jealousy to color our interpretation of these passages, if we demonstrate a sensitivity to the ancient context of these passages we avoid misrepresentation. Here, the husband demonstrates ‫ קנאה‬as a result of a perceived threat toward a relationship that has social and economic ramifications. In the ancient Near East, the primary importance of marriage was that it represented a legal and economic relationship.53 In the traditional relationship between a 51.  See similarly Wagner, Emotionen, 92–93, who understands ‫ קנאה‬in this context as something external to the husband. Michael Fishbane comes closest to a more social understanding of ‫קנאה‬, arguing that the emotion in this context should be understood as a deep concern for personal prerogatives and represents the husband’s “zealous concern for both her adjudication and his public exoneration” (“Accusations of Adultery,” 35–36). While one of the goals of the ritual seeks to address or protect the man’s personal honor, the argument presented here will suggest that its primary concern in the book of Numbers aims to address a socioreligious issue within the community. 52.  Compare, for example, Isa 19:14, where Yahweh causes severe drunkenness by mixing a “distorted spirit” (‫ )רוח עועים‬within the draught of the rulers of Egypt; Hos 4:12; 5:4, where a “spirit of harlotry” )‫ (רוח זנונים‬overtakes the people; and Deut 34:9, where a “spirit of wisdom” )‫(רוח חכמה‬ fills Joshua. 53.  For example, LH 128; 137–40; LU 9–10; 21; 24–26; LE 59; and MAL A39 in Roth, Law Collections. In these texts, marriage is viewed as a contract with significant economic consequences. Victor Matthews notes that biblical legal codes concerning women and sexuality are “far more concerned with property than with gender and sexual contact” and that marriage “ratified an important political and economic covenant between the bride’s household and the household of her husband” (Matthews, “Honor and Shame,” 97). The incorporation of this ritual in cultic-legal doctrine demonstrates that even the suspicion of infidelity was believed to have dangerous consequences for the

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

59

husband and wife as represented in biblical sources, the wife has an obligation to her husband to maintain the integrity of the family and her marital relationship. The principal economic unit in ancient Israel was the family, and any threat to its integrity would have been met with a strong response.54 Members of a household in ancient Israelite society were expected to fulfill social roles and uphold the cohesion and honor of the household through their behavior.55 Taking a lover had the potential to disrupt the family, since a child resulting from such a situation could potentially estrange the marital property and pose a threat to any legitimate heirs. Safeguarding his rights as patron of the family, the husband’s ‫ קנאה‬is a means of addressing his suspicion that certain obligations are not being met, which poses a threat to the integrity of his household. The Offering of ‫קנאה‬ Before the priest has the woman undergo the ritual, an offering is brought before the deity. The husband plays a pivotal role in providing the offering and handing it to the priest, who then gives it to the woman to present before the altar of Yahweh (vv. 15–16). By supplying the offering, the husband is made an active participant in the proceedings.56 In v. 15, the offering is identified with cultic terminology that is unique to this passage: ‫“( מנחת קנאת‬the grain offering of ‫)”קנאה‬, ‫“( מנחת זכרון‬the grain offering of remembrance”), and ‫“( מזכרת עון‬a memorial of wrongdoing”).57 Scholars have previously treated the name of the offering as an indication that it is occasioned by “feelings of jealousy,” reflecting the “heated and hostile” emotions of the man.58 As we have seen elsewhere with regard to ‫קנאה‬, the naming of the offering as a ‫ מנחת קנאת‬is an essential characteristic of this passage and ritual procedure. Not only does it represent the ‫ קנאה‬that is the household and community in ancient Israelite society (Matthews, “Honor and Shame,” 104). As Jacob Milgrom notes, adultery is both a legal and religious offense in the Hebrew Bible (Numbers, 349). While in other ancient Near Eastern juridical sources, it is possible for the husband to be compensated monetarily, in the Hebrew Bible death is the preferred penalty (Lev 20:10; compare Exod 20:14; Lev 18:20; Deut 5:18; 22:13–22). 54.  Westbrook, Property and the Family, 11. In other ancient Near Eastern legal traditions, when the wife threatens the integrity of the household there are serious repercussions. See, for example, LH 13–16; 131–33ab; 141–43; MAL A24 in Roth, Law Collections. 55.  For further discussion, see Matthews, “Honor and Shame,” 98. 56.  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, 50; Sasson, “Numbers 5,” 249. 57.  One of the main roles of this grain offering may have been to provide incentive for the deity to pronounce his judgment (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 194). 58.  Levine, Numbers 1–20, 194. Jacob Milgrom states that the offering reflects the “suspicions” of jealousy (Numbers, 39), while Levine posits that it is a “normative term, one that says something about the emotions or attitudes prompting the offering, namely, that they are heated and hostile!” (Numbers 1–20, 184).

60

Jealousy in Context

driving force of the procedure, but it also prompts divine judgment, serving as a reminder of the man’s rights of control.59 In Num 5:15, the offering is further qualified as a ‫“( מנחת זכרון‬grain offering of remembrance”), which functions as a ‫“( מזכרת עון‬a memorial of wrongdoing”) used to draw the deity’s attention in order that he might pass judgment on the woman.60 The ‫“( זכרון‬memorial” or “homage”) is otherwise attested as a favorable reminder for the benefit of the person recalled, prompting some scholars to suggest that the use of the ‫ זכרון‬in the ritual is contradictory to prescribed usage.61 According to H. Eising, ‫ זכרון‬is used as “a sign ordained by God [that] can affect his gracious remembrance.”62 For example, in Exod 28:12 the breast piece of the high priest is said to function as a memorial,63 and in Exod 30:16 the payment of those who participated in a census serves as a memorial before Yahweh in exchange for paying tribute to their god.64 If the main aim of the ‫ מנחת זכרון‬in our passage is to call the woman to condemnation, it is the only exception to the aforementioned pattern.65 Thus far, there has been no proposal explaining the unique application of the ‫ זכרון‬in our passage. In the context of the ‫ קנאה‬reaction, it is likely that the “remembrance” prompted by the offering is not about drawing attention to the condition of the 59.  One of the other interesting features of the procedure is the modification of the ‫מנחה‬, which deviates from the standard meal offerings depicted in the Hebrew Bible. The offering must be free of frankincense and oil, which are otherwise standard features of grain offerings. In v. 15, the offering is specified as being made of barley, not of fine flour, the latter of which was costlier and more expensive (Milgrom, Numbers, 31–32). There is one instance in Lev 5:11 in which an offering of fine flour is devoid of frankincense and oil and is given as an expiation offering on behalf of someone unable to afford expensive animal sacrifices. However, there is no indication that the couple here are poor. In this study, we will tentatively suggest that the offering is modified in order to emphasize the character of ‫קנאה‬. The austere qualities of the offering reflect the quality of exclusivity that ‫קנאה‬ demands. The offering is suitable as a ‫ מנחת קנאת‬because it is unadulterated. It is interesting to note that the nomen rectum for both ‫ מנחת קנאת‬in v. 15 and ‫ תורת הקנאת‬in v. 29 is in the plural. As for why ‫ קנאה‬is in the plural, Jacob Milgrom argues that there are two cases of suspicion inherent in the term (Numbers, 39). However, it is possible that if ‫ קנאה‬represents various types of civil violations, then the plural of ‫ קנאה‬may represent the category of things related to ‫קנאה‬-type violations. The plural reflects not just one case that would raise the circumstance of ‫ קנאה‬but all cases where people could experience it. 60.  See similar usage in 1 Kgs 17:18 and Ezek 21:28 [23]. 61.  Milgrom, Numbers, 39. In the Hebrew Bible, to be remembered by Yahweh has both a psychological and ontological effect in that it often results in something happening to the supplicant (de Hemmer Gudme, Before the God, 136). For example, the remembering of Noah by God causes the water to recede in Gen 8:1, and the remembering of Rachel in Gen 30:22 and Hannah in 1 Sam 1:19 results in the opening of their wombs. In other contexts, the remembrance is mutual and a connection is made between the giving of offerings and divine remembrance (see especially Ps 20:4 [3]). 62.  H. Eising, “‫זכר‬,” TDOT 4:66. 63.  Exod 28:29; 39:7. 64.  Num 10:10; 31:54; Zech 6:14. 65.  Levine understands the offering as representing something that does not seek to appease, like sweet-smelling burnt offerings, but seeks to prompt judgment (Numbers 1–20, 206).

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

61

woman. Rather, its aim is to draw attention to the husband. While the provision of the offering will “trigger” the ritual acts that seek to provide answers to the adultery issue, the offering also addresses the procedure’s main concern, which is the ‫ קנאה‬of the husband. By revealing or pronouncing66 the unknown state of the woman and making her “guilt” (‫ )עון‬open knowledge, it resolves the social issue that arises as a result of the man’s suspicion.67 Although he is not the direct offeror, the husband did provide the ‫מנחת קנאת‬, and it is the ‫רוח קנאה‬ that overtakes him and motivates the procedure, thereby making him a beneficiary of the rite. This interpretation would agree with the general aim of a ‫זכרון‬, which is to bring the supplicant into gracious memory. The offering functions as a means of addressing the ‫ קנאה‬of the husband by placing the whole situation within the jurisdiction of the divine and initiating the proper cultic-legal procedures. Moreover, if ‫ קנאה‬indicates a possible breach with social and religious repercussions—such as adultery—then the husband might have been obligated to initiate these cultic-legal proceedings out of direct concern for the welfare of the community.68 By initiating the procedure and providing the offering, he performs this responsibility and prompts the acts that will resolve the ‫קנאה‬. The ‫ זכרון‬thus serves as a sign or memorial for the concerns of both the husband and the community. The Offense Examining another term used in our passage—‫“( מעל‬offense”)—may provide further insight into the meaning of ‫ קנאה‬in the ritual procedure. The description of the woman’s alleged offense, her “straying away” (‫ )ׂשטה‬from her husband, states that “she has perpetrated an offense against him” (‫מעלה בו מעל‬, vv. 12, 27).69 Biblical Hebrew ‫ מעל‬has a specialized use in the Priestly texts to indicate explicit sancta and oath violations against Yahweh.70 Scholarship on this passage has 66.  See Gen 41:9; 1 Sam 4:18; Ps 77:12 [11]; Song 1:4 for this use of ‫ זכר‬in the C-stem. 67.  Alternatively, Milgrom states that since the offering of remembrance is “inconsistent with prescribed usage,” the ‫ מזכרת עון‬clause was a later editorial addition to “explain this anomaly” (Numbers, 38–39). See also Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, 51; Lipka, Sexual Transgression, 103 n. 240. 68.  Contra Ashley, Book of Numbers, 125–26. 69.  The term ‫ מעל‬has been translated as “disloyalty,” “infidelity,” or “unfaithful/treacherous act” in various dictionaries (see HALOT, 2:613; BDB, 591). In commentaries, translations of ‫מעלה‬ ‫ בו מעל‬include “broken faith with him” (Milgrom, Numbers, 37) and “commits an act of betrayal against him” (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 183). 70.  Milgrom, Numbers, 37. Like ‫קנאה‬, the word ‫ מעל‬is never explicitly defined in the biblical text, and so its meaning must be derived from context. Based on this contextual evidence, Jacob Milgrom has argued that this meaning falls into two closely related categories: sacrilege against sancta and sacrilege involving the covenant oath, and in all but one case is an infraction against the divine (“Concept of maʿal,” 238). According to Milgrom, both categories of ‫“ מעל‬are really one,”

62

Jealousy in Context

questioned whether this specialized use of ‫ מעל‬is intended here, since “against him” (‫ )בו‬indicates a violation against the husband and not the Israelite deity. Baruch Levine, for example, argues that the use of ‫ מעל‬in this passage is intentionally chosen to give the suspected infidelity a sacred dimension,71 while Jacob Milgrom in his comments on the passage concludes that ‫ מעל‬is used here figuratively and lacks any legal character.72 In its most basic sense, ‫ מעל‬is generally understood as a relational term indicating a violation against a contractual agreement mandated by Yahweh. As already explained, in other contexts the term is used to represent violations involving religious betrayal and idolatry.73 Since religious betrayal against Yahweh is often understood through the lens of adultery via the divine marriage metaphor, Milgrom suggests that “the choice of ‫[ מעל‬in Num 5:11–31] is probably governed by its borrowed use in describing Israel’s idolatry . . . , the unfaithful wife is a recurring prophetic metaphor for Israel’s defection from God.”74 However, since ‫ מעל‬in our passage is being used in a cultic-legal context, the conventional and expected use of the term is appropriate. It is difficult to understand why a term, otherwise used to indicate a violation, would be used in a metaphorical manner in a cultic-legal context.75 Instead of positing a since “desecration of sancta is simultaneously desecration of the covenant, because reverence for sancta is presumed in the covenant relationship” (Lev 19:30; 21:23; 26:2). Moreover, both types of sacrilege are identified as a form of rebellion (‫( )מרד‬Josh 22:16, 18, 22; Ezek 17:15) (Milgrom, Numbers, 348). When placed in legal or ritual contexts, the ‫אׁשם‬, “guilt” or “reparation offering,” is prescribed (Lev 5:15, 21 [6:2]; Num 5:6–7). However, Milgrom’s treatments and interpretations of ‫ מעל‬do not include its use in Num 5:11–31 as it would be an infraction not against Yahweh but against a man, the husband (“Concept of maʿal,” 236 n. 2). 71.  Levine, Numbers 1–20, 183. 72.  Milgrom, Numbers, 37. Jacob Milgrom draws parallels with the literary use of “covenant” (‫)ברית‬, in the prophetic marriage metaphors, in which adultery is used to elucidate Israel’s infidelity to God (see Ezekiel; Hosea). Similarly, Baruch Levine understands the ‫ מעל‬formulation as “somewhat loose, rather than precisely legal or technical,” and thus has a “generalized meaning,” citing Lev 25:40; Ezek 14:13; and later sources Ezra 9:2–4; 10:6; Dan 9:7 (Numbers 1–20, 188). He states, “What began as a legal category, defining the misappropriation of property, intentional or inadvertent, became idiomatic for describing other sorts of betrayal and disloyalty.” The difficulty in characterizing the use of ‫ מעל‬in our passage is implied in the fact that its use here is ignored in Milgrom’s 1976 work on ‫מעל‬, which discusses the term’s attestations in detail. He concludes that outside of Num 5:12, 27, “[the] common denominator to all occurrences is that maʿal constitutes a sin against God” (Milgrom, “Concept of maʿal,” 236). 73.  The term ‫ מעל‬appears numerous times in the context of idolatry and/or disobedience toward the covenant: Num 31:16 (apostasy at Peor); Dan 9:7 (breaching the commandments [9:5]); 1 Chr 5:25 (acting the harlot; apostasy); 10:13 (Saul accused of apostasy); 2 Chr 12:2 (apostasy of Jerusalem); 29:6 (turning back on God); 28:19 (Ahaz sacrifices to the gods of Damascus); and Deut 32:51 (wilderness apostasy and failure to uphold God’s holiness). Other attestations include Ezek 14:13; 15:7–8; 17:20; 18:24; 20:27; 2 Chr 28:19; 30:7; 33:19. 74.  Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 134 n. 486. 75.  Also, if adultery, as Milgrom states, is a breach against the Sinaitic covenant and thus constitutes a ‫( מעל‬a trespass against the covenant) that might have juridical impact (ibid., 133), the case presented in our passage would not be any different.

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

63

figurative or “borrowed” use for ‫ מעל‬in our passage, I would argue that based on context ‫ מעל‬is used here in its natural cultic-legal sense. We noted that ‫קנאה‬ represents the suspicion of a social transgression against the husband, since adultery infringes upon social norms. As in Prov 6:32–35, the social dimension of adultery is demonstrated in the nature of the punishment of the suspected adulterer. In Num 5:21, the woman, if guilty, “will be made a curse (‫ )אלה‬and an oath (‫ )ׁשבעה‬among her people”—punishments that could only be administered with significant social ramifications. At the same time, the offense also represents a potential transgression against religious boundaries, since the disruption of social harmony provokes religious discord. In the book of Numbers, a social transgression is a religious transgression, since in the context of the wilderness narrative the rules of the community are divinely ordained. Therefore, to commit a social transgression in this context is also to commit a religious transgression against Yahweh. The criminal and civil laws operative in the wilderness camp are laws prescribed for the regulation of a sacral community, and to violate these laws in the community constitutes an offense.76 In our passage, the potential religious breach is fully articulated by the identification of the woman’s suspected offense as ‫מעל‬. In ancient Israelite society, adultery would have been considered ‫ מעל‬because it breached the terms of the Sinaitic covenant.77 Since all Israelites were bound to this contract, potential violations of this agreement would be considered ‫מעל‬, constituting violations against religious and communal boundaries.78 Within the context of the ritual, the possible ‫ מעל‬of adultery on the part of the wife against her husband would primarily be considered a betrayal against the divine and, as we will discuss, his sanctum and authority. The fact that the ritual is undertaken by a priest of Yahweh, in front of the community, and in the divine presence suggest that this is the case, and the existence of potential ‫ מעל‬against Yahweh within the Israelite community explains the motivation for immediate intercession. Moreover, the classification of the hypothetical offense as ‫ מעל‬underscores the potential consequences of the husband’s ‫קנאה‬. Like breaches that involve ‫קנאה‬, the commission of ‫ מעל‬can invoke the deity’s wrath, and in all instances of ‫ מעל‬punishment is divinely mediated and meted out not only against the perpetrator but also against his or her family and the community.79 In many of these cases, punishment takes the form of a curse, just as the woman, if guilty,

76.  Lipka, Sexual Transgression, 38–39. 77.  Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 133. 78.  For a discussion of adultery as a violation against social and religious norms, see Lipka, Sexual Transgression, 165. 79.  For punishment against oath-breaking, see Lev 26:40 (see also vv. 14–46); Num 31:16; 2 Chr 12:2; Ezek 14:13; 15:7–8; 17:18–20; 18:24; 20:27; Neh 1:8. For punishments due to sancta violation, see Josh 7:1; 22:10, 16, 22; 2 Chr 26:16.

64

Jealousy in Context

is understood to be subject to a curse.80 Since this is a public ritual that takes place “before Yahweh,” its concerns transcend the household and involve the religious community. Further evidence of the nonfigurative use of ‫ מעל‬in our passage is apparent if we contextualize the use of ‫ מעל‬in the broader framework of Num 5. When viewed in this context, we can observe that the term is relevant to the overall thematic concerns of the surrounding text. Our procedure is the final of three cases that instruct the community on what to do in situations that threaten the religious integrity of the Israelite camp as they journey through the wilderness. Numbers 5:1–4 deals with direct forms of impurity, in which those affected by disease are removed from the camp. The second case in Num 5:5–10 involves illicit forms of social behavior, in which one kinsman steals or misappropriates goods from another. Like the woman’s alleged betrayal, this offense is also identified as ‫מעל‬, which, being offensive to Yahweh, creates a purity problem within the camp. The ‫ מעל‬is resolved by providing the offended party81 with an ‫ אׁשם‬or “guilt offering” as restitution. In the case of Num 5:5–10, the offense or ‫ מעל‬is known to have occurred, while the primary concern is ensuring its resolution through a ritual procedure. Like this example, our passage also has a social dimension, in which an offense was committed by one member of the community against the other.82 While that creates a legal issue, it is the occurrence of ‫ מעל‬that creates religious discord in the community and thus needs to be addressed. However, in our passage ‫ מעל‬is not known to have occurred, and so resolution is sought by satisfying the claims of the husband, which are invoked by ‫קנאה‬. As stated, the prescribed offering for one who has committed ‫ מעל‬is the ‫ אׁשם‬or “guilt offering,” but rather than demand the ‫ אׁשם‬our passage prescribes the offering of ‫קנאה‬. It is not the woman’s potential guilt that determines the nature of the offering but the ‫ קנאה‬of the husband. Within the context of Num 5, we can observe how the law of ‫ קנאה‬seeks to remedy a case of social discord that might bring about religious disunity in the camp as a result of unresolved ‫מעל‬. Camp Sacrality in Numbers Camp sacrality is a central issue in Numbers, and one of the main objectives of the book is to provide a blueprint for expected behavior among those who dwell in the wilderness camp in preparation for entering the land of Canaan. The camp 80.  Jer 5:2–3; Zech 5:4; Mal 3:5. On the subject of divine mediation and punishment in connection with ‫מעל‬, see Milgrom, “Concept of maʿal,” 245–46. 81.  If the offended party is not available, then the priesthood accepts the offering in his stead. 82.  What is similar to these two cases of ‫ מעל‬is that the primary infraction is not against Yahweh but against members of the community who have legal rights protecting against such infractions that are enforced by Yahweh. The ritual problem arises with the threat of this social problem, which is considered offensive to the deity.

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

65

functions as a prefiguration of the land upon which the Israelites will settle and allocate among themselves after their years of wandering in the desert. After a census is taken and the tribal camps are arranged (Num 1–4), ritual instructions concerning the prevention and elimination of impurity from the wilderness camp are provided. The main motivating factor for the prescription and enactment of these ritual procedures is the preservation of the divine presence within the community. This is made explicit in Num 5:3, which states that elements of corruption (in this case corpse contamination) must be removed “so that they do not defile the camp of those in whose midst I [Yahweh] dwell (‫)ׁשכן‬.”83 What may be implied through the use of the denominative of ‫מׁשכן‬, “place of dwelling” (commonly translated as “Tabernacle”), is that corruption threatens not only the integrity of the camp but also the integrity of the place in which the divine is present among the Israelites.84 In Num 9:15–16, the “glory” (‫ )כבוד‬at Sinai is transferred to the divine dwelling, where it remained visible as a cloud by day and as fire by night. This visibility provides reassurance to the inhabitants of the camp that Yahweh “[is] in the midst of the people” (Num 14:14). When the Israelites enter Canaan to occupy it, Yahweh will accompany them, and the provisions concerning the sanctity of the camp are extended to the land.85 Yahweh commands, “You will not defile the land in which you reside, in which I myself dwell (‫)ׁשכן‬, for I, Yahweh, dwell (‫ )ׁשכן‬among the Israelites” (Num 35:34).86 Like Num 5:3, Biblical Hebrew ‫ ׁשכן‬is again used to express the dwelling of Yahweh in his ‫מׁשכן‬, and as Milgrom notes, “The double metaphor of land and sanctuary are but two sides of the same coin: The land of Israel is also God’s residence and is therefore equivalent in holiness to His sanctuary. . . . [The] demand in the wilderness that the camp be kept pure (see 5:3) is, in Canaan, extended to all of God’s land.”87 As we will see in the following chapter, this theology concerning the land of Canaan underpins Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. We see this concern for camp sacrality clearly in Num 25, which, like Num 5, involves the expression of ‫ קנאה‬in response to a perceived social and religious 83.  Num 31:19, 24. 84.  Milgrom, Numbers, 33–34. 85.  Elsewhere in Numbers, we find the inclusion of ‫גר‬, “nonnative resident,” in the legislation concerning the maintenance of purity within the camp and land (9:13–14; 15:26–30; 19:10; 35:15). This reflects the doctrine that the land of Israel is holy, which is why provisions are given to all of its inhabitants (ibid., xxi). See also Num 33:50–56, which demands the Israelites to drive out the apostates and idolaters from the land. 86.  In priestly legislation, the ‫חטאת‬, commonly translated as “sin offering,” provides a means by which the people could purify the sanctuary via expiation on behalf of the individual who contaminated the sanctuary either by physical impurity or inadvertent sins (Lev 16:14–19). As Jacob Milgrom notes, the expiation was required “not because of [the person’s] act necessarily, but because of the consequences of his act” (ibid., 444). On the graduated purgations of the sanctuary, see ibid., 446. 87.  Ibid., 296. In addition, Mary Douglas finds unity throughout the book of Numbers in that throughout the book there is an emphasis on community cohesion among the tribes and maintenance of sacrality in the spatial order (In the Wilderness, 83, 97).

66

Jealousy in Context

transgression within the community. While the Israelites are residing in Shittim, they begin to defile themselves by fornicating with the daughters of Moab (v. 1). The men are eventually enticed to ally themselves with foreign gods (vv. 2–3). This relationship is understood as Israel “attaching itself to” (‫ )נצמד‬the cult of Baal Peor, and Moses is instructed by Yahweh to kill the leaders of this movement in order to mollify the Israelite deity. It is unclear if this order is carried out, and the passage resumes with Moses guiding the community in supplication to Yahweh near the entrance of the Tabernacle, presumably seeking divine intercession from a plague that besets the camp resulting from the apostasy of Baal Peor (v. 9). As Moses and the others lament, the leader of the Simeonites, Zimri, brings the daughter of a Midianite chieftain before his brethren and performs acts deemed inappropriate enough to require immediate intervention (vv. 6–9). Before any of the other leaders can act, the priest Phinehas spears and kills the couple (v. 7). Phinehas’s behavior is interpreted as a demonstration of ‫ קנאה‬on Yahweh’s behalf; as a result, the camp is expiated (‫ )כפר‬and the plague ends (v. 9). The text explains, “Phinehas . . . has turned my anger from the Israelites when he experienced ‫קנאה‬ for my ‫ קנאה‬among them (‫)בקנאו את־קנאתי בתוכם‬, so that I did not consume the Israelites on account of my ‫( ”קנאה‬v. 11). Phinehas’s family is awarded the “covenant of eternal priesthood” (‫ )ברית כהנת עולם‬because he appropriately addressed Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬concerns and his role in cleansing the camp (vv. 10–13). Much of the scholarship on this passage has focused on the composite structure and redactional history of the passage, in addition to its interpretive difficulties. We will deal with these issues in greater detail in chapter 6. For now, we will briefly focus on the motivation of ‫—קנאה‬namely, the illicit behavior of those involved and the cultic consequences of these transgressions on the Israelite community. The nature of the offense committed by Zimri and Cozbi has both a social and religious dimension. Their relationship is a social affront since kinship alliances between Midianite and Israelite clans were considered—at least by the author—to be improper.88 The text also implies a sexual offense took place near the Tent of Meeting (‫ )אהל מועד‬and within sight of the congregation (v. 6), although the exact nature of this activity and its relation to the rituals of the foreign cult are unclear. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the specific social and sexual improprieties are secondary to what appears to be the primary concern of the passage: the potential consequences of this illicit behavior on the cult of Yahweh and the religious community. The narrative implies that the act took place during a critical period of ritual lamenting, and, what is more, was witnessed by those 88.  Deut 23:4 forbids Israelites to marry the Moabites and Ammonites. In one article, Joseph Blenkinsopp argues that the issue in Num 25 is the impropriety of the social relationship between the couple or what he understands as a “covenant of kinship” (compare Amos 1:9). He suggests that the couple may have participated in some kind of bonding ritual deemed inappropriate (“Baal Peor Episode Revisited,” 90, 95–96).

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

67

mourning outside of the Tent of Meeting. The Tent of Meeting is a location of cultic significance since it is the place where Yahweh manifests his presence to provide intercession and guidance.89 With this in mind, we can infer that the status and welfare of the community was made even more vulnerable by the interruptions of Zimri and Cozbi. When we regard other biblical texts dealing with the issues of relationships with outsiders, we see that there is an awareness that such fraternization leads to the betrayal of Israelite obligations to Yahweh and the potential alienation of the divine holdings. Specifically, it is argued that these associations will lead to the worship of other gods and threaten the singular worship of Yahweh demanded by the Israelite deity.90 In a reflection of the Baal Peor episode in Num 31:16, the infraction is identified as a betrayal or ‫ מעל‬against Yahweh, thereby violating covenant obligations. The integrity and survival of the camp is a concern since Zimri’s betrayal has the potential to alienate the divine presence and doom the community. Finally, it is important to consider Phinehas’s social and cultic role within the Israelite cult. Phinehas is listed in the genealogy of Aaron as Eleazar’s only son (Exod 6:25); at this point in the narrative, Eleazar is the high priest. As his father did before him, Phinehas acts as leader of the Aaronid–Levitical guard, a group of men responsible for the sanctity of the Tabernacle, which is the focal point of the divine presence.91 The cultic guard of the Tabernacle have a responsibility to preserve the purity of the camp by protecting against its encroachment.92 The swift and immediate response of Phinehas confirms that the misconduct encroached upon the divine presence; in his capacity as chief of the Levitical guards, Phinehas immediately strikes down the trespassers. When an Aaronid–Levitical guard cuts down an encroacher on the sancta of Yahweh, he is also said to provide expiation (‫ )כפר‬on the community’s behalf so that divine wrath is abated.93 By virtue of his ‫ קנאה‬and his protective actions on behalf of his divine patron, Phinehas repairs the rupture in the divine–human relationship and assuages Yahweh’s wrath.94 We might even say that as chief 89.  See Exod 33:7–11. One argument suggests that the community was participating in some kind of oracular intercession in the hopes of stopping the plague and argues that Zimri enlisted Cozbi’s help in order to obtain an oracular decision from a Midianite deity (Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 206–9). 90.  Exod 34:15–16 and Deut 7:3–4; compare Deut 4:3–4. 91.  Eleazar acts on his father’s, the high priest, behalf in matters where the purity of the Tabernacle is threatened in Num 3:32; 17:2 [16:37]; 19:2–7. 92.  Num 17:2, 27–28 [16:37; 17:12–13]; 18:1–32; 19:2–7; 31:30, 47. Phinehas again acts as protector of Yahweh’s cult in Num 31 and Josh 22:13–31. 93.  Num 8:19; 18:22–23. In P, it is the Aaronids, not the Levites, who have charge over the altar (Num 18:6–7). 94.  On ‫כפר‬, see Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 56–97. The act of expiation undertaken by Phinehas resembles Num 17:11–12 [16:46–47], where Aaron, as the high priest of the cult, secures expiation for community through the burning of incense, thereby assuaging the wrath of Yahweh and saving the community from a deadly plague (compare Exod 32:30). Baruch Levine understands

68

Jealousy in Context

of the Levitical guard, Phinehas is obligated to act on Yahweh’s behalf when threats to the sanctuary arise. It is through this capacity that he is justified in his demonstration of the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh and in doing so is held up as a paragon of appropriate behavior. In both Num 5:11–31 and Num 25, we see that ‫ קנאה‬has a special role in highlighting potential social breaches that have cultic consequences for the Israelite community and Yahweh. The ‫ קנאה‬expression in these passages involves a concern for the maintenance of social and religious norms and is accompanied by behavior that aims to rectify a perceived imbalance in the camp stemming from a potential betrayal or ‫ מעל‬against the Israelite god. Returning to the ritual procedure in Num 5:11–31, resolution of the ‫ קנאה‬issue is achieved in the final pronouncement of the passage. Verse 31 begins by clarifying the situation of the husband upon the conclusion of the procedure, while clarification of his wife’s status follows. After finding the wife to be in violation, the husband is said to be “immune from guilt or punishment” (‫)נקה עון‬, while the wife will “will bear her guilt or punishment” (‫)תׂשה את־עונה‬.95 Through the ritual procedure and the procurement of divine judgment, the woman is held accountable for whatever actions she has committed. If innocent, there will be no punishment to bear as she has not committed a violation, while if guilty she will face the consequences of committing ‫מעל‬.96 Since it is the husband who is subject to ‫קנאה‬, suspecting the occurrence of ‫מעל‬, it might have been his social and religious responsibility to address his concerns through the proper juridical and cultic processes. The intended effect is to remove legal and cultic responsibility from him to her, resolving a potential social and religious problem that might arise in the camp as a result of the unresolved ‫ קנאה‬and ‫מעל‬. Thus, the procedure in Num 5:11–31 invokes the intercession of the deity in order to rectify the discord caused by a potential breach of a legal and religious obligation, producing an imbalance that extends beyond the husband and wife to the community at large. the expiation in Num 25 as something similar to human sacrifice (Levine, Numbers 21–36, 290). For Num 25:1–18 as a representation of a literary rendering of a scapegoat ritual, see Monroe, “Phinehas’ Zeal.” 95.  Jacob Milgrom understands the phrase ‫ נׂשה עון‬to indicate that the one who has committed an offense will bear responsibility and punishment (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 623). Furthermore, he states that when it is used to describe the consequences of sin, the phrase designates punishment through divine agency (compare Numbers, 43). See Lev 5:1, 17; 7:18; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19; Num 9:13; 14:34; 30:16 [15]. Contrast this with Baruch Schwartz, who states that ‫ נׂשה עון‬is a metaphor for guilt not punishment (“Bearing of Sin,” 12–13). 96.  Although, see Frymer-Kensky, “Strange Case,” 24, and Milgrom, Numbers, 43, who both argue that the phrase ‫ תׂשה את־עונה‬concerns only the case of a guilty woman. I would argue that the clause in v. 31 provides clarification concerning the process of judgment. In either case, it is through divine judgment that the woman’s status is clarified. Regardless of state, she is removed from the jurisdiction of the community and instead her fate lies in the hands of the divine. The only party held responsible at the end of the procedure is the woman, while the man is released from obligation.

Motivation

Reaction

Integrity of the household and family property are maintained by the fidelity of the wife.

Suspicion of adultery threatens husband’s rights of control and community cohesion.

Husband goes to community representative (priest), who has the wife undergo ritual procedure determining guilt or innocence.

Numbers 5:11–31: A husband’s ‫ קנאה‬toward his wife

Expectation

Table 2: Script of the ‫ קנאה‬scenario in Numbers 5:11–31

A public ritual is enacted and judgment is left to divine intervention.

Outcome

Personal conflict with socioeconomic and religious implications for both the family and community within the wider cultic-legal framework of the book of Numbers.

Framework

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31 69

70

Jealousy in Context

The Script of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenario in Numbers 5:11–31 Table 2 provides a summary of the emotion script of the ‫ קנאה‬expressed by the husband in the ritual procedure of Num 5:11–31. This script table provides some clarity with regard to the motivation and consequences of the husband’s ‫קנאה‬, as well as the primary concerns of the ritual procedure and its purpose within the book of Numbers. While the suspicion of adultery may at first glance appear to be a personal matter between spouses, within the context of ancient Israelite society and religion the issue has the potential to impact the community at large, both at the public level (alienation of property and social relations) and at the cultic level (alienation of the deity). The ritual provides a safeguard for the protection of the rights of the husband, but, most importantly, it safeguards the welfare of ancient Israelite society as seen through the larger literary and cultic-legal framework of Numbers.

Conclusion The ritual procedure in Num 5:11–31 represents a situation in which the suspicion of a relational breach has the potential to result in socioreligious discord in the community. While on its surface the ritual is aimed at divining the wife’s guilt or innocence, what is really at stake is a potential violation of the man’s rights in relation to the woman. In the passages discussed, ‫ קנאה‬has a social dimension in that it exists in most sanctioned relationships and safeguards the conditions of the relationship. The term is concerned primarily with the maintenance of a relationship that is bound by social, religious, and/or legal norms. Therefore, the ritual procedure in Num 5:11–31 concerns the rights of the husband as a participant in the legal and social contract of marriage. The rights of a husband within the institution of marriage are what is actually expressed by the term ‫ קנאה‬in Num 5:11–31. At the same time, the suspicion of the woman’s violation has broader implications for the entire community. It is for this reason that the motivation of the procedure is concerned not so much with the mental state of the husband but with the social discord that a breach of ‫ קנאה‬could entail. We demonstrated this by discussing the cultic-legal underpinnings of ‫ קנאה‬in the Hebrew Bible with regard to the wider context of relational exclusivity, and through our analysis of significant terminology in the procedure. In particular, our elaboration of the relationship between ‫ קנאה‬and ‫ מעל‬expanded the broader social dimension of this ritual in the framework of Numbers as a whole. It is through this lens that we revealed the contextual concerns and function of the ritual from an editorial perspective.

‫ קנאה‬in Numbers 5:11–31

71

Thus, the conflict presented in the ritual procedure of Num 5:11–31 conveys not only a social issue but a cultic one as well, since the violation, had one occurred, would affect the cohesion of the community mandated by the deity, potentially destroying the bonds necessary for effective cooperation and maintaining the community’s religious obligations. If left unresolved, these concerns would have important ramifications for the community. The ritual provides mediation through the appropriate cultic-legal channels and thus is consistent with the broader context of Num 5, which deals with situations in Israelite society that pose a threat to the religious integrity of the camp and prescribe rituals (vv. 1–4, 5–10, 11–31) that aim to preserve it.

Chapter 4

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

Our previous discussions of ‫ קנאה‬in the patriarchal narratives and the ‫תורת‬ ‫( הקנאת‬Num 5:11–31) demonstrate the advantages of a more complex, social understanding of the ‫ קנאה‬expression. By illustrating the social significance of this emotion concept, we clarified the broader implications of both the term and the passages under discussion. Our discussions also establish the need for interpreters to be sensitive to the social context and cultural system in which emotion concepts are embedded and implies the dangers of imposing our modern understandings of the words we use to translate ‫ קנאה‬and its related forms onto our interpretations of ancient vocabulary. Our modern words (“jealousy,” etc.) typically have their own distinctive and sometimes complex semantic histories that are often interesting and are always important for us to be aware of. But the nuances of meaning that these modern words may acquire from their own histories are not directly relevant to the meaning of the ancient words we use them to translate, leading to substantial confusion when we impose these nuances on our analysis of the ancient language. Instead, we should analyze the ancient words, chiefly ‫ קנאה‬and its related forms, on the basis of their own ancient linguistic, social, and literary histories, and in fact this is the principal task of our investigation. A lack of such sensitivity has led to certain assumptions concerning the use of ‫קנאה‬, especially with respect to divine emotion and behavior. If the ancient socioliterary context in which ‫ קנאה‬arises is not understood and the emotion is incorrectly interpreted from a modern perspective, the emotion may not seem applicable to divine behavior, leading to the unsatisfactory solution of assuming that ‫ קנאה‬means something different when attributed to Yahweh and when it is attributed to humans. For example, modern understandings of jealousy tend to portray it as a negative sentiment, expressing pettiness or apprehension; although these characteristics may be appropriate for a human agent, these characteristics, some argue, should not be ascribed to the Israelite deity.1 As a result, 1.  Amzallag, “Furnace Remelting,” 234.

72

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

73

there is a tendency to separate divine and nondivine uses of ‫ קנאה‬and propose two different meanings.2 Such approaches, however, overlook the social nature of these expressions and in doing so miss an opportunity to uncover common ground. A proper understanding of the larger social concerns of the ‫ קנאה‬passages under study is likely to provide an understanding of the term that is compatible with both divine and nondivine agents.

The Legacy of Deuteronomy 32:1–43 In this chapter, it will be shown that the features present in the emotion scenarios of nondivine ‫ קנאה‬are also present in divine expressions of ‫קנאה‬. Themes of honor or status, possession, property, and social expectations play a major role in motivating the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh. An important case study of divine ‫ קנאה‬is represented by Deut 32:1–43 (vv. 16, 21), also known as the “Song of Moses.”3 We find here the themes of sin, judgment, and redemption in the Song that occur in other biblical writings, such as the prophetic texts.4 Some of these prophetic texts, as we will see in the next chapter, attest to ‫קנאה‬, where it is similarly used to convey a reaction to behavior that threatens the sovereignty of Yahweh in the land of Israel. Establishing a more thorough understanding of Yahweh’s status as divine patron will illuminate our discussion of the prophetic passages in the following chapter. Furthermore, the Song represents an understanding of the origins of and expectations for the divine–human relationship, thereby providing a contextual framework for our interpretation of ‫קנאה‬, which is attributed in the poem to both divine (Yahweh) and human (Israel) subjects. By further examining the cases of ‫ קנאה‬in Deut 32:16, 21 and thoroughly investigating their social significance, we may also come to understand how ‫ קנאה‬was adapted by biblical authors as an expression defining divine behavior and the divine–human relationship. The Song of Moses reflects upon Yahweh’s deeds on behalf of Israel, anticipates Israel’s violations involving entanglements with other gods, recounts the consequences of divine wrath, and foretells of Israel’s punishment and restoration. It opens with a call to the heavens and earth to witness Moses communicating the words of the Song to the Israelite community (vv. 1–3) and recounts Yahweh’s faithfulness to Israel and the greatness of the Israelite deity (vv. 3–6). This is followed by a literary account of the history and evolution of 2.  Brongers, “Der Eifer des Herrn Zebaoth,” 284; Renaud, Je suis un dieu jaloux, 17, 25; Amzallag, “Furnace Remelting,” 234. 3.  Biblical narrative tradition ascribes the poem to Moses in Deut 31:30 and 32:44. 4.  For the legacy of Deut 32 in prophetic and Deuteronomic passages, see Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 61–68; Gile, “Ezekiel 16,” 93–94.

74

Jealousy in Context

the divine–human relationship toward the end of the wilderness period, when Israelite settlement had been established in the land promised to their ancestors (vv. 7–14). In Deut 32:8–9, the election of Israel is portrayed in cosmological terms. A head deity presiding over a divine council allocates land to the nations and assigns the nations to various gods, and Yahweh is assigned Jacob/Israel. Yahweh’s fidelity to their arrangement is contrasted with the ingratitude and corruption of the people of Israel, who grows arrogant on the fruits of the land and betrays their relationship with Yahweh by serving and worshiping foreign gods and providing the rival deities with sacrifices (vv. 15–19).5 Yahweh threatens Israel, explaining that just as the people provoked the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh with these “no-god(s)” (‫)לא־אל‬, Yahweh will provoke the ‫ קנאה‬of Israel with a “no-people” (‫לא־עם‬, v. 21). Finally, Yahweh judges the people of Israel (vv. 20–25) and his enemies (vv. 26–36), and the poem concludes with a promise of atonement and restoration of the people and land (v. 43). The narrative sections of Deut 31:24–30 and 32:44–47 frame the poetic section of the Song, purporting its origin and purpose.6 The Song is presented as the parting words of Moses to the community and its elders (31:28). This pronouncement is said to occur after Moses completes the transcription of the law code in a book, familiarizes the community with their obligations, and charges Joshua to bring the people into the land of Canaan (31:14–15, 23). Moses is divinely mandated to write the Song in anticipation of the people’s settlement within Canaan. It will be during this time, the text alleges, that the people will reject Yahweh. They will “whore (‫ )זנה‬after foreign gods of the land into which they are going . . . and break (‫)הפר‬7 my [Yahweh’s] covenant that I cut with [the people]” (31:16), provoking Yahweh to abandon the Israelites (31:17). Thus within the narrative framework, from the editor’s perspective, the function of the Song is to serve as a witness against Israel’s future religious betrayals and warns of the judgment to come.8 The narrative remarks that this time of betrayal will occur after settlement in the land is completed. When the people have their fill of its wealth, they will violate their formal arrangement with Yahweh by serving other gods, thus bringing destruction upon themselves (31:20–21). Deuteronomy 31:21 continues, “I (Yahweh) know their intent that they have formed today even before I have brought them into the land I have promised (to them).” These verses reflect an 5.  Refer to Deut 32:37–38; see similarly 1 Sam 2:12–17, 22–25, 29. 6.  For a review of the textual history and organization of Deut 31–34, see Weitzman, Song and Story, 37–58, 160 n. 13 with references. 7.  See Lev 26:15; Jer 11:10; Ezek 16:59; 44:7. 8.  On the text of Deut 31–32 as a memorial or textual witness, see Britt, “Deuteronomy 31–32.”

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

75

ideology that qualifies the promise of land to the patriarchs and their progeny represented in Genesis. Settlement in the land is conditioned by the strict adherence of the legal code within its boundaries.9 In addition to other social and religious obligations, once Yahweh has “set the land before” the Israelites (Deut 1:8) they are to follow these laws, which forbid Israelite assimilation with the religious traditions of the Canaanites.10 In this theological framework, Yahweh is understood as a divine patron who has bestowed the gift of land as a grant upon the Israelites on the condition that certain expectations are fulfilled.11 For the purposes of this study, it is important to note the critical juncture in which the Song is said to have been conveyed to the Israelites in the narrative tradition. In particular, the Song is presented before the community right before entering the land they are about to possess and serves as a reminder of what is at stake if the obligations outlined in the legal code are not followed in the land.12 Form and Continuity with Biblical Genres Although scholars have attempted to establish the original context of the Song based on form-critical analysis, there is little consensus among scholars as to the Song’s origins and background.13 Nevertheless, there are common themes between the poem and other genres from the Hebrew Bible. Focusing on the juridical qualities of the Song, G. Ernest Wright suggests that the Song is a ‫ריב‬

9.  For a discussion of this conditionality, see Weinfeld, “Inheritance of the Land.” The conditionality of the land is reflected in Deuteronomy, editorial layers of JE (Gen 15:16; 18:19), and in the priestly code (Lev 18:26–28; 20:23–24). For further discussion, see also Weinfeld, “Covenantal Aspects.” 10.  Deut 5:1–10; Exod 20:1–6; 34:11–26; compare Josh 24:1–28. 11.  Compare Jer 40:4. On the gift of land as royal grant, see Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant”; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 72, 342 n. 2. 12.  Although the Song does not mention the Mosaic covenant explicitly, it is nevertheless placed in the framework of a narrative in which the observance of the law is referenced and emphasized. The references to the “law” in Deut 31:26, 29 probably refers to the obligations that uphold the divine–human relationship outlined by the Deuteronomic law code and the Song itself (Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 844; see Deut 1:1–5; 27:26). In Deut 32:46–47, reference is again made to the law stating that the laws are to be observed “on the soil that you are crossing over the Jordan to take possession of it.” In this framework, there is an emphasis on the observance of the law in the land promised to the ancestors of the Israelites. With regard to the Song, Jack R. Lundbom argues that the compiler wanted to make the Song into a law, “thereby ranking it and integrating it with Moses’ larger law delivered in the plains of Moab” in 31:26 (Deuteronomy, 845). Although outside the scope of this study, recent biblical scholarship on Deuteronomy and the law focuses on supersessionist or complementary aspects of the law code. For a summary of the pertinent debates, see Berman, “Supersessionist or Complementary,” 201–11. 13.  For a comprehensive history of scholarship on the Song, see Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 852–57 with bibliography.

76

Jealousy in Context

(“lawsuit”), a literary form thought to be primarily attested in prophetic works.14 The ‫ ריב‬involves an invocation to witnesses and a formal charge or indictment within a (heavenly) court, followed by an explication of judgment and punishment based on the crime committed.15 Wright states, “The heavenly lawsuit implies a Suzerain, one who claims authority over all powers on earth, and who is presiding over the highest tribunal in the universe . . . [I]t implies a covenant which the Suzerain has granted to a vassal, a covenant which the vassal has broken.”16 Because the Song displays a mixed form, combining both prophetic and hymnic elements,17 he identifies it as a “broken” or “expanded” ‫ריב‬, which was based on a specific cult form adapted and expanded by other themes to serve a generalized purpose in confession and praise.18 Others contend that it is a prophetic lyric instruction or didactic poem that had once served to guide the religious community.19 Finally, there is continuity between fundamental thematic elements in the Song and the prophetic works with regard to violations, divine wrath, judgment, and atonement.20 These themes, as we shall see, are embodied specifically with the ‫ קנאה‬expressions in Deut 32:16, 21, Ezekiel, and other prophetic works. 14.  Wright, “Lawsuit of God.” 15.  Chapters 3–5 of the book of Amos are often used as examples of the biblical covenant lawsuit. 16.  Wright, “Lawsuit of God,” 47. The Deuteronomic conception of land may represent more of a treaty schema as seen in Hittite and Neo-Assyrian treaty documents between suzerain and vassal than that of a grant (Weinfeld, “Covenantal Aspects,” 225). With regard to studies on the treaty model or ancient Near Eastern treaty tradition reflected in Dueteronomy, comparative studies have been reenergized by the recent discovery of a copy of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty in Tayinit (Lauinger, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty”), which would bring the Mesopotamian treaty tradition within the boundaries of the Levant and thus in closer proximity to Judah and its Deuteronomic scribes. For a 2018 review of the current state of scholarship discussing the likelihood of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty serving as a literary model for Deuteronomy, see Quick, Deuteronomy 28, 12–67. See also Cranz, “Magic and Maledictions,” 409–12. 17.  Following Gunkel, Introduction to Psalms, 251, who identifies the Song as a Mischgedicht. 18.  See Moran, “Deuteronomy,” 274–75; Joo, Provocation and Punishment, 29. Counterarguments to Wright’s suggestion assert that there is no clear definition of the “lawsuit” form in the Hebrew Bible. See, for example, Mendenhall, “Samuel’s ‘Broken rîb,’ ” 66; DeRoche, “Yahweh’s Rîb Against Israel,” 573–74; Daniels, “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre”; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 510; Thiessen, “Form and Function,” 403–7; Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 854. 19.  Peels, Vengeance of God, 135; Driver, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 345. 20.  Driver, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 546, cites Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 71, and explains that the Song is a “compendium of prophetic theology.” Another suggestion is that Ezekiel authored the song (Budde, Das Lied Moses, 261). More recently, scholars have acknowledged that the Song most likely influenced prophetic works like Jeremiah, Hosea, Isaiah, Ezekiel (Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 856). For discussions on the poem’s influence on the prophets, see Propp, Water in the Wilderness, 25, 43–44 n. 32; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 511; Bergey, “Song of Moses”; Gile, “Ezekiel 16.”

