Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays 9781575068541

Citation preview

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible Collected Studies

Shemaryahu Talmon

Published in cooperation with

The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies The Hebrew University of Jerusalem by

Eisenbrauns

Winona Lake, Indiana 2013

© Copyright 2013 Eisenbrauns Winona Lake, Indiana All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Published in cooperation with The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies The Hebrew University of Jerusalem www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Talmon, Shemaryahu, 1920Literary motifs and patterns in the Hebrew Bible : collected studies / by Shemaryahu Talmon.     pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-261-7 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible as literature.  I. Title. BS1171.3.T35 2013 221.6′6—dc23 2013015947

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

CONTENTS Preface by Michael Segal Acknowledgments Sigla

vii xi xiv

PART ONE: CONCEPTUAL MOTIFS RELATING TO HISTORY, TIME AND CHRONOLOGY

D 1

1

Literary Patterns and Speculative Thought in the Hebrew Bible

D 3

2

Conceptual Patterns of History in the Hebrew Bible

11

3

Literary Patterns and Motifs in the Biblical Creation Tradition

D 25

4

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs

55

5

The Topped Triad in the Hebrew Bible and the Ascending Numerical Pattern

D 77

6

“Four Hundred Years” or “Fourth Generation” (Genesis 15:13-15): Historical Time Definitions or Literary Motifs?

D 125

7

The Signification of ‫אחרית הימים‬, “Latter Days,” in the Hebrew Bible and in the Covenanters’ Literature

D 137

PART TWO: COLLOCATIONS AND THEMES AND THEIR SIGNIFICATION

D 157

8

The Barren Wife Motif and its Speculative Signification

159

9

Prophetic Rhetoric and Agricultural Metaphora

171

10

The Collocation ‫ משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬and Its Meaning

183

11

‫יָ ד וָ ֵשׁם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase and Its Variations

211

12

The Meaning of “Life” in the Hebrew Bible

237

13

The Signification of ‫ שׁלום‬and Its Semantic Field in the Hebrew Bible

D 251

14

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

291

PART THREE: SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

315

15

“Exile” and “Restoration” in the Conceptual World of Ancient Judaism

D 317

16

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

355

17

The “Good Samaritan”—A “Good Israelite”?

379

18

Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?

393

Bibliography

413

Abbreviations

457

Index of Sources

463

Index of Modern Authors

499

PREFACE This collection gathers together Professor Shemaryahu Talmon ‫’ז"ל‬s contributions to the literary study of the Bible, and complements his acclaimed Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1993). The appearance of the current volume is a cause for great pride and satisfaction for the many of us who viewed Shemaryahu as a teacher, mentor, colleague, and friend. While he was involved in the early stages of this project, he unfortunately did not live to see its final publication. Nevertheless, this book and his numerous other scholarly contributions will endure as a ‫יָ ד וָ ֵשׁם‬, a monumental memory to this individual, who taught and touched so many scholars and students. The articles included herein span a broad range of topics, closely and comprehensively assessing fundamental themes and stylistic conceits present in biblical literature. Each study picks up one of these motifs or patterns, and traces its meaning and usage throughout the entire Bible. In Talmon’s estimation, these literary markers transcend all strata of the Bible, and despite diachronic developments, they retain their basic meanings and connotations throughout, even when employed by different authors over a span of hundreds of years. He demonstrates this convincingly by marshaling dozens of examples, each of which is valuable in its own right, and when taken all together, these building-blocks form a solid edifice that validate his approach. He judiciously employs this synchronic method throughout, frequently invoking the principle of ‫יגיד עליו רעו‬, “his friend will tell of him,” according to which one biblical verse can be employed to interpret the other, if they are found in similar contexts and with overlapping formulation. To use an expression that he coined elsewhere, his hermeneutical method can be described first and foremost as “The World of the Bible from Within.” Throughout the articles that appear in this volume, one is repeatedly struck by his sensitivity to the language and style of the biblical authors. He was blessed with a rich literary intuition, and shares with his readers his ability to see, hear, and understand the rhythms and poetics of biblical literature. Talmon’s approach was not limited, however, to a formal literary analysis of the texts under discussion; rather, he insisted on digging deeper, and attempted to reveal the ideas and worldview of Biblical Israel embedded in