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

77

Dating and Historical Context Among scholars, there is currently no consensus on the exact date of the Song, and studies have situated it anywhere from the period of the judges (ca. 1200– 1000 BCE) to the postexilic period (post-586 BCE). A few contend that the prophetic tone of the Song indicates an exilic date,21 while others suggest that the prophets merely drew upon the more archaic Song in their own works.22 More recent scholarship has abandoned the late date, noting that unlike most exilic and postexilic prophetic works, the Song makes no reference to the exile or to any discernable historical events. The threat of exile and its aftermath were prominent themes of the exilic prophets and Deuteronomistic historians, which would make the Song, if contemporary with these compositions, unusual. Instead, it is more likely that these works echo the Song in their adaptation of its vocabulary, structure, and themes. Thus, the majority of modern scholars place the Song sometime in the preexilic period (ca. 900–600 BCE).23 An older date may also be supported by the linguistic peculiarities of the poem. These are often identified as the “archaic” features of ancient Hebrew poetry and include prefix verbs with past reference, the ‫מו‬- suffix, and the retention of III-‫י‬.24 Yet these archaic features are mixed with standard Biblical Hebrew forms, which has resulted in some questions regarding whether these were in fact originally archaic features or archaizing done by a later writer for stylistic reasons.25 As we shall see, the Song is most likely composed of an old core reflecting early ideas concerning the divine–human relationship. Originally an independent work, the Song may have been later incorporated into the book of Deuteronomy.26 Attempts to locate the original historical context of the Song have often focused on phrases used to describe non-Israelite peoples and their gods. In Deut 32:21, Yahweh threatens to provoke the Israelites to ‫ קנאה‬by allying with 21.  Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 71. See Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 853–54, for a summary of Cornill’s argument and his critique on twentieth-century scholarship of the Song of Moses. 22.  For example, Gile, “Ezekiel 16,” 100–102. 23.  Driver, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 547; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 9; Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 333–52; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 508–13; Joo, Provocation and Punishment, 30 n. 44. David N. Freedman argues for tenth–ninth-century BCE dating of the Song due to the lack of reference to the monarchy and later historical events (“Divine Names and Titles,” 57, 79). See also Freedman, “Early Israelite Poetry,” 87–88. 24.  Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 155. 25.  Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating, 1:328. 26.  Smith, God in Translation, 140–41 n. 26. For a discussion of the Song as pre-Deuteronomistic liturgy, see Thiessen, “Form and Function,” 407–10, 418–19.

78

Jealousy in Context

a “no-people” (‫ )לא־עם‬and a “foolish nation” (‫)גוי נבל‬, just as the Israelites had provoked Yahweh to ‫ קנאה‬with a “no-god” (‫)לא־אל‬. Common interpretations of these “no-people” have included local Canaanites, Sea Peoples, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Samaritans.27 The vague character of these references may be intentional in the hymn. Recent discussions concerning the original context of the Song place it in a liturgical setting, where these ambiguous references would be easily applicable to a broad audience, ensuring that the contents of the hymn would not become obsolete.28 Extra-biblical evidence supports this claim. The corresponding manuscript found at Qumran, 4QDeutq, only contains the Song (32:1–43), perhaps indicating a liturgical use for the poem.29 The Song may have been passed down orally through the cult and therefore reflects changing linguistic usage over time, as demonstrated in its mixture of archaic and standard Biblical Hebrew. Furthermore, the referents of the Song remain purposefully vague in order to make it suitable to be recited on different occasions.30 The only explicit references in the Song are Yahweh, the election of Israel in the wilderness, entrance into the land promised to their ancestors—or what we will call the “Promised Land”—and the settlement of the land.31 However, the specific nature of Israel’s betrayal and the details of Yahweh’s judgment and punishment against his enemies are ambiguous. Thus, the general purpose of the Song may have been to serve as a warning to an Israelite congregation and to remind the constituents of the religious assembly of their obligations to their divine patron. Regardless of when the core of the Song was composed, it nevertheless represents two fundamental ideologies that exist in biblical representations of ancient Israelite religion. The first concerns the election of Israel. The people are assigned the Promised Land as their portion and Yahweh is allotted Israel as his possession (vv. 8–9), thus establishing a relationship of patronage between Yahweh and Israel. The second is that the patronage of Yahweh depends on the 27.  See Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 6–39, with bibliography. 28.  Gile, “Ezekiel 16,” 101–3; Thiessen, “Form and Function,” 422–23. 29.  The existence of the Song in isolation is understood by Patrick W. Skehan and Eugene Ulrich to reflect a special use of the manuscript. See Skehan and Ulrich, “4QDeutq,” 138. See also Gile, “Ezekiel 16,” 102–3, who suggests that the prophet Ezekiel was exposed to the Song through its liturgical use among the priests. 30.  Thiessen, “Form and Function,” 422. 31.  Moshe Weinfeld traces two ideologies with regard to the boarders of the Promised Land. The first is represented in the priestly material “from Lebo-Hamath to the wadi of Egypt” (Num 34), which roughly corresponds to the Egyptian province of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. The other view can be found in Gen 15:18 (compare also Exod 23:31), which represents the territory “from the river Euphrates to the river of Egypt,” and includes regions from the Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon. On the different views of what territories encompass the Promised Land, see Weinfeld, “Borders of the Promised Land.”

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

79

maintenance of the divine–human relationship through obligations of exclusivity. Upholding these responsibilities is critical if the community is to prosper continuously within the borders of the Promised Land. In particular, it is the betrayal of exclusivity and the worship of other gods that provokes Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. His reaction involves a series of retributive acts that could trigger the demise of the Israelites. The following sections aim to investigate these ideologies in the Song in more detail and contextualize the emotion scenario of the ‫ קנאה‬expressions in Deut 32:16, 21.

The Framework of the Divine–Human Relationship Deuteronomy 32:6–9 provides a historical framework for understanding the antiquity of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel. The bond is one of patronage in which Yahweh is understood as a divine father who acquired (‫)קני‬ Israel (v. 6).32 Finding Israel abandoned in the wilderness, Yahweh alone cares for and protects the community. He settles the people of Israel in his land33 and provides them with sustenance and prosperity without the assistance of any foreign god (‫אל נכר‬, vv. 10–13).34 The poem further elaborates on the bond between Yahweh and the people of Israel by depicting the cosmological foundation of this relationship: Remember the days of old, Ponder the years of previous generations, Ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders and they will tell you. When the Most High gave the nations as an estate (‫)בהנחל עליון גוים‬,35 32.  The root ‫ קני‬has two homonymous verbs: (1) “to get, acquire, purchase” (e.g., Gen 25:10; Exod 15:16) and (2) “to make, form, produce” (e.g., Gen 14:19, 22). In Ugaritic, qny is often translated as “to engender, procreate” (Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 51–52). In Deut 32:6, ‫ קנך‬is followed by ‫עׂשך ויכננך‬, “he made and established you,” suggesting the second meaning. Nevertheless, the wordplay anticipates the divine lottery in vv. 8–9, in which Yahweh acquires Israel through divine lottery. Compare with Ps 74:2, which extols Yahweh to “remember your community, which you acquired (‫ )קנית‬of old, you redeemed the tribe of your property (‫)נחלתך‬, Mount Zion on which you reside.” 33.  The phrase in Deut 32:13ab, “he made him ride on the high places (‫ )במות‬of the earth, and he ate the produce of the field,” implies the process of settlement in the Promised Land (Moran, “Some Remarks,” 326–27. 34.  For biblical references to ‫אל נכר‬, see Deut 31:16; Josh 24:20, 23; Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:3; Ps 81:10 [9]; Jer 5:19; Mal 2:11. For a discussion of the phrase ‫אל נכר‬, see Hoffman, “Concept of ‘Other Gods,’ ” 69–70. 35.  The MT reads ‫בהנחל עליון גוים‬, pointing ‫ בהנחל‬as a C-stem infinitive absolute (bəhanḥēl). However, the reading here provides an infinitive construct, repointing the word as bəhanḥīl, with

80

Jealousy in Context

When he divided up (‫ )בהפרידו‬the sons of man, He established boundaries (‫ )גבלת‬of the nations, According to the number of the heavenly assembly (MT: ‫)בני יׂשראל‬. For the portion (‫ )חלק‬of Yahweh is his people, Jacob is the allotment (‫ )חבל‬of his estate (‫)נחלתו‬. (Deut 32:7–9) The Masoretic reading “sons of Israel” (‫ )בני יׂשראל‬in v. 8 is widely interpreted as an editorial emendation for or misunderstanding of an original “sons of god” (]‫)בני אל[הים‬, which is reflected in the Qumran fragment 4QDeutj.36 If the text of the scroll is followed as the preferred reading, then this passage reflects a situation in which a high deity, identified here as Elyon—traditionally translated as “Most High”—gives the nations their designated territories and then assigns them to gods, including Yahweh, who is portioned Israel as his estate.37 There are various discussions concerning the identity of Elyon and whether he represents Yahweh or a separate deity, such as the Canaanite El.38 Whatever the object of the infinitive being ‫( גוים‬GKC § 53k). Paul Sanders notes that the C-stem of ‫ נחל‬can be “connected both with an accusativus personae (the inheriting person) and with an accusativus rei (the object inherited by this person),” and compares this use with Deut 3:28; 21:16; 31:7; Josh 1:6; 1 Sam 2:8; Zech 8:12; Prov 8:21 (Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 154). The latter interpretation is rendered here since the immediate context of the passage concerns the domain of the heavenly assembly and in particular Yahweh’s inheritance of Jacob/Israel (compare Deut 4:19–20). 36.  For the superiority of the Qumran material in Deut 32:8, see Skehan, “Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses,’ ” 12–15. See also Driver, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 355–56; Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 269; Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 156; Heiser, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities?” 6 n. 19; Smith, God in Translation, 139–43. Note that the MT and LXX have interpreted the original phrase differently. The MT assumes that the phrase “sons of God” refers to Israel (see Hos 1:10), while the LXX reads “angels of God,” perhaps referring to an angelic heavenly assembly, as in Pss 29:1; 89:6. In Ugaritic, the phrase bny ʾl(m) occurs in KTU 1.4: iii.14; 1.10: i.3; 1.40:7, 17, 25, 33–34, 41; 1.65:3 and refers to the divine assembly. 37.  The motivation behind this editorial interpretation may have been to recast the poem in a more “monotheistic” light as other Deuteronomic texts assert the exclusive supremacy of Yahweh (Deut 4:35, 39; 6:4; 7:9; 32:39). A situation portraying Yahweh as one among several deities who are assigned domains and territories may have challenged this perspective or, at the very least, caused tension within the Deuteronomic narrative. See similarly Hoffman, “Concept of ‘Other Gods,’ ” 103–18; Frankel, Land of Canaan, 140. This argument presupposes that the Song predates the Book of Deuteronomy (Smith, God in Translation, 140–41). 38.  If Elyon (‫ )עליון‬is to be identified as Yahweh, this would indicate that it was he who had allocated various “portions” to his heavenly assembly as a king would over a vast celestial and earthly realm. For discussion, see Albright, “Some Remarks,” 343; Moran, “Some Remarks,” 318–19; Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 78–80; Heiser, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities?” 2–3; Machinist, “How Gods Die,”197; Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 876. If Elyon is to be identified as a high deity distinct from Yahweh, then Yahweh is one of several assembled gods under a presiding Elyon. For discussion, see Budde, Das Lied Moses, 17–19; Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” 29; Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom, 318–19; Parker, “Beginning of the Reign of God,” 550. Finally, Gerald Cooke

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

81

the case, the poem establishes a cosmic geography in which the relationship between the nations and gods is inextricable.39 The motif of allocating domains to deities also appears in Ps 82.40 In the poem, Yahweh sentences the “sons of Elyon” to death for their inability to maintain law and order in the lands that have been assigned to them (vv. 6–7).41 The poem depicts Yahweh as the one who will “take possession” (‫ )נחל‬over all domains due to the inefficiency of the other gods (v. 8).42 As we shall see, several other texts reflect a similar understanding of lands and nations being assigned to the domains of various deities with the expectation that they must worship those deities exclusively in that domain.43 The Song places emphasis on the special designation of Israel as Yahweh’s allotted portion and the land as his personal property. The poem thus establishes a fundamental cosmological understanding concerning the allotment of Israel, both land and people, to Yahweh. Within this framework, it is acceptable for other gods to have their own nations and territories and for other nations and territories to have their gods as long as they do not pose a threat to the worship of Yahweh in Israel. A fundamental component of this allotment is the expectation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship: one god for one people in a particular territory. We see this concept explained in Mic 4:5: “All the peoples notes that if Yahweh were the subject in v. 8, the phrasing of v. 9 would be unusual, and so it is better to take Elyon as distinct from Yahweh (“Sons of the God[s],” 33). Of course, in biblical tradition Elyon (‫ )עליון‬is eventually understood as an epithet of Yahweh after the convergence of El and Yahweh (2 Sam 22:14//Ps 18:13; Ps 78:35). It is therefore likely that there are at least three layers of interpretation reflected in Deut 32:8. The first would involve a first-tier god, Elyon, assigning nations to second-tier gods, among them being Yahweh. The second layer would understand Elyon as an epithet for Yahweh, and so it would be he who assumed the position as presider of the divine assembly. We see this understanding in Deut 4:19, 1 Kgs 22:19, and Ps 81, in which the theme of distribution of the nations to the gods by a supreme deity is recast to make Yahweh solely responsible for their allocation. Finally, even later, Deut 32:8 was modified (perhaps to prevent theological offense) to read ‫ בני יׂשראל‬for ‫בני אלהים‬. As Simon Parker notes, “Yahweh became the distributor of the nations to their territories, and the descendants of Israel became the measure of their number” (“Beginning of the Reign of God,” 550). For a discussion of the hermeneutical process in the reinterpretation of this older tradition involving the divine assembly, see Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 48. 39.  Heiser, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities?” 2. 40.  On the divine council in Ps 82 and Deut 32, see Parker, “Beginning of the Reign of God,” 551–55. 41.  In other texts, like Deut 4:19 and 29:25, the distribution is said to be carried out by Yahweh. For more on these parallels, see Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 225–30. 42.  For example, Ps 82 has been interpreted as a criticism of the concept of the division of nations among gods in Deut 32:8–9; in the psalm, the gods who at one time were given the responsibility of specific dominions failed and are judged by Yahweh to be incompetent (Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 370–71). For the presupposition that Deut 32:8–9 is older than Ps 82, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 206. 43.  Refer to Deut 4:19–20.

82

Jealousy in Context

pursue their course, each in the name of their god; but we pursue our course in the name of Yahweh our God forever.”44 In the theological context reflected in the Song, geography determines theology.45 Keeping the larger narrative framework of the book of Deuteronomy in view, Israel is presented as the only people of Yahweh and other nations are restricted to the worship of foreign gods and heavenly beings (Deut 4:19–20; 18:14–15; 26:16–19; 29:25–26). Moreover, territory is thought of in exclusivistic terms in which the land of Canaan is bequeathed exclusively to Jacob/Israel and the preIsraelite inhabitants of the land and their gods are portrayed as disruptive.46 The distinctiveness of Israel depends on the formal relationship established between Yahweh and the Israelites, and Israel is understood as a nation allocated to him for personal patronage.47 The Song presents one of the foundational conceptions of Israelite identity in the Hebrew Bible, and this identity is defined by the idea that Yahweh, from the very beginning, was assigned to a national homeland in the land of Israel along with a people, the Israelites. What shapes this identity are the obligations demanded by this relationship of exclusivity.48 As discussed, Deut 32:8–9 reflects an ancient idea that Elyon established the territories of the land as the possession or property of deities in his council. Themes and images of territory as personal estates under divine jurisdiction recur throughout the Song. For example, Elyon is said to have “established the boundaries of the people” (‫)יצב גבלת עמים‬. The C-stem of the verbal root ‫נצב‬ is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to signify the setting up of boundary markers. The government of the world is given a cosmological background and order, and Yaweh’s domain, Israel, is identified as his ‫“( חלק‬portion”) and his ‫“( חבל‬lot”). The term ‫ חלק‬is used in other places in Deuteronomy to represent the land as a possession or estate (Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1), while ‫ חבל‬indicates elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the demarcation and distribution of land (e.g. Josh 17:5; Ezek 47:13; Amos 7:17). The Song uses these terms to establish 44.  Compare also with Judg 11:24, where Jephthah explains to the people residing in the Transjordan, “What Chemosh, your god, has given you to possess, you will possess; and all that Yahweh has given us to possess, we will possess.” 45.  Similarly, see Ruth 1:15, in which there is an expectation that by returning to one’s land, one is also returning to one’s god (Frankel, Land of Canaan, 154–55). 46.  It is important to note that this portrayal is obviously literary in character. In fact, in the historical or archaeological record, in which popular, or even mainstream, religious practices in Israel and Judah were inseparable from Canaanite religious practices. It is only in biblical representations, and particularly in the Deuteronomistic presentation of Yahwism, that ancient Israelite religion is set apart from Canaanite and (later) Mesopotamian religion. For discussion, see Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable,” 253–58; Crouch, “Threat to Israel’s Identity in Deuteronomy,” 543–46. 47.  For a discussion of Israel’s claim to distinctiveness, see Machinist, “Question of Distinctiveness,” 201–7. 48.  Greenstein, “God of Israel and the Gods of Canaan,” 47. See also Malamat, “Proto-History of Israel,” 307.

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

83

a sociotheological foundation for Israel’s election to Yahweh’s domain, while territories and peoples outside of Israel have been assigned to different gods. Finally, these domains are understood as an apportioned ‫“( נחלה‬estate”), which, as we will discuss in the next section, represents the inalienable property of the gods.49 Canaan as Divine Possession In our discussion of Deuteronomy, we briefly referred to the idea that the understanding of land as a divine possession (‫ )נחלה‬is foundational to Israelite theology.50 However, the framing of Canaan as divine possession is not limited to Deuteronomy. In the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1–18), which is generally categorized among the archaic poems in the Hebrew Bible, the author alludes to settlement after the events of the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings, using terminology that is relevant for our discussion.51 Speaking to Yahweh, the author explains: You will bring them in and plant them in the mountain of your property (‫)הר נחלתך‬, In the place you made for your residence (‫)מכון לׁשבתך‬, Yahweh, The sanctuary (‫)מקדׁש‬, Yahweh, which your hands have established. (Exod 15:17) 49.  When discussing the passage in which Saul is charged with Yahweh’s personal estate (‫)נחלה‬ (1 Sam 10:1), P. Kyle McCarter notes that “the noun refers to landed property, inalienably held by an individual, whether acquired by inheritance, military victory, feudal grant, or other means. . . . Yahweh’s estate, mythically conceived, is the land won in the conquest, hence Israel” (I Samuel, 180–81). See also McCarter and Coote, “Spatula Inscription from Byblos,” 20–21. This term has been discussed in depth in biblical scholarship, and its ancient Near Eastern cognates are, for the most part, well understood. For further remark, see Forshey, “Hebrew Root NḤL and Its Semitic Cognates”; Lewis, “Ancestral Estate”; Weinfeld, “Inheritance of the Land.” See also Kitz, “Undivided Inheritance,” 601 n. 2 for further bibliography. In the Ugaritic material, we find the term used in contexts where the divine domain is intended. In KTU 1.3: iii.30 and 1.3: iv.20, Baʿlu calls mountain Ṣapanu ġr nḥlty, “the mountain of my inheritance.” Kaphtor and Egypt belong to Kotharu-and-Khasisu in KTU 1.3: vi.14–16, stating, “Kaphtor is the throne he sits on; Egypt is the land of his inheritance (nḥlt).” Motu’s domain is the netherworld in KTU 1.4: viii.12–14; 1.5: ii.15–16: “A pit is the throne he sits on; filth is the land of his inheritance.” In various Ugaritic texts, nḥlt is used in reference to the residence of the deities. Baʿlu lives on the Ṣapanu (KTU 1.6: i.58; 1:100:9), Kotharu-and-Khasisu lives in Kaphtor (KTU 1.100:46), Daganu dwells in Tuttul (KTU 1.100:15), and Rashpu lives in Babitu (KTU 1.100:31). See Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 157–58 n. 289 for further discussion. 50.  For more discussion and bibliography on this topic and the importance of the land theme in general in the Deuteronomistic History, see Frankel, Land of Canaan, 1–76; Habel, Land Is Mine, 75–114. For the importance of territory in ancient Israelite and ancient Near Eastern theology, refer to Block, Gods of the Nations, 21–25; 93–112. 51.  For a summary of the history of composition and dating of this poem, see Zenger, “Tradition und Interpretation 21,” 456–58; Russell, Song of the Sea, 59–148.

84

Jealousy in Context

The passage reflects a similar ideology as Deut 32:8–9 with regard to appropriation of people and land. Yahweh is said to have acquired the Israelites, repossessing the people from the Egyptian pharaoh, who had misappropriated them (Exod 15:6–9). After reclaiming them, Yahweh establishes them in his divine estate (Exod 15:17).52 The focus of this passage in Exod 15 appears to be the entrance of the Israelites into the Promised Land. Since the context of the poem suggests settlement, the references to the divine mountain, residence, and sanctuary symbolize the land of Canaan and establish the inherent sanctity of the land.53 In this regard, the entire land of Israel is thought of as an extension of the temple mount and constitutes the sacred estate of Yahweh. As in Deut 32:9, the term ‫ נחלה‬refers to the land of Israel as the perpetual, inalienable possession of Yahweh. Similarly, Ps 78:54–55 incorporates elements from Exod 15:16–17:54 And he brought them to the border of his holy land, The mountainous land55 which his right arm acquired. He expelled the nations before him. He determined for [the Israelites] an allotment of property (‫ויפילם בחבל‬ ‫)נחלה‬ And settled Israel’s tribes in their tents. (Ps 78:54–55) In addition to being assigned territory via divine allotment, these traditional stories from the biblical text reflect that prior to possessing the land, Yahweh had to conquer it in order to assert his claim to his ‫נחלה‬.56 Through this conquest, Yahweh dispossesses the local inhabitants of Canaan in order to fulfill his commitment to the Israelites. At the same time, this habitation is conditioned on Israelite loyalty to the exclusive worship of Yahweh within the boundaries of the land of Canaan. The 52.  Propp, Exodus 1–18, 540. Refer also to Ps 78:54 and Isa 11:11. 53.  Loewenstamm, “Naḥalat yhwh,” 331–36; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 196 n. 1. On the relationship between the local sanctuary, the sacred mountain, Yahweh’s land, and the cosmic abode of the deity, see Clements, God and Temple, 53–55. For the possible identifications of the mountain referenced here, see Propp, Exodus 1–18, 564–68. 54.  On the dependence of Ps 78:54–55 on Exod 15:16–17, see Propp, Exodus 1–18, 567. On the date of Ps 78, see also Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 134 n. 77. 55.  For Biblical Hebrew ‫ הר‬as “mountainous region,” see Num 13:17, 29 and Deut 1:7. 56.  In Exod 15:17, the reference to acquisition by right hand implies appropriation through the conquest of Canaan (Halpern, Emergence of Israel in Canaan, 35). Pss 44:3 and 80:9–12 [8–11] reflect similar conceptions of dispossessing nations for Israel’s settlement, and in Hab 3:3 Yahweh is portrayed as marching from Teman, his homeland, in order to conquer Canaan.

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

85

dependence of exclusive worship of Yahweh within a specific territory may be reflected in 1 Sam 26:19–20. In this text, David accuses Saul of forcing him to venerate other gods on account of his expulsion from the ‫ נחלה‬of Yahweh. David has been cut off from the territory and must therefore serve other gods, as territories outside of Israel are under the jurisdiction of other gods.57 Consider also the circumstances surrounding the return of the ark of Yahweh to the Israelites in 1 Sam 6:9. After the Philistines capture his ark, Yahweh strikes them with a plague in order to force them to return him to “his territory” (‫)גבולו‬. According to the established norms reflected in these narratives, Yahweh rightly belongs in the boundaries of his land.58 Yahweh’s ownership of the land is a concept that recurs throughout the biblical text and especially in the legal material. Leviticus 25:23 commands, “The land must not be sold without reclaim because the land belongs to me [Yahweh], for you are foreigners and nonnative residents (‫ )גר‬with me.” The territory of the Promised Land is conceived as Yahweh’s private estate, suggesting that outside this fiefdom there is very little basis for Yahwistic worship.59 The outward, visible sign of this ownership is reflected symbolically through the inauguration of the sabbatical year upon both land and people in cultic legislation, as all within the land, including livestock, workers, and produce, were thought to belong to Yahweh.60 We can surmise from this discussion that one of the central themes of ancient Israelite ideology concerns this idea that Yahweh inhabits a particular land, and the formal relationship established between Israel and Yahweh is similar to the way a patron would establish expectations with a fief. These servants are expected to demonstrate loyalty and provide a variety of services to their host.61 57.  Frankel, Land of Canaan, 140. 58.  A text from Mari depicts Adad’s claim to a territory of King Zimrilim as a niḫlatum, “inheritance” (Malamat, “Prophecy and Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle,” 69–70). For a discussion of this text and its significance for the interpretation of Deut 32, see Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 66–67. See also Malamat, “Pre-Monarchical Social Institutions,” 172–74. 59.  When confronted with the reality of exile, the Israelites and Judeans developed an acute concern regarding the issue of cultic worship outside of the land. For example, in Ezek 20:39–44 the author proclaims that offerings to Yahweh are acceptable only after the exiles return to the land. Even outside the land, the exiles would direct prayers toward the land, the city of Jerusalem, and its temple. For further discussion of this topic, see Frankel, Land of Canaan, 138, 141–44. 60.  Exod 23:10ff.; Lev 25:1ff. For discussion, see Weinfeld, Social Justice, 220–45. 61.  As Moshe Weinfeld notes, the conception of the “grant” of land unconditionally given to the patriarchs in Genesis was transformed in Deuteronomy and merged with the conditional “vassal” type construction (Deuteronomy 1–11, 58). For the progression of this construction throughout the book of Deuteronomy, refer to Deut 4:25–27; 8:19–20; 11:8–10, 13–17, 22–25; 28:63; 29:24–27; 30:17–18. In these passages, reneging on the divine–human alliance will result in the loss of rights to the land.

86

Jealousy in Context

Of course, this is one of several ideologies concerning land in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in Genesis the land is unconditionally promised to the patriarchs.62 The conditional nature of settlement reflected in the Deuteronomic and Levitical material grounds the proper maintenance of the land as a condition for the people’s survival within that land.63 In this sense, Canaan is thought to be Yahweh’s perpetual property and is bestowed conditionally upon the Israelites, who, in exchange for benefiting from the cultivation of the land, must affirm recognition of Yahweh’s status as sole divine patron, offering up tithes and/or firstlings and maintaining the sanctity of the land through religious obligations. In the Hebrew Bible, knowing the demands of the god(s) of the land is central to securing peace and harmony within the confines of the land, and these provisions are relevant not only for the Israelites but anyone who dwells in what is considered to be Yahweh’s personal estate. For example, in 2 Kgs 17:24–41, non-Israelites who were forced to emigrate to the northern territory of Israel by the Assyrians provoke Yahweh to anger on account of their ignorance of the “demands of the god of the land.” A Yahwistic priest is sent by the Assyrians in order to rectify this perceived imbalance and threat to regional harmony.64 Similarly, the nonnative resident (‫ )גר‬is obligated to demonstrate allegiance to Yahweh as divine patron of Israel and fulfill cultic requirements in Num 15:14–16, 26–31. Land as Sacred and the Obligation of Exclusivity The requirement for maintaining the integrity of the land may be related to the intimate connection between the divine presence of Yahweh and the land of Canaan. For example, in 2 Kgs 5 the Aramean general Na’aman requests a load of Israelite soil to be carried back to Aram in order to offer Yahweh burnt sacrifices and offerings (v. 17).65 In other literary representations, the exclusive worship of Yahweh solely in the land of Canaan is implied in Genesis, where the patriarchs are variously depicted performing cultic activities within but not 62.  Gen 13:14–15; 15:12–21; 17:1–14. The covenant is then repeated to Isaac (Gen 26:3–4, 24), then to Jacob (Gen 28:13–14), and so the land in question became known as the “Promised Land.” 63.  Frankel, Land of Canaan, 10–12, 30; von Rad, “Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land,” 90–91. 64.  Although, David D. Frankel argues that this obligation “exists independent of covenant commitments” because they never partook in the covenant or had a relationship with Yahweh (Land of Canaan, 151). The settlers did not take up on any obligations before they were attacked by lions and had no idea about the expectations. Frankel identifies it as a different tradition apart from covenant obligations, which would be more dependent upon the idea that Yahweh was to be properly worshipped in his land. 65.  Compare with Mal 1:11, where foreign nations are depicted worshipping Yahweh in their lands without use of special soil.

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

87

outside the boundaries of Canaan.66 In this literary theological framework, since the divine presence is presumably limited to the land of Israel, the entirety of the land is viewed as sacred. Many of the cultic regulations in biblical legislation seek to ensure the preservation of the land’s holiness and suitability as a divine habitation.67 The priestly understanding of land tenure depends entirely on the observance of various cultic-legal obligations. Leviticus 18:28 demands that the Israelites follow ascribed cultic regulations “so that the land may not vomit you out because you defile it just as it has vomited out the nations that were before you.”68 This legislation reflects the idea that the land will reject the inhabitants for their sins as it did the Canaanites. However, in Deuteronomy what is specifically intolerable among these illicit acts and in most cases ineligible for reconciliation is the act of betraying Yahweh by serving other gods.69 Deuteronomy 11:16–17 instructs: “Beware lest your heart be seduced and you turn away to serve other gods. . . . For Yahweh’s anger will flare up against you, and he will shut up the skies and there will be no rain and the land will not yield its produce; and you will perish quickly from the good land that Yahweh is giving you.”70 Within this framework, those who participate in non-Yahwistic worship cannot be tolerated within the boundaries of Yahweh’s estate.71 66.  In Gen 12:6–7, Abram spends many years in Haran but does not set up an altar for Yahweh until his arrival into the Shechem, which is located in the boundaries of what will be presented as the Promised Land. In Gen 28:20–22, Jacob erects a monument at Bethel on his way to Padan Aram and swears to establish a temple on the site on his return, never performing any cultic activities in Padan Aram for the twenty years he dwells there (Gen 31:41), and only does so on his return to the Promised Land. On his way from Canaan to Egypt, Jacob offers sacrifices at Beer Sheba (Gen 46:1) and does not perform any cultic activity in the land of Egypt for the rest of his life. When Jacob does perform cultic rites, it is all within the borders of what would later become Israelite territory (Mizpah [Galʿed], Gen 31:47–54; Shechem, Gen 33:20; Bethel, Gen 35:7, 14). See also Hos 9:3–5, which reflects the idea that worship outside the land is not possible; those unable to remain in the land of Yahweh will be unsuccessful in worshiping Yahweh outside of it and eat in impurity. For further discussion, see Frankel, Land of Canaan, 137. Although, there are exceptions in the Hebrew Bible where the worship of Yahweh is not confined to the land. See, for example, Zeph 3:10. 67.  See, particularly the regulations in Lev 16–27. 68.  See also Lev 26:34–35. 69.  Von Rad, “Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land,” 87, 91; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 58–59. 70.  See also Deut 4:25–28; 29:23–27; 30:17–18. As we shall see in the following chapter, the prophetic material makes use of this ideology, attributing exile and the loss of the land to provocation of divine ‫ קנאה‬provoked by the reneging on the obligation of exclusivity. 71.  With regard to the biblical tradition, David D. Frankel argues that the Canaanites were rejected from the land not because they did not follow a covenant but because their acts were “inherently intolerable within the parameters of the land of the Lord. The fact that the same fate awaits the Israelites indicates that they too are obligated because of their presence in his land and not because of a national covenant that was grounded in the exodus from Egypt and the bestowal of the land as a gift of conquest” (Frankel, Land of Canaan, 153–54).

88

Jealousy in Context

Throughout Deuteronomy, there exists a concern for the social and religious boundaries between the people of Yahweh and other population groups in order to exclude foreign cults within the Promised Land. For example, Deut 20 makes a distinction between conquered towns outside the divine ‫ נחלה‬and inside the divine ‫נחלה‬. Towns “at a distance” (‫ )הערים הרחקת‬from the ‫ נחלה‬may be given clemency, while those within the ‫ נחלה‬are to be decimated and their residents completely destroyed (vv. 10–18). What is particularly relevant for our discussion is the motivation given for this command. The passage explains that completely annihilating the local inhabitants is necessary “in order that they may not teach you to do things according to the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, so that you would sin against Yahweh, your God” (v. 18). The practice of the complete slaughter of the occupants of defeated cities and the dedication of those killed to Yahweh is identified as ‫ חרם‬in the Hebrew Bible.72 This tradition is based on the idea that the ‫ נחלה‬of Israel is legitimately given to the Israelites as a divine grant, and therefore the locals and their gods dwelling in its midst have no claim to it. But the main motivation for complete annihilation is to protect against obstructions to cultic obligations within the territory of Israelite settlement and to safeguard against threats to Yahweh’s sole status as divine patron.73 These texts not only provide a paradigm for the way the people of Yahweh should interact with outsiders who pose a threat to their claim over the land but also reinforce the ideology of exclusive worship of Yahweh within his sacred boundaries.74 Thus, the most important aspect of Yahweh as divine patron of the Promised Land is his demand for relational exclusivity within the divine territory. With regard to the issues presented in the Song of Moses and its emphasis on Yahweh, the allocation of land, and the obligation of exclusivity, we have gained some clarity on the motivation for the editorial placement of the Song in the book of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, there is a strong emphasis on the centrality of the land, and principal to this theme is that the Israelites are to observe their religious and legal duties in order that they may enter the land

72.  For a discussion of ‫ חרם‬in Deuteronomy, see Hoffman, “Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem.” See also Weinfeld, “Expulsion, Dispossession, and Extermination.” 73.  See also Num 33:50–56, which demands the Israelites to cleanse the land for Yahweh by driving out the apostates and idolaters. 74.  As John Collins notes, according to this model, the land was given to the Israelites through divine grant and not through ancestral occupancy so that “violence against rival claimants of that land is not only legitimate but mandatory, especially if these people worship gods other than yhwh. . . . Identity is defined negatively by a sharp differentiation of Israel from the other peoples of the land, and positively by the prescriptions of a covenant with a jealous sovereign god” (“Zeal of Phinehas,” 11).

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

89

to possess it.75 As Deut 16:20 commands, “You must pursue justice alone so that you may live and possess the land Yahweh is giving to you.” In particular, maintaining the cults of rival deities and practicing idolatry pose a threat to the cultic relationship between Yahweh and the land.

The ‫ קנאה‬Scenario in the Song of Moses As discussed, one of the main themes developed in the Song of Moses concerns the geography projected through the literary representation of Israel’s mythological antiquity. The allotment of the gods establishes a cosmological situation in which Yahweh is identified as the god of Jacob/Israel. By committing violations of religious exclusivity and idolatry, the people of Israel betray this arrangement, which is why the offense of the community is framed in terms of the corruption and perversity of their actions. Deuteronomy 32:4–5 contrasts Yahweh’s fidelity with the depravity of Israel, explaining that the people are “corrupted” (‫ )ׁשחת‬and a “twisted and perverse generation” (‫)דור עקׁש ופתלתל‬.76 While the exact nature of their corruption is not ascribed to a specific situation in Israelite history, there are references to the creation of abominations/ idols, the worship of foreign gods, and illicit sacrifices later in the passage (vv. 15–17).77 The poem explains that the religious betrayal committed by the Israelites occurs after Yahweh has settled them within the land. Having enjoyed the fruits of the land, Israel becomes fat and arrogant, eventually forsaking its creator (vv. 13–14). By focusing on this critical juncture in the Hebrew Bible’s literary reconstruction of Israel’s “past,” the Song establishes that the most fragile period for the Israelite community was not when they were outside the land during their wanderings or even during the conquest of the land but during their settlement when corrupting influences were at their strongest. Secure in

75.  Jack R. Lundblom notes that the core of Deuteronomy (chs. 1–28) qualifies the unconditional covenant to the patriarchs in Genesis through the covenant made with Israel at Horeb and that if it was broken, a number of curses will befall them, but worst would be the loss of the land (Deuteronomy, 170). More than any other biblical law code, Deuteronomy makes land tenure the most conditioned (compare Jer 7:5–7). In Deuteronomy, obedience to the covenant ensures “to live long in the land that you possess” (Deut 5:33; 11:9; 32:47; compare Deut 4:26; 30:18). 76.  Hebrew ‫ פתלתל‬is a hapax legomenon, but the verbal root ‫עקשׁ‬, which the attestation of ‫פתלתל‬ stands in parallel, appears in wisdom literature and indicates that a person’s heart, speech, or ways are twisted (Prov 11:20; 17:20; 19:1; 28:6; Ps 101:4; Job 9:20). 77.  This behavior is of course proscribed in the Decalogue (Deut 5:8–10//Exod 20:4–6). For a discussion of the Decalogue and its relevant ‫ קנאה‬passages, see chapter 6.

90

Jealousy in Context

their settlements, they would begin to develop relationships with those whom the biblical authors considered outsiders. With these relationships comes certain socialization processes that involve the exchange of traditions and cultural norms, including the worship of gods with whom they have no sanctioned relationship. These newly formed bonds threaten the sovereignty of Yahweh and his status as divine patron of Israel and explains the divine reaction to this threat. The first ‫ קנאה‬statement in the Song of Moses occurs in the section where Yahweh discusses the offenses of the Israelite community in Deut 32:15–18. Having served other gods after comfortably settling in the land, the people provoke Yahweh’s provocation (‫ )כעס‬and ‫קנאה‬. As previously discussed, the divine reaction is primarily motivated in response to the need to preserve Yahweh’s honor or status; the presence of foreign gods and abominations in his land directly threatens his sovereignty and goes against the terms of exclusivity in the divine–human arrangement and foments discord in his territory. The passage explains: They provoked his ‫ קנאה‬with foreign gods (‫)זרים‬, With abominations (‫ )תועבת‬they provoked him (‫)יכעיסהו‬. They made sacrifices to ‫שׁדים‬, no-god(s),78 Gods they did not know, New ones who recently came, Your fathers did not know79 about them. You have neglected80 the rock who bore you, And forgotten the god who gave birth to you. (Deut 32:16–18) In the Song of Moses, the gods who provoke Yahweh are identified as ‫זרים‬, ‫תועבת‬, and ‫ׁשדים‬. In Biblical Hebrew, the first two designations are general designations for foreign gods and idols or illegitimate cultic practices.81 The word ‫ׁשדים‬, on the other hand, is less well understood. It has been suggested that ‫ׁשדים‬ may have been an Akkadian loanword from šēdû, which indicates a protective 78.  See, however, Schmidt, Materiality of Power, 171, who translates 32:21 as follows: “They sacrificed to the Shedu-gods, not (to) Eloah.” 79.  Following HALOT, the interpretation here reads the verb reflected in MT ‫ לא ׂשערום‬as a homonymous root related to West Semitic ‫סער‬, “to look after; to know,” rather than a denominative of ‫( ׂשער‬śēʿar, “hair”). This interpretation is reflected in the LXX (οἶδα). 80.  Reading MT ‫ תׁשי‬with HALOT as a textual corruption of ‫ תׁשא‬or ‫ תׁשה‬from the root ‫נׁשה‬, “to forget.” 81.  Biblical Hebrew ‫ זרים‬may indicate gods introduced from foreign lands (Isa 17:10; 43:12; Pss 44:21 [20]; 81:10 [9]), while ‫ תועבה‬as a general word representing idols can be found in 2 Kgs 23:13 and Isa 44:19. In Deuteronomy, ‫ תועבה‬can refer to illegitimate cultic practices or detestable actions associated with idol worship (e.g. Deut 7:25–26; 17:4; 27:15).

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

91

or malevolent spirit or subordinate divine being.82 This interpretation finds some support in the Greek version of the text, which provides the rendering derived from δαιμόνιον (“deity,” “demon”).83 These divine beings are identified as “nogod(s)” (‫)לא־אלה‬, and the use of this phrase by the author implies their inappropriateness as gods of Israel.84 Contextually speaking, these gods are inappropriate primarily because the “no-god(s)” are deities who were not assigned or allocated to Israel; Yahweh is the god of Israel and has divine authority within his land.85 As previously discussed, the designated “portions” were determined to represent the “proper order” of the world, yet the religious betrayal committed by Jacob/Israel results in the dissolution of this predetermined order (‫)חלק‬, and instead the people favor gods who have no established relationship with them or who have not proven themselves useful to their survival. Only Yahweh has legitimate right to and jurisdiction in the land of Israel and domain over the Israelite people. The “no-god(s)” are not the natural god(s) of Israel and are therefore useless. For Israel alone there is Yahweh and disobeying this natural order, as we shall see, disrupts religious expectations and invites divine reaction and judgment. The verbs used to describe the divine reaction to Israel’s religious betrayal are both causatives from the roots ‫ כעס‬and ‫קנא‬. In its most basic sense, the causative of the verbal root ‫ קנא‬indicates that the Israelites cause Yahweh to experience and demonstrate ‫ קנאה‬as a direct result of their unacceptable behavior. The causative of ‫ כעס‬is well-attested in indictments of Israel for their religious betrayal and idolatry.86 However, the causative sense of ‫ קנא‬only occurs in a handful of passages. The use of the verbal root in this meaning—to provoke Yahweh to ‫—קנאה‬occurs in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:16, 21); Ps 78:58; 1 Kgs 14:22; and Ezek 8:3.87 82.  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 885, and refer to CAD 17/2:256–59. 83.  In Ps 106:37, people sacrifice children to ‫ׁשדים‬, which most likely refers to come kind of deity. 84.  Note that the interpretation here does not assume that the author is denying the divinity of these beings, only their sovereignty and legitimacy as god(s) of Israel. On this phrase, see Hoffman, “Concept of ‘Other Gods,’ ” 73. See also Jer 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Hos 8:6. 85.  Consider the contest between Baal and Yahweh in 1 Kgs 18. According to Elijah, the test is arranged in order for it to be known that Yahweh is “God in Israel” (v. 36). As Yair Hoffman notes, the purpose of this passage is not to refute the divinity of Baal but to refute his divine power or relevancy in the land of Israel (“Concept of ‘Other Gods,’ ” 75–76). 86.  Verbal and nominal iterations of the root ‫ כעס‬occurs elsewhere in Deuteronomy (Deut 4:25; 9:18; 31:29) and Kings (1 Kgs 14:9, 15; 15:30; 16:2, 7, 13, 26, 33; 22:54 [53]; 2 Kgs 17:11, 17; 21:6, 15). Verbal iterations of ‫ כעס‬in these contexts have been identified as a “Deuteronomistic provocation formulae” (McCarthy, “Wrath of Yahweh,” 100, n. 5). Others have proposed that formulations of ‫כעס‬ are a “redactional pivot” used by the Deuteronomistic historians to develop the theme of provocation into a systematic interpretation of history (Joo, Provocation and Punishment, 8–9). 87.  In 1 Kgs 14:22 and Deut 32:21, the D-stem is applied in a causative sense. Specifically, in 1 Kgs 14:22 Judah provokes Yahweh to express ‫ קנאה‬using the D-stem.

92

Jealousy in Context

Like the Song of Moses, Ps 78:54–58 emphasizes the relationship of patronage between Yahweh and the Israelites.88 The poem explains that after Yahweh settled the Israelites in his land, the people betrayed the terms of their relationship and disobeyed his commands (v. 56). In particular, this betrayal provokes the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh: They provoked him with their high places (‫)ויכעיסוהו בבמותם‬, And with their idols they provoked his ‫)ובפסיליהם יקניאוהו( קנאה‬. (Ps 78:58) Psalm 78 is often classified among the “historical psalms,” in which Yahweh’s interventions in Israel’s history are described in juxtaposition to Israel’s numerous sins and faithlessness.89 The psalm echoes elements from the Song of Moses and recounts Yahweh’s wonders, Israel’s doubt, Yahweh’s wrath and punishment, and Israel’s repentance. Moreover, it is the only other biblical passage outside of Deut 32:16, 21 where the causative of ‫ קנא‬is used in parallel with ‫כעס‬, “to provoke.” Descriptions of Yahweh’s anger occur throughout the psalm, but divine ‫ קנאה‬is specifically tied to the deity’s reaction to Israelite betrayal and idolatry in his territory. Israelite settlement is conditioned upon exclusive fidelity to Yahweh. After being brought into the “holy land . . . which [Yahweh’s] right hand acquired” through conquest, the people of Israel are apportioned the estate (‫ )נחלה‬of Yahweh but eventually commit treacherous acts, rebelling against their divine patron (vv. 56–57). Yahweh’s anger burns against his chosen nation and divine allotment, Israel, which is also identified here as his ‫( נחלה‬v. 62). The psalmist contends that the illicit acts committed by the Israelites forced Yahweh to forsake his elected people and his ‫ נחלה‬and abandon his sacred residence “where he dwelt among man” with the intention of delivering them into the hands of their enemies (vv. 60–62).90 First Kings 14:22 also attests to the causative use of ‫קנאה‬. Purporting to recount the events that took place during the reign of Rehoboam, the passage describes how the people of Judah provoked the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh more than any of the previous generations.91 The passage continues, “They even built for 88.  For a sample of studies on Ps 78, see Campbell, “Psalm 78”; Stern, “Eighth Century Dating of Psalm 78”; Hays, “Trauma, Remembrance, and Healing”; Tammuz, “Psalm 78.” 89.  Hays, “Trauma, Remembrance, and Healing,” 184. See also Pss 105; 106; 136. 90.  The psalmist associates the ramifications of this betrayal with the events depicted in the ark narrative in 1 Sam 4:1–11, which recounts the capture of the ark by the Philistines. In Ps 78:60–62, Yahweh abandons his dwelling in Shiloh and allows himself to be captured by the Philistines, which results in the massacre of the Israelites by the Philistines. 91.  According to 1 Kgs 14:22, “Judah did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, and they provoked his ‫קנאה‬ by their sins more than their ancestors had done.” The phrase “do evil in the eyes of Yahweh” is a typical assessment used by Deuteronomistic authors to describe the actions of the offensive kings

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

93

themselves high places, sacred pillars, and Asherim (‫ )אׁשרים‬on every high hill and under every green tree and there were also male cultic prostitutes in the land” (vv. 23–24).92 The passage contends that the Israelites began to adopt the local practices of the Canaanites and “had committed the same horrible sins as the nations that Yahweh had driven out from before the Israelites” (v. 24). As scholars have noted, underlying the religious betrayal committed by the people of Judah is the literary portrayal of the social and religious influence of local Canaanite culture on Judahite perspectives.93 For example, the text mentions that Rehoboam’s mother is an Ammonite, implying a connection between social intermingling and the blurring of religious boundaries. Furthermore, while the motivation behind this provocation lies in the prohibition against these illegitimate cultic installations in the legal material, the mention of ‫ אׁשרים‬also implies the direct involvement of another deity. The ‫ אׁשרים‬are generally interpreted as stylized trees associated with the veneration of the goddess Asherah.94 These aspects of popular Judahite religion would have directly violated the theological tenets of biblical Yahwism, which presents their veneration as a direct threat to the sole worship of Yahweh.95 In the passage, the provocation of Yahweh is immediately followed by a description of a series of misfortunes that befall Jerusalem. First, the pharaoh Shishak attacks Jerusalem, and then the Egyptian king loots the temple and the palace (vv. 25–26). Although the connection between of Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 11:6; 15:26, 34; 16:19, 25, 30; 21:20, 25; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:2; 8:18, 27; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:2; 21:2, 6, 20; 23:32, 37; 24:9, 19). But in 1 Kgs 14:22, the evil acts are not ascribed to kings but to the people of Judah (see also Deut 4:25; 9:18; 17:2; 31:29; Judg 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). On the possibility of this passage reflecting an earlier usage of this expression, see Nelson, First and Second Kings, 189. 92.  In the Hebrew Bible, “high places” have been identified among the traditional accoutrements of sin (ibid., 100). However, compare with 1 Kgs 3:2, which explains that the people sacrificed at “high places” prior to the erection of Solomon’s temple. 93.  Ibid., 101. Although, generally speaking, mainstream religious perspectives in Judah were closer to those of the Canaanites, with whom they shared a cultural heritage, than the normative Yahwism presented in biblical literature by the Deuteronomistic Historians. 94.  For the identification of ‫אׁשרים‬, see Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, 189–91. These cultic installations are depicted in Deut 12:3; 16:21; 23:18; Judg 6:25–30; 1 Kgs 14:15, 23; 15:13; 16:33; 2 Kgs 13:6; 17:10, 16; 18:4; 21:7; 23:6, 14–15 and are said to have been installed throughout Israel and Judah, reflecting core aspects of mainstream religious practices. 95.  At the same time, these statements also reflect the Deuteronomistic Historian’s (DtrH) understanding that Jerusalem should be the only place of worship in Judah. As Marvin A. Sweeney explains in his commentary, “Following statements in vv. 23–24 concerning the construction of high places, pillars, and asherim on every high hill and under every leafy tree point to Judah’s failure to take action against the religious practices of the Canaanite as stipulated in yhwh’s fundamental command to establish only one worship place in Deut 12:2–7. Insofar as the cultic installations are prominently mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:10 as part of the DtrH treatise on the fall of northern Israel and in 2 Kgs 18:4; 23:6, 14, 15, these statements presuppose the interests of the Josian edition of the DtrH.” For further discussion, see Sweeney, I and II Kings, 189, and, similarly, Holder, “Presuppositions, Accusations and Threats,” 27.