viii

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

these motifs and rhetorical techniques. As he notes frequently in these essays, biblical authors did not methodically delineate their beliefs or ideas, but these can nevertheless be recovered, at least in schematic terms, through analysis of recurring words, expressions, motifs, and patterns. Thus, for example, he demonstrates that the terms ‘400 years’, ‘4 generations’, and ‫אחרית הימים‬, inform us of the ‘realistic’ historical conceptions of these authors; the use of specific agricultural metaphors based upon realia helps us understand the message of biblical prophets; and the imagery of ‘mountain’ and ‘desert’ serve to impart fundamental conceptions about the religious experience of the Israelites and their relationship with God. His quest to uncover these larger ideas within the corpus extends to notions that are of foundational significance for the study of religions, including the biblical view on the meaning of ‘life’, creation, ‫שלום‬, and Jerusalem, and thus will be of interest to scholars from a broad range of disciplines. The synchronic approach described above did not prevent Talmon from uncovering diachronic development in the Bible where it is present. In particular, he was fascinated by the sociological and historical implications of the Babylonian Exile and the Restoration during the Persian period. His foundational article on ‘Exile and Restoration’ reprinted in this volume investigates the changing roles of kings, priests, and prophets from the First to Second Temple eras, and uncovers the tensions and debates between the different groups during this transitional period. His interests in the Second Temple period did not end with Jewish literature of the Persian era, but as is well-known to the scholarly community, he made extensive contributions to the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in all of its facets. One of the final essays in this volume, an attempt to find echoes of Esther in the literature of the Community of the Renewed Covenant, combines exactly these two interests. While the many studies presented here were each composed and published on their own, reading them together in this volume provides a complete picture of Shemaryahu Talmon’s worldview of the “Bible from within”. It is our hope that this collection will further expose scholars and students alike to his method, learning, and erudition, and will firmly establish his contributions in the field of literary studies of the Bible for future generations. * * *

[Type text]

Preface

ix

The eighteen studies published here initially appeared over a period of about thirty years, and give expression to the development of Professor Talmon’s approach to the literary study of the Bible. He selected the articles himself and lightly revised most of them in the process of preparing the present volume. The article entitled “The Topped Triad in the Hebrew Bible and the Ascending Numerical Pattern” was more significantly revised. Following his death, we refrained as much as possible from inserting additional changes, unless they were necessary for the republished version. In such a collection of essays, there is naturally overlap and duplication between the various articles, especially with respect to the examples and prooftexts adduced in support of arguments. Despite these redundancies, the articles are presented as close as possible in form to the original, in order to also allow for each one to be read independently. All of the articles have been newly typeset, and no effort was spared to correct errors and typographical mistakes. Three of the articles, which were originally published in German, appear here in English for the first time. These translations were reviewed and edited by Professor Talmon. Professor Talmon selected and approved the working order of the articles. This included dividing the article originally entitled “Literary Motifs and Speculative Thought in the Hebrew Bible” into two parts: the first half, which retains the same title, serves as the introduction to this volume; the second was expanded and is published here as “The Barren Wife Motif and its Speculative Signification”. He also placed “Conceptual Patterns of History in the Hebrew Bible” as the first essay in section A (“Conceptual Motifs Relating to History, Time and Chronology”), since it serves as an overview of many of the issues and topics presented in the subsequent articles. Many people need to be thanked for their efforts in the production of the present collection. Shemaryahu’s wife, Dr. Penina Morag-Talmon, and daughters, Efrat Livny, Tamar Elad, Noga Morag-Levine and Tamar MoragPinto were determined after his death to ensure that this volume appeared in a timely fashion. They can be assured that this collection is a fitting tribute to his memory. Professor Talmon’s two dedicated research assistants, Shira Golani and Ariel Kopilovitz, were responsible for all aspects of the republication of the articles, including checking references, preparing indices and bibliography, proofreading, and coordinating the publishing of the book. Dr. Noam Mizrahi expertly brought the entire volume to press,