94

Jealousy in Context

Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬and Shishak’s invasion is not made explicit, the sequence of these incidents implies a cause-and-effect relationship between them.96 Similar to the way the ‫ קנאה‬event is used to justify and explain Yahweh’s abandonment of the Israelites to the Philistines in Ps 78, the passage implies a connection between this unfortunate piece of Judah’s history with the provocation of divine ‫קנאה‬. Finally, the verbal root ‫ קנא‬is used in a causative sense in Ezek 8:3.97 In the following chapter, we will discover that Ezekiel establishes a link between Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬and the safeguarding of his holy presence against the presence of illegitimate cultic installations and images.98 For the purposes of this discussion, we will focus in particular on what the author identifies as an “image of ‫ קנאה‬that provokes ‫ )סמל הקנאה המקנה( ”קנאה‬in Ezek 8:3.99 According to Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, the “seat” (‫ )מוׁשב‬of this image had been placed “by the entrance of the gate of the inner gate that faces north” (‫אל פתח ׁשער הפנימית‬ ‫)הפונה צפונה‬. Biblical Hebrew ‫ סמל‬refers to the physical image of a statue or the physical representation of a deity that threatens exclusive worship.100 In Deut 4:16, the ‫ פסל תמונת כל־סמל‬refers to the carved form of any ‫סמל‬. The ‫ פסל האׁשרה‬in 2 Kgs 21:7 refers to the image of Asherah created by Manasseh, which in 1 Chr 33:7, 15 is referred to as the “sculptured form of the statue” (‫)פסל הסמל‬. Since the word ‫ פסל‬refers to a free-standing statue carved from wood or stone or cast from metal, the references to ‫ סמל‬may similarly refer to some kind of wooden, stone, or metal idol.101 The seat of the ‫ סמל‬in Ezek 8:3 may refer to a sculpted seat or perhaps even a throne upon which the idol is seated.102 Although we cannot be certain about the divine identity of the image, it likely represents a 96.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 102. On the historical context of Shishak’s invasion of Palestine in the late tenth century BCE, see Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 312–18; Wilson, Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I. See also the account of his campaign in ANET 242–43, 263–64, although Jerusalem is not included in the list of conquered territories. 97.  Ezek 8:1 dates the oracle to 592 BCE. Susan Ackerman accepts the date formula in Ezek 8:1 and argues that the cult practices reflected in Ezekiel reflect eighth–sixth-century BCE Judahite popular religion (Under Every Green Tree, 46–51). For a discussion of the reliability of the date formulas in Ezekiel, see ibid., 46 n. 41. 98.  As a priest and prophet, Ezekiel would have been profoundly impacted by the Josianic religious reform reflected in the Deuteronomistic theology. For a discussion of Ezekiel’s condemnation of image-based cultic worship and the historical context of these denunciations, see Strine, “Ezekiel’s Image Problem.” 99.  Reading MT ‫ המקנה‬as a C-stem masculine singular participle from the root ‫קנא‬. The MT ‫ המקנה‬may actually be a scribal gloss clarifying the ‫סמל הקנאה‬. For this interpretation, see Day, Yahweh and the Gods, 62–63. Alternatively, the III-‫ ה‬form suggested by the MT spelling could be an ancient phonological variant of a III-‫ א‬root (GKC § 75qq). 100.  On the background of ‫ סמל‬as a “foreign term” or loanword, see Block, Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 281 n. 41. 101.  Refer to Judg 17:3, 4; Isa 40:20; 44:15, 17; 45:20; Hab 2:18. 102.  See Ezek 28:2.

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

95

foreign deity whose veneration was deemed illicit by the prophet.103 Ezekiel 8:5 provides further insight into this installation. The text explains that “north of the altar gate was this image of ‫)מצפון לׁשער המזבח סמל הקנאה הזה( ”קנאה‬. Since there is no explicit mention of an “altar gate” )‫ (המזבח סמל‬in the Hebrew Bible, scholars have emended the text to read ‫מצפון לׁשער מזבח סמל הקנאה הזה‬, “north of the gate was the altar of this image of ‫קנאה‬.”104 The context implies that the object of the C-stem participle is Yahweh. Wherever the image is located, whether by the city or temple gates, the motivation of divine ‫ קנאה‬is its presence and influence within Jerusalem and Yahweh’s sacred dwelling. In Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, not only is there an image of an illegitimate god in Yahweh’s holiest city, Jerusalem, but there may also be an altar dedicated to this foreign deity for the purposes of worship and service. The presence of the altar implies some kind of established sacrificial cult, which would definitely threaten Yahweh’s sole status as divine patron.105 In addition to other illicit cultic practices, the ‫ סמל הקנאה‬corrupts Yahweh’s sanctuary and domain to the point that the Israelite deity is forced to abandon his residence and forsake his land, which has become uninhabitable (vv. 5–6, 12, 18).106 The passages in which the causative sense of ‫ קנאה‬is attested reveal a common thread: the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh and behavior associated with the emotion manifest when the established norms of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship have been trespassed. In particular, when the Israelites participate in behavior that alienates or threatens Yahweh, it provokes a divine response. In these situations, Yahweh responds not only with anger but also with proper indignation, channeled through his ‫קנאה‬. The conditions of divine exclusivity underpinning the divine–human relationship and the repercussions of violating these conditions are framed through divine ‫קנאה‬. In Deut 32:16, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is provoked by the cultic abominations of the Israelites and the worship of illegitimate deities. The Israelites are participating 103.  For the possible identification of the image in this passage, see Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, 60–61; Block, Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 281; Odell, “Image of Jealousy,” 135–37. 104.  Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, 41–42 n. 14. However, note that there are allusions to cultic installations by or near gates in 2 Kgs 23:8 and Ezek 42:2–12. Also, the archaeological record suggests the presence of altars in the periphery of gates. See May, “Gates and Their Functions,” 109. Whatever the case, our passage may be referencing some kind of cultic installation in proximity to one of Jerusalem’s city gates. 105.  See also 2 Chr 24:18, which condemns people for serving the ‫אׁשרים‬, implying either sacrifice or the provisions of an offering. For ritual acts associated with the veneration of the ‫ אׁשרים‬in the Hebrew Bible, see Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, 61–62. 106.  In addition to the ‫סמל הקנאה‬, Ezek 8 depicts other cultic infractions that may be identified as part of sixth-century popular religion: elders burning incense in a room of reliefs, women lamenting over the god Tammuz, and men venerating the sun. For a detailed discussion of these practices, see Ackermann, Under Every Green Tree, 37–99. On the possible historical context of Ezek 8 and the abominations in the temple, see Strine, “Ezekiel’s Image Problem,” 253.

96

Jealousy in Context

in behavior that is at odds with the norms established through the traditional allotment. Following this indictment, Deut 32:19–26 details the divine reaction to this betrayal and outlines Israel’s punishment. The focal point of this judgment can be found in the following threat: They provoked my ‫ קנאה‬with a no-god(s) (‫ בלא־אל‬107‫)הם קנאוני‬ They provoked me with their idols (‫)כעסוני בהבליהם‬,108 So I will provoke their ‫ קנאה‬with a no-people (‫)ואני אקניאם בלא־עם‬, With a foolish nation I will provoke them (‫)בגוי נבל אכעיסם‬. (Deut 32:21) As others have noted, Deut 32:21 provides one of the best portrayals of the correspondence between betrayal and divine judgment.109 The internal and external parallelism in the two bicola balance the nature of Israel’s betrayal and the nature of Yahweh’s judgment.110 From the poem’s perspective, at the heart of Israel’s infraction lies the ‫ קנאה‬event depicted in v. 16. As we discussed in the previous sections, the Song of Moses establishes the divine–human relationship in cosmological terms and demonstrates the legitimacy of this relationship by referring to Israel’s history and corresponding acts of divine intervention. These “no-god(s)” played no role in this history. Instead, they are Israel’s ‫הבלים‬, their “nothings,” who will prove incapable of delivering them from the hand of the enemy. Yahweh’s judgment is conveyed in analogous terms, and a cause–effect relationship is established between the litany of violations articulated in vv. 15–18 and the judgment portioned to them in vv. 19–26 through the use of parallel language.111 Just as the Israelites provoked Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬with a “no-god(s),” so Yahweh will provoke the Israelites’ ‫ קנאה‬with a “no-people.” The punishment alludes to a great battle, where Yahweh will act as divine warrior against Israel and allow the nation to be destroyed by means of this “no-people.” These verses also demonstrate an understanding of reciprocity in the divine–human 107.  In Deut 32:16, the C-stem of the root ‫ קנא‬is used to depict the provocation of Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. In v. 21, however, the D-stem is used in the causative sense. The author might have used the D-stem in order to provide a better grammatical parallel with the D-stem of the root ‫ כעס‬in v. 21b. However, note that v. 21c (the reciprocal action taken by Yahweh) uses the C-stem of ‫קנא‬. 108.  The term ‫ הבל‬is often translated as “vanity” or “nothing”; however, in certain contexts, it explicitly describes an idol. See 1 Kgs 16:13, 26; 2 Kgs 17:15; Ps 31:7 [6]; Jer 2:5; 8:19; 10:3, 8, 15 (= 51:18). 109.  Patrick D. Miller contends that “the central structural movement of the song hinges on that correspondence” (Sin and Judgment, 77). 110.  For a detailed discussion of the external and internal parallelism in Deut 32:21, see ibid., 77–78. 111.  Joo, Provocation and Punishment, 34–35.

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

97

relationship. Just as it is possible for the Israelites to betray the terms of the divine–human arrangement, it is also possible for Yahweh to renege on this arrangement. The judgment corresponds with the people bestowing the cultic benefits reserved for Yahweh to other gods.112 Thus, these “no-people” are people who lack a legitimate relationship with Yahweh, and by permitting these foreign peoples to come in and defeat Israel, Yahweh will have bestowed the benefits reserved for Israel to another and used this “no-people” as a tool for Israel’s punishment. These benefits are the rights given to them on account of their arrangement with Yahweh and include not only the right to possess the land but also the protection and fecundity that came with having Yahweh as their divine patron. Reciprocal Honor and Divine Right The relationship established between Yahweh and Israel may be best represented through the lens of a suzerain–vassal relationship, and this formal bond is also underpinned by the concept of reciprocal honor.113 In the Hebrew Bible, honor and its counterpart, shame, communicate relative social status and value.114 Honor can be gained through military victory or lost through defeat and exile and replaced by shame.115 It is therefore represented as a commodity of value that could be conferred either to deity or man.116 Public rituals, such as sacrifices, offerings, and/or presentation of gifts recognize the beneficiary as worthy of honor and value. Since honor is a claim to worth that is publicly recognized, refusal to confer honor is a public ascription of shame and communicates a loss of social value.117 In a suzerain–vassal relationship, the question of obligations that the partners owe each other is ever present. In this situation, the partners are obligated to demonstrate their loyalty to each other, and these demonstrations of loyalty are a means of conferring honor to the contract partner.118 In the relationship 112.  See especially Deut 32:37–38, which describes how other gods are provided with libations and sacrifices, implying that Yahweh is left bereft. 113.  Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 203. 114.  Ibid., 207. 115.  See Exod 14:4, 17–18; 2 Kgs 14:10; Isa 33:9; Lam 1:8; Nah 3:10. 116.  Honor is owed by an inferior to a superior in Lev 19:32; Isa 3:5; Lam 5:12; by worshiper to his or her deity in Exod 20:12//Deut 5:16; Ezek 22:7; and by a minor deity to Yahweh in Ps 29:1–2. For further discussion, see Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 203–4. 117.  See Isa 16:14; 23:9; Jer 46:12; Hos 4:7; Lam 1:6, 8. 118.  In the Hebrew Bible, this may be done through acts that demonstrate “love” (‫ )אהב‬and “covenant faithfulness” (‫)חסד‬. See, for example, Deut 6:5–9; 7:8–11; 1 Kgs 5:15; Ps 89:24. In his work on the topic, William Moran discusses how love in nonparity and parity treaty contexts is mutual— the suzerain is expected to love his vassal and his vassal to love his suzerain (“Ancient Near Eastern

98

Jealousy in Context

between Yahweh and Israel, mutual honor is dependent upon acknowledgment of Yahweh as sovereign deity of Israel and recognition of the Israelites as the selected people of Yahweh.119 The nature of their relationship brings with it certain benefits and rights, but when honor is denied by one party to another, the relationship is threatened and the benefits and rights obtained through the relationship are disrupted. This bond is strictly guided through certain regulations and expectations. On the one hand, the honor of Yahweh is dependent upon the visible allegiance of the Israelites, who demonstrate their loyalty by maintaining the cult of Yahweh through daily offerings and sacrifices. On the other hand, the Israelites’ claim to honor is its special relationship with Yahweh, a claim that is dependent upon Yahweh’s continued support of Israel.120 Israel gains its honor through the benefits of being Yahweh’s selected nation, and the Israelite deity visibly demonstrates their election through Israel’s possession of the land as a ‫נחלה‬. In the context of the divine–human relationship, it follows that Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is provoked when his legitimate claim to honor is publicly denied through the worship of other gods and idols. As shown, divine expressions of ‫ קנאה‬are clearly demonstrated when there is suspicion that the terms of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship are violated through infidelity (i.e., bestowing benefits to those who are outside the sanctioned relationship). When Yahweh experiences ‫קנאה‬, this experience is also accompanied by a reaction or behavior that seeks to recover lost honor either through judgment or punishment. Similarly, in the following chapter we will find threats of reciprocal, public humiliation against Jerusalem for its disloyalty in Ezek 16:36–54. In Deut 32:16, 21, failure to recognize Yahweh’s status and rights by denying the benefits accrued to him by virtue of the existence of the contract provokes retaliation. Yahweh punishes Israel in a reciprocal and appropriate way by denying the people their expected status and turning over control of the land to a “no-people,” who are bestowed status originally reserved for Israel under the contract established between Yahweh and Israel. Not only does the passage present a compelling representation of the correspondence between violation and judgment in the Hebrew Bible, it also serves as one of the best illustrations of the behavioral and social component of the Background,” 77–87). On “covenant faithfulness” and its reciprocal nature in relational contracts, see Sakenfeld, Meaning of Hesed, 93–150. 119.  Olyan argues that honor, like love and covenant loyalty, is reciprocal in the divine–human contract between Yahweh and Israel even if the reciprocal nature of this relationship is not always made explicit (“Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 205). For examples of explicit reciprocity between Yahweh and Israel, see 1 Sam 2:30; Ps 91:14–15; Prov 27:18; Isa 43:4. 120.  Yahweh’s punishment of Israel’s enemies is evidence of honor due to the nature of the divine–human relationship. For example, see Pss 35:4; 69:25–8; 70:3 [2]; 71:13; 83:13–17 [12–16].

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

99

‫ קנאה‬scenario. Here, ‫ קנאה‬is less of an index of an affective state and more of a response embedded in the social and religious norms established by normative Yahwism. What first appears as an emotional reaction in Deut 32:16 is clarified to be a more complex expression involving a series of retributive acts on the part of the deity. Following this declaration of judgment, the reaction of Yahweh is depicted through concretized expressions of divine wrath. Yahweh, as divine warrior, will inflict destruction upon Israel (vv. 22–26).121 In addition to the measure-for-measure punishment, Yahweh threatens Israel with devastation, plague, and complete destruction (vv. 23–26). The use of words relating to fire and ignition coupled with a description of instruments of judgment (arrows and natural disasters, sword of terror, etc.) reveal the active nature of Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬, and divine wrath functions as a weapon to devour the land in order to provide the compensation that his ‫ קנאה‬demands.122 Judgment Against the Adversaries of Israel and Yahweh In Deut 32:27–28, Yahweh’s judgment against Israel is tempered by the possibility that the tool for divine judgment, the “no-nation,” will believe itself solely responsible for the destruction of Israel. The failure of the foreign nation to recognize the agency of Yahweh motivates the shift from judgment against Israel to judgment against the adversaries of Yahweh (vv. 27–43). Judgment against the enemy is framed in terms of ‫נקם‬, “retribution,” and ‫ׁשלם‬, “compensation” (v. 35).123 These adversaries are later described as people who “hate” (‫ )ׂשנא‬Yahweh (v. 41). In the Hebrew Bible, there is special juridical significance applied to the root ‫ׂשנא‬ as it signifies those who breach relational agreements or those who are outside a sanctioned and protected legal relationship. The adversaries taint Yahweh’s land with illicit acts, including spilling the blood of Yahweh’s servants.124 The 121.  For a fuller treatment of the imagery used in this part of the Song of Moses, see Miller, Sin and Judgment, 78. 122.  That is not to say that anger and ‫ קנאה‬are the same phenomenon. Anger might result from a range of different situations, but ‫ קנאה‬results from a particular set of social circumstances and can only be resolved by addressing its primary concern or the event that triggered the subject. Divine ‫ קנאה‬is conceptualized through fire metaphors or heat elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Num 25:11; Deut 4:24; 6:15; 29:20. For a discussion of anger terms in Deut 32, Joo, Provocation and Punishment, 35; Grant, Divine Anger, 99–100. 123.  For the use of ‫ נקם‬and ‫ ׁשלם‬in Deut 32:35, 41, 43, see Peels, Vengeance of God, 132–48 (138 n. 285). 124.  In this scenario, the land would have been polluted not only by the spilt blood of Yahweh’s servants, who had been slain by enemy nations, but also by the practice of idolatry and the veneration of foreign cults (Lev 18:24–30; Ps 106:38; Jer 3:1–2, 9). In the Hebrew Bible, atonement for the land is achieved by shedding the blood of the polluters or designating animal sacrifices in their stead (Deut 21:1–9; Num 35:33; 2 Sam 21:1–14; Ezek 36:17–18). For more discussion of this topic, see ibid,, 145. On the polluting potential of blood, see Weinfeld, “Inheritance of the Land,” 189.

100

Jealousy in Context

passage emphasizes that only Yahweh will prove effective in saving Israel from complete annihilation, as the gods who benefited from Israel’s generosity will be incapable of rescuing them (vv. 37–39). According to Deut 32:43, by seeking compensation against these enemies Yahweh “will atone for both his land and his people” (‫)כפר אדמתו עמו‬. In doing so, the demands of the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh will be addressed through the reestablishment of justice and stability in Israel.

Reevaluating the Issue of Allotment and Order In the Song of Moses, divine expressions of ‫ קנאה‬occur in situations when the norms of exclusivity are violated and his rights as divine patron of Israel are threatened. According to Israelite cosmogony, Yahweh is legitimately given rights to his estate through a divine allotment and going against this order disrupts this natural organization. In our discussions of Deut 32, we have briefly alluded to how Israel creates a situation that perverts the theological geography. In order to appreciate the common threads between the different ‫ קנאה‬scenarios discussed thus far, we must fully understand the nature of the threat that provokes divine ‫ קנאה‬and how it is represented in the Song of Moses. The author frames the sins of Israel in terms of corruption, explaining: The rock, his work is perfect, For all his ways are just. An honorable (‫ )אמונה‬god and without injustice, Righteous and upright is he. His no-children acted corruptly toward him with blemish (‫ׁשחת לו לא בניו‬ ‫)מומם‬, A twisted and perverse generation (‫)דור עקׁש ופתלתל‬. Is this how you treat Yahweh, Foolish and unwise people? Is he not your father who has acquired you? He has made you and established you. (Deut 32:4–6) In the passage, Yahweh’s fidelity is juxtaposed with the treachery of Israel. Characterizing Yahweh as honorable (‫ )אמונה‬indicates that he is the one in the divine–human relationship who maintains his obligations to Israel.125 The syntax of Deut 32:5 is difficult and interpretations and proposed emendations of this

125.  See similarly Deut 7:9.

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

101

verse vary.126 In reading ahead to v. 6, it is likely that v. 5 is commenting on the behavior of Israel. Although the suggested translation still has numerous grammatical peculiarities, it nevertheless conveys the overall intention in characterizing the egregious behavior of the Israelites.127 What is significant to note here is the use of the root ‫ ׁשחת‬to describe the corruption of Israel. In other biblical passages, ‫ ׁשחת‬is used to describe behavior that distorts a fixed and natural order.128 For example, in the priestly interpretation of the flood story the verbal root ‫ ׁשחת‬is used to describe the warped behavior of mankind, which in turn corrupts (‫ )ׁשחת‬the earth and fills it with “disorder” (‫)חמס‬,129 provoking Yahweh to destroy humanity with the deluge (Gen 6:9–22).130 The behavior of humanity is set in opposition to the behavior of Noah, which is described as whole (‫ )תמים‬and righteous (‫( )צדיק‬Gen 6:9–13). Thus, the conduct of humanity does not accord with the rules of community or with the norms of a definite social group.131 From the cultic mentality of the author, the corruption of humanity is considered contagious and dangerous, infecting the place in which humanity

126.  One suggestion is to read the MT as, “Did he bring ruin upon him(self)? No! His children were their (own) blemish,” but the use of ‫ לא‬at the end of a phrase would be very unusual (GKC § 152e; Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 145). The versions of this verse provide little clarification. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads ‫ׁשחת לא לו בני מום‬, “Not on him the children of blemish brought ruin,” which makes little sense (von Gall, Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, 430). The LXX reads ἡμάρτοσαν οὐκ αὐτῷ τέκνα μωμητά, which is very similar to the Samaritan version of this verse. Whatever the case may be, the text appears to be corrupted. However, we can be certain that the original intension of the verse was to contrast Yahweh’s upright behavior with the corrupt behavior of his people. For a brief summary of the various interpretations and emendations of this verse, see Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 145–48. 127.  The translation here avoids emending the MT, following Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 145. The peculiarities of this verse include disagreement in number between the verb and subject, although it is not uncommon to find a singular verb preceding a plural subject in Biblical Hebrew (GKC § 145o). Similar syntax can be found in Deut 32:35, 38. The combination of ‫ לא בניו‬is also strange but would fit thematically with the combinations of the negative particle + noun found elsewhere in Deut 32 (‫[ לא חכם‬v. 6], ‫[ לא אלוה‬v. 17], ‫[ לא־אמן‬v. 20], ‫[ לא־אל‬v. 21], and ‫[ לא־עם‬v. 21]). The “no-children” interpretation would indicate that Israel is acting out of place and not fulfilling their role as the ‘children’ of Yahweh. Finally, in this translation the final ‫ ם‬of ‫ מומם‬is taken as an adverbial. For the adverbial mem, see Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 93. 128.  In Deuteronomic passages, the behavior associated with ‫ ׁשחת‬relates to the production and worship of idols (Deut 4:16, 25). Outside of Deuteronomy, it can refer to religious deviation from proper Yahwism (Exod 32:7; Judg 2:19) or engagement in illegitimate cultic acts (2 Chr 26:16). The verbal root ‫ ׁשחת‬also occurs in other contexts meaning “to destroy.” See, for example, Josh 22:23; Judg 20:21, 25, 35, 42; 1 Sam 23:10; 2 Sam 11:1; 20:20; 1 Chr 20:1. When Yahweh is the subject of this verb, the verb is used in reference to some form of retaliation against human discretions (Gen 6:13; Jer 13:9; 15:6; Ezek 9:8; 43:3). 129.  On ‫חמס‬, see H. Haag, “‫חמס‬,” TDOT 4:478–87. 130.  On the priestly recasting of the floor story, see Cassuto, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 1:51–58; Sarna, Genesis, 55; Levinson, “Post-Priestly Harmonization,” 122; Wright, “Profane Versus Sacrificial Slaughter,” 125–27. 131.  Skinner, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 158.

102

Jealousy in Context

lived and mutilating the integrity of the divinely created world (Gen 6:11–13).132 Moreover, the corrupt behavior of humanity deviates from Yahweh’s original intention for his creation and therefore necessitates divine intervention.133 Similarly, Jer 18:3–4 describes the vessel created by a potter as ‫נׁשחת‬: “Then I went down to the potter’s (‫ )יוצר‬house, and there he was working at his wheel. The vessel he was making of clay was distorted (‫)נׁשחת‬.” In other words, the clay of the potter did not form into the shape that he had originally desired.134 The potter reworks the distorted clay back into its shapeless form and fashions it in the image he desires (v. 4). In these passages, the essential message is that a creator has determined that his original creation has become distorted from its intended form, thus forcing him to destroy and start anew. This, too, is precisely what is intended when the author of Deut 32 describes the Israelites as perpetrating corruption against Yahweh. In these passages, the use of ‫ ׁשחת‬is not intended to suggest a general sense of wrongness, but instead this term is used specifically to designate something that has become so distorted and deviated from its original purpose that it must be destroyed in order to reestablish the foundation of society. As we will discuss in the next chapter, in Ezekiel the ‫ קנאה‬provoking behavior of the Israelites corrupts (‫ )ׁשחת‬the land and fills it with ‫חמס‬. In Deut 32, the crux of Israel’s corruption is the creation of abominations, the worship of foreign gods, and illicit sacrifices (vv. 15–17). Yet these acts by themselves do not necessarily create a ‫ קנאה‬situation. It is only through the framework of the divine allotment that these infractions are given weight. By committing religious betrayal and idolatry, the people of Israel violate the condition of exclusivity established by the traditional divine allotment. In doing so, not only do they threaten Yahweh’s rights as the sovereign of Israel, the community also distorts the land, which will prompt divine intervention.135 132.  Ro, “Theological Concept,” 411–17. This priestly perspective is underpinned by religious laws that separated clean from unclean and those who belong to an unspoiled “cosmos” and those who do not. This perfect order is sustained through the maintenance of the cult. Those who corrupt this stability through perverse deeds or unsanctioned behavior are cut off from the community. However, if the community itself is corrupt, then it is destroyed (Ezek 14:1–11). A community or individual could be restored through the proper rituals. See, for example, the atonement rituals of Num 15–16 (compare Exod 20:5–6; Deut 13:12–16; Josh 7; 2 Sam 21). 133.  The events depicted in Gen 6 contrast with Yahweh’s assessment shortly after creation in Gen 1:31 (“God saw everything that he had made, and see, it was very good”). 134.  In Phoenician, ‫ ׁשחת‬can refer to the defacing of an inscription (e.g., KAI 24:14, 15). 135.  On the relationship between Israel and the land, Moshe Weinfeld astutely notes: What is unique about Israel’s relationship to the land is neither the divine promise nor the permanence of the patrimony, but rather the religious and moral ramifications of the promise: the belief that, in order to dwell safely in the land, it was necessary to fulfill the will of the God who gave the land. The land was thus transformed into a kind of mirror, reflecting the religious and ethical behavior of the people; if the people were in possession of the land,

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

103

In addition to Deut 32, there are several other passages that establish a connection between distortion caused by rejecting the conditions of religious exclusivity and the provocation of divine ‫קנאה‬. While some of the passages discussed in this section will be examined in greater detail in chapter 6, a brief examination of them here will help clarify the connection between divine property and religious exclusivity in the Deuteronomic representation of the divine– human relationship. Furthermore, while these passages have been thoroughly discussed in biblical scholarship, very few have elaborated on the broader significance of ‫ קנאה‬and the role it plays in shaping ancient Israelite ideas concerning divinity. Deuteronomy 4:19–24 and 29:19–26 [20–28] illuminate issues concerning land tenure and the obligations of exclusivity, and like Deut 32:16, 21, represent divine ‫ קנאה‬as the appropriate response for failure to uphold the requirement of exclusivity. Deuteronomy 4:19–20 and 29:25 [26] echo language and themes from 32:8–9.136 These passages describe a political system based on a cosmic geography in which Yahweh, as head of the divine assembly, allots (‫חלק‬, 4:19; 29:25 [26]) the authority of “all peoples under the entirety of heaven” to other heavenly bodies and divine entities but reserves the governance of Israel for himself. Like the Song of Moses, what we see here is the designation of property among gods, with special emphasis on the allotment of Israel to Yahweh. In Deut 4:20–21, both the land and people of Israel are understood as the possession of Yahweh: in remote antiquity, the people were selected by him and liberated from bondage in Egypt, and he set aside land for them to reside in as an estate (‫)נחלה‬. In other words, the land of Yahweh is his possession to give to the people as their own estate. The divine–human relationship in Deuteronomy reflects a relationship of reciprocity in which Yahweh’s portion is the people of Israel and Israel’s portion is the land given to them by Yahweh.137 However, it was a sign that they were fulfilling God’s will and observing his commandments; if they lost the land, it was an indication that they had violated God’s covenant and neglected his commandments. All of biblical historiography is based upon this criterion: the right to possess the land. (“Inheritance of the Land,” 184) 136.  For the argument that Deut 4:19 is a reworking of Deut 32:8–9, see Heiser, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities?” 9; Smith, God in Translation, 203–8. Peter Machinist posits that at the very least these verses originate from the same scribal circle (“How Gods Die,” 227). These correspondences have led scholars to propose that the Song of Moses had profound theological influence on the exilic framework of the book of Deuteronomy. See, for example, Levenson, “Who Inserted?” 212–18. There is a tendency in scholarship to view Deut 4:1–40 as a homogenous composition from the exilic period that was inspired by the more archaic Song of Moses, although a few scholars see some parts of Deut 4, specifically 4:19–20, as older. On interpretations and suggestions with regard to the text’s historical redaction, see Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 350–51 with bibliography. See also Levenson, “Who Inserted?” 203–7; Mayes, “Deuteronomy 4,” 24–30; Mayes, Story of Israel, 24–31; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 221–23. 137.  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 490.

104

Jealousy in Context

as previously discussed, this relationship is conditional and will be threatened by serving the cults of other gods and idolatrous behavior in their apportioned land. For example, Deut 4:19–20 denies Israel the right to worship the gods of the local Canaanites and justifies this command by referring to the foundation established by Yahweh: And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array (‫)כל צבא הׁשמים‬138—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things Yahweh, your God, has allotted (‫ )חלק‬to all the peoples under the entirety of heaven. But as for you, Yahweh took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his estate (‫)נחלה‬, as you now are. (Deut 4:19–20) Moreover, Deut 29:21–28 [22–29] anticipates the exile by attributing the displacement of the Israelites from the land to their disloyalty; they served gods not “allotted” (‫חלק‬, 29:25 [26]) to them and so brought upon themselves the curses outlined in their covenant agreement (29:26 [27]). As in the Song of Moses, these passages demonstrate the literary correspondence between settlement, complacency, and cultic betrayal. A few generations of settlement will increase the temptation to betray this established norm by serving local, non-Yahwistic cults, creating a scenario in which corruption or ‫ ׁשחת‬manifests: After you have produced children and grandchildren and have been in the land a long time, if you become corrupt (‫ )והׁשחתם‬and make an image of any kind and do other evil things before Yahweh your God that enrage him: I will invoke heaven and earth as witnesses against you today so that you will surely and swiftly be removed from the very land you are about to cross the Jordan to possess. You will not last long there because you will be annihilated.139 (Deut 4:25–26) As we saw in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:5), ‫ ׁשחת‬is used to describe intolerable behavior of the settled Israelites, but this behavior is not just any cultic or social infraction. Instead, it specifically relates to the betrayal of the terms of exclusivity in the divine–human arrangement.140 In Deut 4:24, Yahweh is 138.  The celestial bodies referenced here are interpreted to be representations of divine entities. Refer also to Deut 17:3; 1 Kgs 22:19 (= 2 Chr 18:18); 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3–5 (= 2 Chr 33:3–5); 23:4–5; Isa 34:4; Jer 8:2; 19:13; 33:22; Neh 9:6; Dan 8:10–11; Zeph 1:5. 139.  Refer also to Deut 4:16. 140.  As others have noted, certain behaviors are prohibited in order to set Israel apart from other peoples (Machinist, “Question of Distinctiveness,” 206). For example, Lev 18 provides a series of prohibited sexual behavior that had one time been practiced by the former Canaanite inhabitants

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

105

identified as an ‫ אל קנא‬and a “consuming fire” (‫)אׁש אכלה‬, who will react to prohibited behavior that threatens his status as divine patron of Israel with swift retribution and vengeance. Betraying the divine–human arrangement is identified as “forgetting the covenant” (‫תׁשכחו את־ברית‬, Deut 4:23). The “covenant” (‫ )ברית‬here may refer to the terms agreed upon at Sinai, as explained in Exod 20, or, more broadly, as the Deuteronomic covenant, which emphasizes fidelity in the land. Similarly, Deut 29:17–19 [18–20] warns that the man who neglects his obligations to Yahweh by serving the gods of other nations will put himself and all associated with him at risk, including the land. The author uses land imagery to emphasize this point, stating that the Israelite infidelity and stubbornness will “destroy the watered ground with the dry” (‫ספות הרוה את־הצמאה‬, 29:18 [19]). Yahweh’s anger and ‫ קנאה‬will burn against the man and all the curses in the book of Deuteronomy will afflict him (29:19 [20]). Future generations, as well as foreigners, will “see the plagues of the land and illnesses that Yahweh has brought upon it” (29:21 [22]) from the Israelites worshiping gods “they did not know” (29:25 [26]). These unknown gods, similar to the “no-gods” in the Song of Moses, are deities that lack the formal relationship established between Yahweh and the Israelites, and bringing them into the land in which they have been charged to maintain repudiates their agreement with Yahweh. Similarly, Josh 24, which has generally been identified as a Deuteronomistic text, begins by distinguishing lands within the confines of Canaan and beyond it, noting that the ancestors of the Israelites, including Abraham, dwelled outside the Promised Land and so naturally worshipped other gods (vv. 1–2).141 However, the text argues that Yahweh established a relationship of patronage with the subsequent generations of Israelites through his deeds on their behalf, including his intervention during the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan (vv. 3–12). According to the passage, Yahweh has given them land on which they have not labored, cities in which they have not built, and nourishment they have not cultivated (v. 13). Joshua 24:14–15 focuses on Yahweh’s relationship with Israel vis-à-vis other nations, emphasizing that each nation has its own god and Yahweh’s domain is Israel.142 The historical situation has changed and the people are now in the land granted to them by Yahweh; because of this, Yahweh demands complete loyalty and the abandonment of the gods that the people’s ancestors worshipped “beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt” (v. 14). Most significantly, Yahweh’s identity as a god who expresses ‫ קנאה‬is paired with this command and of the land (Lev 18:24). Acting like other nations is undesirable and threatens the sanctity of land, people, and deity. Similarly, Ezekiel warns, “What you have in mind will not occur when you say, ‘Let us be like the nations, like the families of the lands, and worship wood and stone’ ” (20:32). Although, compare 1 Sam 8:5, 20; Isa 63:19. 141.  For the identification of Josh 24 as a Deuteronomistic text, see Nelson, Double Redaction, 95. 142.  Refer also to Judg 11:24–25; 1 Sam 26:19; Mic 4:5.

106

Jealousy in Context

justifies the need for exclusivity. According to the passage, Yahweh is an ‫אל קנא‬, a god that embodies ‫קנאה‬, and an ‫אל קדׁש‬, a “holy god,” who will not tolerate the presence of competing gods or idols in his sacred domain. The passage establishes a significant distinction between the land within the confines of Yahweh’s ‫ נחלה‬and outside of it. Joshua commands: Fear Yahweh and serve him with integrity and loyalty, and turn aside the gods your ancestors worshipped beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt and worship Yahweh. If you have no desire to worship Yahweh, decide for yourselves whom you will worship, whether it will be the gods whom your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. But I and my family will worship Yahweh. (Josh 24:14–15) This command is directly tied with the promise of land in Josh 24:18, which explains that Yahweh has established a grant of land to the progeny of the Israel­ ite people by driving out the local, non-Israelite peoples who lived in the land before them. Since Yahweh has provided the Israelites landed property to settle and possess, as a kind of feudal gift, the people owe him their allegiance as a fief would a vassal lord.143 As in the Song of Moses, the period in which Israel is most fragile is not when they are outside the land, on their journey to the land, or during its conquest, but when the people have finally settled securely within its confines and the corrupting influences of the local inhabitants, who worship other gods, are at their peak. In the passages discussed, divine ‫ קנאה‬is represented as a reaction to Israelite betrayal of the sociotheological foundation of the divine–human relationship. The foundation establishes Yahweh as divine patron of Israel, and ‫ קנאה‬is the appropriate response when his rights as divine patron are threatened or neglected. The Israelite cosmic geography established in these verses reflects a conception in which the nations and their gods were inseparable, and disregarding this arrangement went against the natural order. The projection of a mythological theme onto this literary representation of Israel’s past establishes the antiquity of the divine–human relationship, emphasizing the severity of violations against the command of exclusivity. As other passages in Deuteronomy demonstrate, the land given to the Israelites will sustain them as long as their religious obligations to Yahweh are met and they maintain order within its confines.144 143.  For discussion of the broader commonalities of this theological understanding of land and divine holdings in ancient and classical literature, see Weinfeld, Social Justice, 231–47. 144.  See Deut 4:21, 38; 12:9–10; 15:4; 19:3, 10, 14; 20:16; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19; 26:1.

Motivation

Reaction

Disruption of relational exclusivity threatens the integrity of Yahweh’s domain.

Suspension of relational exclusivity with Israel and elevation of status of “no-people.”

Relational exclusivity ensures mutual prosperity in divine domain.

Rival people threaten to accrue status and rights designated for the Israelites.

N/A

Deuteronomy 32:21: Israel’s expression of ‫ קנאה‬toward Yahweh

Relational exclusivity ensures mutual prosperity in divine domain.

Deuteronomy 32:16, 21: Yahweh’s expression of ‫ קנאה‬toward Israel

Expectation

N/A

Adversaries will be purged from the domain and reestablishment of relational exclusivity with Israel.

Outcome

Table 3: Scripts of the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43)

Sociotheological conflict based on the formal relationship and expectations established between a divine patron and his people.

Sociotheological conflict based on the formal relationship and expectations established between a divine patron and his people.

Framework

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God 107

108

Jealousy in Context

The Script of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenario in the Song of Moses Now that we have come to appreciate what is at stake for Yahweh and the Israelite community when Yahweh is subject to ‫קנאה‬, we will outline the entirety of the ‫ קנאה‬script as it plays out in the passage. In our scripts, we have representations of both divine and human ‫קנאה‬, yet the driving factors for their expression are both the same: the accrued rights benefited to each party through their formal relationship are threatened by an interloper and the actions of their relational partner. Moreover, there is added weight to the consequences of this disruption when we consider the cosmological foundation of the relationship. Going against this established norm creates a perverse situation in which the other party is subject to ‫קנאה‬. While the Song of Moses does not divulge the perspective or behavior Israel’s ‫קנאה‬, we can infer that this is due to the nature of the poem, which juxtaposes Yahweh’s fidelity against Israel’s infidelity. Yahweh’s response is reciprocal; he provokes Israel’s ‫ קנאה‬with a “no-people” only because Israel provoked his ‫ קנאה‬with “no-gods.” His reaction is justified by the author as a legitimate response to their ‫ קנאה‬provoking behavior. Having analyzed this passage, we can now appreciate how relational terminology can be adapted to describe divine behavior. Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬in the Song of Moses communicates concerns and principles with regard to social norms that also appear in nondivine expressions of the term. When rights, benefits, and status are obtained through a formal relationship or position in the community or household are threatened, the one whose rights are threatened is subject to ‫קנאה‬. In the passages discussed thus far, we have examined situations dealing with property rights, first-wife rights, rights of primogeniture, the rights of a husband, and now the rights of a divine patron. These rights are all established through the norms and traditions of Israelite culture reflected in the biblical text. We can surmise based on this resemblance that social concepts underpin theological ideas concerning Yahweh’s status as divine patron of Israel. The geographical assignment discussed establishes the norms and expectations of the divine–human relationship similar to the way the Israelite legal system establishes the norms and expectations between a husband and wife. Moreover, the ‫ קנאה‬in the passages examined involves a significant behavioral component, and this behavioral reaction often aims to resolve or address the trigger event.

Conclusion If we are correct in categorizing ‫ קנאה‬in the Song of Moses as one of the earliest attestations of the term’s use as a divine expression, it seems reasonable to

The Song of Moses and the Ideology of Land, People, and God

109

argue that, in light of this analysis of the poem, the Song does in fact provide something close to a paradigmatic expression of Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. Through our analysis of Deut 32:16, 21, we have come closer to appreciating how biblical authors adopt relational language from the social realm to understand theological ideas regarding divinity and the land. In the Song, ‫ קנאה‬is adapted to define the divine–human relationship in terms of both social and religious expectations. The actions of the Israelites are identified as corrupt (‫ ;)ׁשחת‬their behavior, which involves the creation of idols, the maintenance of the cults of other gods, and the adoption of local religious customs, is understood to disrupt the foundations of Israelite society and the land in which they live. These issues create a theological concern that necessitates divine intervention in the form of a ‫קנאה‬ reaction. The corrupting influence of the people puts the domain of Yahweh at risk, forcing Yahweh to experience ‫ קנאה‬against the Israelites and seek compensation. By framing our understanding of divine ‫ קנאה‬through this sociological lens, we are now better equipped to examine additional case studies that involve divine expressions of the term.

Chapter 5

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

In the previous chapter, we discussed a paradigmatic representation of divine ‫ קנאה‬in Deut 32:16, 21. In this chapter, we will discuss passages from Ezekiel, Psalms, and Zechariah that seem to draw from the tradition presented in the Song of Moses.1 In these passages, Yahweh experiences ‫ קנאה‬in response to behavior that threatens his sacred domain, communicating his rights as divine patron. The thematic interlinks between the Song of Moses and the cases presented here with regard to divine ‫ קנאה‬include shared expectations, motivations, outcomes, and sociotheological frameworks.

The Case of Ezekiel: Divine ‫ קנאה‬Toward the Israelites and Adversaries In the book of Ezekiel, ‫ קנאה‬prominently appears as an attribute of Yahweh. Ezekiel offers one of the best entry points for our discussion, since the historical milieu of this work is fairly well understood, allowing us to place the use of ‫ קנאה‬in a secure social context (ca. 593–71 BCE). Living in exile, the author would have had an acute concern over the relationship between the land, the patron deity Yahweh, and the people.2 Divine ‫ קנאה‬is expressed eleven times in 1.  Biblical scholarship has recognized the textual interlinks between the Song of Moses and the prophetic books. Based on the categorization of 4QDeutq as a “special use” manuscript, the Song of Moses was most likely a liturgical text in the public and cultic sphere and may have been well known to an exilic and postexilic audience. For further discussion, see Thiessen, “Form and Function,” 418–19. For a discussion of Ezekiel’s use of themes from the Song of Moses, see Gile, “Ezekiel 16,” 101–3. For evidence of intertextuality in Isaiah, see Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 134–36; Bergey, “Song of Moses”; Keiser, “Song of Moses,” 488–90; Kim, “Song of Moses.” For Jeremiah, see Holladay, “Jeremiah and Moses.” For Hosea, see Cassuto, “Prophet Hosea.” 2.  In particular, Ezekiel focuses on the suitability of the temple for the purposes of divine habitation. Julie Galambush writes, the “book of Ezekiel is dominated by Ezekiel’s concern for the state of the temple, and with the question of whether Yahweh can have a dwelling among the people without risking defilement as a result of their sins” (Jerusalem, 78).

110

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

111

Ezekiel as both a verb and a noun.3 In these attestations, Yahweh experiences ‫ קנאה‬as a result of circumstances that existed at the end of the Judean monarchy concerning the offensive behavior of the inhabitants of Judah and their foreign adversaries. Divine ‫ קנאה‬Toward the Israelites Divine ‫ קנאה‬is provoked by the illicit behavior of the Israelites, which specifically involves the practice of foreign worship and idolatry within the divine sanctuary (Ezek 5:13; 8:3, 5) and religious and political associations with foreign powers (Ezek 16:38, 42; 23:25): • • •

Ezek 5:13: The ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh is provoked by the defilement of the sanctuary with idols. Ezek 8:3, 5: The ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh is provoked by a cult statue in proximity to his holy sanctuary. Ezek 16:38, 42; 23:25: The ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh is provoked by the religious and political alliances forged between Israel/Judah and foreign powers. In these passages, the divine marriage metaphor is used.4

Upon closer examination, when divine ‫ קנאה‬is aroused by the behavior of the Judean residents, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is occasioned in each instance by the same concern: the land and its suitability as his habitation. The issue in these passages is that the residents are committing a betrayal (‫ )מעל‬against Yahweh, and therefore creating disorder (‫ )חמס‬within Yahweh’s land (Ezek 7:11, 23; 8:17; 12:19).5 The ‫ חמס‬disrupts the integrity of the land and its appropriateness as a divine habitation.6 These cultic and religious violations have significant implications for ancient Israelite society and its overall well-being, and the absence of the deity puts the community at risk for invasion and conquest. As in the Song of Moses, the disharmony stemming from the actions of the residents jeopardizes 3.  For verbal attestations, see Ezek 8:3 (C-stem) and 39:25 (D-stem). For the nominal form ‫קנאה‬, see Ezek 5:13; 8:3, 5; 16:38, 42; 23:25; 36:5, 6; 38:19. For the form of the C-stem participle in Ezek 8:3, see GKC § 75qq. 4.  On the divine marriage metaphor, see Day, “Metaphor and Social Reality”; Day, “Yahweh’s Broken Marriages.” 5.  The term ‫ מעל‬occurs elsewhere in Ezekiel (14:13; 15:8; 17:20; 18:24; 20:27; 39:23–26). In this context, committing ‫ מעל‬is understood as a breach in the formal relationship between Yahweh and Israel and is therefore an oath violation (Milgrom, “Concept of maʿal,” 237–38). 6.  Refer to Gen 6:11, which reflects a similar ideology. When the domain of Yahweh is corrupted and filled with ‫חמס‬, the Israelite deity cleanses the earth with a flood and wipes out the perverse generations. On the priestly recasting of the flood story, see Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 51–58; Wright, “Profane Versus Sacrificial Slaughter,” 127–32.