x

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

and was involved in some editorial aspects of the book. Without their unceasing, intensive efforts, this volume would never have appeared. Their personal devotion to Professor Talmon and his academic legacy is deserving of admiration. Thanks are due for those responsible for editing and translating. Dr. Ruth Clements was responsible for editing the English throughout. The German articles were translated by Ms. Dina Herz (“Four Hundred Years”) and Dr. Christian Stadel (“Life”; “Ezra and Nehemiah”; he generously rendered assistance with German language issues in other articles as well). Additional members of the Hebrew University Bible Project contributed their efforts towards publication of this volume, honoring the memory of Shemaryahu Talmon, who served as Editor at HUBP for fifty years. Professor David Weissert and Shraga Assif, two longtime researchers at HUBP, both generously assisted with linguistic queries regarding Greek and Latin, and Syriac and Aramaic, respectively. Dr. Rafael Zer, Editorial Coordinator of the Bible Project, helped in coordination of this project and solving bureaucratic issues. Professor Alexander Rofé assisted in obtaining publication rights for one of the articles. Assaf Rosen-Zvi, Aharon Glatzer and David Knoll all helped locate and identify references and literature quoted throughout the articles. Thanks go to Mr. James Eisenbraun, Director of Eisenbrauns Publishing House, Ms. Beverly McCoy, and the rest of their staff, who spared no effort in producing this volume with utmost care. Thanks are due to Professor Shlomo Naeh, Head of the Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for support and assistance in the publication of the volume. Financial assistance was also provided by the Hebrew University Bible Project and the Shalom Hartman Institute.

Dr. Michael Segal Department of Bible and Bible Project Hebrew University of Jerusalem

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are due as indicated below for permission to republish the following papers: To HAAG & HERRCHEN for (12) “The Meaning of ‘Life‘ in the Hebrew Bible,“ originally published as “Die Wertung von ‚Leben’ in der hebräischen Bibel,” in Der Herr des Lebens: Jüdische und Christliche Interpretationen in der Ökumene, ed. H. Link and M. Stohr (Frankfurt a.M.: Haag & Herrchen, 1985), 15–30 (English translation by Dr. Christian Stadel). To the CENTER FOR JEWISH ART OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM for (14) “The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought,” originally published in The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art: Studies in Honor of Bezalel Narkis on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. B. Kühnel (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Center for Jewish Art, 1998), 1–12. To the HEBREW UNIVERSITY MAGNES PRESS for (1) “Literary Motifs and Speculative Thought in the Hebrew Bible” and (8) “The Barren Wife Motif and Its Speculative Signification,” originally published as a single paper under the first title in Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 16 (1988), 150–168. To KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV for (7) “The Signification of ‫אחרית הימים‬, ‘Latter Days,’ in the Hebrew Bible and in the Covenanters’ Literature,” originally published as “The Signification of ‫ אחרית‬and ‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Hebrew Bible,” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S.M. Paul et al. (VT Supp. 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 795–810; (13) “The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field in the Hebrew Bible,” originally published in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. C.A. Evans and S. Talmon (Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 75–115; (15) “‘Exile’ and ‘Restoration’ in the Conceptual World of Ancient Judaism,” originally published in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. J.M. Scott (JSJ Supp. 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 107–146; (18) “Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?” originally published in Dead Sea Discoveries 2.3 (1995), 249–267.

xii

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

To the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSORS OF HEBREW for (11) “‫ ָיד וָ ֵשׁם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase and Its Variations,” originally published as “Yad waŠem: An Idiomatic Phrase in Biblical Literature and Its Variations,” in Hebrew Studies 25 (1984), 8–17. To NEUKIRCHENER VERLAG for (6) “Four Hundred Years” or “Fourth Generation” (Genesis 15:13-15): Historical Time Definitions or Literary Motifs?” originally published as “‚400 Jahre’ oder ‚vier Generationen’ (Gen 15,13-15): Geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive?” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff, ed. E. Blum et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 13–25 (English translation by Dina Herz); (16) ”Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?” originally published as “Esra-Nehemia: Historiographie oder Theologie?” in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch, ed. D.R. Daniels et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 329–356 (English translation by Dr. Christian Stadel). To PAIDEIA for (9) “Prophetic Rhetoric and Agricultural Metaphora,” originally published in Storia e traditioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin, ed. D. Garrone and F. Israel (Brescia: Paideia, 1991), 267–279. To the SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, for (4) “‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs,” originally published in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin, M.J. Geller and J.E. Wansbrough (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1987), 117–142. To VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT for (17) “‘The Good Samaritan’—A ‘Good Israelite’?” originally published in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?“ Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. I. Kottsieper et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 472–485. To WALTER DE GRUYTER for (10)“The Collocation ‫ משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬and Its Meaning,” originally published in the Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101.1 (1989), 85–112. The paper was co-authored with Dr. Weston W. Fields, whose kind permission for including it in the present collection is gratefully acknowledged. The original publication is available through de Gruyter on www.reference-global.com, including DOI.

[Type text]

Acknowledgments

xiii

To WIPF AND STOCK PUBLISHERS (www.wipfandstock.com) for (3) “Literary Patterns and Motifs in the Biblical Creation Tradition,” originally published as “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment,” in Ex Auditu 3 (1987), 98–119. To WESTERN ACADEMIC PRESS and the Editors of Maarav for (5) “The Topped Triad in the Hebrew Bible and the Ascending Numerical Pattern,” originally published as “The ‘Topped Triad’: A Literary Convention and the ‘Ascending Numerical’ Pattern,” in Maarav 8 (1993), 181–198.

SIGLA Vrs

The Versions (in general)

MT

Masoretic Text

SP

Samaritan Pentateuch

LXX

Greek Septuagint

LXXA, B…

MSS A, B

LXXO, L

Revisions of the Septuagint made by Origen, Lucian

etc. of the Septuagint

Vulg

Latin Vulgate

OL

Old Latin (Vetus Latina)

Pesh

Syriac Peshitta

Targ

Aramaic Targums

TargO

Targum Onqelos to the Pentateuch

TargN

Targum Neophyti to the Pentateuch

TargPs-J

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch

TargF

Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch

TargJ

Targum Jonathan to the Prophets

TargK

Targum Ketubim to the Writings

NT

New Testament

MS(S)

manuscript(s)

~1~ LITERARY PATTERNS AND SPECULATIVE THOUGHT IN THE HEBREW BIBLE* The modern reader of the Bible, trained to express ideas in a sequential, structured, and methodical exposition, is often perplexed by the almost total unavailability in this corpus of ancient Hebrew writings of any noticeable attempt to formulate, comprehensively and methodically, facets of human thought which then were current in the Israelite market place of ideas.1 Some abstract cogitation and conceptualization may be found to a limited degree in prophetic books and wisdom writings. However, even there they are not presented systematically. The conspicuous absence of conceptual systematization engenders the surmise that the deficiency may not be due to mere happenstance. Rather, it seems to be rooted in the biblical authors’ intrinsic mode of thinking. On the whole, the ancient writers appear to have consciously abstained from abstractions, preferring to encapsulate their reflections in matter-of-fact reports, and by recording their reactions to and their appreciation of the events. The accounts seldom transcend factuality, in what could be viewed as an endeavor to extract and abstract their essence. This dearth of systematic presentations of speculative thought results in a dilemma which constantly faces the student of the Hebrew Scriptures. In attempting to formulate an integrated disposition of biblical theology, anthropology, sociology; a theory of literature; or any other facet of conceptualization, the student is forced to conjoin disjunctive bits of information extracted from diverse texts. Lacking corroborative systematic statements of the biblical writers, his efforts will produce a picture which often resembles a mosaic in which many pieces are missing.2 It is my thesis that this unsatisfactory state of affairs to some extent can be remedied by giving adequate attention to the literary conventions which the biblical authors repeatedly employ in various literary genres, foremost in * 1

2

Originally published as the first part of “Literary Motifs and Speculative Thought in the Hebrew Bible,” Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 16 (1988), 150–168. The matter cannot be pursued here in detail. The reader is referred, inter alia, to Johannes Pedersen’s fine discussion of biblical thinking, in Pedersen, Israel. In essence, this characterization applies also to rabbinic literature.