112

Jealousy in Context

the proper world order, and the appropriate divine response involves immediate punishment. In the legal and priestly material of the Hebrew Bible, the land of Canaan— what is traditionally understood as the Promised Land—is bequeathed to the Israelites to serve as their residence and the repository of their future wealth, but only on the condition that they maintain the integrity of the land and the divine sanctuary through the observance of the law and, in particular, the obligation of exclusivity.7 Because the people have failed to meet this essential obligation, Yahweh responds with ‫קנאה‬. Yahweh is not simply expressing personal feelings but is instead responding appropriately to a social breach that risks alienating the land and community from its god. At the same time, Yahweh is responding to threats to his status as the sole divine patron of Israel; the presence of foreign gods and abominations in his land directly threatens his sovereignty and goes against the terms of exclusivity in the divine–human arrangement developed in the biblical legal material. The Problem with Images in Ezekiel The book of Ezekiel establishes a link between the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh and the safeguarding of his holy presence against the presence of illegitimate cultic installations and images. The prophetic book also espouses the idea that idolatry is the cause of the Babylonian exile.8 As a priest and prophet, Ezekiel would have been profoundly impacted by the Josianic religious reform reflected in the Deuteronomistic theology, which advocates an aniconic tradition and warns against the corrupting nature of images and foreign cults.9 For example, ‫ קנאה‬is used to describe the idol abomination installed in Jerusalem in Ezek 8:3. While the idol may reflect the current of popular religion prevalent at that time, its installation opposes the normative Yahwistic practices reflected in the Deuteronomistic and priestly texts of the Hebrew Bible.10 This image is identified as an “image of ‫ קנאה‬that provokes ‫ )סמל הקנאה המקנה( ”קנאה‬in Ezek 8:3.11 According to Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, the “seat” (‫ )מוׁשב‬of this image had been placed “by the entrance of the gate of the ‫ הפנימית‬that faces north” (‫אל־פתח ׁשער‬ ‫)הפנימית הפונה צפונה‬. Biblical Hebrew ‫ סמל‬refers to the physical image of a statue 7.  For a discussion of the different conceptions of land in the Hebrew Bible and the tension between views of the land as an unconditional (Genesis) verses conditional (Deuteronomy) grant, see Frankel, Land of Canaan, 1–76. On the inseparable connection between the land, the people, and Yahweh, see Block, Gods of the Nations, 1–23; 74–97. 8.  Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 25. 9.  For a discussion of Ezekiel’s condemnation of image-based cultic worship and the historical context of these denunciations, see Strine, “Ezekiel’s Image Problem.” 10.  Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, 46–51. 11.  Reading MT ‫ המקנה‬as a C-stem masculine singular participle from the root ‫קנא‬.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

113

or the physical representation of a deity that threatens the exclusive worship of Yahweh.12 In Deut 4:16, the ‫ פסל תמונת כל־סמל‬refers to the carved form of any ‫סמל‬. The ‫ פסל האׁשרה‬in 2 Kgs 21:7 refers to the abominable image of Asherah created by Manasseh, which in 1 Chr 33:7, 15 is referred to as the “sculptured form of the statue” (‫)פסל הסמל‬. Since the word ‫ פסל‬refers to a free-standing statue carved from wood or stone or cast from metal, the references to ‫ סמל‬may similarly refer to some kind of wooden, stone, or metal idol.13 The seat of the ‫ סמל‬in Ezek 8:3 may refer to a sculpted seat or perhaps even a throne upon which the idol is seated.14 Although we cannot be certain about the divine identity of the image, it likely represents an image whose veneration was deemed illicit by the prophet. There are two possible interpretations with regard to the location of the image. The plain meaning of the text indicates that the image is located at the entrance of the gate of the inner court facing north. The word ‫ הפנימית‬may represent the inner courtyard in front of the temple, and if this is the case, the image would have been in close proximity to the divine sanctuary.15 Alternatively, the gate mentioned could refer to the northern gate of the city wall and not the temple gate. In the Greek versions of the text, the word “inner court” (‫)הפנימית‬ is absent, and there is also a lack of agreement between the feminine ‫ הפנימית‬and the masculine ‫פונה‬. These textual issues may suggest that ‫ הפנימית‬is a secondary insertion; if that is correct, we should read ‫“( אל־פתח הׁשער הפנה צפונה‬by the entrance of the gate that faces north”).16 The second interpretation would agree with the general flow of events in Ezek 8, which suggests that Ezekiel is only beginning his tour of the abominations in Jerusalem and will eventually make his way to the temple after recounting every abomination in the city.17 Furthermore, Ezek 8:5 provides clarification as to the nature of this installation. The text explains that “north of the altar gate was this image of ‫”קנאה‬ (‫)מצפון לׁשער המזבח סמל הקנא ההזה‬. Since there is no evidence of an “altar gate” in the Hebrew Bible, some scholars have emended the text to read ‫מצפון לׁשער‬ ‫מזבח סמל הקנאה הזה‬, “north of the gate was the altar of this image of ‫קנאה‬.”18 This interpretation would imply that the image was accompanied by the presence of an altar, where those who passed before it could provide offerings and pay obeisance. This cultic installation understandably provokes the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh, whose cult within the sanctuary of Jerusalem would have been regarded by the author as the only legitimate cultus in the nation of Judah. 12.  In Biblical Hebrew, ‫ סמל‬refers to “statue,” “image,” or “idol” in 2 Chr 33:7, 15 and Deut 4:16. 13.  See Judg 17:3, 4; Isa 40:20; 44:15, 17; 45:20; Hab 2:18. 14.  See Ezek 28:2. 15.  Compare 1 Kgs 6:27; 36; 1 Chr 28:11; 2 Chr 4:22; Ezek 8:16; 10:3; 40:15; 46:1. 16.  Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, 39 n. 10. 17.  Ibid., 54. 18.  Ibid., 41–42 n. 14; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:218 n. a.

114

Jealousy in Context

In Ezekiel, illicit cultic practices are considered one of the main reasons for the corruption of Yahweh’s sanctuary and territory.19 Yahweh becomes alienated from his domain and is forced to abandon his residence and forsake his land, which has become uninhabitable (Ezek 8:5–6, 12, 18). These cultic and religious violations have significant implications for ancient Israelite society and its overall well-being and demonstrates that Yahweh will protect his rights as divine sovereign, even if it means the eradication of those with whom he once bestowed his patronage. The Sociological Implications of the Divine Marriage Metaphor The divine marriage metaphor in Ezek 16 and 23 clarifies the way ‫ קנאה‬represents divine behavior in response to the people’s failure to uphold their obligations.20 In these passages, Yahweh is portrayed as the bridegroom who has bestowed various gifts upon his bride, Jerusalem.21 Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is provoked when his bride is lured into committing adultery with various “lovers,” who represent various gods, idols, and foreign countries. The use of ‫ קנאה‬is well known in the oath procedure in Num 5:11–31 to describe a husband’s reaction to suspected adultery.22 Although at first we might be tempted to allow current perceptions of marriage and romantic jealousy to color our interpretation of these texts, if we demonstrate a sensitivity to the ancient context of these passages we avoid misrepresentation. In chapter 3 of this study, we demonstrated that the husband expresses ‫ קנאה‬as a result of a perceived threat toward a relationship that has social and economic ramifications. In the ancient Near East, the primary importance of marriage was that it represented a legal and economic relationship.23 The marriage metaphor works so 19.  In addition to the ‫סמל הקנאה‬, Ezek 8 depicts other cultic infractions that may be identified as part of sixth-century popular religion: elders burning incense in a room of reliefs, women lamenting over the god Tammuz, and men venerating the sun. For a detailed discussion of these practices, see Ackermann, Under Every Green Tree, 37–99. On the possible historical context of Ezek 8 and the abominations in the temple, see Strine, “Ezekiel’s Image Problem,” 253. 20.  For examinations on the application of the marriage metaphor in Ezek 16 and 23, see Carley, Ezekiel Among the Prophets, 4; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:342; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 298; Galambush, Jerusalem, 61; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 247; Block, Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 466. For an in-depth examination of this topic in Ezekiel, see Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 156–205. 21.  Ezek 16 represents the adulterous wife as Jerusalem, while the adulterous sisters Oholah and Oholibah in Ezek 23 represent Samaria and Jerusalem respectively. 22.  See also Prov 6:32–35. 23.  Refer to LH 128; 137–40; LU 9–10; 21; 24–26; LE 59; and MAL A39 in Roth, Law Collections. In these texts, marriage is viewed as a contract with significant economic consequences. Victor H. Matthews notes that biblical legal codes concerning women and sexuality are “far more concerned with property than with gender and sexual contact” and that marriage “ratified an important

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

115

well in Ezekiel to describe the divine–human relationship because both types of relationships involve some kind of conditional arrangement. With the Israelites, they are given the right to settle in Yahweh’s land if they take measures to maintain their relationship with him and, most importantly, preserve the integrity of the land and his sanctuary. In the traditional relationship between a husband and wife as represented in biblical sources, the wife has an obligation to her husband to maintain the integrity of the family and her marital relationship.24 The principal economic unit in ancient Israel was the family, and any threat to its integrity would have been met with a strong response.25 Taking a lover had the potential to disrupt the family, since a child resulting from such a situation could potentially estrange the marital property by threatening any legitimate heirs and disrupting the social cohesion of the family. The ‫ קנאה‬expressed in both the divine–human relationship concerning the land of Israel and the husband–wife relationship concerning marital property thus share a similar motivation. The Protection of Status and ‫קנאה‬ The issue of property is not the only concern at the heart of Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. The irreducible crux of divine ‫ קנאה‬involves the protection of Yahweh’s status as divine patron of Israel and the sanctity of his realm. We discussed in the previous chapter that reciprocal honor plays a large role in the divine–human relationship. Honor may be claimed, but in order for the claim to be legitimate, the right to that honor must be publicly acknowledged.26 Honor is generally understood as a commodity of value that can be conferred to increase social status or revoked to diminish social status. When honor that is deemed to be political and economic covenant between the bride’s household and the household of her husband” (“Honor and Shame,” 97). 24.  This is established in the Num 5:11–31 ritual, where the woman, even in cases of suspected adultery, is held accountable, and in the absence of mundane evidence, divine mediation is required to resolve the conflict within the household. This ritual demonstrates that even the suspicion of infidelity was believed to have dangerous consequences for the household and community in ancient Israelite society (Matthews, “Honor and Shame,” 104). As discussed in this study, adultery is both a legal and religious offense in the Hebrew Bible (compare Milgrom, Numbers, 349). While in other ancient Near Eastern juridical sources it is possible for the husband to be compensated monetarily, in the Hebrew Bible death is the preferred penalty (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). 25.  Westbrook, Property and the Family, 11. The members of a household in ancient Israelite society were expected to fulfill social roles and uphold the cohesion and honor of the household through their behavior (Matthews, “Honor and Shame,” 98). In other ancient Near Eastern legal traditions, when the wife threatens the integrity of the household there are serious repercussions. See, for example, LH 13–16; 131–33ab; 141–43; MAL A24 in Roth, Law Collections. 26.  For honor as a social or group value that is acclaimed and ascribed to a group or individuals, see Pitt-Rivers, “Honour and Social Status,” 35–39; Chance, “Anthropology of Honor and Shame,” 139–40.

116

Jealousy in Context

legitimate and rightfully gained is threatened, there is often an attempt to vindicate the honor through immediate action.27 In the relationship between Yahweh and Israel, mutual honor is dependent upon acknowledgment of Yahweh as sovereign deity of Israel and recognition of the Israelites as the selected people of Yahweh.28 The nature of their relationship brings with it certain benefits and rights, but this bond is strictly guided through regulations and expectations. Yahweh’s status as divine patron is dependent upon the visible allegiance of the Israelites, who demonstrate their loyalty by maintaining the cult of Yahweh.29 In the context of the divine–human relationship, divine ‫ קנאה‬arises when Yahweh’s legitimate claim to his sovereignty is publicly denied through the worship of other gods and idols or, as we will soon discuss, threatened through foreign usurpation. Moreover, when this expression appears in Ezekiel, it is accompanied by a reaction or behavior that seeks to recover lost honor through divine judgment. In Ezek 16, for example, Yahweh’s status as divine patron has been publicly disregarded, and in response Yahweh seeks to punish the disloyal through public humiliation (16:44–58).30 The concerns of divine ‫ קנאה‬are therefore grounded in religious and social expectations. What was alluded to in the Song of Moses is made explicit in Ezek 16 and 23: social affiliations with non-Israelites will lead to the betrayal of the obligation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship. In these passages from Ezekiel, Jerusalem prostitutes herself with two groups, gods (vv. 15–22) and foreign nations (vv. 23–43), which represents both cultic and political disloyalty.31 As a priest, Ezekiel focuses on the ramifications of this betrayal through the lens of Yahweh’s official cult in the temple of Jerusalem. The purity of the Jerusalem temple has been compromised, thus forcing the deity to remove himself and seek compensation. In light of this, it is not difficult to understand the practical concerns behind the obligation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship commanded in the Decalogue and elsewhere.32 One of the most prominent themes in the biblical text is that the maintenance of the divine–human relationship is dependent upon the status or well-being of Yahweh’s personal estate. If anything is done 27.  Pitt-Rivers, “Honour and Social Status,” 29. 28.  Saul Olyan argues that honor, like love and covenant loyalty, is reciprocal in the divine– human contract between Yahweh and Israel, even if the reciprocal nature of this relationship is not always made explicit (“Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 205). 29.  Yahweh’s punishment of Israel’s enemies is likewise evidence of honor due to the nature of the divine–human relationship. For examples, see Pss 35:4; 69; 70:2; 71:13; 83:15–17 [14–16]. 30.  For a comprehensive study on the role of honor and shame in Ezekiel, see Wu, Honor, Shame, and Guilt. 31.  Gile, “Ezekiel 16,” 107. 32.  Refer to Exod 20:3–6//Deut 5:6–10; Exod 34:14; Deut 4:24; 6:15; Josh 24:19.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

117

to diminish the land or to threaten it, there will be a response. But this response is not simply an affect of anger. When anger is expressed by Yahweh it is a symptom of the ‫קנאה‬. Anger might result from a range of different situations, but ‫ קנאה‬results from a particular set of social circumstances and is resolved by addressing its primary concern or the event that triggered it. More specifically, the response communicates the concern that this behavior risks estranging and dishonoring the divine patron and comes with the expectation that action is required in order to rectify this disruption. The removal of the people from the land through exile is in some ways similar to the way the Philistines sought to resolve the threat that Isaac posed by driving him from their lands in Gen 26. In Ezek 5:13, Yahweh states that by taking action against the sinners and venting all anger through death, war, and exile he will be “compensated” or “consoled” (‫ )נחם‬through his vengeance and thereby will have spoken through his ‫קנאה‬. A similar ‫ קנאה‬passage to the ones discussed in this section can be found in Zeph 1:18. The Zephaniah passages are embedded in the Sinai Theophany traditions that represent the deity revealing himself on the “day of Yahweh” (‫)יום יהוה‬, a time when Yahweh will seek retribution and sit in judgment.33 In Zeph 1:15, judgment is expressed through theophanic terms as Yahweh manifests his presence through clouds, sounds, darkness, and fire. In Zeph 3:8, Yahweh is again subject to ‫קנאה‬, but in addition to responding against the sinners of the land, he also reacts against the peoples of the earth. In Zeph 3:17, Yahweh’s presence is noted and his status as divine patron is emphasized while divine wrath consumes the land. As in many of the passages we have discussed so far, when divine ‫ קנאה‬is a response against the sinners of Judah, judgment is actualized through destruction, exile, and abandonment. Within these contexts, this judgment is required in order to rectify an imbalance in which corruption permeates the land. After ‫ קנאה‬is expressed, a period of renewal is followed for Jerusalem in Zeph 3:9–14.34 It is only after the land has been consumed and purified by divine fire that the land is rid of disruption and restoration is made possible. Divine ‫ קנאה‬Toward Foreign Adversaries When Yahweh demonstrates ‫ קנאה‬as a result of the behavior of non-Israelite adversaries, it is provoked by the threat of enemy invasion and foreign attempts to appropriate the land and disrupt its integrity:

33.  On the “day of Yahweh,” see Berlin, Zephaniah, 78–79. 34.  See Joel 2:18.

118

Jealousy in Context

• •

Ezek 36:5–6: The ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh is provoked by the threat of enemy invasion and foreigners appropriating the land (Edom is the focus). Ezek 38:19: The ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh is provoked by an archetypal enemy (Gog of Magog), who threatens the restoration of the land.

In these passages, the issue is not about the betrayal of obligations within an exclusive relationship. Instead, ‫ קנאה‬is a response against someone outside the sanctioned relationship. However, we should not assume that because of this shift in nuance there has been a transformation of meaning of the ‫ קנאה‬expression.35 In Ezekiel, the same language is used to describe the ‫ קנאה‬directed toward the people of Israel and the ‫ קנאה‬directed toward foreign threats; Yahweh will have “spoken” (‫ )דבר‬in his ‫ קנאה‬upon the fulfillment of the prophecies (5:13; 36:5–6). The main difference is that the focus has shifted from the effect of iniquity on the divine estate to the effect of direct foreign usurpation on the land during restoration. In the previous passages, recompense is achieved through the Babylonian invasion and exile. The Babylonians, however, are not the focus of Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. These foreign powers are considered tools of divine judgment and are a means for Yahweh to resolve his ‫ קנאה‬against the people of the land. The fall of Judah and the ensuing destruction and exile lead up to Yahweh’s cleansing of the land in Ezek 36:24–26, guiding to the establishment of a new relationship between Yahweh and his people. Yahweh takes personal initiative to cleanse the waters of the land—a process linked to the eradication of idols—and paves the way for the Judeans’ return. The narrative context of these later chapters of Ezekiel involves the rebequeathal of the land to Israel, and the focus is now on potential threats that could disrupt this new social reality. This suggests that the motivation of divine ‫ קנאה‬remains consistent throughout the passages of Ezekiel: the protection of Yahweh’s rights as divine patron of both land and community. Edom’s ‫ קנאה‬Toward Judah and Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬Toward Edom Consider, for example, the ‫ קנאה‬of Edom in Ezek 35:11, which also provides the context of Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬against the nations in 36:5–6. In the passage, Mount Seir (Edom) expresses ‫ קנאה‬against the nations of Israel and Judah, provoking Yahweh’s own ‫קנאה‬. According to the text, Edom claimed right of possession over the lands of Israel and Judah after their fall. This prompts Yahweh to give 35.  See Renaud, Je suis un dieu jaloux, 25, 87; Reuter, “‫קנא‬,” TDOT 13:62 for proposals concerning the semantic development of this expression. See, however, Kim, “Yhwh as Jealous Husband,” 137.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

119

an oracle against Mount Seir, declaring, “I will handle you according to your anger (‫ )אף‬and your ‫ קנאה‬by which you acted from your hatred (‫ )ׂשנא‬against (the Israelites).” Similar to the Philistine’s ‫ קנאה‬in Gen 26, the ‫ קנאה‬of Edom is perhaps more complex than malicious envy. Instead, it implies that what drives Edom to conquer and possess Israel and Judah is the belief that Edom has legitimate claim to the land. The “eternal enmity” (‫ )אבת עולם‬Edom is described to have for Israel recalls the rivalry reflected in the ancestral traditions concerning the birthrights of Esau and Jacob.36 From the author’s perspective, however, Edom’s claims to the land are unsubstantiated. Attempts to possess the land of Israel and Judah contradict the traditional allotments of land portioned by Yahweh. Based on this understanding, Edom lacks any claim to land outside of its proper portion.37 Most importantly, however, the passage elaborates that Yahweh has remained an occupant in the land (35:10) and therefore maintains his status as its rightful proprietor. When faced with the threat of unlawful, foreign appropriation by various nations, including Edom, Yahweh demonstrates ‫קנאה‬, which motivates him to shame and remove the foreign nations from his personal estate, reestablish the House of Israel, and restore prosperity to the land (36:5–12).38 Divine ‫ קנאה‬and the Integrity of Yahweh’s Presence Finally, we can observe a connection between Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬and the safeguarding of his holy presence in the prophetic depiction of the eschatological battle between Israel and an archetypal enemy known as Gog of Magog (Ezek 38–39). Yahweh’s judgment against Gog involves him being subject to his ‫קנאה‬, which results in both Magog’s subjugation and the sanctification of his presence (38:23). In the vision, the prophet elaborates that by defeating these enemy forces, Yahweh will reveal his “holy name” (‫ )ׁשם קדׁשי‬among his people and his status as “Holy One in Israel” (‫ )קדוׁש ביׂשראל‬among the nations (39:7). Similarly, the final attestation of divine ‫ קנאה‬in the book of Ezekiel explicitly connects Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬with the preservation of his holy name (39:25).39 Within the 36.  In the Hebrew Bible, the rivalry between Edom and Israel is understood to be embedded in the ancestral tradition concerning the birthright conflict between Esau and Jacob, resulting in Esau’s loss of his firstborn status and his right to his father’s property (Gen 27:41–45; 32:4–22; 33:1–20). This old tradition becomes especially relevant during the Babylonian threat and exile, when Edom, due to its close proximity to Judah, had ample opportunity to take advantage of its rival territory. For a discussion of this topic, see Block, Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 318–19. On Edom’s desire for the property of Judah, see also Obad 11–14. 37.  For reference to Edom’s traditional allotment, see Deut 2:1–7. 38.  For other instances where Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is provoked by a foreign threat, see Isa 9:6 [7]; 37:32 (//2 Kgs 19:31); 42:13; 59:17; 63:15; Zech 1:14; 8:2. 39.  For an analysis of Ezek 38–39 and the Gog oracle, see Block, “Gog and the Pouring,” 458–61; Block, “Gog in Prophetic Tradition,” 155–57.

120

Jealousy in Context

narrative context, this proclamation of ‫ קנאה‬follows Yahweh’s eschatological battle with Gog, which is understood by the author as a turning point in the nation’s history.40 Gog’s defeat will establish Yahweh’s status and lend credence to the idea that the exile was divinely ordained in response to the nation’s failure to uphold their obligations to Yahweh (39:23–24). Nevertheless, in the following verse, the prophet reassures his contemporary audience that the fortunes of the house of Jacob will be restored and the House of Israel will be shown mercy,41 explaining that Yahweh’s restoration efforts are motivated by his ‫קנאה‬ for his holy name (‫)וקנאתי לׁשם קדׁשי‬.42 That is, by restoring the people to the land, Yahweh will have vindicated his reputation and forced the nations and his people to recognize him as the patron deity of Israel. Ezekiel 39:26 continues to explain that the people will bear their shame and all of their ‫“( מעל‬betrayal”) committed against Yahweh when “they live securely in their land with no one to terrify them,” and once returned to this land, Yahweh will be “sanctified through them” (‫ )ונקדׁשתי בם‬before the nations. The status of Yahweh is tied here with the status of Israel, and it is through divine intervention that Yahweh restores his reputation as divine patron. The association between ‫ קנאה‬and divine intervention is also attested in the prophetic text of Joel 2:18. When faced with the threat of a hostile horde of enemies in the form of locusts, the people sanctify the sanctuary and display various behaviors of remorse and shame in order to provoke an appropriate response from the deity and manifest his presence (2:12–17). For example, Joel pleads with Yahweh by declaring, “Do not allow your estate (‫ )נחלה‬to become a shame (‫( ”)חרפה‬v. 17). Yahweh responds to their pleas with ‫ קנאה‬for his land and compassion (‫ )חמל‬for his people, restoring their ruined crops and driving the enemy out of his territory, thereby demonstrating his continual presence in the midst of Israel and his status as its one true god (2:27). Based on these considerations, we can conclude that divine expressions of ‫ קנאה‬in the book of Ezekiel are provoked by actions that risk estranging Yahweh from the land and his community through the potential usurpation of land by a foreign enemy or its defilement by the Israelites. Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬results in a reaction that seeks to eliminate or defend against such threats, demonstrating a concern for the exclusive rights of Yahweh as divine patron. Biblical ‫קנאה‬ in Ezekiel thus fits into the broader framework of the tradition presented in the Song of Moses whereby the divine–human relationship frames the social and religious life of the Israelites. Yahweh is responsible for the prosperity of 40.  For further discussion, see Block, “Gog in Prophetic Tradition,” 482. 41.  See the proclamation of “now” (‫ )עתה‬in Ezek 39:25, indicating that the divine speech has returned to the present time of the author. 42.  Refer also to Josh 24:19 for the pairing of ‫ קנא‬and ‫קדׁש‬. On the use of ‫ ׁשם‬to mark divine presence, see Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 74–76, and Exod 23:20–21; 33:19; Ps 29:1–2; Isa 30:27.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

121

the formerly enslaved Israel, whom he settles within his estate. Israel betrays Yahweh in its prosperity, pursuing relationships with other gods and nations. After judgment is delivered for their offenses, Yahweh restores his reputation by liberating Israel from its enemies, restoring settlement within his land, and redefining the divine–human relationship.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Other Relevant Works: Psalm 79 and Zechariah Divine ‫ קנאה‬plays an important role in understanding the obligation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship. It represents Yahweh’s inability to tolerate the presence of competing cults and deities and his demand to the strict adherence of exclusive maintenance of his cult and domain. At the same time, when assessing the history of Israel and Judah, we might question how this concept was represented when the kingdoms were dismantled, the people exiled, and the land overpowered by foreign empires. The end of kingship and the nation of Judah coupled with the destruction of Yahweh’s divine sanctuary in Jerusalem was bound to impact the understanding of the divine–human–land relationship. During this time, Yahweh’s people are faced with questions concerning the status of the land, which was now in the hands of foreigners, the presence of the deity, which no longer had a divine habitation, and the identity of the community. These questions persisted even after exile during the Persian period, when the community was faced with the real possibility of restoration and rebuilding, but under foreign rule. What follows are two case studies that serve as illustrative examples of this transition from the Psalms and the book of Zechariah. It is important to note, however, that it is not the intent of this examination to provide a diachronic study of divine ‫ ;קנאה‬rather, it is merely to provide a brief semantic sketch of its use in postmonarchic contexts. Indeed, what our examination of the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios in Ezekiel, Deut 32, Num 5:11–31, and Genesis has shown us is that there is no indication that there is any significant change in the word’s meaning among the different texts discussed. Despite this unified picture, we should nevertheless examine the various emphases in its use as the relationship between people, deity, and land shifted. Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Psalm 79 As discussed, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is framed by the obligations outlined in the arrangement between the Israelite god and his people. Much of the understanding of divine ‫ קנאה‬is embedded in perceptions of the land as Yahweh’s estate (‫)נחלה‬. With the loss of the land, we would expect the understanding of divine

122

Jealousy in Context

‫ קנאה‬to adapt to this new social reality. For example, Ps 79 recalls the theological and historical reflection that took place after the crisis of the Babylonian exile and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. In this exilic psalm of lament, Yahweh is challenged to demonstrate mercy toward his people, echoing Yahweh’s promises and obligations as their divine patron.43 The psalmist pleads, God, the nations have invaded your estate (‫)נחלה‬. They have polluted your holy temple, And they have turned Jerusalem into ruins. The corpses of your servants, They have given to the birds of the sky. The flesh of your loyal followers, To the beasts of the earth. They have made their blood flow Like water all around Jerusalem; And there is no one to bury them. We have become an object of shame (‫ )חרפה‬to our neighbors, Those who live on our borders taunt and insult us. How long, Yahweh, will you be angry (‫ )אנף‬forever? (How long) Will your ‫ קנאה‬burn like fire? Pour out your wrath (‫ )חמה‬against the nations Who do not know you, And against the kingdoms Who do not call your name. For they have consumed Jacob, And they have laid waste their habitation. Do not hold the iniquities of our forefathers against us; Let your compassion come quickly to meet us. For we are brought low. Help us, God of our salvation, For the sake of the glory of your name (‫)כבוד־ׁשמך‬, save us! Atone for us (‫ )כפר‬for the sake of your name. Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Before our eyes, may the shed blood of your servants be avenged (‫ )נקמה‬among the nations. Let the sighing of the prisoner come before you. Use your great strength to spare those condemned to die. 43.  Schniedewind, “ ‘Are We His People or Not?’ ” 540.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

123

Return to our neighbors sevenfold into their lap! May they be reproached in the same way they reproached you, Yahweh. So we, your people, and the sheep of your pasture, Will continually thank you. We will report to the coming generations of your praise. (Ps 79) The lament begins by describing the plight of Yahweh’s land and people, which are now under the authority of foreign nations (vv. 1–4). The focus in these verses is the ruined and impure state of Yahweh’s domain: Jerusalem and the land are made unclean by the presence of corpses, while the holiest area of his domain, the temple, has been desecrated by the enemy. The ‫ קנאה‬passage is embedded in a plea of deliverance from Israel’s current state (vv. 5–8) and the remainder of the psalm contains further demands for divine intervention, with imperative verbs demanding recompense (vv. 9–12). The final verse is especially significant. The psalmist identifies Israel as “the people and the sheep of [Yahweh’s] pasture” (v. 13). Noting that the people of Yahweh have become a reproach among nations (v. 4), the psalmist pleads with Yahweh to restore his honor and direct his judgment, not upon the remnant of Israel but upon those who pose an immediate threat to his status. Acknowledging that Yahweh is responsible for the tragedy, the text implies a challenge to Yahweh; by restoring Israel, Yahweh will have demonstrated that he is its patron.44 The psalmist understands the land as Yahweh’s estate (‫)נחלה‬, which in the author’s time was invaded and overtaken by foreign nations (v. 1). We saw in Ezekiel that wrath, fire, and ‫ קנאה‬often accompany Yahweh’s judgment, and here the psalmist pleads for that judgment to be directed at more immediate threats to Israel. Without intervention, Yahweh risks his honor and the glory of his name by his failure to act. Similarly, Joel 2:17 seeks to provoke Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬by stating “do not allow your estate (‫ )נחלה‬to become a shame (‫)חרפה‬.” In Isa 37:32, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬causes him to establish a remnant from Zion/Jerusalem to take root and be prosperous in Judah. In our passage, the psalmist emphasizes that the people serve Yahweh, while the enemy nations “do not know” him (v. 6). It is for this reason that Yahweh must restore the nation for the “glory of his name” (vv. 9–10); the nations doubt his presence and power, so he must demonstrate his capability as sovereign deity through his ‫ קנאה‬to protect his rights as divine patron of Israel. As the psalmist explains, it is in the deity’s interest to save the remnant of his people, who serve him and manage the land. As in the Song of Moses and Ezekiel, status or honor play a significant role in legitimizing the social values in the divine–human relationship in the ‫קנאה‬ 44.  See, similarly, ibid., 546.

124

Jealousy in Context

scenario presented in Ps 79. In ancient Israel, similar to the way the patriarch of the household upholds the honor and status of the family, Yahweh, as Israel’s patron, must also maintain its honor.45 Now debased, Israel’s shameful state is a reflection of its deity. According to the psalmist, it is only through prosperity that the nation demonstrates Yahweh’s power and worth. While the destruction of the temple was seen by many biblical authors to have been a means of preserving Yahweh’s honor by punishing those who betrayed him, the psalmist makes the point that the atrocities committed against Judah by enemy nations cannot go unpunished forever.46 As a group value, honor is held with special regard in ancient Israelite society.47 The time for divine retribution against the House of Jacob has passed, but in the psalmist’s social-historical reality Yahweh’s temple and estate (‫)נחלה‬ remain defiled, threatening his holiness. The influx of nations into Yahweh’s estate has made his land impure. The state of holiness and purity of his domain reflect directly on his status, as holiness is the means by which social and religious boundaries are maintained.48 Furthermore, honor and shame have particular significance in suzerain– vassal relationships, which is a useful social and political model through which to view the divine–human relationship.49 Among treaty partners, there is an expectation of reciprocal honor in order to communicate the strength of relational bonds; by allowing shame to overcome his loyal constituents, Yahweh is communicating their diminished status.50 Since honor and status is something publicly acknowledged, it is denied to both Yahweh and Israel as a result of their debased status among the nations.51 As divine patron, Yahweh has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of his constituents, who themselves have rights as people of Israel. The author makes use of the possessive in order to emphasize the predicament of Yahweh’s property: “your estate,” “defiled your holy temple,” and killed “your servants” and “your pious ones.”52 What the psalmist implies is that through his inaction, Yahweh is not fulfilling his responsibility as divine patron, perhaps even committing a violation in their arrangement. In Ezek 36:22, Yahweh upholds his commitment as divine patron of Israel by reacting with his ‫ קנאה‬against nations that pose an imminent threat to the people of Israel, his land, and his holy name, as their attempts to usurp territory threatened to disrupt 45.  46.  47.  48.  49.  50.  51.  52. 

Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 204. Botha, “Poetic Structure,” 370. Ibid., 370. Ibid., 371. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 204. Ibid., 205. Botha, “Poetic Structure,” 373. Ibid., 370.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

125

social and religious boundaries. Similarly, the psalmist explicitly links divine ‫ קנאה‬with power, holiness, and presence.53 According to the psalmist, immediate concerns are threats that disrupt the status and sovereignty of Yahweh. At the same time, the social value of this psalm is significant, as it provided a way for a community to cope with their feelings of shame and frustration after the destruction of their homeland.54 We must be mindful of this social significance when interpreting the use of ‫ קנאה‬in this context; the more imminent threat to the sovereignty of Yahweh is not the remnant of Israel, but the outsiders unfamiliar with Yahweh. Rather than modify the meaning of ‫קנאה‬, the author is drawing from traditional representations of divine ‫ קנאה‬and adapting them to the current social and theological context. We see similar use of ‫ קנאה‬in postmonarchic passages in Isaiah, where the expression is associated with divine presence, power, and action.55 Like Ps 79, Isa 63 is a lament that recalls a time immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.56 Recounting Yahweh’s intervention during the Exodus, the prophetic authority attempts to reengage divine involvement by lamenting the absence of qualities clearly demonstrated in days past (vv. 1–14). The author details the destruction of Jerusalem, its temple, and the cities of Judah (vv. 7–11) in order to provoke the presence of the deity by appealing to his interests for his estate (‫)נחלה‬, his people, and his divine sanctuary (vv. 17–18). Recalling the divine obligations to Israel, the author asks, “Where is your ‫ קנאה‬and your strength (‫( ”?)גבורתך‬v. 15). Here, we find ‫ קנאה‬directly associated with the demonstration of strength, and the absence of ‫ קנאה‬indicates the absence of the deity. Appealing to his sense of sovereignty, the author emphasizes the humiliation caused by the enemy nations, who ruptured the integrity of the “tribes of [Yahweh’s] estate (‫ ”)נחלה‬and the holy sanctuary of the deity (63:17–18). In Isa 42:13, ‫ קנאה‬is more explicitly linked with divine warrior imagery.57 After proclaiming Yahweh’s glory and praise, the author states: Yahweh goes forth58 like a warrior, Like a man of battle he arouses (‫ )יעיר‬his ‫קנאה‬.59 53.  See also Deut 29:19; Isa 9:6–7 [7–8]; Ps 69:9, where ‫ קנאה‬is associated with the preservation of honor and status. 54.  Botha, “Poetic Structure,” 357. 55.  ‫ קנאה‬passages in divine contexts are attested throughout exilic (597–39 BCE) and postexilic passages in the book of Isaiah (9:6 [7]; 26:11; 37:32; 42:13; 59:17; 63:15). 56.  For a discussion of the various proposals concerning the dating of Isa 63 and its redactional and literary history, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 258–59; Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 32–33. 57.  For ‫ קנאה‬and divine warrior imagery, compare Isa 42:13. 58.  Refer to Deut 20:1; Judg 20:28; 1 Sam 8:20; 18:30–32 Sam 11:1; 18:2; 1 Chr 20:1; Amos 5:3. 59.  Following the reading found in Darr, “Like Warrior, Like Woman,” 225–26.

126

Jealousy in Context

He cries out and shouts aloud, He demonstrates his power against his enemies. (Isa 42:13) In this passage, Yahweh maintains his sovereignty and reputation through his demonstration of power among the nations (vv. 6–9).60 After a period of inactivity and silence (v. 14), Yahweh will now act in judgment (v. 15) and uphold social justice and righteousness through the installation of a just ruler (v. 16).61 Similarly, in Isa 9:6 [7] Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is tied to societal governing and justice.62 The passage presents an idyllic situation that either anticipates or presupposes the social discord that the exemplary king will rectify. Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Zechariah Our final case study of divine ‫ קנאה‬comes from the book of Zechariah; these passages serve as illustrative examples of the use of ‫ קנאה‬in Persian-period contexts (539–331 BCE). The historical and social context of the ‫ קנאה‬passages in Zech 1:14 and 8:2 reflect the return of exiles during the Persian period. The author dates the prophecy to the reign of Darius (v. 1), and the focus here is on the restoration of the Jerusalem temple and the return after exile (ca. 536 BCE).63 One of the primary issues addressed at the beginning of Zechariah is the absence of the deity in his holy abode and the inaction of Yahweh on behalf of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (1:12). The author issues a warning to the people to observe their obligations to their patron deity (vv. 1–6). After the people atone (1:6), Zion becomes the object of Yahweh’s favor (1:14). In Zech 1:14–17, the theological rationale for the restoration of the land of Judah, Jerusalem, and its temple is Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬for Jerusalem/Zion: Then the angel who spoke with me said to me, Proclaim this message, thus says Yahweh of Hosts: I experience ‫ קנאה‬for Jerusalem, and for Zion (I experience) a great ‫קנאה‬. I am extremely angry with the arrogant nations. 60.  Compare Isa 24:14–16. 61.  Compare Isa 42:6–9. 62.  Isa 8:23–9:6 [9:1–7] likely dates to the time of Hezekiah and is thus preexilic (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 245–51). However, the ‫ קנאה‬phrase at the end of the passage has been taken here as a later insertion (ibid., 251). 63.  Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 97.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

127

For though I was only a little angry, they made things worse. Therefore, thus says Yahweh: I have returned to Jerusalem with favor. My house will be built there, says Yahweh of Hosts, and a measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem. Proclaim further, thus says Yahweh of Hosts: My cities will again overflow with prosperity, Yahweh will express consideration for Zion, and again choose Jerusalem. (Zech 1:14–17) Here, we see an explicit juxtaposition between Yahweh’s favor for Jerusalem (vv. 14, 16), experienced as ‫קנאה‬, in contrast to his extreme anger against the nations (v. 15). The return of the divine presence to Jerusalem is marked by Yahweh experiencing ‫ קנאה‬for his holy abode and the accompaniment of his divine presence (‫ )כבוד‬within the restored temple and city (2:5, 10). The divine presence is not limited to the temple; the presence of Yahweh encompasses the perimeter of the city, serving as a protective wall of fire around Jerusalem. With the coming of Yahweh, the Israelite deity will dwell in their midst, take possession of his portion of land in Judah, and make his presence known so that the nations will recognize his sovereignty (2:11–12).64 Through his favor and ‫קנאה‬ for Zion, Jerusalem will once again become a religious center and function as the residence of Yahweh. The author’s primary concern here is the restoration efforts in Jerusalem and the temple, which cannot be done without the active divine presence in the city. Zechariah 2:14 explains that once Yahweh comes, he will live in the midst of the people. The other ‫ קנאה‬passage in Zechariah similarly portrays Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬for his holy city. In the narrative, Zechariah is advising an official from Bethel on liturgical matters (7:1–3). After recounting the betrayal of former generations, the prophet shifts focus to a message of hope of the community who seek to restore Jerusalem and its temple.65 In the oracle, the prophet predicts a future scenario in which Yahweh will return and select Jerusalem once again as his divine habitation. Zechariah recites the word of Yahweh as follows,

64.  Refer also to Isa 19:24–25; 56:6–8; 60:3; Ezek 43:4. 65.  For an in-depth analysis of the historical, rhetorical unity, and text-critical issues in Zech 7–8, see Boda, “From Fasts to Feasts.”

128

Jealousy in Context

Thus says Yahweh of Hosts: I express ‫ קנאה‬with great ‫ קנאה‬for Zion, But with great wrath (‫( )חמה‬against the nations) I express ‫ קנאה‬for her (sake). Thus says Yahweh of Hosts, I will return to Zion, I will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be called the city of truth, mountain of Yahweh of Hosts, holy mountain. (Zech 8:2–3) The situation reflected here is a future scenario in which Yahweh maintains his presence through his ‫קנאה‬, seeking justice for Zion; furthermore, Yahweh will preserve his honor by bringing about the prosperity of Israel and Judah, who were once the objects of shame among the nations (8:13). We have seen ‫קנאה‬ paired with ‫חמה‬, “wrath,” in Ezekiel, in which it was attested as a parallel pair; as stated previously, ‫קנאה‬, unlike other instances of divine wrath, can only be appeased once specific requirements are met. In this situation, the requirements demanded by Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬involve making Jerusalem into a suitable habitation for the divine presence and the reinstatement of his rights as divine patron. Yahweh demonstrates a concern for his prerogatives as divine patron and his commitment to rebuilding Zion. At the same time, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is not only concerned with the physical structure of the temple. There must be justice and stability in Jerusalem as well. Thus, the return of Jerusalem is conditional: it is only when the community repents and reestablishes their obligations to Yahweh that makes restoration possible. We find use of similar imagery in the ‫ קנאה‬passages in Isaiah. Isaiah 59:17 associates ‫ קנאה‬with divine power, righteousness, deliverance, and vengeance and lists it among the battle apparel of Yahweh. While displaying this battle apparel, Yahweh seeks compensation from his adversaries across the land (Isa 59:18–19), eventually entering Jerusalem/Zion to take up his residence (Isa 59:20). Yahweh is driven to action by a lack of truth, righteousness, and justice in the land (Isa 59:9–16); in other words, his ‫ קנאה‬is motivated by social injustice.66 Through his demonstration of power, Yahweh establishes order and balance so that there is justice once again, safeguarding the glory of his name and his reputation.67

66.  For a similar depiction of ‫ קנאה‬in the face of social injustice, see Isa 26:11. 67.  See similarly Isa 45:8; 46:12–13; 48:18; 56:1, 6, 8; 61:10; 63:1.

Motivation

Reaction

Desecration of the land and temple disrupts the integrity of the domain of Yahweh.

An appeal to Yahweh’s honor/status, which has been threatened by the continued desecration of his land, temple, and people.

Yahweh resides in Zion/Jerusalem in order to maintain justice and authority.

The ruined state of Zion/Jerusalem, which serves as the seat of Yahweh’s domain.

Zechariah: Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬for Zion/Jerusalem

Yahweh’s status is maintained by his presence in his domain.

Psalm 79: Appeal to Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬

Integrity of domain impacts divine presence.

Yahweh will rebuild Zion/ Jerusalem after the people have reaffirmed their relationship with their divine patron.

The psalmist expects Yahweh to eliminate foreign adversaries.

Yahweh “speaks” in his ‫קנאה‬ by purging the land of offenders.

Ezekiel: Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬toward Israel and foreign adversaries

Expectation

The prophet conveys the expectation of restoration upon Yahweh expressing ‫קנאה‬.

Elimination of foreign adversaries paves the way for the renewal of justice.

After purging the land, the divine–human relationship is reaffirmed.

Outcome

Table 4: Scripts of the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

Sociotheological conflict based on the formal relationship and expectations established between a divine patron and his people.

Sociotheological conflict based on the formal relationship and expectations established between a divine patron and his people.

Sociotheological conflict based on the formal relationship and expectations established between a divine patron and his people.

Framework

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah 129

130

Jealousy in Context

The Scripts of the ‫ קנאה‬Scenarios in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah Our discussion of the various ‫ קנאה‬scenarios in this chapter demonstrate different perspectives from the Babylonian exile to the Persian restoration. Table 4 presents the scripts of these ‫ קנאה‬scenarios. When comparing these scripts, it is apparent that the biblical authors adapted the expression to address various theological and historical concerns. In Ezekiel, the author is concerned with the status of the land, and Yahweh experiences ‫קנאה‬ in reaction to threats to divine prerogatives. Divine ‫ קנאה‬frames the theological rationale for both the Babylonian exile and the prospect for restoration. The psalmist in Ps 79 is focused on prompting divine intervention by appealing to the divine prerogatives protected by ‫קנאה‬, which involve defending the state of his domain and his divine status. Finally, Zechariah mainly concentrates on the future of the restoration efforts in Jerusalem and the renewal of the divine– human relationship through the reaffirmation of Israel’s obligations to Yahweh and the persistent presence of divine ‫קנאה‬. Ultimately, however, the motivation of Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬remains consistent throughout these texts. The theological underpinnings of divine ‫ קנאה‬are found in the obligations outlined in the divine– human relationship. Furthermore, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬communicates divine prerogatives and safeguards against threats to his holy domain and reputation.

Conclusion In addition to sharing similar motivations and outcomes, the scenarios discussed in this chapter resemble the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh in the Song of Moses but with a few elaborations. Ezekiel incorporates the divine marriage metaphor to strengthen the sociological underpinnings of the divine expression. It is through this lens that the resemblance between divine and nondivine ‫ קנאה‬is made apparent. Psalm 79 uses Yahweh’s previous acts of divine intervention to provide the conceptual underpinnings for the appeal to Yahweh to reorient his attention against a more imminent threat to his status. Moreover, Ezekiel, Ps 79, and Zechariah magnify the role of the divine dwelling and Zion/Jerusalem. The Song of Moses justifies Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬on the basis of the cosmological foundation of his relationship with the people of Israel and the designation of his estate or territory, but the passages under discussion here pinpoint Yahweh’s domain primarily within the confines of Jerusalem and the temple.68 68.  On the shift from land to city in these contexts, see Weinfeld, “Inheritance of the Land,” 201–8, which discusses the perceptions of land in the first temple and second temple periods.

Divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Psalm 79, and Zechariah

131

Finally, in the understanding of Ezekiel and other writers mentioned, biblical ‫ קנאה‬is a part of Yahweh’s reaction to the circumstances that existed at the end of the monarchy. The passages expand on the idea that Yahweh experiences ‫קנאה‬ not only in situations where there is a betrayal of religious exclusivity but also in situations where Yahweh’s sovereignty over his divine abode is threatened.69 The two notions, as we saw in Ezekiel, are related. Both threaten the divine presence and status through the encroachment of an interloper and disrupt the holy boundaries established through the obligation of exclusivity—one god, for one people, in one domain. Just as experiencing ‫ קנאה‬provokes Yahweh’s punitive behavior, however, it also sets the stage for restoration because of the relational character of ‫ קנאה‬and the particular qualities of the relationship that exists between Yahweh and Israel. The latter point will come in sharp relief when examining Yahweh’s essential role as an ‫אל קנא‬, a god who embodies ‫קנאה‬, in the following chapter.

69.  Although note the exception of Isa 9:6 [7]; in the author’s idyllic vision of the kingdom, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬establishes the monarchy and maintains social justice in Jerusalem. There is thus no overt threat or betrayal in this passage. Rather, Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬functions to reestablish justice in a chaotic land.

Chapter 6

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

In the ‫ ( אל קנא‬ʾ ēl qannāʾ) passages in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh is identified as a god (‫ )אל‬whose fundamental attribute is ‫קנאה‬. The term ‫ אל‬represents a general appellative “god” rather than the proper name El,1 and ‫ קנא‬is interpreted here as an adjectival form (*qattal) from the root ‫קנא‬.2 Thus, ‫ אל קנא‬follows other ‫ אל‬+ adjectival phrases that describe essential characteristics of Yahweh.3 There are phonological variants of ‫ קנא‬found in Josh 24:19 and Nah 1:2, here vocalized as ʾēl qannôʾ.4 The Semitic noun pattern *qattal has a strong pattern-meaning correlation, usually signifying a durative or repeated action, although it is difficult to determine if the adjective ‫ קנא‬is durative in nature.5 Whatever the case, ‫ קנאה‬expressed through ‫ אל קנא‬represents an essential attribute of the Israelite deity and his requirement of exclusivity as divine patron of Israel. Through our discussions of these passages, we will discover that his status as an ‫אל קנא‬ guarantees a response in situations where the obligations of exclusivity in the divine–human arrangement are neglected, betrayed, or threatened.

1.  For a discussion of the differences between the appellative and proper name in ancient Near Eastern texts, see Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 1–6. 2.  For the adjectival *qattal form, see Biblical Hebrew ‫עול‬, “unjust”; ‫דוי‬, “faint”; ‫חטא‬, “sinful”; and ‫סלח‬, “forgiving.” 3.  For example, ‫אל גדול ונורא‬, “a great and awesome god” (Deut 7:21); ‫האל הקדוׁש‬, “the holy god” (Isa 5:16); ‫אל־הנון ורחום‬, “a gracious and compassionate god” (Jon 4:2). See also the following constructions: ‫אל אמונה‬, “god of fidelity” (Deut 32:4); ‫אל דעות‬, “god of knowledge” (1 Sam 2:3); ‫אל אמת‬, “god of truth” (Ps 31:6). 4.  qannōʾ < qannāʾ < *qannaʾ V. For a discussion of the qannôʾ biform of qannāʾ, see Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns, 259. 5.  Ibid., 22, 253. The *qattal or *qattāl actant nouns and adjectives refer to the subject of a stative or fientic-transitive verb (255). Moreover, these substantives sometimes denote members of a profession (e.g., Biblical Hebrew dayyān, “judge”; gannāb, “thief”; rakkāb, “charioteer”). For studies on the nominal pattern qattal/āl in Semitic, see Fleisch, “Nom d’agent faʿāl”; Loretz, “Die Hebräische Nominalform qattāl”; Ambros, “Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte”; Aartun, “Über die Grundstruktur”; Drozdík, “faʿʿal- and faʿʿāl-Patterned Nouns”; Drozdík, “Derivational Systems”; Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns, 253–62.