4

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the narrative description and adumbration of “historical” events. A discerning analysis proves that some such patterns, particularly motifs,3 are in fact condensed signifiers of speculative thought. The heuristic value of literary signifiers which recur in the corpus of biblical writings in different contexts and in varying formulations is rooted in the fact that they arise out of existential conditions. They do not necessarily reflect an individual author’s personal cognizance of and familiarity with the situations which such motifs signify. Rather, they are deeply implanted in the collective experience and the synchronous and diachronous memories of the authors and the audience to whom they address themselves. Such shared traditional conventions may be viewed as attempts to epitomize commonly entertained speculative contemplations of events and situations experienced by all and sundry. Probing those literary conventions is tantamount to exploring biblical Israel’s social, cultural, and religious ethics. The analysis of such literary conventions often reveals popular predilections and fundamental conceptions concerning societal norms. This peculiar trait is rooted in the circumstance that, in distinction from the primary “factuality” which implicitly governs historical reports and narratives in the Hebrew canon, biblical authors consciously use such motifs as “artistic” conventions in a secondary, distinctly “literary” setting. In this context they serve as concentrated expressions of the essential concepts and ideas which inhere in the original situations whose substance the motif is meant to recapture. I have suggested the following definition of “motif” in relation to the literature of the Hebrew Bible: [A] literary motif is a representative complex theme that recurs within the framework of the Hebrew Bible in variable forms and connections. It is rooted in an actual situation of an anthropological or historical nature. In its secondary literary setting, a motif gives expression to ideas and experiences inherent in the original situation and is employed by the author to re-actualize in the audience the reactions of the participants in that original situation. The motif represents the essential meaning of the situation, not the situation itself. It is not a mere reiteration of the

3

Dan Ben-Amos offers a well-reasoned discussion of “The Concept of Motif in Folklore,” together with a full survey of pertinent publications (Ben-Amos, Folklore Studies, 17–36).

[Type text]

Literary Patterns and Speculative Thought

5

sensations involved, but rather a heightened and intensified representation of them.4

Motifs convey formative messages rather than factual information. The writers employ these conventions not merely as ornamentations of their accounts and narratives. They provide them deliberately as tools that are meant to assist their readers in reliving the intrinsic sentiments and reactions which inspired the individuals and collectivities that had actually experienced the primal situations or conditions. Like other representative literary tropes, such as metaphors and similes, motifs are effective only as long as they evoke a clear echo in the listeners’ or readers’ minds. Unless an author could expect that his audience would grasp instantaneously, or at least without excessive mental effort, the intrinsic signification of a motif or topos which he introduced into his discourse, this convention would lose its very raison d’être. The message contained in it would fall on deaf ears, as it were. An author must feel assured that his audience would react to the conventions he uses with a déjà vu sensation, to use Roland Barthes’ felicitous term, and would thus be able to integrate itself into his own train of thought. Therefore, a discerning examination of pivotal motifs and topoi, within the unfolding and changing modes of their employment in diverse strata of the Hebrew Scriptures, can assist us in gauging the intellectual faculties of the biblical authors, as well as the scope of the theological insight, societal comprehension, and historical information that they shared with their audiences. Therefore, the investigation of literary motifs and similar conventions in their changing and developing configurations within the overall framework of the biblical literature can be most rewarding in the endeavor to extract from them their conceptual content and intrinsic message. This can be achieved by examining them initially in the context of the Hebrew Bible, and then in the context of literatures which, one way or another, draw from this basic fundus a great variety of motifs, metaphors and topoi. The analysis should be first conducted intertextually, so as to unravel the textual and literary interaction which can be discerned in the books of the Hebrew Bible, and which confers upon them a palpable unity that transcends

4

Talmon, “Desert Motif,” 225–226. For other definitions see, inter alia, Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 95–96; Fishbane, “Motifs.”

6

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

their just as tangible disparity. Pace Julia Kristeva, such recurrently used intratextual or intertextual conventions reveal, through their progressive modifications, the authors’ and their audiences’ readings of their own history and social conditions.5 The investigation can then be extended to encompass the employment of these motifs in literatures which are evidently and intimately connected with the Hebrew Scriptures, foremost the Qumran scrolls, early rabbinic literature, and early Christian writings.6 It should be stressed that the proposed analysis is bound to reveal the specific connotation of a given motif or any other literary convention in the particular intellectual world reflected in the Hebrew writings in the context of the Israelite society in the biblical age, rather than to document their worldwide commonality as encapsulations of human experience generally. In accordance with this specificity, the investigative procedures to be followed and the resulting conclusions will perceptibly differ from the methods applied by scholars who engage in intracultural motif research on the grand scale. This approach is exemplified par excellence by J.G. Frazer’s classical works Folklore in the Old Testament7 and The Golden Bough,8 Stith Thompson’s monumental Motif Index to Folk Literature,9 and T. Gaster’s, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament,10 to mention only a few outstanding publications. These compendia provide ample and unsurpassed information about the synchronic and diachronic distribution of a plethora of motifs and topoi. Numerous case studies follow these same lines. A good example is D.B. Redford’s essay “The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child.”11 This prevailing school of motif research does indeed pay attention to internal developments and permutations of motifs. But its main efforts are directed toward the listing and classification of motifs which can be identified in historically and geographically often quite remote, and intrinsically different, cultures.

5 6

7 8 9 10 11

Kristeva, “Narration et transformation.” It is to be expected that in their later reemployment biblical motifs will be adjusted to changing societal conditions and conceptions. Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament. Frazer, The Golden Bough. Thompson, Motif-Index. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom. Redford, “Exposed Child.”

[Type text]

Literary Patterns and Speculative Thought

7

Let me emphasize once again that the strategy which I propose to adopt here in the investigation of biblical motifs has a different thrust. It purports to trace the application of prominent motifs in a clearly circumscribed corpus of literature, namely the canon of books which constitute the Hebrew Bible. This corpus is in the nature of an authoritative anthology of ancient Hebrew writings. It constitutes a selection of works that exemplify the ancient Israelite authors’ literary creativity in diverse genres and over a considerable span of time. Being both synchronic and diachronic, this anthology is a ready and possibly unique object for an investigation which aims at recapturing the modifications and transformations that motifs underwent in their transmission within the circumscribed context of the ancient Israelite culture. And since these motifs are in the nature of condensed expressions of speculative thought, as posited above, the examination of pivotal motifs can enlighten us on the pristine and particular socio-religious ethos which inspired the biblical society in its historical development. Paraphrasing Wilhelm Scherer’s dictum, it could be said that the analysis and interpretation of biblical motifs is tantamount to an investigation of the ancient Israelites’ cultural ethics.12 The proposed interpretation of the function of motifs and similar conventions in the Hebrew biblical canon gives rise to the following theses: 1. The analysis of motifs which were employed by diverse authors in heterogeneous literary genres and varying chronological contexts, and in changing combinations with synonymous or antonymous themes or topoi, is bound to reveal pivotal normative traits in the ancient Israelites’ ideonic universe, relative to their understanding of faith and history, and their evaluation of the individual’s place in society. 2. On the other hand, motifs may at times encase sentiments and ideas that diverge from established norms. They disclose an empathy with phenomena which appear to stand in opposition to standards of behavior codified in biblical law or approved by prevailing customs. This empathy was obviously shared by the authors and their audience. The literary conventions function seemingly as escape routes for pent-up tensions. Their incorporation in the authoritative canon of Hebrew Scripture confers upon them the status of legitimate outlets for desires and conceptions for which the established norms did not make provision.

12

Scherer, Poetik, 213; see also Ben-Amos, Folklore Studies, 22.

8

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

3. A motif can be adapted to entirely new literary setting. It lends itself to, and even tends to be amalgamated with, other motifs, themes, and literary patterns. Thus, the actual manifestation of a motif in a given corpus of writings, in the present instance the Hebrew Bible, can turn up in modifications which, at a coup d’oeuil, appear to be quite removed from its presumed initial formulation, as far as this can still be recovered. Often, only a minute analysis can bring to light intermediate stages of development, and this is indispensable for making manifest the connection between the ultimate literary configuration(s) and the primal shape of a motif, if such can be ascertained at all. Because of its complexity (a feature which sets it off, e.g., against an image, which is usually of a simple nature), a motif cannot be adequately evaluated in isolation. To gauge its full intrinsic meaning, a motif should be viewed in conjunction with synonymous and against the background of antonymous themes and literary patterns with which it can be linked in variable combinations. 4. It follows that the examination of a cluster of prominent motifs will shed light on the intellectual diversity which pervaded biblical society and will open up new avenues for the assessment of biblical man’s speculative faculties. The analysis of pivotal synonymous and antonymous motifs will bring into the open what Renate Lachmann calls “the dialogue of diverse societal concepts that compete with each other in one common cultural context.”13 Viewed synoptically, such conventions may be likened to a sounding board on which the polyphony of voices captured in the biblical literature reverberates, evincing the dialogical nature of these writings. Biblical motifs, like other literary conventions, can be classified in accordance with several criteria.14 I propose to subsume them under the following headings which quite obviously require further categorization: (a) Anthropological motifs which mirror interpersonal relations. (b) Sociological motifs in which are encapsulated intergroup relations between constitutive entities of the Israelite society or between the People of Israel and other nations.