132

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

133

Attestations and Interpretations The phrase ‫ אל קנא‬occurs eight times throughout the Hebrew Bible: Exod 20:5; 34:14 (2×); Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Josh 24:19; and Nah 1:2. These texts are usually attributed to Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic authors, with the exception of Exod 34, which is traditionally attributed to J(ahwist).6 The majority of these attestations occur in what might be considered cultic-legal contexts where obligations and expectations in the divine–human relationship are outlined. The cultic-legal pronouncements in Exodus and Deuteronomy are narratively situated outside the boundaries of the Promised Land and seek to prepare the Israelites for future habitation within Yahweh’s territory. As previously discussed, Deuteronomic and priestly worldviews of Canaan (i.e., the “Promised Land”) frame it as a grant of land given to the Israelites on the condition of their obedience to the law and, most importantly, their continued loyalty to Yahweh as their exclusive patron. The ‫ אל קנא‬passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy always appear in causative ‫ כי־‬clauses and provide justification for the prohibition against the worship of other gods.7 Acts of disloyalty include the observance of foreign (non-Yahwistic) cults, offerings of service to other gods, and the creation of idols. In some cases, the author pinpoints the cause of these illicit acts within the social bonds that are established with the non-Israelite inhabitants of the land. Failure to uphold the obligation of exclusivity will result not only in provoking the wrath of Yahweh but also in provoking his ‫קנאה‬, ensuring that swift action will be taken against them in the form of loss of the land. While the texts in Deuteronomy and Exodus anticipate settlement, the narrative contexts of Josh 24:19 and Nah 1:2 reflect a period shortly after settlement and the development of the monarchy respectively and will therefore contribute to our understanding of the social, cultic, and legal concerns associated with the ‫ אל קנא‬expression. Scholarship on the ‫ אל קנא‬expression has primarily focused on theological and historical-literary concerns. Theological studies since the early twentieth century have attempted to untangle the connection between Yahweh’s identification as an ‫ אל קנא‬and the monotheistic tradition of ancient Israelite religion. It is through Yahweh’s expression of ‫ קנא‬that these theologians understand the obligation of exclusivity; religious exclusivity is traditionally viewed as one of the main tenets of ancient Israelite religion.8 Emphasis is also placed on the role of the ‫ אל קנא‬in the Israelite cult and covenant traditions.9 The phrase is thought 6.  Dohmen, “ ‘Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name,’ ” 292. 7.  Ibid. On causative ‫ כי‬clauses, see GKC § 158b. 8.  Von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:208. 9.  Theological studies emphasize the centrality of the ‫ אל קנא‬in ancient Israelite religion and focus on tracing the antiquity of this expression. See, for example, Küchler, “Der Gedanke des

134

Jealousy in Context

to capture the intolerant exclusivity of the biblical views of the cult of Yahweh, a feature that is understood to be different from the more flexible attitudes of Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors and other Israelites.10 Traditionally, ‫אל קנא‬ has been associated as a foundational element in the covenant tradition, since the expression appears in the Sinaitic and Horeb covenants (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9), the so-called Ritual Decalogue (Exod 34:14), and the agreement established at Shechem between Yahweh and Israel (Josh 24:19).11 Historical-literary studies explore the similarities in the way issues of adultery and religious betrayal are represented in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the prohibitions against idolatry and apostasy to other gods are thought to be modeled on the injunctions against adultery so that marriage and adultery are metaphorically applied to the divine–human relationship.12 By implication, the Israelites represent the wife of a jealous husband, while Yahweh is conceived as the husband whose passionate possessiveness is aroused upon suspicion of adultery.13 Other studies, however, avoid interpreting ‫ אל קנא‬as an emotional expression dealing with sexual jealousy and viewing the divine attribute through the lens of human expression and emotion.14 However, our discussions have demonstrated that Eifers Jahwes,” 46; Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 210; Dohmen, “ ‘Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name,’ ” 297. Jörn Halbe views the phrase as part of a confessional formula whose original context was in the Israelite cult (Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 135–36). See also von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:204–7. 10.  For example, according to Gerhard von Rad, the intolerant claim to exclusive worship is one of the unique features of ancient Israelite religion that was remarkably different from other ancient Near Eastern cultures. The sanctuaries of other gods were, according to von Rad, thought of as common ground for multiple deities, where a supplicant could pray and offer to multiple gods in addition to the god to whom the temple belonged (Theology of the Old Testament, 1:208). 11.  What is intended here by the phrase “covenant tradition” is the explicit references of a contract formalizing the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, often referred to in Biblical Hebrew as ‫ברית‬. These traditions are thought to be thematically underpinned by or modeled on similar treaty formulations of the ancient Near East. For a summary of scholarship and the history of the debate with regard to the influence of ancient Near Eastern treaty traditions on covenant formulations in the Hebrew Bible and the methods used to compare the two corpora, see Crouch, Israel and the Assyrians, 1–13; Quick, Deuteronomy 28, 12–67. For older studies examining the biblical covenant tradition, see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant; Tucker, “Covenant Forms”; Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant; Nicholson, God and His People; M. Weinfeld, “‫ברית‬,” TDOT 1:253–79. For an examination of the relationship between ‫ אל קנא‬and covenant traditions, see Renaud, Je suis un dieu jaloux, 41; Radwin, “Adultery,” 101; Kim, “Yhwh as Jealous Husband,” 135–39. 12.  Winiarski, “Adultery,” 44. 13.  For example, Christoph Dohmen traces the literary historical perspective of Hosea, which explicitly applies marriage and adultery metaphor to the divine–human relationship (“ ‘Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name,’ ” 297). See similarly Küchler, “Der Gedanke des Eifers Jahwes,” 47; Reuter, “‫קנא‬,” TDOT 13:54. 14.  This view stems from the tendency of theologians who study divine ‫ קנא‬to avoid anthropomorphizing the Israelite deity. For example, Hendrik A. Brongers finds the translation of “eifersucht” (jealousy) a crude anthropomorphism and argues that the term should be interpreted “als Ausbruch von Grimm und Wut über Rechte, die verletzt wurden” (“Der Eifer des Herrn Zebaoth,”

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

135

separating nondivine and divine expressions of ‫ קנאה‬undermines our understanding of the social context in which the term is embedded. As in our previous examinations, our understanding of ‫ אל קנא‬will be informed by the social underpinnings of the epithet and the emotion scenario in which it appears. This includes an understanding of the significance of the land in the social contract between Yahweh and Israel, as well as the social and legal concerns associated with its expression. For example, our previous discussion of Deut 32 demonstrated that divine ‫ קנאה‬should be analyzed through the lens of social contracts. By keeping these considerations in mind, not only will we better understand Yahweh’s identification as an ‫אל קנא‬, we will elucidate one of the foundational underpinnings of biblical Yahwism: the Israelite deity’s intolerance of non-Yahwistic cults and his command for exclusivity. The identification of Yahweh as an ‫ אל קנא‬will provide more information on the juridical role of ‫ קנא‬in framing the social and religious expectations in the divine–human relationship.

The Narrative Context of ‫ אל קנא‬in Exodus 34 Exodus 34 is traditionally considered the oldest among the ‫ אל קנא‬passages.15 The passage depicts the finalization of the contract made between Yahweh and Israel and the engraving of the second set of prescriptions given to Moses by Yahweh on Mount Sinai. The text is narratively situated after the golden calf episode (Exod 32), where the Israelites erected an illicit idol in the camp, and in response, Moses destroyed the original tablets upon which the covenant was inscribed. After the Israelites are pardoned, Yahweh commands Moses to renew the covenant, reiterating religious exclusivity but with some additional stipulations concerning social exclusivity. Reaffirmation of the Divine–Human Relationship At the core of Exod 34 is the question of exclusive worship in the Israelite cult. In the passage, Yahweh appears before Moses, who invokes his name, saying, “Yahweh, Yahweh—a compassionate and gracious god (‫)אל רחום וחנון‬, slow to 284). However, Brongers’ interpretation is clearly influenced by the embarrassment of associating Yahweh with anthropomorphic and anthropopathic characteristics (compare Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 9). 15.  E. Reuter identifies Exod 34 as the earliest example of the biblical prohibition against the worship of other gods and the identification of Yahweh as an ‫קנא“( אל קנא‬,” TDOT 13:54). For further discussion, see Hossfeld, “Einheit und Einzigkeit Gottes,” 69; Dohmen, “ ‘Eifersuchtiger ist sein Name,’ ” 297. For more detailed literary-historical treatments of Exod 34, see Wilms, Jahwistische Bundesbuch; Zenger, Israel am Sinai, 185–95; Cazelles, “Alliance du Sinai”; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 216–32; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes; Propp, Exodus 19–40, 608–20.

136

Jealousy in Context

anger and brimming with fidelity (‫ )חסד‬and truth (‫ )אמת‬and maintaining fidelity for the thousandth (generation)” (vv. 6–7a).16 Moses identifies Yahweh as a compassionate, loving, and forgiving deity but at the same time notes that he is a deity who holds the guilty accountable for their wrongdoings. Just before the people are about to enter the Promised Land, Moses pleads with Yahweh to pardon Israel for its betrayals and take it as his personal estate (‫)נחלה‬. Yahweh then reestablishes his relationship with Israel through a formalized agreement. For his part, Yahweh will perform remarkable acts on behalf of Israel by driving out the traditional enemies of Israel from the land (Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites) in order to prepare the land for settlement (v. 11). In return for his protection, Yahweh forbids Israel from entering into any kind of social arrangement, here identified as a legal contract (‫)ברית‬, with the non-Israelite inhabitants of the land (v. 12). In this literary presentation, the Israelites are instructed to destroy the cultic paraphernalia of the locals—altars, standing stones, and ‫—אׁשרים‬since doing so will demonstrate their loyalty to Yahweh (vv. 13–14). Justification for this command is given with the following statement: “For you will not bow down to another god, for Yahweh, his name is ‫קנא‬, he is an ‫אל קנא‬.”17 The rest of the passage outlines the expectations regarding appropriate conduct in the land of their future settlement, including regulations concerning socializing with non-Israelites, the ban on idolatry, the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the law of the firstborn, the festival of weeks, obligations concerning first fruits, and dietary prohibitions (vv. 14–28). The Prohibition Against Inclusive Worship The prohibition against the worship of other gods is underpinned by the identification of Yahweh as an ‫ אל קנא‬in v. 14. This identification is cushioned between commands concerning the non-Israelite inhabitants of the land (i.e., Canaanites). These peoples are not the rightful beneficiaries of the fruits of the land and neither do they maintain a special relationship with Yahweh, so the passage reiterates twice in vv. 12 and 15 not to establish any kind of social contract with these peoples. Instead, the Israelites are instructed to destroy all non-Yahwistic and Israelite cultic installations in v. 14. The placement of the ‫ אל קנא‬between these social and religious expectations of exclusivity is significant, and we will soon discuss what this means for our interpretation of ‫ קנא‬as a socioliterary 16.  On Exod 34:6–7, see Sakenfeld, Meaning of Hesed, 121–22. Katharine Sakenfeld argues that rather than being a later insertion (post-J) in order to temper Yahweh’s characterization as a vengeful god, vv. 6–7 are essential to J’s vision of the Sinai covenant; furthermore, the characterization of Yahweh as a compassionate god is not inherently at odds with his ‫ קנא‬nature. 17.  On the predicate formulation of ‫ יהוה קנא ׁשמו‬and possible interpretations, see Dohmen, “Eifersuchtiger ist sein Name,” 295. In our translation, ‫ יהוה‬stands in apposition to ‫קנא ׁשמו‬.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

137

phenomenon, but first we will turn out attention to the phrase ‫“( קנא ׁשמו‬his name is ‫)”קנא‬. In addition to identifying Yahweh as ‫קנא‬, the passage also uses the adjective to characterize Yahweh’s “name” (‫)ׁשם‬. The name of Yahweh has special meaning in the Hebrew Bible, and scholars who study this topic have linked the divine name with the localization of the deity.18 Yahweh’s revelation to Moses, his self-identification as an ‫אל קנא‬, is accompanied by a divine theophany and the reiteration of Yahweh’s role in the conquest of Canaan. But it is also important to note the multivalence of Biblical Hebrew ‫ׁשם‬. While it may allude to the divine presence, it more often refers to the reputation, dignity, and honor of Yahweh in theological contexts.19 As discussed in previous chapters, divine ‫ קנאה‬is associated with the preservation of Yahweh’s status. For example, when the supplicant in Isa 63:15 pleads with Yahweh to express his ‫קנאה‬, he is also asking Yahweh to show concern for his reputation in the face of Judah’s downfall resulting from the Babylonian invasion. Restoring Israel and the divine habitation in Zion/Jerusalem will add to Yahweh’s reputation, since the people have a formal relationship with him (Isa 63:14–19). In Exod 34, we encounter an explicit connection between Yahweh’s status as an ‫ אל קנא‬and his “name” or his concern for his honor as divine patron of Israel, and this association should be interpreted as the crux of his identity as the god of Israel. The ‫ אל קנא‬passage in Exod 34 warns against illicit behavior that might be deemed inappropriate or dishonorable to a god who is identified as an ‫אל קנא‬. In particular, this passage communicates the restrictions involving foreign cults and peoples. The command to dismantle these cults demonstrates that merely ignoring them will not suffice and conveys the expectation that the Israelites are to actively discourage any ‘foreign’ or non-Yahwistic local cults by physically removing them from the land. Thus, Yahweh’s name as ‫ קנאה‬has to do with the exclusive nature of Yahweh, referencing in particular the exclusivity of worship 18.  The representation of divine presence by means of the name theology in the book of Deut­ eronomy and the Deuteronomistic History has long been a topic of study. For example, Michael Hundley argues that the name motif in D and DtrH indicates both divine presence and possession, such as when Yahweh places his name in the temple (“To Be or Not to Be,” 554). On the “effectual power” of names, see Lewis, “Athtartu’s Incantations,” 216–18. On the meaning of Yahweh “placing his name” in the Hebrew Bible in Deuteronomy, see Richter, Deuteronomistic History, 41–63. Analyzing cognate expressions of the phrase “to place the name” in a geographic location, Sandra L. Richter argues that the Deuteronomist tradition adopts Akkadian terminology “to emphasize the sovereignty and fame of yhwh by right of conquest. As had the great kings and heroes of Mesopotamian history and legend, yhwh states that he has ‘placed his name’ in the Promised Land. The king has captured this new territory; he has claimed it as his own” (Deuteronomistic History, 205, 217). The divine name is thus closely tied with divine habitation and claims to authority within a region. 19.  In contexts employing ‫ ׁשם‬to refer to divine reputation and honor, see Deut 26:19; Josh 7:9; 2 Sam 7:23; 2 Chr 6:32; Neh 9:10; Pss 23:3; 25:11; 31:4 [3]; 79:9; 106:8; 109:21; 143:11; Isa 12:4; 48:9; 63:12; 66:5; Jer 10:6; 14:21; 32:20; Ezek 20:9, 14, 22, 44; Mal 1:11, 14. In Zech 13:2, the “name of idols” is erased, alluding to both the presence and reputation of foreign deities.

138

Jealousy in Context

in the cult of Yahweh, or, in other words, the exclusive nature of the divine presence and the cultic requirements embedded in the divine–human relationship. As long as Israel is within the land of Yahweh and he is recognized as the divine patron, he has exclusive access to the benefits from his relationship with Israel and Israel has exclusive access to the benefits from its relationship with Yahweh. The reciprocal nature of the social model adopted in the biblical representation of the divine–human relationship relies on public demonstrations of loyalty in order to maintain the reputation of both deity and people. Failure to affirm this relationship potentially disrupts the equilibrium in the community and threatens its survival. Ultimately, the self-identification of Yahweh as an ‫ אל קנא‬serves to emphasize this requirement, warning against any relational transgression and signaling to those in the relationship that Yahweh is the type of deity that demands exclusivity as a cultic requirement. The land within which the Israelites would settle is considered sacred and exclusively Yahweh’s by right, and just as Yahweh assisted in driving out the local inhabitants, the Israelites must ensure that rival gods are expelled as a condition of their settlement. Prohibitions Against Inclusive Social Relationships The warnings in Exod 34 also discuss the consequences of social interactions with peoples who are not part of the exclusive relationship between Yahweh and Israel, implying that social and political entanglements with foreigners will lead to religious transgressions. Yahweh warns, [Be vigilant] lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land (‫ )יוׁשב הארץ‬so that when they go whoring after their gods (‫)וזנו אחרי אלהיהם‬ and sacrifice to their gods, and one among them invites you, you will eat from his sacrifice. And then you will take his daughters for your sons, and when his daughters whore after their gods (‫)וזנו בנתיו אחרי אלהיהן‬, they will make your sons whore after their gods (‫)והזנו את־בניך אחרי אלהיהן‬. (Exod 34:15–16) In addition to categorizing the worship of foreign gods as an act of betrayal against Yahweh, Exod 34 prohibits social contracts with non-Israelites since such social entanglements may lead to overt acts of betrayal. Yahweh is an ‫אל קנא‬, who, because he requires exclusive loyalty, will not tolerate the Israelites entering into a political or social arrangement with other people and their gods. While the other attestations of the ‫ אל קנא‬are concerned primarily with religious obligation, here a sociopolitical dimension is emphasized. A connection is made between entering into sociopolitical arrangements with non-Israelites and religious transgressions, since these arrangements might affect their religious obligations to Yahweh.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

139

Arranging legal or political contracts with foreigners runs the risk of participating in foreign socialization practices, which might include the formal acknowledgment, although not necessarily the worship, of rival deities. In order to understand the context of this concern, we must first explain the broader ancient Near Eastern practices involved in the creation of pacts between two different groups of people. In vassal contracts, for example, while the extent to which vassals participated in the cult of the suzerain is unclear, at the very least there was an expectation that the gods of the suzerain would need to be recognized during the ratification of a vassal treaty.20 By arranging a contract with non-Israelites, the people threaten their relationship with Yahweh by engaging with non-Yahwistic practices. Thus, the Israelites put themselves at risk by reneging on the obligation of exclusivity through the participation in the socialization practices of the non-Israelite locals and foreigners. In addition to potential conflicts resulting from recognizing competing gods, there is also the question of the impact intermarriage has on the integrity of the Israelite community. After commanding exclusive worship on account of Yahweh being an ‫אל קנא‬, Exod 34:15–16 warns of the dangers of social entanglements with the “inhabitants of the land” who go “whoring after their gods” (‫)וזנו אחרי אלהיהם‬.21 It is explained that the people of Israel could be induced by the local women to feast with them and partake in their sacrificial meals, leading to the violation of the commandment of religious exclusivity. The implication is that entering into a legal or political arrangement with the surrounding peoples would allow the Israelites an opportunity to marry foreign women. This puts the Israelites in serious discord with Yahweh, since marrying non-Israelite women will lead to the adoption of foreign cultic practices.22 These circumstances are reminiscent of the situation depicted in Deut 32, where the prosperity of the community and its settlement is contingent upon continued loyalty to Yahweh in accordance with the divine allotment. Furthermore, 20.  For example, Mordechai Cogan notes that in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, various nations were obliged to acknowledge the Assyrian gods, but the extent of their obligation to these gods depended upon the extent of subjugation. The expectations concerning the recognition of Assyrian gods and cultic involvement for a vassal would be different from those of a province. As far as we know, there were no cultic impositions, although in the recitation of the treaty both the gods of the sovereign state and vassal would be acknowledged. For the expectations of the vassal in NeoAssyrian suzerain treaties, see Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 44–49. 21.  For a discussion of the development of the use of Biblical Hebrew ‫ זנה‬as a metaphor to indicate social and religious betrayal, see Bird, “To Play the Harlot,” 80–83; Galambush, Jerusalem, 27–35. Phyllis Bird argues that the illicit connotation of ‫זנה‬, “to whore (after),” is not primarily in the sense of extramarital infidelity; it instead mainly concerns the trespass on the husband’s rights of control. However, Julie Galambush disagrees with Bird and instead posits that the harlot expression involves first- and second-level metaphors (Jerusalem, 29 n. 12). On the primary level, it equates ‫זנה‬/prostitution with illicit sexual activity, and on the secondary level, the metaphor equates ‫זנה‬/ prostitution with infidelity to Yahweh with regard to cultic activity. 22.  Compare Num 25:1–5, 6–19, 31; Deut 7:3–4; Ezra 9–10; Neh 13:23–31.

140

Jealousy in Context

Exod 34:15 echoes the warnings against socializing with non-Israelites found in Ezekiel. As we discussed in the previous chapter, these passages reflect the understanding that entering into a social contract with another nation will result in the Israelites betraying Yahweh to serve other gods. In Ezek 16 (vv. 23–34) and 23 (vv. 39–42), the marriage metaphor of the adulterous wife is applied to Jerusalem. In particular, Ezekiel discusses Jerusalem’s social and cultic infractions resulting from its involvements with foreign nations.23 The alienation of the land resulting from foreign alliances could result in the legitimization of another foreign power. However, most importantly, foreign alliances run the risk of alienating the Israelite deity, since Yahweh is thought to be the sole divine patron who has the right to possess the land. As stated, participating in a foreign alliance would potentially involve the recognition of foreign gods, since the ceremonies associated with such alliances invoke the deities of both nations in order to sanction and formalize the relationship. In Ezekiel, divine ‫ קנאה‬is used in order to represent the violation of Yahweh’s rights attained through his status as divine patron. These alliances defile the divine habitation and result in Yahweh’s demand for the city’s destruction (Ezek 23:46–49). Another well-known passage dealing with similar themes is found in Num 25. Although not an ‫ אל קנא‬passage, the ‫ קנאה‬communicated by Yahweh and the priest Phinehas in Num 25 provides an important case study on how the expression is used to communicate concerns regarding social and cultic interactions. Here, ‫ קנאה‬is expressed both by Yahweh and by a priest on his behalf in order to demonstrate a concern for divine prerogatives and honor. At its heart, Num 25 represents a relational issue involving Yahweh, Israelites, non-Israelites, and sacred space—concerns that also seem pertinent with regard to the ‫אל קנא‬ expression. We will discuss the passage in greater detail in order to resolve the complexities of social and cultic relational exclusivity. Divine ‫ קנאה‬and Sacred Boundaries: The Case of Numbers 25 Numbers 25 reflects a period of time when the Israelites were temporarily settled in Shittim, located on the plains of Moab and within reach of the land of Canaan. It is here that the Israelites experience their first interaction with Canaanite culture. The men of the camp couple with Moabite and Midianite women and are seduced into participating in the cult of Baal Peor (vv. 1–4).24 One specific 23.  For further discussion, see Galambush, Jerusalem, 89–90, 111, 112 n. 60, 119, 124–25. 24.  The name “Baal Peor” is the title of the local deity worshipped at Peor (Levine, Numbers 21–36, 279). In ancient Near Eastern texts, Semitic bʿl and ʾl are often found to designate common nouns rather than specific divine names (CAD 2:193–94; 7:91). Alternatively, Baal Peor may represent the local manifestation of the Canaanite deity Baal (see Num 25:18). Although we cannot be certain as to the nature of the Baal Peor cult, it is likely that the rival deity posed a threat to the authority of Yahweh within the camp and among his adherents.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

141

interaction involving divine ‫ קנאה‬is woven into the narrative to explain the severity of this betrayal and its potential consequences on the sanctity of the camp. Zimri, leader of the Simeonites, brings Cozbi, daughter of a Midianite chieftain, before the leaders of the camp, and the two participate in some kind of illicit act with each other (v. 6). The camp’s leaders are stationed before the dwelling place of Yahweh, seeking supplication in order to terminate a divinely sanctioned plague (v. 9) brought about (presumably) by the apostasy of Baal Peor described in vv. 1–4.25 Phinehas, as one of the cultic guard and son of the high priest Eleazar, son of Aaron, swiftly punishes the couple by spearing and killing them (vv. 7–8). The three key figures in this narrative are people of high rank in their respective social circles. Among the foreign women, Cozbi, the daughter of Zur, is singled out as the main antagonist. A Midianite chieftain by the name of Zur is referenced in Num 31:8, and he is identified as one of the leaders killed in Israel’s war against Midian. Since Num 31 justifies the war against the Midianites by referencing the apostasy of Baal Peor, it is likely that Cozbi is the daughter of this chieftain. Numbers 25:14 identifies Zimri as the leader of the Simeonite tribe and is therefore a person of high rank. As stated above, Phinehas is part of the Levitical guard, whose duty is to protect against any encroachment of the Tabernacle.26 In the passage, Yahweh reflects upon Phinehas’s behavior and deems it appropriate; Phinehas assuages divine wrath, ends the plague, and atones for the sins committed in the camp (vv. 8–13). Yahweh explains that Phinehas “has turned my anger from the Israelites when he experienced ‫ קנאה‬for my ‫קנאה‬ among them (‫)בקנאו את־קנאתי בתוכם‬, so that I did not consume the Israelites on account of my ‫( ”קנאה‬v. 11) and “made atonement for the Israelites (‫ויכפר על־בני‬ ‫( ”)יׂשראל‬v. 13). In other words, reconciliation is achieved when Phinehas acts as a surrogate for Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. In return, Yahweh bestows Phinehas with a “covenant of eternal priesthood” (‫)ברית כחנת עולם‬, which secures the priesthood to the Aaronide line. Through proper demonstration of ‫קנאה‬, Phinehas is able to intervene and placate Yahweh and reconcile the deity with the camp and properly atone for the ‫ קנאה‬event instigated by the offending parties. In addition to providing justification for the election of the Aaronide line, the events depicted in the passage epitomize one of the ultimate betrayals against the obligation of exclusivity established at Sinai. Commonly identified as the “Baal 25.  The various treatments of Num 25 widely acknowledge the composite structure of the text. On the composite parts of the Baal Peor incident reflected in Num 25, see Milgrom, Numbers, 477; Levine, Numbers 21–36, 279–78; Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 205–6; Blenkinsopp, “Baal Peor Episode Revisited,” 87–88. The editorial framework of the composition is commonly situated in the Persian period, although the final material most likely drew upon older Priestly traditions (Blenkinsopp, “Baal Peor Episode Revisited,” 87–88). 26.  See Num 17:27 [12]–18:32; 31:30, 47.

142

Jealousy in Context

Peor episode,” this interaction between foreigners and Israelites is represented in various literary reflexes as a low point in the history of the Israelites27 and legitimizes Israelite enmity against their neighbors.28 While there probably were several rhetorical goals of the Baal Peor episode from the writers and editors’ perspective, two seem primary. The first is that the episode stands as a cautionary tale of the dangers of social and cultic interrelationships with non-Israelites, while the second objective of the narrative is to provide an etiology for the divine election of the Eleazarite line of the Aaronide priesthood.29 It is generally acknowledged that there are at least two composite traditions within the Num 25 passage.30 The first composition, often attributed to J or JE, concerns the influence of the Moabite women on the men in the camp and the “joining” (‫ )נצמד‬of the Israelites to the cult of Baal Peor (vv. 1–5). Moses is instructed to “take all the heads of the nation and hang them up before God against the sun” in order to assuage divine wrath (v. 4).31 It remains ambiguous as to whether these instructions are carried out, and the narrative continues with the incident between Zimri, Cozbi, and Phinehas (25:6–26:1). Scholars widely agree that these later verses belong to P, providing justification for the elevation of the Eleazarite line of the Aaronide priesthood and for the longstanding conflict between the Israelites and Midianites.32 Regardless of the origins of the composite text, the scenes are intertwined. For example, the reference to the plague afflicting the camp in vv. 8–9 is presumably the result of the Moabite incident in vv. 1–5.33 It is because of this plague that Moses and the congregation are lamenting before Yahweh (v. 6); however, before divine intercession could be mediated the camp is disrupted by the illicit actions of Zimri and his Midianite companion, forcing Phinehas to intervene. The incidents involving Moabite and Midianite women are also 27.  See especially Hos 9:10. See also Deut 4:3; Josh 22:17; Ps 106:28. Note that in the narrative context, the Israelites had already been instructed on proper social and religious behavior, and the events of Baal Peor occur after the events at Sinai, making the betrayal, at least from the editors’ perspective, all the more egregious. 28.  See Num 25:17, 31–33. 29.  On the selectivity of Aaronide priesthood, see Levine, Numbers 21–36, 297–300. 30.  See, however, Milgrom, Numbers, 476. Jacob Milgrom argues that there are three different versions of the incident: the impalement of the leaders at Yahweh’s command, the slaying of the guilty at Moses’s command, and Phinehas’s deed. He posits that the editors truncated the first two versions in order to give the impression that it is only through Phinehas’s act that the community is spared. 31.  As others have noted, the language used in this verse resembles 2 Sam 21:1–11, when David is instructed to impale Saul’s son in return for Saul breaking his agreement with the Gibeonites (Levine, Numbers 21–36, 279–81). 32.  Num 25:16–19 instructs the Israelites to attack the Midianites in retaliation for the Baal Peor incident, and this is fulfilled in the narrative in Num 31, another P passage, which uses the Baal Peor incident as justification for Israel’s war against the Midianites. 33.  Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 205–6.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

143

thematically linked. The illicit behavior of the Israelite men with the Moabite women and the sacrilege of Zimri and Cozbi are betrayals of the obligation of religious exclusivity involving the cult of Baal Peor34 and have the same potential consequences on the camp.35 The divine anger prompted by the attachment of the men to the cult of Baal Peor in v. 3 (traditionally JE) is therefore linked by a later editor with the divine ‫ קנאה‬provoked by Zimri and Cozbi in v. 11 (P). It is for these reasons that the passage is read here as a whole in order to appreciate the editor’s understanding and framing of the context of the ‫ קנאה‬expressed both by Yahweh and by Phinehas. Terminology and Context The various interpretative issues of the passage should be discussed if we are to understand the ‫ קנאה‬of Phinehas and Yahweh, particularly with regard to the social and religious transgression(s) that motivate this response. These issues include the use of the verbs ‫ זנה‬and ‫ צמד‬to describe the behavior of the apostates and the general location where the offense takes place. The first few verses of the episode characterize the behavior of the Israelites as “prostituting” with the local Moabite women (‫)ויחל העם לזנות אל־בנות מואב‬, who then lure the men into participating in their local cult (vv. 1–2). The text states, “[The women] called to the people to sacrifice to their gods; the people then ate (with them) and bowed down to their gods” (‫ותקראן לעם לזבחי אלהיהן‬ ‫)ויאכל העם ויׁשתחוו לאלהיהן‬. There are both sexual and religious connotations of the verbal construction ‫ זנה‬+ ‫אל‬.36 The verb ‫זנה‬, “to prostitute,” highlights the impropriety of the Israelite and Moabite relationship. The root is also used in Biblical Hebrew in a metaphorical sense to indicate Israel’s betrayal with other gods, particularly when this betrayal is prompted by improper social relations with outsiders.37 As we saw in Ezek 16 and 22 and in the ‫ אל קנא‬passage in Exod 34, the verbal root ‫ זנה‬in Num 25 highlights a relational issue dealing with the alienation of divine rights involving property and social relations. Just as a wife who is suspected of committing adultery by having illicit sexual relations with another man risks the integrity of the family and the husband’s rights of control, so the Israelites risk the integrity of the community by “prostituting” after 34.  Although the relationship between Baal Peor and the actions of Zimri and Cozbi is unclear in the text, later traditions and literary reflexes of this incident reflect the understanding that the cult of Baal Peor is involved (Num 25:18; 31:16; Ps 106:28). 35.  In Num 25:18, Yahweh remarks that the Midianites were involved both in the affair of Peor and with Cozbi, linking the two episodes together and providing justification for the Midianite war in Num 31. For the Midianite/Moabite connection, see Blenkinsopp, “Baal Peor Episode Revisited,” 90–91. 36.  On the peculiar use of ‫ זנה‬with preposition ‫אל‬, see Levine, Numbers 21–36, 282–83. 37.  For example, Exod 34:15; Ezek 16:26, 28; compare Judg 2:17.

144

Jealousy in Context

foreign women and their gods. In Num 25:1, ‫ זנה‬is used because the women chosen by the Israelite men are considered unsuitable; their lack of kinship with the men and their non-Yahwistic cultic affiliations run the risk of alienating social and religious relations within the Israelite community. It is likely that in Num 25:1, the figurative and literal uses of the root ‫ זנה‬are intended to underscore both the cultic betrayal and the inappropriateness of the relationships forged between the Israelite men and foreign women. Another verb used in this passage with relational significance is ‫צמד‬. Numbers 25:3 describes the illicit acts of the episode using the N-stem of the root ‫צמד‬, which is traditionally understood as the Israelites “attaching” or “joining” themselves to the foreign god. The verb appears elsewhere in this sense in a literary reflex of the episode to describe the Baal Peor episode (Ps 106:28). As others have noted, the use of this verb is unique in describing cultic betrayal, as the biblical text traditionally characterizes similar behavior with descriptive actions such as “serving” (‫)עבד‬, “bowing down to” (‫)הׁשתחוה‬, or “going after” (‫ )הלך‬other gods.38 The meaning of being a “pair yoked together” (e.g., two oxen) is clear from Biblical Hebrew ‫ צמד‬and thus the imagery here of being yoked to (paired with) Baal is obvious. In Akkadian, ṣamādu means to “make ready; attach” and a homonym of the root (ṣamāt/du) is attested in contexts where it indicates the transfer of property.39 The use of such animal-agrarian-land imagery of the word in Biblical Hebrew along with its attestations in other ancient Near Eastern texts may suggest the dual character of ‫ צמד‬in our passage to indicate religious and social bonds. Its use in Num 25:3 implies that the relationship between the Israelite men and foreign women has grievous repercussions not only for the cult of Yahweh but also for the survival of the Israelite community. The yoking or associating of a family member with an outsider may result in the loss of social integrity, but since the camp represents the religious community, the breaking of these bonds will also have cultic repercussions that threaten the divine presence within the camp. The Offense, the Camp, and Yahweh’s Sacred Domain The text suggests that Zimri and Cozbi are performing an illicit act within view of the community, most of whom are situated on the threshold of the divine dwelling and performing rites of lament. However, the specifics of the illicit act are unclear. We only know that Zimri brings a Midianite woman near his brethren (‫ )הקריב אל־אחיו‬before the sight of Moses and the congregation (v. 6). It 38.  Baruch Levine suggests that the meaning of the verb may be closer in use to the way ‫דבק‬, “to stick to,” is used in such contexts, indicating religious devotion or political loyalty (Numbers 21–36, 283); see Deut 11:22; 2 Sam 20:2; 2 Kgs 3:3; Ps 63:9. Moreover, both roots describe the sticking of skin to bone when suffering from famine. See, for example, Lam 4:8; Job 19:20; Ps 102:6. 39.  CAD 16:86, 93.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

145

has been suggested that Zimri and Cozbi are participating in some kind of inclusion or bonding ritual;40 by bringing Cozbi before his brethren, Zimri is perhaps presenting the Midianite woman as his wife.41 While this interaction might be an affront on the basis of established social norms, the immediate intercession by one among the cultic guard insinuates that the nature of the act is deemed a threat to Yahweh’s sanctity and is therefore a religious offense. There are two features in the text that suggest the act performed is sexual in nature. The first is that when Phinehas confronts the couple, he skewers them both with his weapon and spears the woman through her abdomen (v. 8). The second is that Phinehas kills them in a tent identified as a ‫קבה‬. Identifying the significance of this structure and its location within the camp have proven difficult, as this term only occurs in this verse in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, several suggestions have been put forward. There are those who posit that the ‫ קבה‬indicates a place in or near the tabernacle area42 or represents a private tent shrine.43 Some follow the proposal that it is related to the pre-Islamic qubba, a mobile tent used during times of war and in rituals of divination,44 while others understand it as some kind of mobile marriage canopy where Zimri takes his Midianite bride.45 The connection between the pre-Islamic qubba and divination has led to the suggestion that the issue at stake involves a competing ritual undertaken by Zimri and Cozbi during a period in which the Israelites are seeking divine intercession to alleviate a plague. Whatever the case, the ‫ קבה‬is most likely situated near the dwelling place of Yahweh and within view of the lamenting congregation. While the text implies some kind of sexual interaction takes place, perhaps within view of the leaders of the camp, the exact nature of this activity and its relation with the cult of Baal Peor remain uncertain.46 What is suggestive is the Hebrew Bible’s own reception of the event in Ps 106:28, which links the offensive act with the cult of the dead.47 Based on the reaction of Phineas, the nature of the offense committed by Zimri and Cozbi has both a social and religious dimension. The composition reflects the understanding supported in the legal material that kinship alliances between Israelite and non-Israelite (Canaanite) clans are inappropriate.48 Both 40.  Blenkinsopp, “Baal Peor Episode Revisited,” 90. 41.  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, 384. 42.  Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 202. 43.  Reif, “What Enraged Phinehas,” 202–3. 44.  Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 208. 45.  Milgrom, Numbers, 215. For the various suggestions along these lines, see Levine, Numbers 21–36, 287; Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 208. 46.  Another possibility is that the act involved ritual prostitution (Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 202). For a counterargument, however, see Levine, Numbers 21–36, 287–28. 47.  Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 167. 48.  For example, Deut 23:4 implies that it is forbidden for the Israelites to marry the Moabites and Ammonites.

146

Jealousy in Context

the Moabites and Midianites are represented as natural rivals to the Israelites, and establishing any kinship relations with them is considered taboo both on account of their long-standing mutual enmity and because such relations may potentially result in religious betrayal against Yahweh.49 Within the context of the narrative, the Baal Peor episode is the first social interaction between the Israelites and Canaanites, and most significantly the conflict is situated before the Israelites enter the land of Canaan. Thus, while Num 25 may primarily deal with issues of cult and camp sacrality, it also involves social concerns represented in the conflict and tension among rival social groups. As discussed in chapter 3, the main concern of the Baal Peor episode is the threat of illicit behavior on the integrity of the camp and the cult of Yahweh. On top of this issue, there is the implied danger of bringing outsiders into the community. By integrating outsiders with the community, the integrity of Yahweh’s domain is put at risk not only by potentially introducing foreign cult practices but also because mixing these different communities risks dividing the divine holdings.50 Whatever the exact nature of the offensive acts, the social relationship forged between the foreign women and men of the camp engendered cultic consequences that had to be immediately addressed. Consider, for example, that the offense takes place within sight of Moses and the leaders of the congregation during a critical time in the community. It is implied in the narrative that these leaders are lamenting on account of a plague, which was presumably triggered by those who “prostituted” after other gods with the Moabite women (vv. 1–5, 8–9).51 Most significantly, the ritual of lament takes place outside the Tent of Meeting (‫)אהל מועד‬, which is generally where Yahweh presents himself to provide intercession and guidance (Exod 33:7–11). It is possible that the act(s) performed by Zimri and Cozbi has/have to do with seeking apotropaic intercession from a foreign deity on behalf of the community and therefore introduced a rival god into the camp.52 Zimri and Cozbi make a dire situation worse through their behavior and intensified divine wrath. 49.  Joseph Blenkinsopp argues that the issue in Num 25 is the impropriety of the social relationship between the couple, or what he understands as a “covenant of kinship” (compare Amos 1:9). He suggests that the couple may have participated in some kind of bonding ritual deemed inappropriate. If scholars are correct in situating the final redaction of Num 25 during the Persian period, then it is no surprise that issues of ethnic boundaries and intermarriage are emphasized. For further discussion, see Blenkinsopp, “Baal Peor Episode Revisited,” 92–96. 50.  In certain ancient and classical societies, divine holdings were intended to be kept within a specific community, and the inhabitants were obliged to cut themselves off from outsiders in order to maintain their integrity (Weinfeld, Social Justice, 231–47). 51.  For a discussion of the terminology associated with rituals of lament in the Hebrew Bible and the cultic significance of weeping, see Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 207. 52.  Barbara E. Organ suggests that the community was participating in some kind of oracular intercession in the hopes of stopping the plague and further argues that Zimri enlisted Cozbi’s help in order to obtain an oracular decision from a Midianite deity (“Pursuing Phinehas,” 206–9).

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

147

As we have discussed, the fraternization between different social groups is presented in the Hebrew Bible as a threat to the singular worship of Yahweh demanded by their religious obligations.53 It is for this reason that the Baal Peor episode is identified in a literary reflex of the event as a ‫מעל‬, “betrayal,” against Yahweh in Num 31:16. Having perpetuated a betrayal, Zimri and Cozbi threaten the survival of the community. Moreover, this act appears to have taken place near or in view of the Tent of Meeting, or at the very least within the camp itself, and it is because of this proximity that their actions have the potential to alienate the divine presence. Although this event does not take place within the Promised Land itself, it does take place within the boundaries of the camp, which serves as a microcosm of Yahweh’s estate and operates as the place in which the people prepare for their future occupancy within the land. Rules that apply in the land also apply to the camp. Furthermore, Deut 4:3–4, which is situated within the larger context of an ‫ אל קנא‬passage, references the Baal Peor episode as the people are about to enter the land allocated to them (vv. 3–4). The passage explains that those who committed cultic betrayal were wiped out through plague, and those that remain are considered worthy and faithful enough to enter the land. As others have noted, the Baal Peor episode is significant in the Deuteronomistic History since it signals the end of an unfaithful generation, cleansing the population in preparation for their entering and possessing the land given to them as a divine grant by Yahweh.54 It is no coincidence that the narrative context reflects a time right before the Israelites were to settle in the land of Canaan, having already been given instructions on how to properly observe the law of Yahweh.55 During this point in the narrative, the Israelites are about to enter the land, and the violation of Zimri and Cozbi represents the last major example of the consequences of violating religious and social exclusivity demanded by the ‫ אל קנא‬before the community enters the Promised Land. The Social and Cultic Role of the Aaronid–Levitical Guard Finally, we should also note Phinehas’s social and cultic role within the Israelite community.56 As the only son of the high priest Eleazar (Exod 6:25), his obligation as chief of the cultic guard is to maintain the sanctity of the divine abode, 53.  Exod 34:15–16; Deut 7:3–4; see also Deut 4:3–4. 54.  Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 212. 55.  See Num 36:13. The site where the Baal Peor episode takes place is identified as Abel Shittim in the plains of Moab, which is located right outside the boundaries of Canaan (Num 33:49). 56.  In the Hebrew Bible, Phinehas has a significant role in Num 25, the war against the Midianites in Num 31, the conflict concerning the altar of the Trans-Jordanian tribes in Josh 22, and the intertribal conflict/war in Judg 20–21.

148

Jealousy in Context

acting in response to any encroachment threatening the holiness of Yahweh’s sanctuary.57 The cultic guard have a responsibility to preserve the purity of the camp by guarding against its encroachment.58 In the case of Zimri and Cozbi, Phinehas is reacting to a perceived encroachment, by swiftly eliminating the couple and providing atonement (‫ )כפר‬for the community.59 The text explains that Phinehas is bestowed favor from Yahweh “because he experienced ‫קנאה‬ for his god and atoned (‫ )ויכפר‬for the Israelites” (v. 13). Similarly, in Num 8:19 a Levitical guard is described as providing atonement for the community and assuaging divine wrath by striking down an encroacher who trespassed against the sanctuary of Yahweh.60 Phinehas’s demonstration of ‫ קנאה‬resembles Elijah’s commitment to the cult of Yahweh in 1 Kgs 19:10, 14. In the passage, Elijah responds with ‫ קנאה‬when the Israelites betray their obligations to Yahweh. Having just killed the prophets of Yahweh, the people dismantle the altars of Yahweh throughout the land and allow the influence of the prophets of Baal to dominate within its borders. At Mount Carmel, Elijah slaughters the apostate prophets,61 an action justified by Deuteronomic law.62 As in the case of Phinehas, Elijah carries out legal and social obligations according to the demands of the law within the boundaries of sacred territory.63 In his capacity as an Aaronid–Levitical priest, Phinehas fulfills his obligation as protector of the cult by acting out the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh against those who provoked it, thereby providing a means of expiation and 57.  Similarly, Eleazar acts on his father’s, the high priest, behalf in matters where the purity of the Tabernacle is threatened in Num 3:32; 17:2 [16:37]; 19:2–7. 58.  See Num 17:2 [16:37]; 17:27–18:32; 19:2–7; 31:30, 47. Phinehas again acts as protector of Yahweh’s cult in Josh 22:13–31. 59.  On ‫כפר‬, see Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 56–67. The acts of expiation undertaken by Phinehas resembles Num 17:11–12, where Aaron, as the high priest of the cult, secures expiation for the community through the burning of incense, thereby assuaging the wrath of Yahweh and saving the community from a deadly plague. Baruch Levine understands the expiation in Num 25 as something similar to human sacrifice (Levine, Numbers 21–36, 290). 60.  See also Num 18:22–23. In the book of Numbers, providing atonement through sacrificial or extrasacrificial means prevents the aggravation of divine wrath against the sinner and the entire community (Num 8:19; 31:50; 35:33). 61.  1 Kgs 18:40. On the relationship between 1 Kgs 18 (events at Carmel) and 19 (events at Horeb), see Cogan, I Kings, 452–56. 62.  Deut 12:1–5. Although sanctioned by the legal material, this does not mean that the tradition reflected in 1 Kgs 19 is dependent on the Deuteronomic texts. For example, note that Elijah is sacrificing here in Mount Carmel, which is in violation of the primary Deuteronomic legislation dealing with the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem. Furthermore, there are two additional examples that can be compared to Elijah and Phinehas’s ‫קנאה‬. In 2 Kgs 10:16, Jehu’s extermination of the house of Ahab is considered a demonstration of ‫ קנאה‬on behalf of Yahweh. Finally, Num 11:29 depicts a ‫קנאה‬ scenario when Joshua shows a concern on Moses’s behalf to a perceived social and religious transgression when men begin to prophesy within the camp separate from the other appointed prophets who were outside the camp with Moses. 63.  On the ‫ קנאה‬expressed in this passage in comparison to Phinehas’s zeal, see Roi, “1 Kings 19,” 41–42.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

149

an end to the plague. After killing the couple, Yahweh explains that Phinehas “has turned my anger from the Israelites when he expressed ‫ קנאה‬for my ‫קנאה‬ among them (‫)בקנאו את־קנאתי בתוכם‬, so that I did not consume the Israelites on account of my ‫( ”קנאה‬v. 11). The construction of ‫ קנאה‬in the passage is unique: as opposed to expressing ‫ קנאה‬on Yahweh’s behalf, Phinehas is instead embodying Yahweh’s own ‫קנאה‬. That is to say, the direct object of the verbal D-stem of ‫ קנא‬is the ‫ קנאה‬of Yahweh (i.e., a cognate accusative). Yet the meaning of this construction does not run contrary to the way it has been used in our other case studies. Looking contextually at the entire emotion scenario, the social context is key in understanding how ‫ קנאה‬is being expressed in the narrative. It is only through Phinehas’s capacity as an Aaronid–Levitical priest that he is capable of effectively acting as a surrogate of Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬and in doing so is held up as a paragon of expected behavior befitting his station. Moreover, the introduction of the plague in vv. 8–9 provides perspective concerning what is at stake for the community. The offensive act perpetrated by Zimri and Cozbi threatens the integrity and survival of the whole camp during a critical time when the Israel­ ites had already provoked the wrath of Yahweh by participating in forbidden ritual acts with foreign women. As stated previously, the legal material warns of the dangers of intermarriage in leading the faithful astray from the law and encouraging the participation in rival cults, as such behavior provokes Yahweh and the destruction of the Israelite community.64 Thus, Phinehas as an Aaronid priest is an appropriate surrogate for divine ‫קנאה‬, as his cultic role obligates him to act on behalf of Yahweh’s rights and honor, thus mediating on behalf of the community so that Yahweh, who is subject to ‫קנאה‬, does not destroy them. Phinehas undertook the actions that would resolve the ‫ קנאה‬concern brought about by the illicit acts of Zimri and Cozbi, ensuring the preservation of Yahweh’s honor and presence, as well as rectify­ing the imbalance in the camp stemming from a potential betrayal against Yahweh. It is also possible that the ‫ קנאה‬in Num 25 has juridical implications. Phinehas provides a template for expected behavior in situations where divine authority and camp sanctity are threatened.65 As in our other passages, ‫ קנאה‬has a special role in highlighting potential social and/or religious breaches that have severe consequences for the Israelite community and its god. In the narrative, ‫ קנאה‬involves a concern for the maintenance of social and religious norms and involves behavior that aims to rectify a perceived imbalance in the camp stemming from a potential betrayal against the Israelite deity.

64.  Deut 7:3–4; see also Exod 34:15–16; Deut 4:3–4. 65.  The repercussions for those found worshiping foreign gods or falling under the influence of foreign gods include death by stoning (Deut 17:2–7), execution (Deut 13:7–19), and wholesale razing (Deut 12:1–12).

Motivation

Reaction

Maintenance of social and religious boundaries preserves the integrity and sacrality of the camp.

Social and religious transgressions with foreign women and their cultus threatens the status of Yahweh.

Phinehas acts as a surrogate of divine ‫ קנאה‬and kills offenders.

Numbers 25: Yahweh and Phinehas’s ‫ קנאה‬toward Zimri and Cozbi

Expectation

Table 5: Script of the ‫ קנאה‬scenario in Numbers 25

Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is resolved, and Phinehas preserves the community by providing atonement for the camp, reestablishing the divine– human relationship.

Outcome

Sociotheological conflict in which a cultic official acts on behalf of divine sovereign and intervenes to ensure survival of community.

Framework

150 Jealousy in Context

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

151

Numbers 25 and ‫אל קנא‬: Some Reflections The actions carried out by Phinehas seek to maintain both social and religious boundaries. Social intermingling, which has the potential to lead to the establishment of rival cults, is violently discouraged in order to maintain the integrity of the community and the rights of its divine patron. In this literary reconstruction, the Israelites are ideally supposed to be differentiated primarily through their worship of a singular god with whom they maintain obligations according to the demands of the law.1 The Canaanites, however, are marked by their syncretistic worship, bowing down before forbidden idols and foreign gods. As their first interaction with the Canaanites, and in the narrative framework of Numbers, the Baal Peor episode marks an important point in the history of the idyllic and literary portrayal of the Israelites and the construction of ideas concerning interrelationships between outsiders and the people of Yahweh that are echoed in the ‫ אל קנא‬passage in Exod 34. Our discussion of Num 25 has brought to light and reiterated some important contextual considerations of divine ‫ קנאה‬that will assist in our analysis of Yahweh’s characterization as an ‫אל קנא‬. We have examined the risks that socialization with outsiders pose to the social and religious integrity of the Israelite community, and we can now fully understand why this issue would be considered a ‫ קנאה‬concern. In these passages, a connection is established between sacrosanct space, the protection of the divine presence, and the provocation of ‫קנאה‬. The social and cultic concerns of divine ‫ קנאה‬specifically arise from situations that risk alienating the divine patron from what is rightfully his and estranging his relationship with the Israelite community. Moreover, as demonstrated in Exod 34, the continued presence and support of the ‫ אל קנא‬necessitates exclusive loyalty of the Israelites both in the cultic and social sphere. The ‫ אל קנא‬expression therefore deals with social and cultic concerns of the Israelite deity regarding his status as divine patron of Israel. The ‫ אל קנא‬in the Decalogue Perhaps the most discussed among the ‫ אל קנא‬passages are those found in the parallel passages of the Decalogue (Exod 20:1–17 and Deut 5:4–20).2 These texts outline the expected social and religious behavior to be obeyed in the 1.  In historical reality, at times the Israelites were indeed syncretistic. For syncretic practices reflected in the material culture of ancient Israel, see the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud in DobbsAllsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions, 285–96. 2.  Scholarship on the history, authorship, date, intended audience, historical and legal context, and the different versions of the Decalogue is immense. For substantive treatments, see Hossfeld, Der Dekalog; Crüsemann, Bewahrung der Freiheit; Schmidt, Die Zehn Gebote; Himbaza,

152

Jealousy in Context

Wilderness Camp and (eventually) in the Promised Land. As discussed, in biblical scholarship the relationship between Yahweh and Israel is argued to be influenced or motivated in some way by the tradition of the suzerain–vassal bond depicted in ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties (whether Hittite, NeoAssyrian, or Aramaic).3 Similar to these texts, the passages outline the expectations and obligations that must be maintained in order to ensure support from the sovereign. The ‫ אל קנא‬epithet appears in the first two mandates dealing with the commands for the exclusive worship of Yahweh and the prohibition of iconic cultic practices: You will not have another god before me. You will not make for yourself a statue (or)4 an image of anything from the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the waters beneath the earth. You will not bow down to them or serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am an ‫אל קנא‬, visiting the iniquity (‫ )פקד עון‬of those who hate me (‫ )לׂשנאי‬upon the children up to5 the third and fourth generations and demonstrating fidelity (‫)עׂשה חסד‬6 to thousands who love me (‫ )לאהבי‬and observe my commandments. (Exod 20:2–6// Deut 5:6–10)7 The crux of the divine–human relationship is discussed in these verses: the people are expected to obey the divine–human contract, which explicitly prohibits any association with other gods and their cults, including the practice of idolatry.8 Ignoring these stipulations undermines Yahweh’s sovereignty and denies his unique identity as the god of the Israelites. The final clause of the passage provides the motivation to obey these covenant stipulations, stating that Yahweh identifies himself as an ‫ אל קנא‬who either punishes the disloyal or demonstrates commitment to those loyal to him. Whether the statements about Decalogue; Block, “Decalogue.” For the influence of the Decalogue in providing a basis for other biblical laws, see Weinfeld, “Decalogue”; Miller, “Place of the Decalogue”; Coogan, Ten Commandments. 3.  Although the extent of Mesopotamian or Hittite influence should not be overstated. For further discussion, see Crouch, Israel and the Assyrians, 167–78; Quick, Deuteronomy 28, 65–67, who both frame their understanding of these traditions and subversions in a Levantine context. 4.  The Exodus version of this commandment has an additional ‫ ו‬before ‫כל־תמונה‬. 5.  The Deuteronomy version has an additional ‫ ו‬before ‫על ׁשלׁשים‬, thus reading “upon the children and the third and fourth generations.” 6.  On the understanding of ‫ חסד‬as an expression of “covenant” loyalty, see Sakenfeld, Meaning of Hesed, 124. 7.  On the minor differences between the parallel passages and various reinterpretations based on these variances in vv. 4–5, see Dohmen, Das Bilderverbot, 213–16; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog, 21–25; Markl, “Ten Words,” 21–22. 8.  On similar injunctions, see Deut 30:17–20; Josh 23:16; 2 Kgs 17:35–39.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

153

the ‫ אל קנא‬primarily concern issues of foreign god worship or idol worship9 matters little for our discussion, as both issues are categorized in the Hebrew Bible as treachery against Yahweh that have serious consequences for the Israelite community.10 The worship of foreign gods and idolatry deal with similar questions regarding exclusive worship of Yahweh and both issues are viewed as a threat to the divine presence and to the integrity of the Israelite community.11 For example, we saw in Ezekiel that the practice of idolatry pollutes the land and drives away the divine presence, which results in Yahweh experiencing ‫קנאה‬ for his rights as divine patron. Moreover, the context of the Decalogue passages implies by its use of ‫ אל קנא‬that the immediate concern is not representations of Yahweh and their worship but representations and worship of foreign or nonYahwistic entities.12 We need not go into depth on the scholarship that has contributed to our understanding of the Decalogue. However, with our more complex understanding of the ‫ קנאה‬expression we may come closer to clarifying the social and cultic aspects of the ‫ אל קנא‬expression. We have already noted elsewhere that the social model established between Yahweh and Israel may be best viewed through the lens of the suzerain–vassal model reflected in ancient Near Eastern treaties. The Decalogue begins by identifying Yahweh’s role as the protector of Israel, thus reaffirming the relationship between deity and people (Exod 20:2//Deut 5:6). Yet this bond is not unconditional. In order to maintain this relationship and reap its benefits, the Israelites must fulfill certain religious and social obligations. The irreducible core of these obligations is the injunction against serving other gods and the creation of idols. The following statement in Exod 20:3//Deut 5:7 makes explicit the command for exclusive worship, although it does not deny the existence of other 9.  Walther Zimmerli argues based on a literary and comparative analysis that the statements concerning ‫ קנאה‬in the Decalogue refer not to the second commandment against images but instead to the first commandment prohibiting inclusive worship (Gottes Offenbarung, 237–46). 10.  For example, Exod 20:23; 32:1–34:17; Lev 19:4; 26:1; Deut 4:15–19, 25; 5:8; 32:16; Josh 24:18–23; Jer 11:3–13; Hab 2:18–20. In Ezekiel, idols are considered abominations that pollute the land (Ezek 5:11; 20:7–8). 11.  For example, Yitzhaq Feder examines the aniconic polemics in the Hebrew Bible in order to better situate ancient Israelite beliefs concerning cultural and social boundaries (“Aniconic Tradition,” 272–74). 12.  The issue of iconic worship of Yahweh and the strict observance of aniconism may have become more acute during the period of exile (Reuter, “‫קנא‬,” TDOT 13:54–55). Currently, there exists debate among biblical scholars regarding whether Yahweh was always represented aniconically or whether he at one time was represented with an icon. For a selection of these perspectives with reference to broader ancient Near Eastern traditions, see Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel”; Na’aman, “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image”; Mettinger, “Conversation with My Critics”; Lewis, “Art and Iconography.”

154

Jealousy in Context

gods: “You will not have another god before me (‫לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים על־‬ ‫)פני‬.”13 In particular, we will focus on ‫אלהים אחרים על־פני‬, which has generally been interpreted in a metaphorical way to mean prioritizing other gods before or in place of Yahweh so that he is relegated to an inferior position or outright ignored.14 However, another reading of ‫ על־פני‬is possible. Considering that the prohibition of iconic worship immediately follows this commandment, ‫על־פני‬ may also allude to a literal presence of rival deities before the presence of Yahweh.15 As discussed, throughout the Pentateuch and prophetical texts the presence of the deity is thought to dwell within the midst of the Israelites. While journeying through the wilderness, Yahweh travels with them. While in the camp, the people are expected to follow their obligations regarding social and cultic exclusivity, since the camp serves as a microcosm of the Promised Land. Yahweh takes up residence in the land once the Israelite tribes have distributed themselves and settled, ultimately allocating for himself the city of Jerusalem as the nucleus of his sacred dwelling. The prohibition of competing gods in the land of the divine patron safeguards the “name” and presence of the deity and relates to the themes we have seen thus far when discussing ‫ קנאה‬scenarios. Like other passages dealing with divine ‫קנאה‬, we see here similar concerns regarding the sacrality of the divine presence and the integrity of the Israelite community. As we continue to explore the ‫ אל קנא‬passages, we might consider the possibility of ‫ אל קנא‬as a designation or category of god who is moved to protect his rights against the presence of competing gods in his territory just as a suzerain would object to the presence of a competing power in the boundaries of his territory. In our case studies of divine ‫קנאה‬, there is an understanding that serving gods with whom the Israelites have no formal bond within the divine estate (‫ )נחלה‬will provoke Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬, resulting in the expulsion of the Israelites from the land. Thus, while the requirement of exclusivity in ancient Israelite religion is based on the concept that the Israelites and Yahweh have a special bond that is established in the cultic-legal tradition (people as divine ‫)נחלה‬, it is also based on the fundamental understanding that the land belongs to Yahweh (land as divine ‫ )נחלה‬and if the Israelites wish to settle in the land they must abide by the set of rules set by the ‫אל קנא‬.16 13.  Biblical scholars have various hypotheses regarding what this statement means for the dating and development of Israelite monotheism. For a useful summary of this issue, see Machinist, “Question of Distinctiveness,” 196–212; Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 151–54. 14.  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 278–79. 15.  Fֹֹor examples where the phrase ‫ על־פני‬is used to indicate something that is located on the opposite side of something else or right before it, see Deut 32:49; 34:1; Josh 13:3, 25; 15:8; 17:7; 18:14, 16; 19:11; Judg 16:3; 1 Sam 15:7; 26:1, 3; 1 Kgs 11:7; 17:3, 5; 2 Kgs 23:13. 16.  As discussed in previous chapters, in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh’s estate (‫ )נחלה‬is multivalent. It can refer to Yahweh’s sanctuary and land (Exod 15:17; Pss 79:1; 105:11), the Israelites (Pss 33:12; 94:5; 106:5; Joel 2:17), or serve as an allusion to both (Pss 68:10; 74:2; Isa 63:17; Mic 7:14).

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

155

Finally, vv. 9–10 describe the behavior of the ‫ אל קנא‬in reaction to those who do not uphold their obligations of exclusivity and to those who do. The disloyal are identified as those who “hate” (‫ )ׂשנא‬Yahweh. These “haters” are not simply those who dislike Yahweh but are instead people who have reneged on their divine–human obligations. In Semitic languages, the root ‫ ׂשנא‬can indicate a complete renunciation of legal and social obligations to a contract partner, and so here the legal and social implications of the term are intended rather than its affective state(s).17 Those who “hate” Yahweh are not those who “love” Yahweh and follow his demands. To these “haters,” the ‫“ אל קנא‬visits the iniquity” (‫ )פקד עון‬of the fathers onto the third and fourth generation. When the ‫אל קנא‬ responds to a perceived imbalance or injustice, it threatens the entire community for generations.18 Assigning corporate responsibility is part of ‫ קנא‬behavior since in the divine–human contract it is the responsibility of the community to ensure a social and cultic environment where Yahweh might reside and be accessible.19 Thus, the behavior of the ‫ אל קנא‬is consistent with the ‫ קנאה‬expressions we have examined thus far. The ‫ אל קנא‬will react to those who exhibit inappropriate behavior that disrupts the integrity of his domain and his rights of exclusivity. However, when the people demonstrate appropriate behavior and maintain the obligations of exclusivity, the ‫ אל קנא‬will express loyalty (‫)עׂשה חסד‬.20 Here, the behavioral component of divine ‫ קנאה‬is made explicit: it is comprised of actions that seek either to maintain balance or to remedy an imbalance. Together, the two participial phrases in ‫ פקד עון‬and ‫ עׂשה חסד‬represent actions of the ‫;אל קנא‬ the epithet describes Yahweh’s protection of his rights, representing potential consequences for those who betray or fulfill their obligations to Yahweh.

‫ אל קנא‬in Deuteronomy 4:24 and 6:15 In addition to the Deuteronomic Decalogue, ‫ אל קנא‬is also attested in Deut 4:24 and 6:15. Deuteronomy 4 and 6 cover similar themes involving the legal 17.  Branson, “Polyvalent ŚNʾ,” 6–9. 18.  Compare to other instances of divine wrath, where only the individual is punished for breaking the covenant (Deut 7:9–10; 24:16). On the concept of collective responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, see Krašovec, “Is There a Doctrine?” 35–39; Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility, 16–54. For a recent discussion of the doctrine of transgenerational punishment through the lens of inner-biblical exegesis, see Levinson, Legal Revision, 57–88. 19.  Compare Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility, 94. 20.  In her study of the term, Katharine Sakenfeld argues that ‫ חסד‬is conditional and reserved only for those who are worthy “because they are fulfilling the requirements of their relationship with Yahweh” (Meaning of Hesed, 131). Loyalty here is defined as obeying the commandments and, in particular, fulfilling the requirement of exclusivity. Expressing ‫ חסד‬may be understood in terms of providing help, support, and protection in a way that a suzerain would provide to its vassal.

156

Jealousy in Context

and cultic requirement of exclusivity, dispossession of the nations, Israelite settlement in the land, and the observance of the law in the land.21 However, traditionally Deut 4:1–40 has been identified as a late Deuteronomistic text so that many of these commonalities may indicate the passage’s dependence on Deut 6.22 Furthermore, there is one element that is strictly emphasized in Deut 4 that has been absent in the divine ‫ קנאה‬passages discussed thus far: the command for explicit aniconism regardless of whether the images are of rival gods or Yahweh. We will see that this element is motivated by the historical circumstances of the exilic composers of Deut 4, which impacted the way the authors viewed image worship in the ancient Near East. Before we delve into these issues, we will first discuss ‫ אל קנא‬in Deut 6:15 in order to appreciate how the epithet was adapted to reflect the shifting social and religious concerns of the texts’ authors. Deuteronomy 6:1–15 Chapters 6–8 of Deuteronomy discuss the obligations and expectations of Israel­ ite behavior in the Promised Land. Central to these obligations is the requirement of exclusivity and the prohibition against foreign worship and rival cults in the land. The major concern in the ‫ אל קנא‬passage echoes the issues presented in our analysis of Exod 34 and includes injunctions against the adoption of foreign religious customs and rituals (v. 14). Appropriate behavior is demonstrated through singular loyalty and love (‫ )אהב‬to Yahweh, while those who hate (‫)ׂשנא‬ Yahweh break their obligations to the divine patron. The passage explains that Yahweh alone acted on behalf of Israel throughout critical periods of its history.23 The ‫ אל קנא‬expression is situated in the context of land settlement and 21.  For a discussion of the shared terminology and themes between Deut 4:1–40 and 6:10–19, see Mayes, “Deuteronomy 4,” 35–36. 22.  The exilic or late date of Deut 4 is almost universally agreed upon in biblical scholarship. Adopted here is the historical-critical proposal of Martin Noth (Deuteronomistic History) and the double redaction theory of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) proposed by Frank Moore Cross (“Themes of the Book of King”) and expanded by Richard D. Nelson (Double Redaction). In Noth’s framework, Deut 1–4 is understood as the introduction of DtrH that runs from Deut 1–2 Kgs 25, and many of the theological elements in chs. 1–4 are drawn from an older tradition of Deuteronomic Law reflected in Deut 4:44–30:20. Deut 4:25–28 also refers to what many believe to be the Baby­ lonian exile. In particular, the emphasis on aniconism is argued to be a response to the exilic concern regarding Israelite assimilation with the Babylonians (Feder, “Aniconic Tradition,” 271–72). For a brief survey on this topic, see Holter, “Literary Critical Studies.” 23.  The singularity of Yahweh as divine sovereign of Israel is asserted in Deut 6:4–5. There are two possible translations of v. 4b (‫)יהוה אלהינו יהוה אהד‬. The first is “Yahweh is our god, Yahweh alone” (e.g., NRSV), which would support the obligations regarding social and religious exclusivity outlined in v. 14 and complement the tradition that Yahweh was assigned (Deut 32) or allocated for

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

157

possession, following a command concerning social interactions with the local, non-Israelite inhabitants: Then when Yahweh your God brings you to the land, which he swore to your ancestors—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob—to give to you, (a land with) agreeable, large cities you did not build, houses filled with good things you did not fill, hewn cisterns you did not dig, and vineyards you did not plant, but you will eat your fill of, be careful so that you do not forget Yahweh who brought you out of Egypt, the house of servitude. You will fear Yahweh your God, serve him, and take oaths in his name. You will not go after other gods from among the surrounding peoples, for Yahweh, who is in your presence, is an ‫ ;אל קנא‬otherwise his anger will burn against you (‫ )יחרה אף־יהוה בך‬and he will exterminate you from the face of the land. (Deut 6:10–15) After reminding the Israelites of the pledge made to the patriarchs regarding the land, the passage outlines the basic obligations of the Israelites: demonstrate exclusive loyalty and respect to Yahweh and do not participate in the local nonYahwistic cults. The Deuteronomic idea of the land is that it is the divine estate (‫ )נחלה‬possessed by the Israelite deity, and so in order for Israel to possess this territory, certain rules must be followed. The injunction and threat in this passage is therefore very similar to what we have seen in our other ‫ אל קנא‬passages. Yahweh is expected to be the Israelites’ national god in the land they are about to possess. The allusion to the divine presence and its relation to Yahweh’s characteristic as an ‫ אל קנא‬is also significant here as it was in Exod 34 and the Decalogue. It is notable that Deut 6:15 mentions that Yahweh exists in the midst of the people, implying that Yahweh will also take up residence in this land. The appropriate conduct outlined in the Deuteronomic code is therefore meant to address the expectations that an ‫ אל קנא‬demands. Since Yahweh is an ‫אל קנא‬, the Israelite deity requires exclusive worship and recognition as their divine patron and no other cultic presence is tolerated. If this relational balance is disrupted, the ‫אל‬ ‫ קנא‬will express concern for his rights by removing the people from the land. Individuals who commit acts of betrayal will be punished, but this punishment extends to the rest of the community, which will be wiped off the face of the himself (Deut 4) Israel as his possession. The second possible rendering of the phrase is “Yahweh is our god, Yahweh is unique.” Here, Yahweh is considered superior to all other gods. For similar passages that praise Yahweh’s uniqueness, see Deut 7:9 and 10:17. For the use of ‫ אהד‬as “unique,” see Song 6:8–9.

158

Jealousy in Context

earth.24 While other gods may not require exclusive worship and may even share space with additional deities, Yahweh is a special category of god who will not tolerate shared worship and will drive out those who threaten his rights to exclusivity. Thus, it is not only the loyalty to other gods that Yahweh is protesting but also their actual cultic presence in the Promised Land. What we continue to see in these passages is that divine ‫ קנאה‬is activated when there is an issue involving threats to the divine presence and sacrosanct space. At the same time, as we saw in the Exod 34 passage, the discussion of religious exclusivity in Deut 6 is framed by concerns over the social integrity of the Israelite community. The emphasis is not on conduct in general but on conduct influenced by their social environment postsettlement. In this literary depiction, the natural allotment entails that the Israelite deity should be worshipped by the Israelites, leaving no room for “other gods from among the surrounding peoples” (v. 15). The sociological concerns of exclusivity are just as important as theological concerns, since the social integrity of the Israelite community ensures the religious integrity of the Yahwistic cult. By separating themselves from the surrounding peoples and maintaining social boundaries, the Israelites are also serving the interests of the ‫ אל קנא‬in establishing a dichotomy between foreign and legitimate worship. Deuteronomy 4:24 The broader context of the ‫ אל קנא‬expression in Deut 4:24 is the iteration of the law that organizes social and religious expectations upon settlement in the Promised Land.25 The chapter begins with a command from Moses to the Israelites, instructing them to listen to the law in preparation for settlement, explaining: Now listen Israel to the statutes and judgments that I am about to instruct you to do so that you might live, enter, and possess the land that Yahweh, the God of your fathers, is going to give to you. You will not add to the words that I am about to command you, and you must not take away from it, (but instead you should) keep the commandments, which I am about to command to you, of Yahweh, your God. Your eyes have seen what Yahweh has done at Baal Peor. For every man who followed after Baal Peor, Yahweh, your God, who is present among you, destroyed, and you who held onto Yahweh, your God, are alive today. See, I (now) teach you the 24.  For reference, see Deut 4:23–26; 8:19–20; 11:16–17; 13:12–18; 29:24–28 [25–29]; 30:17–18; Josh 24:14–20; Judg 2:11–15; 2 Kgs 17:7–18. 25.  On the unity of Deut 4:1–40, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–10, 221–23.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

159

statutes and judgments according to which Yahweh, my God, has commanded me in order (for you) to perform (them) in the land that you are about to enter and possess. (Deut 4:1–5) Providing the ground rules for living in the land, the statutes given to the Israel­ites will serve as a code that will maintain their relationship with Yahweh and ensure their survival. The Baal Peor episode is mentioned in order to serve as a reminder of what is at stake for the community if they renege on their relational obligations. The reference to this episode of betrayal situates the sociological and theological concerns of the ‫ אל קנא‬in Deut 4:24. As discussed, the Baal Peor episode deals not only with theological concerns but also sociological ones where disruption to the social cohesion of the community also puts the sacrality of the divine domain at risk for contamination and disruption. After provoking divine ‫קנאה‬, the issue is resolved when Phinehas fulfills the demands necessitated by Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬through punishing the social and religious offenders. After reminding the Israelites that the present community exists only because of their unwavering commitment to Yahweh after the Baal Peor incident, the passage continues to elaborate on the unique characteristics of Israel’s relationship with Yahweh by comparing it to the kind of divine–human arrangements other nations have with their gods, explaining, “For what great nation has God near . . . whenever we call him?” (v. 7). This statement establishes the dichotomy between the Israelite and foreign communities at the theological level, while at the same time alluding to a kind of social contract between a god and nation. As in Deut 32, the relationship is understood in reciprocal terms. Yahweh favors Israel over others, elected it as especially his, and bestows benefits to this people if the terms of his relationship with them are maintained. Thus, the proximity and availability of Yahweh to the Israelite community is considered to be unprecedented by the author. Not only is the uniqueness of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel emphasized, but so is the uniqueness and unparalleled virtue of the law (‫ )תורה‬that is to be observed in the land (Deut 4:8). The passage continues to outline the basic expectations of this law, which includes a ban on the worship of foreign gods and an outright ban of idol worship, whether the images represent foreign gods or Yahweh himself. In addition to reiterating the law, Deut 4 also warns of the consequences of breaking the law. Deuteronomy 4:25–40 has often been interpreted as an allusion to the destruction of Judah and the exile of its people.26 In the theological explanation presented in the passage, these historical events 26.  Mayes, “Deuteronomy 4,” 27.

160

Jealousy in Context

resulted from the provocation (‫ )כעס‬of the ‫אל קנא‬.27 Whereas vv. 20–25 seem to emphasize the threat of a ‫ קנאה‬response resulting from inappropriate behavior, vv. 25–40 appear to focus on a future time when Yahweh demonstrates forgiveness and compassion after seeking compensation for their violations.28 The presence of these themes and the allusion to exile is why Deut 4 is traditionally attributed to a late redaction layer of the Deuteronomistic History. The Relationship Between ‫ אל קנא‬and Idolatry In our discussion of the ‫ אל קנא‬passages, we have noted that the prohibitions regarding inclusive worship classify cultic betrayal as the worship of rival or foreign deities, which may include maintaining the cult of a god’s idol. In Deut 4:15–19, Israel is instructed to guard themselves from creating idols or images, although unlike the other references we have seen, which refer to the ban of foreign deities, this prohibition appears to deal directly with the ban on iconographic images of Yahweh. The passage argues that Yahweh did not appear before Moses in any form when he communicated to him through the fire at Horeb (v. 5). It follows that creating an image of Yahweh would be a distortion and create “corruption” (‫ )שׁחת‬among themselves (vv. 16, 25). The justification for this command is also an implied threat: “For Yahweh your God is a devouring fire (‫ש אכלה‬ ׁ ‫)א‬, he is an ‫( ”אל קנא‬v. 24).29 As discussed in chapter 4, ‫ קנאה‬scenarios involving Yahweh often coincide with issues of corruption and distortion of religious and social order. In our study of ‫אל קנא‬, there are general references to the ban on idolatry in our passages, but these texts associated idolatry with the worship of foreign gods. In such cases, it is more obvious why a ban on idolatry would be an issue of exclusivity. Yet in Deut 4, the ban on images categorically extends to images of Yahweh himself, and by situating the ‫ אל קנא‬expression in this context the authors apply ‫קנאה‬ to their current (exilic) understanding of images. Prior to the exile, it is likely that Yahweh was represented aniconically in ancient Israelite cultic practices. However, aniconism may have become stricter and more programmatic during the period of exile when the Judeans living in Babylonia were met with diverse representations of deity from non-Judeans, whether such representations were

27.  For the pairing of ‫ קנא‬and ‫כעס‬, see Deut 32:16, 24 and discussion in chapter 4. 28.  Note chiastic structure between v. 24, “For Yahweh, your God, is a consuming fire, an ‫אל קנא‬,” and v. 31, “For a compassionate god (‫ )אל רחום‬is Yahweh, your God.” 29.  For Yahweh as a devouring fire, see Deut 9:3 and Exod 24:17. In Deut 6:15, Yahweh’s selfidentification as an ‫ אל קנא‬is followed by the threat of fiery destruction. More explicitly, Deut 29:19 states that Yahweh’s burning ‫ קנאה‬will destroy any who commit apostasy.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

161

symbolic or explicitly iconic.30 Thus, in this literary representation presented by our Deuteronomistic author, the mandate of aniconism therefore becomes a ‫ קנאה‬issue. The use of ‫ קנאה‬in these contexts is consistent with other developments in religious thought at this time. First, we should briefly consider the way idolatry is generally framed in the legal and prophetic material in the Hebrew Bible. When the practice of idolatry is mentioned in this material, it is almost always associated with foreign worship and cults. More specifically, idolatry is associated with otherness and is categorized as eminently non-Israelite in much of the legal, Deuteronomistic, and prophetic material in the Hebrew Bible.31 While this may establish a theological distinction, it also creates a sociological delineation by establishing a dichotomy between alien and authentic worship. Authentic worship maintains Israel’s relationship with Yahweh but also confirms the distinctiveness of both deity and people. The desire to maintain a social distinction may have been why programmatic aniconism is adapted and expanded in the legal and prophetic material. It is possible that this negative understanding of idolatry would naturally progress and expand from representations of foreign gods to representations of any and all gods, including Yahweh.32 Iconographic and symbolic representations of deity were fundamental aspects of Mesopotamian religions, and if Deut 4 originates in the context of exile, the emphasis on programmatic aniconism betrays the sociological concerns of the author.33 The exile posed a variety of threats to maintaining the social integrity of the remnant Judean community. From the perspective of these exilic redactors and authors, image worship represented an inauthentic form of Yahwism and was indicative of assimilation with the foreigners with whom the exiles found themselves cohabiting. In order to maintain its distinctiveness, the community living in exile was to refrain from any form of idol worship.34 The rhetoric of many of these texts dealing with aniconism involves explaining the consequences of 30.  Tryggve N. D. Mettinger identifies programmatic aniconism as worship without the use of iconic symbols, whether anthropomorphic or theriomorphic (No Graven Image, 18). 31.  See, for example, Exod 20:3–6//Deut 5:7–10; Lev 19:4; Deut 7:25–26; 27:15; 1 Sam 15:23; Isa 2:6–22; 42:17; 44:9–20; 45:20; 57:1–13; Jer 7:18; 8:19; 10:3–16; 16:20; 51:17; Ezek 6:1–14; 8:3–5; 14:1–14; 16:17; 20:31; Dan 5:23; Hos 11:2; Mic 5:13; Hab 2:18–19. In biblical passages outside of the legal and prophetic material, the representation of iconism is more varied, providing a more complex picture of the practice of idol worship in ancient Israel (Gen 31:30–35; Judg 17–18; 1 Kgs 11:5–8; 15:12–13; 16:32–33; 2 Kgs 3:2; 21:1–7). 32.  For a detailed discussion of this topic, see Feder, “Aniconic Tradition,” 271. 33.  For a nuanced approach to symbolic (nonanthropomorphic, nontheriomorphic) representations of deity in Mesopotamian religions, see Ornan, Triumph of the Symbol, 41–59, 109–32. 34.  Feder, “Aniconic Tradition,” 268.

162

Jealousy in Context

idolatry and using it as a means of justifying the collapse of the nation, the loss of the land, and exile. The broader goal of these passages was to strengthen the social and religious cohesion of the Israelites.35 Similarly, Deut 4 adapts the message in the Decalogue, which represents the practice of idolatry as a foreign custom that violates the requirement of exclusivity, to a prohibition against iconism in general. Moreover, Deut 4:19–21 provides the basis for the understanding that iconism betrays the natural allotment between deities and people: And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array (‫)כל צבא הׁשמים‬36—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things Yahweh, your God, has allotted (‫ )חלק‬to all the peoples under the entirety of heaven. But as for you, Yahweh took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his estate (‫)נחלה‬, as you now are. (Deut 4:19–20) The allotment of nations to different gods described in Deut 32 is said to have been overseen by Elyon. However, Deut 4:19 positions Yahweh in the role of distributor, who portioned the divine beings to various nations. While Yahweh delegated rule of the nations to these other hosts, he established his sole authority over Israel, confirming the Israelites as his, while also bestowing them the land as an ‫ עם נחלה‬after delivering them from the Egyptians and presenting them with a legally binding contract (‫( )ברית‬vv. 20–23).37 The natural allotment of the gods requires that Israel practice authentic Yahwism, which (from the Deuteronomic perspective) is identified as the sole veneration of Yahweh, while the worship and veneration of other celestial and divine entities are assigned to other peoples. Yahweh choses Israel as his personal ‫נחלה‬, reserving the other major component of his ‫נחלה‬, Canaan, for their occupation (vv. 20–21). After informing the people that they will enter and possess the land, Moses warns the Israelites to guard themselves so that they do not forget the contract established between themselves and Yahweh, namely the command against creating images and worshiping other gods (v. 23). Worshiping gods not assigned to 35.  See, for example, the so-called idol parodies in Isaiah, which are thought to provide a literary confrontation to Babylonian culture (Levtow, Images of Others, 57–71). 36.  The celestial bodies referenced in these verses are viewed as divine (Deut 17:3; 1 Kgs 22:19 [= 2 Chr 18:18]; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3–5 [= 2 Chr 33:3–5]; 23:4–5; Neh 9:6; Isa 34:4; Jer 8:2; 19:13; 33:22; Dan 8:10–11; Zeph 1:5). 37.  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 490. The “covenant” (‫ )ברית‬here may refer to the terms agreed upon at Sinai, as explained in Exod 20, or, more broadly, as the Deuteronomic covenant, which emphasizes fidelity in the land.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

163

the people implies that such behavior goes against the proper order of the world, creating a situation in which corruption and chaos manifest: After you have produced children and grandchildren and have been in the land a long time, if you become corrupt (‫ )השׁחת‬and make an image of any kind and do other evil things before Yahweh your God that enrage him: I will invoke heaven and earth as witnesses against you today so that you will surely and swiftly be removed from the very land you are about to cross the Jordan to possess. You will not last long there because you will be annihilated. (Deut 4:25–26) By creating images, the people foster corruption that distorts the world order established by Yahweh. As we saw in our discussion of Deut 32:5, ‫ ׁשחת‬is used to describe intolerable behavior of the settled Israelites that threatens the social and cultic integrity of the community. In our passage, ‫ ׁשחת‬specifically relates to behavior that betrays the terms of exclusivity in the divine–human arrangement. Similarly, the ‫קנאה‬-provoking idols in Ezek 8:3, 5 corrupt the sanctuary and land so that it becomes inhospitable to the divine presence and the people are removed. Deuteronomy 4 warns against the practice of iconic worship as it goes against the requirements of the ‫אל קנא‬. Thus, in these passages, image worship has important ramifications for Israelite society since it risks blurring the lines between legitimate and illegitimate forms of Yahwistic worship. The juridical and performative role of the ‫ אל קנא‬in the Deut 4 is implied. The Israelites are identified as Yahweh’s possession or ‫נחלה‬, and because of this the people are obligated to obey the conditions of their pact while occupying the land given to them as a personal possession or ‫נחלה‬. Any breach of these obligations could result in a justifiable reaction that might impact their livelihood and possession of the land. At the same time, the author leaves room for reconciliation with the ‫אל קנא‬, who is also identified as a merciful god (‫)אל רחום‬ later in the passage (v. 31). The author explains that during the period of exile from the land, when the people will worship idols who do not see or hear, the Israelites will seek out Yahweh and he will remember his relationship with them and will liberate them as he did before (vv. 25–31). It is during this time that the divine–human relationship will be reestablished according to the law and the people will repossess the land.

‫ אל קנא‬in Joshua 24:19 The ‫ אל קנוא‬passage in Josh 24:19 provides a mixture of themes that we have discussed thus far. In particular, the epithet is explicitly linked with holiness

164

Jealousy in Context

language and sacred boundaries.38 The narrative context in Josh 24 reflects a period of time after the Promised Land has been conquered and the tribal units are about to take up settlement in their designated territories. Joshua gathers all the leaders of Israel to Shechem and has them stand before the Israelite deity in order to renew the contract between the Israelites and Yahweh and reiterate the obligations of exclusivity in the divine–human arrangement. While recounting the noteworthy events of their history (vv. 1–13), Yahweh emphasizes that the ancestors “who lived across the river” (presumably in Mesopotamia) had worshipped other gods; after Yahweh took Abraham and guided him and his progeny through the land of Canaan, the patriarch formed a bond of exclusivity with the Israelite deity (vv. 3–4). By intervening on behalf of the Israelites during important periods of its history, Yahweh established himself as their divine patron (vv. 5–7).39 Most significantly, Yahweh notes his presence during their conquest of Canaan, which ensured their victory against the inhabitants of the land so that they might possess the territory (vv. 8–12). The passage emphasizes that it was not by their own hands that they possess the land but through Yahweh’s will, declaring that Yahweh “gave you land on which you had not toiled; cities that you had not built, and you lived in them; you are eating the produce of vineyards and olive groves you did not plant” (v. 13). Though their ancestors may have worshipped other gods from distant lands while living outside of Canaan, Israel is now about to settle in the land allocated to them by Yahweh and so must observe religious exclusivity (v. 14). Thus, the main thrust of the passage is the injunction against the presence and worship of competing gods (vv. 14–15, 19–24). Joshua tells the people to choose Yahweh or these other gods, among whom include the gods of the recently expelled locals. Joshua rouses the leaders to establish their loyalty to Yahweh through impassioned rhetoric, including the reminder that Yahweh is an ‫אל קנוא‬ whose holiness requires exclusive loyalty. The passage states: Then Joshua said to the people, “You cannot serve Yahweh for he is a holy god (‫)אלהים קדׁשים‬, he is an ‫ ;אל קנוא‬he will not absolve your transgressions or your sins. If you forsake Yahweh and serve foreign (‫ )נכר‬gods, he will turn and do you harm and destroy you after having done good to you.” Then the people said to Joshua, “No! We will serve Yahweh!” Joshua 38.  For the theological significance of the ‫ אל קנא‬in Josh 24 and the relationship between Yahweh’s “holiness and “jealousy” in ancient Israelite religion, see Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:209–10; Butler, Joshua, 274–75; Preuss, Old Testament Theology, 1:240–41; von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:203–12. 39.  Other recitals of Yahweh’s intervention by covenant ceremonies are reflected in Exod 19:3–6 and Deut 6:20–25; 26:5–9.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

165

responded to the people, “You are witness (‫ )עדים‬against yourselves that you have chosen for yourselves to serve Yahweh.” They replied, “[We are] witnesses.” [Joshua instructed,] “Now remove the foreign gods that are in your presence (‫ )בקרבכם‬and turn your heart to Yahweh, God of Israel.” Then the people said to Joshua, “We (hereby) serve Yahweh, our God, and listen to his voice.” So Joshua arranged a binding contract (‫ )ברית‬with the people on that day and made statutes and judgments for them at Shechem. Then Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God and took a great stone and set it up there under the oak that was in the holy sanctuary of Yahweh. Joshua said to all the people, “Now see, this stone has become a witness against us for it has heard all the words of Yahweh that he spoke to us; it shall be a witness against you lest you disavow your God.” Joshua sent the people away, each to their estate (‫)נחלה‬. (Josh 24:19–28)40 In biblical scholarship, there is much discussion regarding how Josh 24:19–24 structures the Deuteronomistic History’s presentation of a monotheistic and monolatrous theology.41 A systematic evaluation of the adaptation of older religious vocabulary to the agenda of Deuteronomistic theology is outside the purview of this survey. Instead, what we will focus on is the sociological implications reflected in the passage. Important terminology used in this passage is borrowed from the legal realm (‫עדים‬, ‫ברית‬, ‫)נחלה‬, and the relational obligations are iterated in front of the tribes and their social, political, and juridical leaders (v. 1). Like witnesses in the court of law, Israel’s vow to serve Yahweh and remove other gods will testify against them in the divine court if they ever breach their contract. This is attributed to his identity as an ‫ אל קנוא‬in v. 19: if betrayed, Yahweh will invoke his rights as their divine patron, one might say his ‫ קנאה‬rights, and hold Israel accountable. The sociological situation presented in Josh 24 is very similar to the ‫קנאה‬ issue presented in Num 5:11–31. A man brings his wife before a cultic official, the priest, in order to address a concern that could potentially threaten his rights and honor as a husband, and in particular, his rights of exclusivity with regard to his wife and marital property. In Josh 24, Yahweh makes arrangements with 40.  For a discussion of the rhetorical strategy of Joshua’s argument, see Butler, Joshua, 274–75. 41.  Scholarship on Josh 24 is immense. For the purposes of simplicity, the presentation here follows the understanding that the material in Joshua should be classified as part of DtrH. See, for example, Soggin, Joshua, 23; Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 23; Nelson, Double Redaction, 95. Josh 24:1–25 is treated here as a unified, structural composition (Giblin, “Structural Patterns in Jos 24, 1–25,” 69). Although, see van Seters, “Deuteronomist from Joshua to Samuel,” 214–20; Sperling, “Joshua 24 Re-examined,” 240–58. On Joshua being an independent composition apart from the DtrH, see more recently Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 18–32, although compare with Nihan, “Literary Relationship,” 80–83.

166

Jealousy in Context

the Israelites in order for them to dwell in his midst and in his land, but this relational agreement is contingent on certain conditions being met; namely, that no other gods be worshipped in this territory as such behavior would risk alienating the Israelite deity from his estate. Yahweh alone maintains exclusive benefits from his relationship with Israel. The territory of Canaan was conquered by Yahweh, securing honor for his name, and it is thus his right to determine the conditions for its bestowal as Israel’s estate. Joshua commands the removal of foreign gods from the “presence” (‫)בקרבכם‬ of the Israelites, which alludes to the physical presence of foreign idols (v. 23). This brings us to another important point. Yahweh’s expression of ‫ קנאה‬is tied with his expression of his “holiness” (‫ )קדוׁש‬in Josh 24:19. The topic of biblical holiness and its ascription to Yahweh is extensive, but divine holiness basically indicates something separate from the ordinary and the profane. Thus, holiness can be seen as a means of organizing relationships within a society.42 In ancient Israelite religion, holiness is sustained through the regulation of rituals that seek to sanctify the cult and the divine abode in order to safeguard them from violation and corruption.43 Moreover, Yahweh’s holiness is a reflection of his reputation and status, and anything done to diminish that status is deemed threatening to the divine presence. Since Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is also an expression of his status, the two concepts are intertwined. In Josh 24, holiness deals with exclusivity with regard to the safeguarding of the divine presence and the sacrality of the land; the Israelite tribes are about to cross into the sacred boundaries of this territory, and so it is certainly significant that the covenant ceremony takes place right before this transition in order to reiterate their obligations to their divine patron. Yahweh, as a holy god, must be set apart from all that is profane, which includes the presence of foreign idols. The maintenance of the holy presence of Yahweh is especially important in spaces designated for Yahweh. We see this, for example, in Gen 35.44 When Jacob is about to approach Yahweh in worship at Bethel, he commands his household to remove the foreign gods among them (v. 2). After the house of Jacob purifies itself and changes clothing, Jacob constructs an altar for Yahweh at the cultic site and petitions the deity (vv. 3–7). In Josh 24, the command to remove foreign gods that are currently “in [their] presence” is meant in a locative sense, but the main issue here is

42.  For a brief summary of biblical holiness, see D. P. Wright, “Holiness (OT),” ABD 3:237–49. 43.  Ringgren, Prophetic Conception, 13. 44.  On Josh 24 being based on the prolepsis in Gen 35, which also deals with the motif of gods that the forefathers had worshiped when living beyond the Euphrates, see Blum, “Literary Connection,” 102–5.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

167

not necessarily between aniconic and iconographic cultic practices. Instead, Joshua employs social and legal rhetoric in order to stress the requirement of relational exclusivity in the divine–human contract to the community leaders and connects this obligation with the settlement of the land of Canaan. In the ancient Near East, images of deities were viewed as the physical manifestations of the divine and presented a means by which supplicants could direct their worship.45 If the author of Josh 24 subscribed to this view or was even aware of it, as is likely the case, then removing cultic images also removes the presence of rival deities who might compromise the holiness of the Israelite deity. We saw similar use of ‫ קנאה‬in Ezek 39:25, where Yahweh demonstrates ‫ קנאה‬in order to preserve his holy name (‫ )וקנאתי לׁשם קדׁשי‬and reputation as the patron deity of Israel. By pledging their allegiance in v. 24, the tribes of Israel are committing themselves to Yahweh entirely and exclusively. While their ancestors may have worshipped the gods of other nations outside of the divine estate, or ‫נחלה‬, the historical situation reflected in Josh 24 has changed and the people are now about to dwell in the land granted to them by Yahweh, who, as an ‫אל קנוא‬, demands complete loyalty. This command is directly tied with the promise of land in Josh 24:18, which explains that Yahweh has established a grant of land to the progeny of the Israelite people by driving out the local, non-Israelites who lived in the land before them. Since Yahweh has provided the Israelites landed property to settle and possess, as a kind of feudal gift, the people owe him their allegiance as a fief would a vassal lord. As in the other passages with this epithet, the relational and legal obligations to Yahweh become especially relevant during the period shortly before settlement, when the tribes are about to receive their grants of land and must be on guard for any intrusion to their commitments. Like Jacob in Gen 35, the people must rid themselves of the idols and gods of their ancestors and purify themselves so that the deity can take up residence with them and continue his role as their divine patron.

‫ אל קנא‬in Nahum 1:2 We have now come to the final attestation of the ‫ אל קנא‬epithet, and, unlike the other examples, which largely evoke a juridical character, Nah 1:2 is found in an oracle against the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Nevertheless, the text corresponds with the overall message of the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios discussed thus far and deals with

45.  Niehr, “In Search of yhwh’s Cult Statue,” 76–78, with references.

168

Jealousy in Context

similar themes concerning divine honor and land. However, rather than focus on issues of religious betrayal, the oracle uses the epithet in order to underline Yahweh’s resolve in the face of foreign adversaries and adapts ‫ אל קנא‬language: Yahweh is a ‫ קנוא‬and avenging )‫ (נקם‬god, Yahweh is avenging and the full of wrath (‫)חמה‬, Yahweh executes vengeance (‫ )נקם‬against his adversaries, And he maintains (his anger) against his enemies. (Nah 1:2) The passage is situated in a series of prophecies against Nineveh (Nah 1–3). As the capital of the Assyrian Empire, the city is a general representation of a foreign adversary who threatens to invade and conquer the land. Traditionally, scholarship has dated this oracle to the reign of Josiah, coinciding with his religious reforms (622–609 BCE).46 The prophetic message involves affirmation of the impending fall of Nineveh in juxtaposition to exhortations of Yahweh’s power and might against the foreign threat. The text serves as a reminder of Yahweh’s commitment to Israel and a testament to his reputation as a god who will take vengeance against those who threaten his sovereignty. This commitment will be demonstrated through the eradication of the enemy and the safeguarding of Judah. In chapter 3, we examined the use of ‫“( נקם‬to execute vengeance”) in juxtaposition with ‫ קנאה‬to describe the justified reaction of a husband who seeks compensation against a man who has slept with the husband’s wife (Prov 6:34–35). The two expressions represent the socially sanctioned protection of the husband’s rights of control. In Isa 59:17, Yahweh wears ‫ נקם‬and ‫ קנאה‬as clothing when he faces his adversaries in battle. In the majority of attestations of the verbal root ‫נקם‬, Yahweh is the subject of this expression; in the Hebrew Bible, ‫ נקם‬expressed by Yahweh is a legitimate and appropriate prerogative and is often employed as an instrument for the purpose of administering justice.47 It is therefore a means by which Yahweh asserts his sovereignty.48 In the case of Nah 1:2, both ‫ קנאה‬and ‫ נקם‬are incited by overt acts of hostility by foreign adversaries who threaten the deity’s relationship with Israel and Yahweh’s sovereignty over his domain. The prophet anticipates that Yahweh will drive out his enemies and “break off [Nineveh’s] yoke and snap the bonds that bind [Judah]” (v. 13), destroying the reputation of his adversaries, demolishing their 46.  K. Cathcart, “Nahum, Book of,” ABD 4:998–99; Spronk, Nahum, 10–13. 47.  For citations and discussion, see Peels, Vengeance of God, 275–95. 48.  Ibid., 276.