13 14

Lachmann, Dialogizität, 8. See Ben-Amos, Folklore Studies, 18–20.

[Type text]

Literary Patterns and Speculative Thought

9

In this category also belong motifs which appear to reflect biblical man’s evaluation of diverse stages in Israel’s progress as a people and a nation in the biblical era.15 (c) Theological motifs that reflect the ancient Hebrews’ concept of God and the interrelationships in which the divine and the human spheres are intertwined. (d) Transmutable motifs which oscillate between the above categories. They are usually rooted in an anthropological context, but can be transplanted in a sociological setting or translated onto the theological plane. Such motifs pertain to an individual member of society, to the king as the representative of the res publica, and at times also to the Deity. They give expression to the basic tenet that permeates biblical literature: the place of the individual in his society—“as man as his society”—and is equally applicable to the realm of interaction between the divine and the human.

15

For a discussion of some such motifs, see Talmon, “Desert Motif ”; idem, “‫ ;”מדבר‬idem, “‫הר‬, ‫ ;”גבעה‬idem, “Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles,” 350–356.

10

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~2~ CONCEPTUAL PATTERNS OF HISTORY IN THE HEBREW BIBLE I On the basis of my description of the functions performed by motifs in biblical literature,1 I suggest the following working hypotheses: (a) The analysis of pivotal motifs and patterns in biblical literature, employed by diverse authors in different literary types and Gattungen, in varying chronological frameworks, and in ever-changing combinations with synonymous motifs or antithetical themes, may lead to the discernment of axial, normative traits in the ancient Israelites’ ideonic universe. These traits relate to their understanding of faith and history, as well as their evaluation of humanity’s place in society in their conceptual universe. By collating and coordinating the information gained from a study of recurring literary motifs and patterns in all their permutations, new perspectives may be obtained relative to the Hebrews’ understanding and evaluation of history and society, and of the individual within society; in other words, relative to biblical anthropology and sociology. (b) At times, literary motifs, themes, and patterns encapsulate sentiments and ideas which diverged from or ran counter to established norms of the Israelite society of the biblical era. At times, literary tropes disclose empathy with situations experienced by the individual or with societal phenomena which contradict standards laid down in codified biblical law. Such motifs and tales seemingly function as safety valves for the release of pent-up tensions and desires, for which the established norms did not make any provision. Such literary patterns seem to disclose deviations from or opposition to sanctioned societal norms, and to champion suppressed popular sentiments. They indirectly witness to the intellectual diversity which obtained in the ancient Israelite society but did not find adequate expression in the closed standard corpus of biblical books. These hypotheses will be tested by the socio-literary analysis of a diverging or antithetical pair of modes or motifs relating to time and chronology, which reflect signal aspects of the historical horizon of the biblical authors and their audiences. 1

See the introduction to this volume, above, 3–9.