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

169

deities and places of worship, and restoring stability in Judah. Most importantly, after these events the people are able once again to fulfill their obligations to Yahweh: Yahweh has commanded concerning you [Nineveh], Your name will no longer be perpetuated; From the house of your God I will cut off The carved and cast image. I will set your grave because you are worthless. Look! On the mountains Are the feet of one who brings good tidings, Who proclaims peace! Celebrate your festivals, Judah, And fulfill your vows, For never again will the wicked invade you; They are totally cut off. (Nah 1:14–2:1 [1:15]) Our passage in Nahum bears more resemblance to the ‫ קנאה‬scenarios from Ezekiel, Ps 79, and Zechariah than our case studies of divine ‫ קנאה‬from Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. Here, the author adapts ‫ אל קנא‬language from the cultic-legal material in order to qualify divine behavior. Divine ‫ קנאה‬is associated with persistent behavior that is expressed through judgment and action, expelling those who provoke Yahweh by threatening the exclusivity of Yahweh’s relationship with his estate and people. Yahweh therefore exhibits appropriate behavior fitting for a lord who protects his vassal.49

The Script of an ‫ אל קנא‬Scenario Unlike our other ‫ קנאה‬scenarios, the ‫ אל קנא‬passages do not describe a scenario but rather a core characteristic of the Israelite deity. Nevertheless, we can construct a situation in which the ‫ קנאה‬of the ‫ אל קנא‬would be provoked.

49.  In particular, Nah 1:7 explains that Yahweh will “know” (‫ )ידע‬those who seek refuge in him. To “know” (‫ )ידע‬someone in the context of vassal treaties in the ancient Near East refers to the suzerain recognizing his treaty obligations regarding the protection of his vassal from external threats and invasion. For example, in the Amarna letters Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru petitions for Egyptian protection with the phrase “May the king know me” (EA 60: 30–32). For more examples, see Huffmon, “Treaty Background”; Huffmon and Parker, “Further Note.”

Sacrality of the divine presence is maintained through the integrity of the cult via exclusive worship and the social integrity of the Israelite community.

The ‫ קנאה‬of the ‫אל קנא‬

Expectation

Threats to the integrity of the divine domain through inclusive worship or relational interlopers.

Motivation

Table 6: Script of an ‫ אל קנא‬scenario

Yahweh will act out against those who disrupt the integrity of his domain or he will maintain fidelity with those who uphold sanctity of domain.

Reaction

Yahweh will be appeased only by holding those who threaten his status and domain accountable.

Outcome

Sociotheological conflict based on the formal relationship and expectations established between a divine patron and his people.

Framework

170 Jealousy in Context

Yahweh as ‫אל קנא‬

171

Issues of land, sacrality, divine presence, and status appear as fundamental triggers for Yahweh’s ‫קנאה‬. As we can see in the above chart, what we have in these passages is the literary representation of a sociotheological situation in which a type of god, understood as the ‫אל קנא‬, is expected to behave a certain way when threats against his domain manifest.

Conclusion Our examination of the ‫ אל קנא‬demonstrates the sociological undertones of this theological expression. At a fundamental level, the requirements of the ‫אל קנא‬ underpin the obligation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship and set the tone for authentic Yahwistic worship and the nature of the formal arrangement made between god and people. Yahweh is a deity that will react to disloyalty or threats to his sovereignty with intolerance. At the same time, Yahweh demonstrates loyalty to those who uphold their obligations and maintain the integrity of his domain. While the epithet does derive from the social realm, the root of this inspiration will not be found in the sexual jealousy a husband feels toward his wife or her lover. Instead, it derives from the sociojuridical sphere, where people in a community have rights afforded to them as members of a society. As divine patron of Israel, Yahweh has rights as the sovereign deity over his estate. Just as a wife risks alienating family property through adultery, Israel risks alienating Yahweh’s domain by maintaining the cults of other deities or by adopting the cultural norms of non-Israelite communities. The divine holdings must be exclusively maintained by the Israelites, and the Israelites must commit themselves to upholding the sacred habitation. The obligation of exclusivity in the biblical representation of ancient Israelite religion is therefore framed by expectations that maintain social cohesion and integrity.

Conclusion

‫ קנאה‬and Jealousy: The Prototypical Scenario Through our discussions of various case studies of biblical ‫ קנאה‬in literary, cultic-legal, and prophetic material, we have demonstrated how contextualizing the social concerns represented in these texts leads to a deeper understanding of the term. A more precise understanding of ‫ קנאה‬has led to a more complex appreciation of the broader social and juridical connotations of the biblical passages in which the term appears. Our discussions also established the need for interpreters to be sensitive to the social context and cultural system in which an emotion concept is embedded and show the dangers of imposing our modern understandings of the words we use to translate ‫ קנאה‬and its related forms onto ancient vocabulary. Our modern words (“jealousy,” etc.) typically have their own unique semantic histories.1 The nuances of meaning that these modern words may acquire from their own histories are not directly relevant to the meaning of the ancient words we use them to translate, so that imposing these nuances on our analysis of the ancient language can lead to misrepresentation. The principal and most challenging task for our investigation has been to analyze ‫ קנאה‬on the basis of 1.  Historical data on the synchronic development of jealousy concepts support this statement. Peter Stearns traces the changing perceptions of Euro-American jealousy in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, noting that as attitudes toward sex, marriage, and property relationships changed, the understanding of jealousy as being a potentially beneficial expression for relational unity was abandoned (Stearns, Jealousy, 192). Increasing its reputation as an offensive emotion was the relatively recent phenomenon of using jealousy as a synonym for envy. However, jealousy and zeal, despite sharing the same etymological background, were differentiated. Until the eighteenth century, the two were used interchangeably but as attitudes toward jealousy changed, zeal was understood as a more productive and legitimate emotion concept than jealousy (ibid., 1, 15). Similarly, sociologist Gordon Clanton argues that “the recent history of jealousy in the United States reveals that jealousy changes as society changes” (“Sociology of Jealousy,” 172). Based on this research, we may conclude that whether or not the emotion concept of jealousy is perceived as an appropriate or sanctioned expression is dependent upon social and behavioral norms of a given society.

172

Conclusion

173

its own ancient linguistic and social histories. What we have discovered is that ‫ קנאה‬was an important term in the vocabulary of the social and economic system of the ancient Israelites. In a prototypical scenario, ‫ קנאה‬referred to the reactions and attitudes that characteristically arose when that system experienced stress caused by events that challenged fundamental principles of that system. These fundamental principles were those that had to do with the rights and expectations of individuals, especially with regard to economic organization, to affiliations based on kinship and interpersonal alliances, and to political arrangements at various levels. When such rights and expectations seemed violated or threatened in this organization, especially when the violation involved the unjustified transfer of such rights to someone else, the offended individual(s) reacted in a way that arose from and was largely determined by certain prescriptions and customs inherent in the system that are described above as its fundamental principles. These individuals were said to have experienced ‫קנאה‬, an attitude sanctioned by social structures, which thus provided the justification both of the reaction itself and the behavior arising from the reaction. As commonly understood, the emotion of jealousy is a characteristic and predictable component of the response to situations in which ‫ קנאה‬arises, since offended individuals typically claim that certain rights and expectations, to which they consider themselves entitled, have been transferred to someone else. For this reason, the translation of ‫ קנאה‬and its related terminology into the languages of later peoples into whose culture the Hebrew literature of the ancient Israelites was absorbed and adopted typically drew on the vocabulary of jealousy. In many respects, this was a natural and valid choice. Individuals reacting to situations in which ‫ קנאה‬arose because rights or expectations belonging to them by law or social custom were abrogated by or transferred to someone else can easily be expected to have experienced jealousy. However, jealousy as a description of the feelings, disposition, or state of mind is not by itself adequate to convey all the important aspects the phenomenon to which ‫ קנאה‬refers in the social and economic organization of ancient Israel.2 2.  Although we may not come to an exact equivalence that represents how ‫ קנאה‬is conceptually organized and socially structured in the Hebrew Bible, rejecting any attempt to find an English approximation may be reductive. Having a translation to supplement our understanding of this ancient Israelite concept is possible if the approximations proposed are explicitly defined. For example, we could propose that jealousy and/or zeal are appropriate approximations. Research conducted by Ralph Hupka on cross-cultural expressions of jealousy demonstrates that social, economic, and legal values determine the extent to which a jealousy situation is identified, as well as the character and severity of the jealousy response (Hupka, “Cultural Determinants,” 311). The cultural values that determine expressions of romantic jealousy involve attitudes toward pair bonding, property, personal descendants, and sex. According to his findings, in its most basic sense jealousy is some kind of response (emotional, behavioral, cognitive, etc.) triggered by an event that potentially threatens culturally determined values maintained by a relationship or community; the expression of jealousy in these situations aims to protect those values (Hupka, “Motive,” 263–65). In many European

174

Jealousy in Context

A Summary of Biblical ‫ קנאה‬as a Socioliterary Phenomenon The approach adopted in this study, which emphasized the social content of emotion language, assisted in determining what information is communicated in ancient Israelite literature when something or someone is described as experiencing ‫קנאה‬. The point of this approach was not to ignore the internal implications of emotions but to avoid prioritizing them, as studies of ‫ קנאה‬in the past have done. By highlighting the role of culture, we clarified how certain emotion vocabularies were used to communicate beliefs, values, social roles, and expectations of a culture. Our contextualization of the passages under study played a critical role in demonstrating how ‫ קנאה‬was used as a kind of discourse to communicate ancient Israelite worldviews concerning social, economic, and legal justice within the world of the biblical text. Instead of overlapping our modern notions of the emotions, particularly jealousy and envy, onto ‫קנאה‬, we framed our understanding of ‫ קנאה‬as primarily an ancient Israelite phenomenon. In our analysis of ‫ קנאה‬in Genesis and Num 5:11–31 we discovered that when one is subject to ‫ קנאה‬he or she is processing the self in relation to the community. In particular, we reoriented our understanding of ‫ קנאה‬through the lens of social contracts and emphasized the understudied social contexts of the passages. In Genesis, ‫ קנאה‬involved the suspicion of a breakdown in the social expectations of a household or community. The ‫ קנאה‬in Gen 26:14 reflected the concerns of a community who suspected the unnatural accumulation of wealth by a nonnative resident. In Gen 30:1, Rachel’s ‫ קנאה‬represented the primary wife’s concern that her power in the household was being threatened by the second wife. The ‫ קנאה‬of the brothers in Gen 37:11 characterized the disruption of the norms of primogeniture in a household. In these contexts, ‫ קנאה‬was identified as an expression grounded in practical and justifiable social and economic concerns relating to the legal rights of members of a community. Finally, the law of ‫ קנאה‬in Num 5:11–31 protected the personal concerns of a husband whose rights of control were threatened but in the broader context of the book of Numbers also circumvented the cultic and social disruption that suspected adultery could bring upon the Israelite community. Moreover, rather than being an internal state, the ‫ קנאה‬in the passages examined involved a significant behavioral component, and this behavioral reaction often aimed to resolve or address the trigger event. and American courts in the eighteenth century, jealousy received “institutional legitimization” for its expression as a legal outlet, implying that jealousy, in certain forms, was seen as a legitimate response to interlopers (Stearns, Jealousy, 16–17). This appears to cover some of the semantic range and values of biblical ‫קנאה‬. However, using jealousy/zeal as an approximation for ‫ קנאה‬is imperfect since many of these examples only apply to “conjugal” or “sexual” jealousy, rather than other types of jealousy that may be experienced in different social dynamics.

Conclusion

175

In addition to contributing to our understanding of the broader implications of these passages, we also contextualized perceptions of ancient Israelite religion with respect to divine identity. The connotation of ‫ קנאה‬as a relational term representing social and legal prerogatives was adopted to describe the exclusive relationship between Yahweh, his people, and land. Divine ‫ קנאה‬derived from the sociojuridical sphere, where people in a community had rights afforded to them by members of a society. As divine patron of Israel, Yahweh had rights as the sovereign deity over his estate. Through our analysis of Deut 32:16, 21, we appreciated how biblical authors adopted relational language from the social realm to understand theological ideas regarding divinity and the land. Divine ‫ קנאה‬occurred in situations where the norms of exclusivity, commanded in the cultic-legal material of Exodus and Deuteronomy, are violated and Yahweh’s rights as divine patron of Israel are threatened. Furthermore, according to Israelite cosmogony, Yahweh was legitimately given rights to his estate through a divine allotment, and going against this order disrupted and distorted the natural organization of the cosmic geography. Other instances of divine ‫ קנאה‬in Ezekiel, Ps 79, and Zechariah reflected similar traditions regarding ‫ קנאה‬in their understanding of the historical circumstances the authors were faced with at the end of the monarchy and during the Persian period. The passages also expanded on the idea that Yahweh’s ‫ קנאה‬is experienced not only in situations where there is a betrayal of religious exclusivity but also in situations where Yahweh’s sovereignty over his divine abode is threatened. The social model reflected in the passages analyzed reflected a suzerain– vassal type relationship, whereby the Israelites were allowed to possess and remain in the domain of Yahweh as long as they pledged themselves to a (conditional) cultic-legal contract.3 This model relied on public demonstrations of loyalty in order to maintain the reputation of both deity and people.4 Failure to 3.  These social models are discussed in order to discern relevant patterns in the texts under study. In these texts, we are dealing with ideal social models and not necessarily their practice or how these models were realized in ancient Israelite society. Nevertheless, the proposed models are useful to illuminate similarities and differences among the passages and identify the underlying social phenomena that they all preserve. 4.  Another helpful social model to frame our understanding of the biblical representation of the divine–human relationship is that of the patron and client. The patron-client model involves access to goods that are perceived to be limited (Foster, “Peasant Society,” 296–302). Through this socially binding relationship, the patron provides the client goods to which the client would not otherwise have access. These goods include protection, honor, political advantages, and material benefits, such as land and the right to harvest land, while the client provides the patron with obedience, respect, and honor through demonstrations of loyalty. With the divine–human relationship, we are dealing with land and protection as the primary patron-client flow, while the client-patron flow primarily deals with supporting the interests of the Israelite deity, which may include conferring honor through public sacrifices and rituals that seek to maintain the cult. Jon P. Mitchell describes

176

Jealousy in Context

affirm this relationship potentially disrupted the equilibrium in the community. Ultimately, the self-identification of Yahweh as an ‫ אל קנא‬served to emphasize this requirement, warning against any relational transgression and signaling to those in the relationship that Yahweh is a deity that demands exclusivity as a cultic requirement. In this framework, the land within which the Israelites settled is considered sacred and exclusively Yahweh’s by right, and the Israelites were required to ensure that foreign gods were expelled as a condition of their settlement. Thus, Yahweh’s identification as an ‫ אל קנא‬played an important role in understanding the obligation of exclusivity in the divine–human relationship. It represented Yahweh’s inability to tolerate the presence of competing cults and deities and his demand to the strict adherence of exclusive maintenance of his cult and domain. Moreover, these passages elaborated on the importance of social exclusivity. The Israelites were expected to avoid any formalized relationships with foreigners, who maintained their own cults to their respective deities. As demonstrated in Exod 34, the continued presence and support of the ‫ אל קנא‬necessitated exclusive loyalty of the Israelites both in the cultic and social sphere. The ‫אל קנא‬ characterization of Yahweh therefore represented social and cultic concerns of the Israelite deity regarding his status as divine patron of Israel, outlined the social and religious life of the Israelites, and determined the fundamental tenets of authentic Yahwistic worship as represented in the Hebrew Bible. Finally, by situating divine ‫ קנאה‬in the framework of social and legal concerns, we have clarified the importance of the land in the divine–human relationship and the motivation for relational exclusivity. With regard to expressions of divine ‫קנאה‬, concerns regarding land and property are emphasized as settlement is conditioned upon obedience to the law and, most importantly, the requirement of exclusivity. In these passages, a connection is established between sacrosanct space, the protection of the divine presence, and the provocation of ‫קנאה‬. It is not so much the act of cultic infidelity or idolatry that provokes ‫ קנאה‬but the defiling effect these actions have on Yahweh’s domain. The corruption of his domain was thought to impact divine status (and honor) that is accrued through Yahweh’s position as patron of Israel and potentially results in his estrangement. The divine holdings had to be exclusively maintained by the Israelites, and the system in the following terms: “Generally speaking, patrons are considered politically superior and clients inferior. . . . The basis of the patron-client relationship is the assumption that the patron has, and controls, access to political, economic or cultural resources that the client wants or needs. The means by which the client gains access to them is not through appeals to formal bureaucracy, but by the manipulation of personal relationships and reciprocity. The patron-client relationship is therefore considered to lie on the margin of the state” (“Patrons and Clients,” 627; compare Hobbs, “Reflections on Honor,” 501–3).

Conclusion

177

the Israelites were obligated to uphold the sacred habitation. The obligation of exclusivity in the Hebrew Bible is therefore framed by expectations that maintain social cohesion and integrity.

Final Remarks Outside of this study, biblical ‫ קנאה‬has been framed as a religious and theological issue rather than an issue embedded in social or legal concerns. Our close reading of the social context of the ‫ קנאה‬passages attested in the Hebrew Bible demonstrated that in most cases ‫ קנאה‬is a term used when there is a perceived disruption in social expectations. People or individuals who exhibit ‫ קנאה‬are members of a society who are bound by social and legal rules that protect their status, relationships, possessions, and acquisitions within a community, and the use of this term signaled the suspicion that these rules had been violated. The primary significance of ‫ קנאה‬was a concern for the potential social and legal ramifications of such violations. Furthermore, by clarifying these sociological concerns, various aspects of the divine–human relationship and the obligation of exclusivity commanded in the legal material in the Hebrew Bible have been clarified. It is likely that biblical ‫ קנאה‬was a concept embedded in ancient Israelite social institutions that was adopted as religious terminology in order to characterize the relationship between Yahweh, his people, and his land.

Bibliography

Aartun, Kjell. “Über die Grundstruktur der Nominalbildungen vom Typus qattal/qattol im Althebräischen.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 4 (1975): 1–8. Abu-Lughod, Lila. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Achenbach, Reinhard, Rainer Albertz, and Jakob Wohrle, eds. The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Ackerman, Susan. “The Personal Is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (ʾāhēb, ʾahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible.” VT 52 (2002): 437–58. ———. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. HSM 46. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Albright, William F. “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32.” VT 9 (1959): 339–46. ———. “Zabul Yam and Thapit Nahar in the Combat Between Baal and the Sea.” Journal of Palestine Oriental Society 16 (1936): 17–20. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Dallas: Word, 2018. Alter, Robert. Genesis. New York: Norton, 1996. Ambros, Anne A. “Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte der arabischen Nominalform faʿʿāl (–at).” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 62 (1969): 87–104. Amzallag, Gérard Nissim. “Furnace Remelting as the Expression of yhwh’s Holiness: Evidence from the Meaning of Qannāʾ (‫ )קנא‬in the Divine Context.” JBL 134 (2015): 233–52. Anderson, Gary A. A Time to Mourn, a Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991. Armon-Jones, Claire. “The Thesis of Constructionism.” Pages 32–56 in The Social Construction of Emotions. Edited by Rom Harré. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Aster, Shawn Zelig. The Unbeatable Light: Melammu and Its Biblical Parallels. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 384. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012.

179

180

Bibliography

Averill, James R. Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. New York: Springer, 1982. ———. “A Constructivist View of Emotion.” Pages 305–39 in Emotion: Theory, Research and Experience. Edited by Robert Plutchik and Henry Kellerman. New York: Academic, 1980. ———. “The Social Construction of Emotion: With Special Reference to Love.” Pages 89–109 in The Social Construction of the Person. Edited by Kenneth Gergen and Keith Davis. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985. Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Barrett, Lisa Feldman. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017. Baumgart, Hildegard. Jealousy: Experiences and Solutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming.” JSOT 16 (1991): 47–76. Bedford, Errol. “Emotions and Statements About Them.” Pages 15–31 in The Social Construction of Emotions. Edited by Rom Harré. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. Bell, Catherine M. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Bell, Richard H. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Observations on the Marital Metaphor of yhwh and Israel in Its Ancient Israelite Context: General Considerations and Particular Images in Hosea 1.2.” JSOT 28 (2004): 363–84. Bergey, Ronald. “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?” JSOT 28 (2003): 33–54. Berlin, Adele. Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Berman, Joshua. “Supersessionist or Complementary? Reassessing the Nature of Legal Revision in the Pentateuchal Law Collections.” JBL 135 (2016): 201–22. Bernhardt, Karl-Heinz. Gott und Bild: Ein Beitrag zur Begründung und Deutung des Bilderverbotes im Alten Testament. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1956. Bird, Phyllis. “To Play the Harlot.” Pages 75–94 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Edited by Peggy L. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Baal Peor Episode Revisited (Num 25,1–18).” Bib 93 (2012): 86–97. ———. Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. ———. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.

Bibliography

181

———. “The Decalogue in the Hebrew Scriptures.” Pages 1–27 in The Decalogue Through the Centuries: From the Hebrew Scriptures to Benedict XVI. Edited by Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2012. ———. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1988. ———. “Gog and the Pouring Out of the Spirit: Reflections on Ezekiel 39:21–29.” VT 37 (1987): 257–70. ———. “Gog in Prophetic Tradition: A New Look at Ezekiel XXXVIII:17.” VT 42 (1992): 154–72. Blum, Erhard. “The Literary Connection Between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 89–106 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 34. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2006. Boda, Mark J. “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8.” CBQ 65 (2003): 390–407. Boer, Roland. “The Law of the Jealous Man.” Pages 87–95 in Voyages in Uncharted Waters: Essays on Theory and Practice of Biblical Interpretation in Honor of David Jobling. Edited by Wesley J. Bergen and Armin Siedleck. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Botha, Phil J. “The Poetic Structure and Strategy of Psalm 79.” Verbum et Ecclesia 25 (2004): 357–77. Botta, Alejandro F. “Hated by the Gods and by Your Spouse: Legal Use of ŚNʾ in Elephantine and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Pages 105–28 in Law and Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean: From Antiquity to Early Islam. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn and Reinhard G. Kratz. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Branson, Robert. “The Polyvalent ŚNʾ: An Emotional, Performative, and Covenantal Term.” Biblical Research 52 (2007): 5–15. Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. London: Routledge, 1995. Brichto, Herbert. “The Case of the Sota and a Reconsideration of Biblical Law.” HUCA 46 (1975): 55–70. Briggs, Richard S. “Reading the Sotah Text (Numbers 5:11–31): Holiness and a Hermeneutic Fit for Suspicion.” BibInt 17 (2009): 288–319. Britt, Brian. “Deuteronomy 31–32 as a Textual Memorial.” BibInt 8 (2000): 358–74. ———. “Male Jealousy and the Suspected Sotah: Towards a Counter-Reading of Numbers 5:11–31.” Bible and Critical Theory 3 (2007): 1–19. Brongers, Hendrik A. “Der Eifer des Herrn Zebaoth.” VT 13 (1963): 269–84. Budd, Philip. Numbers. WBC 5. Waco, TX: Word, 1984. Budde, Karl. Das Lied Moses, Deut. 32: Erläutert und übersetzt. Tübingen: Mohr, 1920. Butler, Trent C. Joshua. WBC 7. Waco, TX: Word, 1983. Cairns, Douglas L. “Ethics, Ethology, and Terminology: Iliadic Anger and the CrossCultural Study of Emotion.” Pages 11–49 in Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen. Edited by Susanna Braund and Glenn Most. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

182

Bibliography

———. “Look Both Ways: Studying Emotion in Ancient Greek.” Critical Quarterly 50 (2008): 43–62. Campbell, Antony F. “Psalm 78: A Contribution to the Theology of Tenth Century Israel.” CBQ 41 (1979): 51–79. Campbell, Anthony F., and Mark A. O’Brien. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Carley, Keith W. Ezekiel Among the Prophets: A Study of Ezekiel’s Place in Prophetic Tradition. London: SCM, 1975. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. ———. “The Prophet Hosea and the Books of the Pentateuch.” Pages 79–100 in vol. 1 of Biblical and Oriental Studies. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973. Cazelles, Henri. “L’alliance du Sinai en Ex. 34.” Pages 57–68 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor. Edited by A. Caquot, S. Lègasse, and M. Tardieu. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 215. Kevelaer Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. Chance, John K. “The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values, and Practice.” Semeia 68 (1994): 139–51. Chapman, Cynthia Ruth. The House of the Mother: The Social Roles of Maternal Kin in Biblical Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016. Civil, Miguel. “Ninmešarra 90 and qinû ‘Jealousy, Anger.’ ” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 59 (1990): 44–45. Clanton, Gordon. “Jealousy and Envy.” Pages 410–42 in Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions. Edited by Jan Stets and Jonathan H. Turner. Boston: Springer, 2007. ———. “A Sociology of Jealousy.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 16 (1996): 171–89. Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965. Clifford. Proverbs: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Coats, George W. “The Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom: A Reappraisal.” CBQ 35 (1973): 285–97. ———. “Redactional Unity in Genesis 37–50.” JBL 93 (1974): 15–21. Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2001. ———. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. SBLMS 19. Missoula, MT: SBL Press, 1974. Collins, John. “The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence.” JBL 122 (2003): 3–21. Coogan, Michael David. The Ten Commandments: A Short History of an Ancient Text. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. Cooke, Gerald B. “Sons of the God(s).” ZAW 76 (1964): 22–47. Cornill, Carl Heinrich. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Freiburg: Mohr, 1891. Corrigan, John. “Introduction: The Study of Religion and Emotion.” Pages 3–16 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion. Edited by John Corrigan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Bibliography

183

Cranz, Isabel. “Magic and Maledictions: Zechariah 5,1–4 in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” ZAW 128 (2016): 404–18. Cross, Frank Moore. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. ———. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 274–89 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Crouch, Carly. Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion. Ancient Near East Monograph Series 8. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. ———. “The Threat to Israel’s Identity in Deuteronomy: Mesopotamian or Levantine?” ZAW 124 (2012): 541–54. Crüsemann, Frank. Bewahrung der Freiheit: Das Thema des Dekalogs in sozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Kaiser-Traktate 78. Munich: Kaiser, 1983. Daniels, Dwight R. “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre.” ZAW 99 (1987): 339–60. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. “Like Warrior, Like Woman: Destruction and Deliverance in Isaiah 42:10–17.” CBQ 49 (1987): 560–71. Darwin, Charles. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. JSOTSup 265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Day, Peggy. “Metaphor and Social Reality: Isaiah 23:17–18, Ezekiel 16:35–37 and Hosea 2:4–5.” Pages 63–71 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon. Edited by J. Kaltner and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 378. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. ———. “Yahweh’s Broken Marriages as Metaphoric Vehicle in the Hebrew Prophets.” Pages 219–41 in Sacred Marriages: The Divine–Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity. Edited by Martti Nissinen and Risto Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. DeRoche, Michael. “Yahweh’s Rîb Against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Preexilic Prophets.” JBL 102 (1983): 563–74. Dixon, Thomas. “ ‘Emotion’: The History of a Keyword in Crisis.” Emotion Review 4 (2012): 338–44. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., Jimmy Jack McBee Roberts, Choon-Leong Seow, and Richard E. Whitaker. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Dohmen, Christoph. Das Bilderverbot: Seine Entstehung und seine Entwicklung im Alten Testament. Bonner biblische Beiträge 62. Königstein: Hanstein, 1985. ———. “ ‘Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name’ (Ex 34,14): Ursprung und Bedeutung der alttestamentlichen Rede von Gottes Eifersucht.” Theologische Zeitschrift 46 (1990): 289–304. Douglas, Mary. In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. JSOTSup 158. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Dozeman, Thomas B. Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 6B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015. ———. The Pentateuch: Introducing the Torah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Driver, Godfrey. R. “Hebrew Notes on the ‘Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach.’ ” JBL 53 (1934): 273–90.

184

Bibliography

———. “Two Problems in the Old Testament Examined in the Light of Assyriology.” Syria 33 (1956): 70–78. Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965. Drozdík, Ladislav. “Derivational Systems of Verbal and Instance Nouns in Arabic.” Asian and African Studies 14 (1978): 125–48. ———. “The faʿʿal- and faʿʿāl-Patterned Nouns of Instrument in Arabic.” Asian and African Studies 12 (1976): 157–72. East, Martin P., and Fraser N. Watts. “Jealousy and Envy.” Pages 569–88 in Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. Edited by Tim Dalgleish and Mick Power. New York: Wiley, 2000. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Eissfeldt, Otto. “El and Yahweh.” Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1956): 25–37. Ekman, Paul. “An Argument for Basic Emotions.” Cognition and Emotion 6 (1992): 169–200. Ellens, Deborah L. “Numbers 5.11–31: Valuing Male Suspicion.” Pages 1:55–82 in God’s Word for Our World: Theological and Cultural Studies in Honor of Simon John de Vries. Edited by J. Harold Ellens, Deborah L. Ellens, Rolf P. Knierim, and Isaac Kalimi. JSOTSup 388. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Elliot, John H. “God—Zealous or Jealous but Never Envious: The Theological Consequences of the Linguistic and Social Distinctions.” Pages 79–96 in The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 41. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008. Elliot-Binns, Leonard. The Book of Numbers: With Introduction and Notes. London: Methuen, 1927. Evans, Craig A., Joel L. Lohr, and David L. Peterson, eds. The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. VTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Feder, Yitzhaq. “The Aniconic Tradition, Deuteronomy 4, and the Politics of Israelite Identity.” JBL 132 (2013): 251–74. ———. “Defilement, Disgust, and Disease: The Experiential Basis of Hittite and Akkadian Terms for Impurity.” JAOS 136 (2016): 99–116. Feinstein, Eve Levavi. “The ‘Bitter Waters’ of Numbers 5:11–31.” VT 62 (2012): 300–306. Firth, Raymond. “Some Principles of Social Organization.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 85 (1955): 1–18. Fishbane, Michael. “Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5:11–31.” HUCA 45 (1974): 25–45. Fleisch, Henri. “Le nom d’agent faʿāl.” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 32 (1955): 167–72. Forshey, Harold O. “The Hebrew Root NḤL and Its Semitic Cognates.” PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1973. Foster, George. “Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good.” American Anthropologist 67 (1965): 293–315. Fox, Joshua. Semitic Noun Patterns. Harvard Semitic Studies 52. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Bibliography

185

Frahm, Eckart. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. ———. “Warum die Brüder Böses planten: Anmerkungen zu einer alten Crux in Asarhaddons Ninive A‐Inschrift.” Pages 27–49 in Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien und Sokotra Analecta Semitica in Memoriam Alexander Sima. Edited by Werner Arnold and Alexander Sima. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. Frankel, David D. The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible. Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Frankel, Steven, and Ivan Sherick. “Observations on the Development of Normal Envy.” Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 32 (1977): 257–81. Freedman, David N. “Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry.” Pages 55–107 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. ———. “Early Israelite Poetry and Historical Reconstructions.” Pages 85–96 in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975). Edited by Frank Moore Cross. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1979. Frymer-Kensky, Tivka. “The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers V 11–31).” VT 34 (1984): 11–26. Fung, Yiu-Wing. Victim and Victimizer: Joseph’s Interpretation of His Destiny. JSOTSup 308. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Galambush, Julie. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 130. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Gall, August von. Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. 5 vols. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1914–1918. Garelli, Paul. “L’État et la légitimité royale sous l’empire assyrien.” Pages 319–28 in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979. Gaster, Theodor H. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer’s Folklore in the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Genung, Matthew C. The Composition of Genesis 37: Incoherence and Meaning in the Exposition of the Joseph Story. FAT 2.95. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Gertz, Jan C., Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, eds. The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Giblin, Charles Homer. “Structural Patterns in Jos 24:1–25.” CBQ 26 (1964): 50–69. Gile, Daniel. “Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation?” JBL 130 (2011): 87–108. Grant, Deena E. Divine Anger in the Hebrew Bible. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 52. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2013. Gray, George. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. New York: Scribners, 1906. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

186

Bibliography

Greenspahn, Frederick E. When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Greenstein, Edward L. “The God of Israel and the Gods of Canaan: How Different Were They?” Pages 47–58 in Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, July 29–August 5, 1997: Division A. The Bible and Its World. Edited by Ron Margolin. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999. Grossman, Jonathon. “Different Dreams: Two Models of Interpretation for Three Pairs of Dreams.” JBL 135 (2016): 717–32. Grushcow, Lisa. Writing the Wayward Wife: Rabbinic Interpretations of Sotah. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 62. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Gunkel, Hermann. Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998. Habel, Norman C. The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Halbe, Jörn. Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, Ex 34, 10–26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Reprecht, 1975. Halpern, Baruch. The Emergence of Israel in Canaan. SBLMS 29. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. Harris, Paul L. “Understanding Emotions.” Pages 281–92 in Handbook of Emotions. Edited by Michael Lewis and Jeannette M. Haviland-Jones. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford, 2000. Havrelock, Rachel S. “The Myth of Birthing the Hero: Heroic Barrenness in the Hebrew Bible.” BibInt 16 (2008): 154–78. Hays, Rebecca Whitten Poe. “Trauma, Remembrance, and Healing: The Meeting of Wisdom and History in Psalm 78.” JSOT 41 (2016): 183–204. Heiser, Michael S. “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32?” Hiphil 3 (2006): 1–9. Hemmer Gudme, Anne Katrine de. Before the God in This Place for Good Remembrance: A Comparative Analysis of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim. BZAW 441. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. ———. “A Kind of Magic? The Law of Jealousy in Numbers 5.11–31.” Pages 149–68 in Studies on Magic and Divination in the Biblical World. Edited by Helen R. Jacobus, Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme, and Philippe Guillaume. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. Hendel, Ronald. “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel.” Pages 205–28 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Karel van der Toorn. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Hillers, Delbert R. “Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion.” Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1985): 253–69. Himbaza, Innocent. Le Decalogue et l’histoire du texte: Etudes des formes textuelles du Decalogue et leurs implications dans l’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament. OBO 207. Fribourg: Academic, 2004. Hobbs, Trevor Raymond. “Reflections on Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations.” JBL 116 (1997): 501–3.

Bibliography

187

Hoffman, Yair. “The Concept of ‘Other Gods’ in the Deuteronomistic Literature.” Pages 66–84 in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature. Edited by Henning G. Reventlow, Yair Hoffman, and Benjamin Uffenheimer. JSOTSup 171. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. ———. “The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem.” ZAW 111 (1999): 196–210. Hoffmeier, James K. “The Wives’ Tales of Genesis 12, 20 and 26 and the Covenants at Beer-Sheba.” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992): 81–99. Holder, John. “The Presuppositions, Accusations and Threats of 1 Kings 14:1–18.” JBL 107 (1988): 27–38. Holladay, William L. “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations.” JBL 85 (1966): 17–27. Holter, Knut. “Literary Critical Studies of Deut 4: Some Criteriological Remarks.” Biblische Notizen 81 (1996): 91–103. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen. OBO 45. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. ———. “Einheit und Einzigkeit Gottes im frühen Jahwismus.” Pages 57–74 in Im Gespräch mit dem dreieinen Gott: Elemente einer trinitarischen Theologie; Festschrift Wilhelm Breuning. Edited by M. Böhnke and H. Heinz. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1985. Houten, Christiana van. The Alien in Israelite Law. JSOTSup 107. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd ed. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Huffmon, Herbert B. “The Treaty Background of Hebrew yādaʿ.” BASOR 181 (1966): 31–37. Huffmon, Herbert B., and Simon B. Parker. “A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew yādaʿ.” BASOR (1966): 36–38. Hundley, Michael B. “To Be or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History.” VT 59 (2009): 533–55. Hupka, Ralph B. “Cultural Determinants of Jealousy.” Alternative Lifestyles 4 (1981): 310–56. ———. “The Motive for the Arousal of Romantic Jealousy.” Pages 252–70 in The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy. Edited by Peter Salovey. New York: Guilford, 1991. Izard, Carroll E. “Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Emotion and Emotion Communication.” Pages 3:185–221 in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Edited by Harry C. Triandis and Walter Lonner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980. Jacobs, Mignon. “The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil in the Joseph Story: An Exegetical and Hermeneutical Inquiry.” JSOT 27 (2003): 309–38. Johnstone, Thomas M. Jibbāli Lexicon. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. ———. Mehri Lexicon. London: Routledge, 2012. Joo, Samantha. Provocation and Punishment: The Anger of God in the Book of Jeremiah and Deuteronomistic Theology. BZAW 361. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Translated by John Bowden. 2nd ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Kalluveettil, Paul. Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Analecta biblica 88. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982.

188

Bibliography

Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 196. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Kaster, Robert A. Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Kazen, Thomas. Emotions in Biblical Law: A Cognitive Science Approach. HBM 36. Sheffield: Sheffield-Phoenix, 2011. ———. Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism. Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series 45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Keiser, Thomas A. “The Song of Moses a Basis for Isaiah’s Prophecy.” VT 55 (2005): 486–500. Kennedy, Archibald. Leviticus and Numbers. London: T. C. and E. C. Jack, 1910. Kim, Brittany. “Yhwh as Jealous Husband: Abusive Authoritarian or Passionate Protector? A Reexamination of a Prophetic Image.” Pages 127–47 in Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 13. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012. Kim, Hyun Chul Paul. “Reading the Joseph Story (Genesis 37–50) as a Diaspora Narrative.” CBQ 75 (2013): 219–38. ———. “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) in Isaiah 40–55.” Pages 1:147–71 in God’s Word for Our World: Theological and Cultural Studies in Honor of Simon John de Vries. Edited by J. Harold Ellens, Deborah L. Ellens, Rolf P. Knierim, and Isaac Kalimi. JSOTSup 388. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Kitz, Anne Marie. “Effective Simile and Effective Act: Psalm 109, Numbers 5, and KUB 26.” CBQ 69 (2007): 440–56. ———. “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua.” JBL 119 (2000): 601–18. Knapp, Andrew. Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 4. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Knoppers, Gary N. “Preferential Status of the Eldest Son Revoked?” Pages 115–26 in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible; Essays in Honour of John van Seters. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer. BZAW 294. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Koch-Westenholz, Ulla Susanne. Babylonian Liver Omens: The Chapters Manzāzu, Padānu and Pān Tākalti of the Babylonian Extispicy Series Mainly from Aššurbanipal’s Library. Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 25. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2000. Koepf-Taylor, Laurel. Give Me Children or I Shall Die: Children and Communal Survival in Biblical Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Kogan, Leonid. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Konstan, David. The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature. Robson Classical Lectures. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Kövecses, Zoltán. “Introduction: Language and Emotion Concepts.” Pages 3–15 in Everyday Conceptions of Emotion: An Introduction to the Psychology, Anthropology and Linguistics of Emotion. Edited by James A. Russell, José-Miguel Fernández-Dols, Anthony S. R. Manstead, and Jane C. Wellenkamp. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1995.

Bibliography

189

Krašovec, Jože. “Is There a Doctrine of ‘Collective Retribution’ in the Hebrew Bible?” HUCA 65 (1994): 35–89. Kruger, Paul A. “Emotions in the Hebrew Bible: A Few Observations on Prospects and Challenges.” Old Testament Essays 28 (2015): 395–420. Küchler, Friedrich. “Der Gedanke des Eifers Jahwes im Alten Testament.” ZAW 28 (1908): 42–52. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lakoff, George, and Zoltán Kövecses. “The Cognitive Model of Anger Inherent in American English.” Pages 195–221 in Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Edited by Dorothy C. Holland and Naomi Quinn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Lambert, David A. “Refreshing Philology: James Barr, Supercessionism, and the State of Biblical Words.” BibInt 24 (2016): 332–56. Lane, Edward William, and Stanley Lane-Poole. Arabic–English Lexicon. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1984. Lang, Bernhard. “The Number Ten and the Iniquity of the Fathers: A New Interpretation of the Decalogue.” ZAW 118 (2006): 218–38. Langlotz, Andreas. “Emotions in the Face: Biology or Culture? Using Idiomatic Constructions as Indirect Evidence to Inform a Psychological Research Controversy.” Linguistik Online 90 (2018): 47–74. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69. Lauinger, Jacob. “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64 (2012): 87–123. Lazarus, Richard S. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Lemos, Tracy M. “The Apotheosis of Rage: Divine Anger and the Psychology of Israelite Trauma.” BibInt 23 (2015): 101–21. Leslau, Wolf. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic): Geʿez-English, English-Geʿez, with an Index of the Semitic Roots. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987. ———. Lexique soqotri (sudarabique moderne). Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1938. Levenson, Jon D. “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?” Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975): 203–33. Levin, Christoph. Der Jahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. ———. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ———. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Levinson, Bernard M. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. ———. “A Post-Priestly Harmonization in the Flood Narrative.” Pages 113–23 in The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles. Edited by Giuntoli Schmid and Konrad Schmid. FAT 101. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

190

Bibliography

Levtow, Nathaniel B. Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 11. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Lewis, Michael. “The Emergence of Human Emotions.” Pages 265–80 in Handbook of Emotions. Edited by Michael Lewis and Jeannette M. Haviland-Jones. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford, 2000. Lewis, Theodore J. “The Ancestral Estate (nachalath ʾelohim) in 2 Samuel 14:16.” JBL 110 (1991): 597–612. ———. “Art and Iconography: Representing Yahwistic Divinity.” Pages 510–33 in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel. Edited by Susan Niditch. Wiley Blackwell Companions to Religion. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2016. ———. “ʿAthtartu’s Incantations and the Use of Divine Names as Weapons.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70 (2011): 207–27. ———. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. HSM 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Lindholm, Charles. “An Anthropology of Emotion.” Pages 30–47 in A Companion to Psychological Anthropology: Modernity and Psychocultural Change. Edited by Conerly Casey and Robert B. Edgerton. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Lipka, Hillary. Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible. HBM 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “Naḥalat yhwh.” Pages 322–60 in From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. Loretz, Oswald. “Die hebräische Nominalform qattāl.” Bib 41 (1960): 411–16. Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. Lutz, Catherine. Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Lyons, William E. Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Machinist, Peter. “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic Restructuring.” Pages 189–240 in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism. Edited by Beate Pongratz-Leisten. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. ———. “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel.” Pages 196–212 in Ah, Assyria: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Israel Ephʻal and Mordechai Cogan. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991. Malamat, Abraham. “Pre-Monarchical Social Institutions in Light of Mari.” Pages 165–76 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. ———. “A Prophecy and Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle.” Pages 68–82 in Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 6 September 1980. Edited by J. A. Emerton. BZAW 150. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. ———. “The Proto-History of Israel: A Study in Method.” Pages 303–13 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and Michael O’Connor. American Schools of Oriental Research: Special Volume Series 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Bibliography

191

Markl, Dominik. “The Ten Words Revealed and Revised: The Origins of Law and Legal Hermeneutics in the Pentateuch.” Pages 13–27 in The Decalogue and Its Cultural Influence. Edited by Dominik Markl. HBM 58. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013. Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. Oudtestamentische Studiën 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Matthews, Victor H. “Honor and Shame in Gender-Related Legal Situations in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 97–112 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson, and Tivka Frymer-Kensky. JSOTSup 262. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. May, Natalie N. “Gates and Their Functions in Mesopotamia and Ancient Israel.” Pages 77–121 in The Fabric of Cities: Aspects of Urbanism, Urban Topography and Society in Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome. Edited by Natalie N. May and Ulrike Steinhart. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 68. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Mayes, Andrew D. H. “Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy.” JBL 100 (1981): 23–51. ———. The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History. London: SCM, 1983. McCarter, Peter Kyle. “The Divided Monarchy: The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.” Pages 109–49 in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple. Edited by Hershel Shanks. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999. ———. I Samuel: A New Translation. AB 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980. McCarter, Peter Kyle, and Robert B. Coote. “The Spatula Inscription from Byblos.” BASOR (1973) 16–22. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Analecta biblica 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. ———. “The Wrath of Yahweh and the Structural Unity of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 97–110 in Essays in Old Testament Ethics (J. Philip Hyatt, in Memoriam). Edited by James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis. New York: Ktav, 1974. McConville, J. Gordon. “Forgiveness as Private and Public Act: A Reading of the Biblical Joseph Narrative.” CBQ 75 (2013): 635–48. McKane, William. “Poison, Trial by Ordeal and the Cup of Wrath.” VT 30 (1980): 474–92. ———. Proverbs: A New Approach. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Mendelsohn, Isaac. “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son.” BASOR 156 (1959): 38–40. Mendenhall, George. “Samuel’s ‘Broken rîb.’ ” Pages 563–74 in No Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie. Edited by J. W. Glanagan and A. W. Robinson. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Mermelstein, Ari. “Constructing Fear and Pride in the Book of Daniel: The Profile of a Second Temple Emotional Community.” JSOT 46 (2015): 449–83. ———. “Love and Hate at Qumran: The Social Construction of Sectarian Emotion.” Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013): 237–63. Mettinger, Tryggve. “A Conversation with My Critics: Cultic Image or Aniconism in the First Temple?” Pages 273–96 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern

192

Bibliography

Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʼaman. Edited by Yairah Amit, Ehud Ben Zvi, Israel Finkelstein, and Oded Lipschits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. ———. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament series 42. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995. Meyers, Carol L. Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. ———. “Was Ancient Israel a Patriarchal Society?” JBL 133 (2014): 8–27. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2004. Milgrom, Jacob. “The Case of the Suspected Adulteress, Numbers 5:11–31: Redaction and Meaning.” Pages 69–75 in The Creation of Sacred Literature. Edited by Richard E. Friedman. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. ———. “The Concept of maʿal in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 96 (1976): 236–47. ———. Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 18. Leiden: Brill, 1976. ———. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Publication Society, 1990. Miller, Daniel. “Another Look at the Magical Ritual for a Suspected Adulteress in Numbers 5.11–31.” Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 5 (2010): 1–16. Miller, Patrick D. “The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament and Its Law.” Interpretation 43 (1989): 229–42. ———. Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis. SBLMS 27. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. ———. The Way of the Lord: Essays in Old Testament Theology. FAT 39. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Mirguet, Françoise. “What Is an ‘Emotion’ in the Hebrew Bible?” BibInt 24 (2016): 442–65. Mitchel, Jon P. “Patrons and Clients.” Pages 627–29 in Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Edited by Alan Barnard and Jonathon Spencer. London: Routledge, 1998. Monroe, Lauren. “Phinehas’ Zeal and the Death of Cozbi: Unearthing a Human Scapegoat Tradition in Numbers 25:1–18.” VT 62 (2012): 211–31. Moran, William L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. ———. “Deuteronomy.” Pages 256–76 in A New Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scripture. Edited by R. C. Fuller. London: Nelson, 1969. ———. “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses.” Biblica 43 (1962): 317–27. Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. Oxford Theological Monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language, and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Myers, Fred R. “Emotions and the Self: A Theory of Personhood and Political Order Among Pintupi Aborigines.” Ethos 7 (1979): 343–70.

Bibliography

193

Na’aman, Nadav. “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image: Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of yhwh in the Pre-Exilic Period.” Ugarit-Forschungen 31 (1999): 391–415. Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. ———. First and Second Kings. Atlanta: John Knox, 1987. Nicholson, Ernest W. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. Nicol, George G. “The Chronology of Genesis: Genesis XXVI 1–33 as ‘Flashback.’ ” VT 46 (1996): 330–38. ———. “The Narrative Structure and Interpretation of Genesis XXVI 1–33.” VT 46 (1996): 339–60. Niehr, Herbert. “In Search of yhwh’s Cult Statue in the First Temple.” Pages 73–95 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Karel van der Toorn. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Nihan, Christophe. Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Konrad Schmid and Raymond F. Person. FAT 2.56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. ———. “The Literary Relationship Between Deuteronomy and Joshua: A Reassessment.” Pages 79–144 in Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Konrad Schmid and ‎Raymond F. Person Jr. FAT 56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. ———. Numbers: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Nussbaum, Martha Craven. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Nutkowicz, Hélène. “Concerning the Verb ŚNʾ in Judaeo-Aramaic Contracts from Elephantine.” Journal of Semitic Studies 52 (2007): 211–25. Odell, Margaret S. “What Was the Image of Jealousy in Ezekiel 8?” Pages 134–48 in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Alice O. Bellis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 408. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Olson, Dennis. Numbers. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1996. Olyan, Saul M. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment.” JBL 115 (1996): 201–18. Organ, Barbara E. “Pursuing Phinehas: A Synchronic Reading.” CBQ 63 (2001): 203–18. Ornan, Tallay. The Triumph of the Symbol: Pictorial Representation of Deities in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban. OBO 213. Fribourg: Academic, 2005. Pardee, Dennis. “mārîm in Numbers V.” VT 35 (1985): 112–15. Parker, Simon B. “The Beginning of the Reign of God: Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy.” Revue biblique 102 (1995): 532–59. Parpola, Simo. “The Murder of Sennacherib.” Pages 171–82 in Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Mesopotamia 8. Edited by Bendt Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980.

194

Bibliography

Parrott, W. Gerrod. “The Emotional Experiences of Envy and Jealousy.” Pages 3–30 in The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy. Edited by Peter Salovey. New York: Guilford, 1991. Peels, Hendrik G. L. The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament. Oudtestamentische Studiën 31. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Phillips, Anthony. “Another Look at Adultery.” JSOT 6 (1981): 3–25. Pitt-Rivers, Julian A. “Honour and Social Status.” Pages 19–78 in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Edited by John G. Peristiany. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. “Genealogien als Kulturtechnik zur Begründung des Herrschaftsanspruchs in Assyrien und Babylonien.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 11 (1997): 75–108. ———. Religion and Ideology in Assyria. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 6. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. VTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Porter, Barbara N. Images, Power, and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 208. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993. Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. ———. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. ———. Water in the Wilderness: A Biblical Motif and Its Mythological Background. Havard Semitic Monographs 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Quick, Laura E. Deuteronomy 28 and the Aramaic Curse Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Rad, Gerhard von. “The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom.” Pages 292–300 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edited by Gerhard von Rad. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1996. ———. Old Testament Theology. Translated by David Muir Gibson Stalker. 2 vols. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ———. “The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch.” Pages 79–93 in The Problem of the Hexateuch, and Other Essays. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Radwin, Ariella Michal. “Adultery and the Marriage Metaphor: Rabbinic Readings of Sotah.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007. Ramírez Kidd, José E. Alterity and Identity in Israel: The “ger” in the Old Testament. BZAW 283. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Reif, Stefan C. “What Enraged Phinehas: A Study of Numbers 25:8.” JBL 90 (1971): 200–206. Renaud, Bernard. Je suis un dieu jaloux. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1963.

Bibliography

195

Rendsburg, Gary. The Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986. Richter, Sandra L. The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. BZAW 318. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Ringgren, H. The Prophetic Conception of the Holiness of God. Uppsala: Lundequistska, 1948. Ro, Johannes Un-Sok. “The Theological Concept of yhwh’s Punitive Justice in the Hebrew Bible: Historical Development in the Context of the Judean Community in the Persian Period.” VT 61 (2011): 406–25. Roberts, Jimmy Jack McBee. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1991. Robertson, David A. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 3. Missoula, MT: SBL Press, 1972. Roi, Micha. “1 Kings 19: A ‘Departure on a Journey’ Story.” JSOT 37 (2012): 25–44. Rosenwein, Barbara H. Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006. ———. “Worrying About Emotions in History.” American Historical Review 107 (2002): 821–45. Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Russell, Brian D. The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1–21. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Russell, James A. “Culture and the Categorization of Emotions.” Psychological Bulletin 110 (1991): 426–50. Russell, James A., and Ghyslaine Lemay. “Emotion Concepts.” Pages 491–503 in Handbook of Emotions. Edited by Michael Lewis and Jeannette M. HavilandJones. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford, 2000. Sacks, Robert D. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 6. Lewiston: Mellen, 1990. Sakenfeld, Katharine D. The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry. HSM 17. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978. Sanders, Ed. Envy and Jealousy in Classical Athens: A Socio-Psychological Approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Sanders, Paul. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. Old Testament Studies 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Sasson, Jack M. “Numbers 5 and the ‘Waters of Judgment.’ ” Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1972): 249–51. Schlimm, Matthew R. From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis. Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. ———. “Jealousy or Furnace Remelting? A Response to Nissim Amzallag.” JBL 136 (2017): 513–28. Schmidt, Brian B. The Materiality of Power: Explorations in the Social History of Early Israelite Magic. FAT 105. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Schmidt, Werner. Die Zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik. Erträge der Forschung 281. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993.

196

Bibliography

Schniedewind, William M. “ ‘Are We His People or Not?’ Biblical Interpretation During Crisis.” Bib 76 (1995): 540–50. Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature.” Pages 3–20 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Schwartz, Baruch J., Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Peterson. “How the Compiler of the Pentateuch Worked: The Composition of Genesis 37.” Pages 263–78 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans. VTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Seters, John van. “The Deuteronomist from Joshua to Samuel.” Pages 204–39 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Sharpstein, Don J. “The Organization of Jealousy Knowledge: Romantic Jealousy as a Blended Emotion.” Pages 31–51 in The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy. Edited by Peter Salovey. New York: Guilford, 1991. Shaver, Phillip, Judith Schwartz, Donald Kirson, and Cary O’Connor. “Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Prototype Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (1987): 1061–86. Skehan, Patrick W. “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran.” BASOR 136 (1954): 12–15. Skehan, Patrick W., and Eugene Ulrich. “4QDeutq.” Pages 137–42 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Sidnie White Crawford, Julie Ann Druncan, Patrick W. Skehan, Emanuel Tov, and Julio Trebolle Barrera. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 14. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. 2nd ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: C. Scribners, 1969. Smith, Mark S. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. FAT 57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Snaith, N. H. Leviticus and Numbers. London: Nelson, 1967. Soden, Wolfram von. “Aramäische Wörter in Neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten. Ein Vorbericht. I (Agâ -*mūš).” Orientalia 35 (1966): 1–20. Soggin, Jan Alberto. Joshua: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin: Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Solomon, Robert C. The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1976. Sommer, Benjamin. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Southwood, Katherine. “The Social and Cultural History of Ancient Israel.” Pages 54–85 in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion. Edited by John Barton. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.

Bibliography

197

Spanier, Ktziah. “Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim: Her Struggle for Family Primacy.” VT 42 (1992): 404–12. Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor. Genesis. AB 1. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. Sperling, S. David. “Joshua 24 Re-Examined.” Pages 240–58 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Spronk, Klaas. Nahum. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen: Peeters, 1997. Stager, Lawrence. “Archeology, Ecology and Social History: Background Themes to the Song of Deborah.” Pages 221–34 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Stavrakopoulou, Francesca. “The Historical Framework: Biblical and Scholarly Portrayals of the Past.” Pages 24–53 in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion. Edited by John Barton. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016. Stearns, Peter N. Jealousy: The Evolution of an Emotion in American History. American Social Experience Series 14. New York: New York University Press, 1989. Steinberg, Naomi A. Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Stern, Philip D. “The Eighth Century Dating of Psalm 78 Re-Argued.” HUCA 66 (1995): 41–65. Strine, Casey Alan. “Ezekiel’s Image Problem: The Mesopotamian Cult Statue Induction Ritual and the Imago Dei Anthropology in the Book of Ezekiel.” CBQ 76 (2014): 252–72. Stromberg, Jake. Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Sturdy, John. Numbers. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Sweeney, Marvin A. I and II Kings: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: John Knox, 2007. Tadmor, Hayim. “Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature.” Pages 36–57 in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Edited by Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. Tammuz, Oded. “Psalm 78: A Case Study in Redaction as Propaganda.” CBQ 79 (2017): 205–21. Thiessen, Matthew. “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43).” JBL 123 (2004): 401–24. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Tucker, Gene M. “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms.” VT 15 (1965): 487–503. Veenhof, Klaas R. Kültepe Tabletleri V: The Archive of Kuliya, Son of Ali-Abum (Kt. 92/k 188–263). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2010. Wagner, Andreas. Emotionen, Gefühle und Sprache im Alten Testament: Vier Studien. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 7. Waltrop: Spenner Hartmut, 2006.

198

Bibliography

Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Borders of the Promised Land: Two Views.” Pages 52–75 in The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. ———. “The Covenantal Aspects of the Promised Land.” Pages 222–64 in The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. ———. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203. ———. “The Decalogue: Its Significance, Uniqueness, and Place in Israel’s Tradition.” Pages 18–26 in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives. Edited by Edwin B. Firmage, Bernard G. Weiss, and John W. Welch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. ———. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. ———. “Expulsion, Dispossession, and Extermination of the Pre-Israelite Population in the Biblical.” Pages 76–98 in The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. ———. “The Inheritance of the Land: Privilege Versus Obligation.” Pages 183–221 in The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. ———. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995. ———. The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Edited by Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990. Weitzman, Steven. Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Wells, Bruce. “The Hated Wife in Deuteronomic Law.” VT 60 (2010): 131–46. Wenham, Gordon J. Numbers. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1981. Westbrook, Raymond. “The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law.” Pages 1–90 in vol. 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by Raymond Westbrook. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. Old Babylonian Marriage Law. Horn, Austria: Berger & Söhne, 1988. ———. Property and the Family in Biblical Law. JSOTSup 113. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. ———. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 26. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984. ———. Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985. ———. Genesis 37–50: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986. ———. Genesis: An Introduction. Translated by John J. Scullion. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988.

Bibliography

199

Whybray, Roger N. “The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism.” VT 18 (1968): 522–28. Wierzbicka, Anna. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Williams, James G. “The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical TypeScenes.” JSOT 5 (1980): 107–19. Wilms, Franz-Elmar. Das Jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34. Munich: KöselVerlag, 1973. Wilson, Kevin A. The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine. FAT 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Winiarski, Catherine E. “Adultery, Idolatry, and the Subject of Monotheism.” Religion and Literature 38 (2006): 41–63. Wolde, Ellen van. Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. ———. “Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions: Anger and Love in the Hebrew Bible.” BibInt 16 (2008): 1–24. Wright, David P. “Profane Versus Sacrificial Slaughter: The Priestly Recasting of the Yahwist Flood Story.” Pages 125–54 in Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond. Edited by Roy E. Gane and Ada Taggar-Cohen. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Wright, George Ernest. “The Lawsuit of God: A Form–Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32.” Pages 26–67 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson. New York: Harper, 1962. Wu, Daniel. Honor, Shame, and Guilt: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Book of Ezekiel. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 14. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016. Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. London: Equinox, 2008. Zenger, Erich. Israel am Sinai: Analysen und Interpretationen zu Ex 17–34. Altenberge: CIS Verlag, 1982. ———. “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus IX 1–21.” Pages 452–83 in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Klaus Baltzer. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ———. Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Munich: Kaiser, 1963.

Index of Authors

Aartun, K., 132 Abu-Lughod, L., 12 Achenbach, R., 27 Ackerman, S., 15, 93–95, 112–14 Albertz, R., 27 Albright, W. F., 33, 80 Allen, L. C., 114 Alter, R., 36 Ambros, A. A., 132 Amzallag, G. N., 3, 4, 6–9, 72, 73 Anderson, G. A., 14, 50 Armon-Jones, C., 12, 19 Ashley, T. R., 47, 61 Averill, J. R., 12

Boda, M. J., 127 Boer, R., 48, 49 Botha, P. J., 124, 125 Botta, A. F., 15 Bourdieu, P., 12 Branson, R., 15, 28, 50, 52, 155 Brettler, M. Z., 41, 42 Brichto, H., 48, 57 Briggs, R. S., 48, 49 Britt, B., 48, 74 Brongers, H. A., 4, 5, 11, 73, 134 Budd, P., 47, 48 Budde, K., 76, 80 Butler, T. C., 164, 165

Baden, J. S., 23 Barrett, L. F., 17 Baumgart, H., 8 Bechtel, L. M., 16 Bedford, E., 13 Bell, C. M., 12 Bell, R. H., 3, 7, 53, 135 Ben Zvi, E., 8 Bergey, R., 76, 110 Berlin, A., 117 Berman, J., 75 Bernhardt, K.-H., 4 Bird, P., 139 Blenkinsopp, J., 42, 66, 125, 126, 141, 143, 145, 146 Block, D. I., 83, 94, 95, 112, 114, 119, 120, 152 Blum, E., 166

Cairns, D. L., 19, 20 Campbell, A. F., 35, 92 Carley, K. W., 114 Cassuto, U., 101, 110, 111 Cathcart, K., 168 Cazelles, H., 135 Chance, J. K., 115 Chapman, C. R., 32 Civil, M., 22 Clanton, G., 4, 172 Clements, R. E., 84 Clifford, R. J., 54 Coats, G. W., 35 Cogan, M., 139, 148 Collins, J., 88 Coogan, M. D., 152 Cooke, G. B., 81 Coote, R. B., 83 201

202

Index of Authors

Cornill, C. H., 76, 77 Corrigan, J., 13 Cranz, I., 76 Cross, F. M., 11, 84, 145, 156 Crouch, C., 82, 134, 152 Crüsemann, F., 151 Daniels, D. R., 76 Darr, K. P., 125 Darwin, C., 17 Day, J., 94 Day, P., 111 DeRoche, M., 76 Dixon, T., 16 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., 151 Dohmen, C., 4, 7, 9, 133–36, 152 Douglas, M., 65 Dozeman, T. B., 26, 165 Driver, G. R., 3, 47 Driver, S. R., 76, 77, 80 Drozdik, L., 132 East, M. P., 4 Ehrensvärd, M., 77 Eichrodt, W., 134, 164 Eising, H., 60 Eissfeldt, O., 80 Ekman, P., 18 Ellens, D. L., 48, 49 Elliot, J. H., 3, 4, 7 Elliot-Binns, L., 47 Evans, C. A., 25 Feder, Y., 8, 153, 156, 161 Feinstein, E.-L., 47 Feldman, L. B., 17 Firth, R., 25, 26 Fishbane, M., 47, 48, 58 Fleisch, H., 132 Forshey, H. O., 83 Foster, G., 175 Fox, J., 54 Fox, M. V., 54 Frahm, E., 21, 39 Frankel, D., 80, 82, 85–87, 112 Frankel, S., 18 Freedman, D. N., 77

Frymer-Kensky, T., 47, 48, 68 Fung, Y.-W., 35 Galambush, J., 110, 114, 139, 140 Gall, A. von, 101 Garelli, P., 39 Gaster, T. H., 80 Genung, M. C., 35 Gertz, J. C., 23 Giblin, C. H., 165 Gile, D., 73, 76–78, 110, 116 Grant, D. E., 99 Gray, G., 47, 48, 59, 61, 145 Greenberg, M., 114 Greenspahn, F. E., 37 Greenstein, E. L., 82 Grossman, J., 35 Grushcow, L., 47 Gunkel, H., 76 Habel, N. C., 83 Halbe, J., 134, 135 Halpern, B., 84 Hamilton, V. P., 31 Harris, P. L., 19 Havrelock, R. S., 31 Hays, R. W. P., 92 Heiser, M. S., 80, 81, 103 Hemmer Gudme, A. K. de, 5, 48, 49, 60 Hendel, R., 153 Hillers, D. R., 82 Himbaza, I., 151, 152 Hobbs, T. R., 176 Hoffman, Y., 79, 80, 88, 91 Hoffmeier, J. K., 26 Holder, J., 93 Holladay, W. L., 110 Holter, K., 156 Hossfeld, F.-L., 135, 151, 152 Houten, C. van, 27 Huehnergard, J., 39 Huffmon, H. B., 169 Hundley, M. B., 137 Hupka, R. B., 173 Izard, C. E., 18

Index of Authors Jacobs, M., 35, 36 Johnstone, T. M., 3 Joo, S., 51, 76, 77, 91, 96, 99 Kaiser, O., 42 Kalluveettil, P., 134 Kaminsky, J. S., 155 Kaster, R. A., 19 Kazen, T., 16 Keiser, T. A., 110 Kennedy, A., 47 Kim, B., 4, 7, 9, 118, 134 Kim, H. C. P., 38, 110 Kitz, A. M., 47, 83 Knapp, A., 39, 40 Knoppers, G. N., 37 Koch-Westenholz, U. A., 21 Koepf-Taylor, L., 33 Kogan, L., 3 Konstan, D., 14 Kövecses, Z., 19–21 Krašovec, J., 155 Kruger, P. A., 8, 16 Küchler, F., 2, 4, 5, 133, 134 Kutsko, J. F., 112 Lakoff, G., 19–21 Lambert, D. A., 8 Lane, E. W., 3 Lane-Poole, S., 3 Langlotz, A., 18 Lapsley, J. E., 15 Lauinger, J., 76 Lazarus, R. S., 13 Lemay, G., 18, 19 Lemos, T. M., 16 Leslau, W., 3 Levenson, J. D., 103 Levin, C., 26 Levine, B. A., 47–49, 57, 59, 60, 62, 67, 68, 140–45, 148 Levinson, B. M., 101, 155 Levtow, N. B., 162 Lewis, M., 6, 18 Lewis, T. J., 83, 137, 145, 153 Lindholm, C., 12 Lipka, H., 48, 54, 61, 63

203

Loewenstamm, S. E., 84 Lohr, J. N., 25 Loretz, O., 132 Lundbom, J. R., 51–53, 75–77, 80, 89, 103, 154, 162 Lutz, C., 12, 13, 19 Lyons, W. E., 13 Machinist, P., 80–82, 103, 104, 154 Malamat, A., 82, 85 Markl, D., 152 Marsman, H. J., 33, 54 Matthews, V. H., 58, 59, 115 May, N. N., 95 Mayes, A. D. H., 103, 156, 159 McCarter, P. K., 41, 83 McCarthy, D. J., 8, 91, 134 McConville, J. G., 37 McKane, W., 47, 54 Mendelsohn, I., 37 Mendenhall, G., 76 Mermelstein, A., 15 Mettinger, T., 153, 161 Meyers, C. L., 33, 126 Meyers, E. L., 126 Milgrom, J., 47–49, 55, 57, 59–65, 68, 111, 115, 141, 142, 145 Miller, D., 47, 48, 99, 152 Miller, P. D., 96 Mirguet, F., 16 Mitchel, J. P., 176 Monroe, L., 68 Moran, W. L., 8, 14, 50, 53, 76, 79, 80, 97 Moughtin-Mumby, S., 8, 114 Muffs, Y., 14 Myers, F. R., 12 Na’aman, N., 153 Nelson, R. D., 93, 94, 105, 156, 165 Nicholson, E. W., 48, 134 Nicol, G. G., 26 Niehr, H., 167 Nihan, C., 165 Noth, M., 47, 48, 156, 165 Nussbaum, M. C., 12 Nutkowicz, H., 15

204

Index of Authors

O’Brien, M. A., 35 O’Connor, M. P., 101 Odell, M. S., 95 Olson, D., 48 Olyan, S. M., 97, 98, 116, 124 Organ, B. E., 67, 141, 142, 145–47 Ornan, T., 161 Pardee, D., 47 Parker, S. B., 80, 81, 169 Parpola, S., 40 Parrott, W. G., 18 Peels, H. G. L., 7, 52, 54, 76, 99, 168 Perlitt, L., 135 Peterson, D. L., 25 Phillips, A., 54 Pitt-Rivers, J. A., 115, 116 Pongratz-Leisten, B., 39, 40 Pope, M. H., 79, 132 Porter, B. N., 39 Preuss, H. D., 164 Propp, W. H. C., 76, 84, 135 Quick, L. E., 76, 134, 152 Rad, G. von, 5, 35, 86, 87, 133, 134, 164 Radwin, A. M., 7, 51, 134 Ramirez Kidd, J. E., 27 Redford, D. B., 94 Reif, S. C., 145 Renaud, B., 4–6, 73, 118, 134 Rendsburg, G., 35 Reuter, E., 2, 118, 134, 135, 153 Rezetko, R., 77 Richter, S. L., 137 Ringgren, H., 166 Ro, J. U.-S., 102 Robertson, D. A., 77 Roi, M., 148 Rosenwein, B. H., 15, 23 Roth, M. T., 33, 58, 59, 114, 115 Russell, J. A., 17–19, 83 Sacks, R. D., 36 Sakenfeld, K. D., 98, 136, 152, 155 Sanders, E., 3, 12, 20, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 101, 103 Sarna, N. M., 36, 101

Sasson, J. M., 47, 59 Schlimm, M. R., 3, 7–9, 16, 20 Schmidt, B. B., 90 Schmidt, W., 151 Schniedewind, W. M., 122, 123 Schwartz, B. J., 35, 68 Seters, J. van, 165 Sharpstein, D. J., 18 Shaver, P., 18, 19 Sherick, I., 18 Skehan, P. W., 78, 80 Skinner, J., 35, 36, 101 Smith, M. S., 77, 80, 81, 103, 120, 154 Snaith, N. H., 47 Soden, W. von, 22 Soggin, J. A., 165 Sokoloff, M., 3 Solomon, R. C., 13 Sommer, B., 110 Southwood, K., 24 Spanier, K., 32 Speiser, E. A., 36 Sperling, S. D., 165 Spronk, K., 168 Stager, L., 27 Stavrakopoulou, F., 23 Stearns, P. N., 172, 174 Steinberg, J., 26, 37, 42 Stern, P. D., 92 Strine, C. A., 94, 95, 112, 114 Stromberg, J., 125 Sturdy, J., 47 Sweeney, M. A., 93 Tadmor, H., 40 Tammuz, O., 92 Thiessen, M., 76–78, 110 Tigay, J. H., 76, 77 Tov, E., 80 Tucker, G. M., 134 Ulrich, E., 78 Veenhof, K. R., 22 Wagner, A., 4, 16, 58 Waltke, B. K., 101 Watts, F. N., 4

Index of Authors Weinfeld, M., 11, 75–78, 81, 83–85, 87, 88, 99, 103, 106, 130, 146, 152, 158 Weitzman, S., 74 Wells, B., 34, 37 Wenham, G. J., 48 Westbrook, R., 28, 33, 59, 115 Westermann, C., 31, 35, 36, 38, 39 Whybray, R. N., 35 Wierzbicka, R. N., 16 Williams, J. G., 34 Wilms, F.-E., 135

Wilson, K. A., 94 Winiarski, C. E., 134 Wohrle, J., 27 Wolde, E. van, 16, 20 Wright, D. P., 8, 53, 76, 101, 111, 166 Wu, D., 116 Young, I., 77 Zenger, E., 83, 135 Zimmerli, W., 113, 114, 153

205

Index of Ancient Sources

Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1:31  102 3–11  36 4–5  37 6:9–13  101 6:9–22  101 6:11  52, 111 6:11–13  102 6:13  101 8:1  60 12  26 12:6–7  87 12:10–20  26 13:6–7  28, 29 13:14–15  86 14:19  79 14:22  79 15:12–21  86 15:16  75 15:18  78 16  32 16:1–6  33 17:1–14  86 18:19  75 20  26 20:1–18  26 21  37 21:22–34  26 25:10  79 25:23  37

26  26, 28, 44, 117, 119 26:1  28, 30 26:1–6  26 26:1–33  25 26:3–4  86 26:7–8  26 26:10–11  26 26:11  29 26:12–16  27 26:14  27, 29, 31, 50 26:15  27 26:16  29 26:19–21  27 26:20–21  28 26:20–22  28 26:24  86 26:26  27 26:27  27, 28 26:28–29  30 26:28–30  27 26:29  29 26:35  58 27:11  30 27:41–45  119 28:13–14  86 28:20–22  87 29–30  36 29:1–30:24  25 29:18  31, 37 29:20  31, 37 29:30  31, 37 29:31  31

29:31–35  31 29:32  31 29:34  31 30  43, 44 30:1  9, 30, 31, 33, 50, 174 30:1–2  31 30:2  31 30:3  33 30:9–13  32 30:14–21  32 30:15  32 30:17–21  32 30:20  31, 33 30:22–24  32 31:30–35  161 31:41  87 31:47–54  87 32:4–22  119 32:11–12  32 32:17  52 33:1–7  32 33:1–20  119 33:20  87 35  166, 167 35:2  166 35:3–7  166 35:7  87 35:14  87 36:6–7  29 37  1, 34, 35, 42–44 37:1–36  25 207

208

Index of Ancient Sources

Genesis (cont’d) 37:2  35, 36 37:3  37 37:4  35 37:5  35 37:5–11  38 37:6–7  38 37:8  35, 38 37:9–10  38 37:10  38 37:11  9, 22, 34, 35, 39, 50, 174 37:12  39 37:12–36  35 37:17  39 37:18  39 37:20  39 37:21–22  39 37:22  38 37:26  38, 39 37:27–28  38 37:29  39 37:31  39 37:31–33  35 37:37–50  35 39:12–18  38 41:9  61 41:14  38 41:42  38 42:3  39 42:6–17  39 42:18  39 42:21  39 42:22  39 42:30–32  39 42:37  39 43:3–5  39 43:18–22  39 43:33  37 44:7–9  39 44:12  37 44:14–19  39 45  40 45:22  38 46:1  87 48:5–19  37 49  42 50:15–18  39

50:20  36, 39 50:24  39 Exodus 5:4–5  152 6:25  67, 147 14:4  97 14:17–18  97 15:1–18  83 15:6–9  84 15:16  79 15:16–17  84 15:17  83, 84, 154 16  140 16:23–34  140 19:3–6  164 20:1–6  53, 75 20:1–17  151 20:2  153 20:2–6  1, 152 20:3  6, 153 20:3–6  116, 161 20:4–6  89 20:5  53, 133, 134 20:5–6  102 20:14  54, 59 20:23  153 21:30  55 23  140 23:2  28 23:8  54 23:10  85 23:20–21  120 23:31  78 23:39–42  140 23:46–49  140 24:17  160 28:12  60 28:29  60 30:12  55 30:16  60 32  135 32:1–34:17  153 32:7  101 32:30  67 33:7–11  67, 146 33:19  120

34  133, 135, 137, 138, 143, 151, 156–58, 176 34:6–7  136 34:11  136 34:11–26  75 34:12  136 34:13–14  136 34:14  53, 116, 133, 136, 156 34:14–28  136 34:15  136, 140, 143 34:15–16  67, 138, 139, 147, 149 39:7  60 Leviticus 5:1  68 5:15  62 5:17  68 5:21  62 6:2 ET  62 7:18  68 16–27  87 16:14–19  65 17:16  68 18  104 18:20  54, 59 18:24  105 18:24–30  52, 99 18:26–28  75 18:28  87 19:4  153, 161 19:8  68 19:10  27 19:30  62 19:32  97 19:33  27 20:10  54, 59, 115 20:17  68 20:19  68 20:23–24  75 21:23  62 23:22  27 25:1  85 25:23  85 25:40  62 26:1  153 26:2  62

Index of Ancient Sources 26:14–46  63 26:15  74 26:34–35  87 26:40  63 Numbers 1–4  65 1:1–6:27  47 3:32  67, 148 5  64, 65, 71 5–6  47 5:1–4  64, 71 5:1–6:21  47 5:3  65 5:5–10  64, 71 5:6–7  62 5:6–8  47 5:11–14  56 5:11–31  1, 9, 30, 46–51, 55, 57, 62, 68–72, 114, 115, 121, 165, 174 5:12  61, 62 5:12–14  48 5:14  48, 55, 57 5:14–15  46 5:15  55, 56, 60 5:15–16  59 5:16–18  56 5:17–23  46 5:18  47, 55 5:19  47, 56 5:20–22  56 5:21  63 5:22  47 5:23–24  56 5:24  47 5:25–28  57 5:27  46, 47, 61, 62 5:29  49, 55, 60 5:29–31  57 5:30  55, 57 5:31  68 8:19  67, 148 9:13  68 9:13–14  65 9:15–16  65 10:10  60 11:29  148

13:17  84 13:29  84 14:14  65 14:34  68 14:37  36 15  53 15–16  102 15:14–16  86 15:26–30  65 15:26–31  86 16:37 ET  67, 148 16:46–47 ET  67 17:2  67, 148 17:11–12  67, 148 17:12–13 ET  67 17:27–28  67 17:27–18:32  141 17:28–18:32  148 18:1–32  67 18:6–7  67 18:22–23  67, 148 19:2–7  67, 148 19:10  65 25  65, 66, 68, 140, 142, 143, 146, 148–51 25:1  66, 144 25:1–2  143 25:1–4  140, 141 25:1–5  139, 142, 146 25:1–18  68 25:2–3  66 25:3  143, 144 25:4  142 25:6  66, 141, 142 25:6–9  66 25:6–19  139 25:6–26:1  142 25:7  66 25:7–8  141 25:8  145 25:8–9  142, 146, 149 25:8–13  141 25:9  66, 141 25:10–13  66 25:11  53, 66, 99, 141, 143, 149 25:11–13  1 25:13  141, 148

209

25:14  141 25:16–19  142 25:17  142 25:18  140, 143 25:31  139 25:31–33  142 25:33  99 30:15 ET  68 30:16  68 31  67, 141, 142, 147 31:8  141 31:16  62, 67, 143 31:19  65 31:24  65 31:30  67, 141, 148 31:47  67, 141, 148 31:50  148 31:54  60 33:49  147 33:50–56  65, 88 34  78 35:15  65 35:33  53, 148 35:34  65 36:13  147 Deuteronomy 1  156 1–4  156 1–28  89 1:1–5  75 1:7  84 1:8  75 1:16  27 2:1–7  119 3:28  80 4  103, 155–57, 159–61, 163 4:1–5  159 4:1–40  103, 156, 158 4:3  142 4:3–4  67, 147, 149 4:5  160 4:7  159 4:8  159 4:15–19  153, 160 4:16  94, 101, 104, 113, 160

210

Index of Ancient Sources

Deuteronomy (cont’d) 4:19  81, 162 4:19–20  80–82, 103, 104, 162 4:19–24  103 4:20–21  103, 162 4:20–23  162 4:20–25  160 4:21  106 4:23  105, 162 4:23–26  158 4:24  53, 99, 104, 116, 133, 155, 158–60 4:25  91, 93, 101, 153, 160 4:25–26  104, 163 4:25–27  85 4:25–28  87, 156 4:25–31  163 4:25–40  159, 160 4:26  89 4:31  160, 163 4:35  80 4:38  106 4:39  80 4:44–30:20  156 5:1–10  53, 75 5:4–20  151 5:6  153 5:6–10  1, 116, 152 5:7  6, 153 5:7–10  161 5:8  153 5:8–10  89 5:9  53, 133, 134 5:9–10  155 5:16  97 5:18  54, 59 5:33  89 6  155, 156, 158 6–8  156 6:1–15  156 6:4  80, 156 6:4–5  156 6:5–9  97 6:10–15  157 6:10–19  156 6:14  156

6:15  53, 99, 116, 133, 155–58, 160 6:20–25  164 7:3–4  67, 139, 147, 149 7:8–11  97 7:9  80, 100, 157 7:9–10  155 7:21  132 7:25–26  90, 161 8:19–20  85, 158 9:3  160 9:18  91, 93 10:9  82 10:17  157 11:8–10  85 11:9  89 11:13–17  85 11:16–17  87, 158 11:22  144 11:22–25  85 12:1–5  148 12:1–12  149 12:2–7  93 12:3  93 12:9–10  106 12:12  82 13:7–19  149 13:12–16  102 13:12–18  158 14:27  82 14:29  27, 82 15:4  106 16:1–6  34 16:19  55 16:21  93 17:2  93 17:2–7  149 17:3  104, 162 17:4  90 18:1  82 18:14–15  82 19:3  106 19:10  106 19:14  106 20  88 20:1  125 20:10–18  88 20:16  106

20:18  88 21:1–9  47, 99 21:8–9  53 21:15–17  33, 37 21:16  80 21:23  106 22:13–22  54, 59 22:22  115 23:4  66, 145 23:18  93 24:4  106 24:14  27 24:16  155 24:19–21  27 25:19  106 26:1  106 26:5–9  164 26:12  27 26:16–19  82 26:19  137 27:15  90, 161 27:19  27 27:26  75 28:43–44  27 28:63  85 29:17–19  105 29:18  105 29:18–20 ET  105 29:19  53, 105, 125, 160 29:19 ET  105 29:19–26  103 29:20  99 29:20 ET  53, 105 29:20–28 ET  103 29:21  105 29:21–28  104 29:22 ET  105 29:22–29 ET  104 29:23–27  87 29:24–27  85 29:24–28  158 29:25  81, 103–105 29:25–26  82 29:25–29 ET  158 29:26  104 29:26 ET  103–105 29:27 ET  104 30:17–18  85, 87, 158

Index of Ancient Sources 30:17–20  152 30:18  89 31–32  74 31–34  74 31:7  80 31:14–15  74 31:16  74, 79 31:17  74 31:20–21  74 31:21  74 31:23  74 31:24–30  74 31:26  75 31:28  74 31:29  75, 91, 93 31:30  73 32  51, 53, 73, 81, 99–103, 121, 135, 156, 162 32:1–3  73 32:1–43  73, 78 32:3–6  73 32:4  132 32:4–5  89 32:4–6  100 32:5  52, 100, 101, 163 32:6  79, 101 32:6–9  79 32:7–9  80 32:7–10  51 32:7–14  74 32:8  80, 81 32:8–9  74, 78, 81, 82, 84, 103 32:8–14  52 32:9  52, 84 32:10–13  79 32:13  79 32:13–14  89 32:15  52 32:15–17  89, 102 32:15–18  90, 96 32:15–19  74 32:16  1, 3, 9, 34, 51–53, 73, 76, 79, 91, 92, 95, 96, 98, 99, 107, 109, 110, 153, 160, 175 32:16–18  90

32:17  52, 101 32:19–22  52 32:19–26  96 32:20  101 32:20–25  74 32:21  1, 9, 34, 53, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 91, 92, 96, 98, 101, 107, 109, 110, 175 32:22–26  99 32:23–26  99 32:24  160 32:25  52 32:26–36  74 32:27–28  99 32:27–43  99 32:34–43  52 32:35  99, 101 32:35–36  52 32:37–38  74, 97 32:37–39  100 32:38  101 32:39  80 32:41  52, 99 32:43  52, 74, 99, 100 32:44  73 32:44–47  74 32:46–47  75 32:47  89 32:49  154 32:51  62 34:1  154 34:9  58 Joshua 1:6  80 7  102 7:1  63 7:9  137 13:3  154 13:25  154 15:8  154 17:5  82 18:14  154 18:16  154 19:11  154 21:19  53 22  147

211

22:10  63 22:13–31  67, 148 22:16  62, 63 22:17  142 22:18  62 22:22  62, 63 22:23  101 23:16  152 24  105, 164–67 24:1  165 24:1–2  105 24:1–13  164 24:1–28  75 24:3–4  164 24:3–12  105 24:5–7  164 24:8–12  164 24:12–20  158 24:13  105, 164 24:14  105, 164 24:14–15  105, 106, 164 24:18  167 24:18–23  153 24:19  116, 132–34, 163, 165, 166 24:19–24  164, 165 24:19–28  165 24:20  79 24:23  79 24:24  167 27:7  154 Judges 2:11  93 2:11–15  158 2:17  143 2:19  101 3:7  93 3:12  93 4:1  93 6:1  93 6:25–30  93 10:6  93 10:16  79 11:24  82 11:24–25  105 13:1  93 16:3  154

212

Index of Ancient Sources

Judges (cont’d) 17–18  161 17:3  94, 113 17:4  94, 113 20–21  147 20:21  101 20:25  101 20:28  125 20:35  101 20:42  101 Ruth 1:1–3  27 1:25  82 1 Samuel 1:6–17  32 1:11  33, 34 1:19  60 2:3  132 2:8  80 2:12–17  74 2:22–25  74 2:29  74 2:30  98 4:1–11  92 4:18  61 6:9  85 7:3  79 8:3  55 8:5  105 8:20  105, 125 10:1  83 12:3  55 15:7  154 15:23  161 16  37 18:30–32  125 23:10  101 26:1  154 26:3  154 26:19  105 26:19–20  85 2 Samuel 7:23  137 11:1  101, 125 18:2  125

20:2  144 20:20  101 21  102 21:1–11  142 21:1–14  53, 99 22:14  81 1 Kings 1  37 3:2  93 5:15  97 6–7  4 6:27  113 6:36  113 11:5–8  161 11:6  93 11:7  154 14:9  91 14:15  91, 93 14:22  53, 91–93 14:23  93 14:23–24  93 14:24  93 14:25–26  93 15:12–13  161 15:13  93 15:26  93 15:30  91 15:34  93 16:2  91 16:7  91 16:13  91, 96 16:19  93 16:25  93 16:26  91, 96 16:30  93 16:32–33  161 16:33  91, 93 17:3  154 17:5  154 17:18  60 18  91, 148 18:36  91 18:40  148 19  148 19:10  148 19:14  148 21:20  93

21:25  93 22:19  81, 104, 162 22:53  93 22:53 ET  91 22:54  91 2 Kings 3:2  93, 161 3:3  144 5  86 5:17  86 8:18  93 8:27  93 10:16  148 13:2  93 13:6  93 13:11  93 14:10  97 14:24  93 15:9  93 15:18  93 15:24  93 15:28  93 17:2  93 17:7–18  158 17:10  93 17:11  91 17:15  96 17:16  93, 104, 162 17:17  91 17:24–41  86 17:35–39  152 18:4  93 21:1–7  161 21:2  93 21:3–5  104 21:3–6  162 21:6  91, 93 21:7  93, 94, 113 21:15  91 21:20  93 23:4–5  104, 162 23:6  93 23:8  95 23:13  90, 154 23:14  93 23:14–15  93 23:15  93

Index of Ancient Sources 23:32  93 23:37  93 24:9  93 24:19  93 25  156 1 Chronicles 5:1–2  41 5:25  62 10:13  62 20:1  101, 125 28:11  113 33:7  94, 113 33:15  94, 113 2 Chronicles 4:22  113 6:32  137 12:2  62, 63 18:18  104, 162 24:18  95 26:16  63, 101 28:19  62 29:6  62 30:7  62 33:3–5  104, 162 33:7  113 33:15  113 33:19  62 Ezra 4:6  27 9–10  139 9:2–4  62 Nehemiah 1:8  63 9:6  104, 162 9:10  137 13:23–31  139 Job 5:2  53 9:20  89 19:20  144 Psalms 18:13  81

20:3 ET  60 20:4  60 23:3  137 25:11  137 29:1  80 29:1–2  97, 120 31:3 ET  137 31:4  137 31:6  132 31:6 ET  96 31:7  96 31:14  36 33:12  154 35:4  98, 116 37:1  53 44:3  84 44:20 ET  90 44:21  90 63:9  144 68:10  154 69  116 69:9  125 69:25–28  98 70:2  116 70:2 ET  98 70:3  98 71:13  98, 116 74:2  79, 154 77:11 ET  61 77:12  61 78  84, 92, 94 78:35  81 78:54  84 78:54–55  84 78:54–58  92 78:56  92 78:56–57  92 78:58  53, 91 78:60–62  92 78:62  92 79  110, 121–25, 129, 130, 169, 175 79:1  123, 154 79:1–4  123 79:4  123 79:5  53 79:5–8  123 79:6  123

213

79:9  137 79:9–10  123 79:9–12  123 79:13  123 80:9  84 81  81 81:9 ET  79, 90 81:10  79, 90 82  81 82:6–7  81 82:8  81 83:12–16 ET  98 83:13–17  98 83:14–16 ET  116 83:15–17  116 89:6  80 89:24  97 91:14–15  98 94:5  154 101:4  89 102:6  144 105  92 105:11  154 105:16  3 106  92 106:5  154 106:8  137 106:28  142–45 106:37  91 106:38  52, 99 109:21  137 136  92 143:11  137 Proverbs 3:31  3 6:32–35  51, 54, 63, 114 6:33  54 6:34  54 6:34–35  168 6:35  54 8:21  80 10:18  36 11:20  89 14:29  58 15:18  55 16:14  55 17:20  89

214

Index of Ancient Sources

Proverbs (cont’d) 17:23  55 19:1  89 21:14  55 25:8  28 27:18  98 28:6  89 Song of Songs 1:4  61 6:8–9  157 Isaiah 1:23  55 2:6–22  161 3:5  97 3:13  28 5:16  132 5:23  55 8:23–9:6  126 9:1–7 ET  126 9:6  119, 125, 126, 131 9:6–7  125 9:7 ET  119, 125, 126, 131 9:7–8 ET  125 9:20–21  42 10:20–34  42 11:11  84 11:13  9, 42 12:4  137 16:14  97 17:10  90 19:14  58 19:24–25  127 23:9  97 24:14–16  126 26:11  125 30:27  120 33:9  97 34:4  104, 162 37:32  119, 123, 125 40:20  94, 113 42:6–9  126 42:13  119, 125, 126 42:14  126 42:15  126 42:16  126

42:17  161 43:3  55 43:4  98 43:12  90 44:9–20  161 44:15  94, 113 44:17  94, 113 45:8  128 45:20  94, 113, 161 46:12–13  128 48:9  137 48:18  128 50:8  28 53:1  128 53:6  128 53:8  128 56:6–8  127 57:1–13  161 57:16  28 59:7  53 59:9–16  128 59:17  119, 125, 128, 168 59:18–19  128 59:20  128 60:3  127 61:10  128 63  125 63:1  128 63:1–14  125 63:7–11  125 63:12  137 63:14–19  137 63:15  119, 125, 137 63:17  154 63:17–18  125 63:19  105 66:5  137 Jeremiah 2:5  96 2:9  28 2:11  91 3:1–2  52, 99 3:9  99 5:2–3  64 5:7  91 5:19  79 7:5–7  89

7:18  161 8:2  104, 162 8:19  96, 161 10:3  96 10:3–16  161 10:6  137 10:8  96 10:15  96 11:3–13  153 11:10  74 13:9  101 14:21  137 15:6  101 16:20  91, 161 18:3–4  102 18:4  102 19:13  104, 162 20:10  36 32:20  137 33:22  104, 162 40:4  75 46:12  97 51:17  161 51:18  96 Lamentations 1:6  97 1:8  97 4:8  144 5:12  97 Ezekiel 5:11  153 5:13  111, 117, 118 6:1–14  161 7:11  111 7:23  111 8  95, 113, 114 8:1  94 8:3  53, 91, 94, 111–13, 163 8:3–5  161 8:5  95, 111, 113, 163 8:5–6  95, 114 8:12  95, 114 8:16  113 8:17  111 8:18  95, 114

Index of Ancient Sources 9:8  101 10:3  113 12:19  111 14:1–11  102 14:1–14  161 14:13  62, 63, 111 15:7–8  62, 63 15:8  111 16  114, 116, 143 16:15–22  116 16:17  161 16:23–43  116 16:26  143 16:28  143 16:36–54  98 16:38  53, 111 16:42  111 16:44–58  116 16:59  74 17:15  62 17:18–20  63 17:20  62, 111 18:24  62, 63, 111 20:7–8  153 20:9  137 20:14  137 20:22  137 20:27  62, 63, 111 20:31  161 20:32  105 20:39–44  85 21:23 ET  60 21:28  60 22  143 22:7  97 23  114, 116 23:25  111 24:6  3 24:11  3 28:2  94, 113 35:10  119 35:11  53, 118 36:5  3, 111 36:5–6  1, 118 36:5–12  119 36:6  53, 111 36:17–18  53, 99 36:22  124

36:24–26  118 37:16  41 38–39  119 38:19  53, 111, 118 38:23  119 39:7  119 39:23–24  120 39:23–26  111 39:25  53, 119, 120, 167 39:26  120 40:15  113 42:2–12  95 43:3  101 43:4  127 44:7  74 46:1  113 47:13  82 Daniel 5:23  161 8:10–11  104, 162 9:5  62 9:7  62 Hosea 4:4  28 4:7  97 4:12  58 5:4  58 8:6  91 9:3–5  87 11:2  161 Joel 2:12–17  120 2:17  120, 123, 154 2:18  117, 120 2:27  120 Amos 1:9  66, 146 5:3  125 5:12  55 6:6  41 7:17  82 Obadiah 11–14  119

215

Jonah 4:2  132 Micah 3:11  4:5  5:13  7:14 

55 81, 105 161 154

Nahum 1–3  168 1:2  53, 132, 133, 167, 168 1:7  169 1:13  168 1:14–2:1  169 1:15 ET  169 3:10  97 Habakkuk 2:18  94, 113 2:18–19  161 2:18–20  153 3:3  84 Zephaniah 1:5  104, 162 1:15  117 1:18  117 3:8  117 3:9–14  117 3:10  87 3:17  117 Zechariah 1:1  126 1:1–6  126 1:6  126 1:12  126 1:14  53, 119, 126, 127 1:14–17  126, 127 1:16  127 2:5  127 2:10  127 2:11–12  127 2:14  127 5:4  64 6:14  60

216

Index of Ancient Sources

Zechariah (cont’d) 7–8  127 7:1–3  127 8:2  53, 119, 126 8:2–3  128 8:12  80 8:13  128 13:2  137 Malachi 1:11  86, 137 1:14  137 2:11  79 3:5  64 Apocrypha Ecclesiasticus 12:11  3 37:10  3 45:18  3 1 Maccabees 2:24  3 2:26  3 2:27  3 2:50  3 2:54  3 2:58  3 Inscriptions AKT 5, 18:12  21 BM 41005 ii 10  21 41005 iii 18  21

Boissier DA 19 iii 45  21 EA 60: 30–32  169 KAI 24.14  102 24.15  102 KTU 1.3: iii.30  83 1.3: iv.20  83 1.4: iii.14  80 1.6: i.58  83 1.10: i.3  80 1.40:17  80 1.40:25  80 1.40:33–34  80 1.40:41  80 1.40:7  80 1.65:3  80 1.100:9  83 1.100:15  83 1.100:31  83 LE 59  58, 114 LH 13–16  59, 115 128  58, 114 131–33ab  59, 115 137–40  58, 114 138  33 141–43  59, 115

LU 9–10  58, 114 21  58, 114 24–26  58, 114 MAL A24  59 24  115 39  58, 114 MSL 3, 134: 58  21 14, 135: 25  21 14, 455: 28′  21 Nineveh A i 8  39 i 9–19  40 i 13  40 i 17–18  40 i 23  21 RA 12, 74:28–32′  21 SAA 2, 6:328  21, 40 StBoT 7, 10: 36  21

siphrut LITERATURE AND THEOLOGY OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES Editorial Board Stephen B. Chapman, Duke University Tremper Longman III, Westmont College Nathan MacDonald, University of Cambridge 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, by Mark J. Boda Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and JewishChristian Interpretation, by Joel N. Lohr Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, by Konrad Schmid The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible, by David Frankel Jacob and the Divine Trickster: A Theology of Deception and Yhwh’s Fidelity to the Ancestral Promise in the Jacob Cycle, by John E. Anderson Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading, by Jonathan Grossman From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis, by Matthew R. Schlimm The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy, by Jerry Hwang In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, by Bernard F. Batto Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20), by Steven T. Mann From the Depths of Despair to the Promise of Presence: A Rhetorical Reading of the Book of Joel, by Joel Barker Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch, by Anne Katherine Knafl Standing in the Breach: An Old Testament Theology and Spirituality of Intercessory Prayer, by Michael Widmer What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terence E. Fretheim, edited by Michael J. Chan and Brent A. Strawn The “Image of God” in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5–3:24 in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt- r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, by Catherine L. McDowell

16. The Shape of the Writings, edited by Julius Steinberg and Timothy J. Stone 17. A Message from the Great King: Reading Malachi in Light of Ancient Persian Royal Messenger Texts from the Time of Xerxes, by R. Michael Fox 18. “See and Read All These Words”: The Concept of the Written in the Book of Jeremiah, by Chad L. Eggleston 19. Identity in Conflict: The Struggle between Esau and Jacob, Edom and Israel, by Elie Assis 20. I, You, and the Word “God”: Finding Meaning in the Song of Songs, by Sarah Zhang 21. The Completion of Judges: Strategies of Ending in Judges 17–21, by David J. H. Beldman 22. A (S)Word against Babylon: An Examination of the Multiple Speech Act Layers within Jeremiah 50–51, by Kristopher Holroyd 23. “Lengthen Your Tent- Cords”: The Metaphorical World of Israel’s Household in the Book of Isaiah, by Brittany Kim 24. History and Hope: The Agrarian Wisdom of Isaiah 28–35, by Daniel J. Stulac 25. The Unfavored: Judah and Saul in the Narratives of Genesis and 1 Samuel, by Josef Sykora 26. A Theology of Justice in Exodus, by Nathan Bills 27. Jealousy in Context: The Social Implications of Emotions in the Hebrew Bible, by Erin Villareal