12

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

II We seek an answer to the following question: what information, if any, can be gleaned from the biblical writings in reference to the ancient Israelites’ consciousness of history as an ongoing process in time. How far into the past extended their comprehension of events (historisches Geschehen), and what were the limits of their grasp of a historical future? The foregoing remarks give reason to expect that biblical authors seemingly did not endeavor to present their audiences with a comprehensive overview and critical appreciation of discrete events which would approximate a theory of history. For the most part, the writers were satisfied with the matter-offact recording of presumed actual occurrences. As will yet be illustrated, only occasionally will an author transcend in his report the contemporaneousness of actual incidents, preponderantly by recapturing their essential meaning in literary patterns. I propose to examine the thesis that in the biblical writings two contrastive concepts of “historical time” may be discerned: (a) One attests the schematic reckoning of forty years as the life span of one generation. This basic schema, then, is the central pillar of an equally schematic system of chronological calculations, which determines the contours of a stereotyped historiography. (b) The other system, on the surface, reflects a realistic conception, which conceives of actual history as encompassing six to seven generations, with two to three preceding the author’s/speaker’s or their heroes’ own lifetime, and two to three generations succeeding it. The two schemas seem to be unrelated. Seldom, if ever, will chronological calculations according to one schema be based upon or impinge upon the other. Their separation from each other lends credence to the proposition that these systems represent different, although concomitantly entertained, understandings of history. I propose first to illustrate the realistic concept of history, then turning to the discussion of texts which reflect the stereotypical calculation of historical chronology. History, seen as extending over six to seven generations, indeed reflects reality. An individual may have live memories of his/her parents and grandparents, at times also of a great-grandparent. This realistic view of the past can serve as an explanation of an ancient Semitic custom. In biblical texts, as on inscriptions and occasionally on seals, the owner’s name will be followed

[Type text]

Conceptual Patterns of History

13

by those of a father and grandfather, sometimes of a great-grandfather.2 Taken as a reflection of an attempt to grasp history in progress, this practice appears to have a significance which transcends its under-standing as merely a symbol of status—as is often presumed—where an extended genealogy serves as an expression of the owner’s elevated position in his society.3 By the same token, an individual may hope to live long enough to see children, grandchildren, even great-grandchildren. Such “historical reality” is captured in biblical accounts of the lives of outstanding personalities. An example is the tradition of “three generations of Patriarchs,” present in practically all strata of biblical literature—e.g., in the report of Jacob’s descent into Egypt, together with “his sons and grandsons” (Gen 46:3-7; cf. 48:1-12; Job 42:16). A somewhat generalized variation of such a genealogical roster is mirrored in historiographical notations—as, for example in the accounts of the (minor) Judge Abdon the Pirathonite who “had forty sons and thirty grandsons” (Judg 12:14); and Ulam, a descendant of the House of Saul, of whom it is said that his sons “had many sons and grandsons,” ‫ויהיו בני אולם אנשים גברי חיל‬ ‫( דרכי קשת ומרבים בנים ובני בנים‬1 Chr 8:40). It would seem that only some biblical dramatis personae, such as Joseph, were granted long enough life spans to see their great-grandchildren: “Joseph … lived there [in Egypt] to be a hundred and ten years old4 and saw Ephraim’s 2

3

4

For items of this type see, e.g., Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, no. 108: ‫י[הו בנשלמיהו‬. A similar case occurs in an impression on a bulla from Lachish: ‫לירמיהו צפניהו נבי‬. Aharoni, “Trial Excavation,” 167, restores an ʾaleph at the end of [‫נבי]א‬, and takes the word as the designation of a “profession.” Avigad rejects this conjectural reading and its interpretation, rightly taking ‫ נבי‬as a nomen proprium, probably derived from the nomen loci ‫( נֺב‬1 Sam 21:2; 22:11, 19). See Avigad, “New Names,” 71; idem, “Titles and Symbols,” 305. Additional seal impressions of the three-name (= three generations) type were found in excavations in the Tower of David area in Jerusalem. In Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions, the names of two or three forefathers often are mentioned (see, e.g., KAI nos. 7, 10, 32, 35; 18, 36, 41, 55, 63). In rare cases, five (KAI nos. 34, 48), six (KAI no. 52), and even fifteen names are adduced (KAI nos. 68, 78; cf. Mesha, l.1). As, for example, when the certainty of “proper” descent is made a prerequisite for the execution of specific, e.g., ritual, functions (contrast Ezra 7:1-5 with ibid., 2:59 = Neh 7:61). This is a sign of special distinction, since he lived ten years more than the 100 years which Egyptian tradition assigns to a single generation. It is of interest to note that besides Joseph, whom the biblical reports implant firmly in Egypt, only Joshua of the Exodus generation died at the age of 110 (Josh 24:29 = Judg 2:8).

14

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

children to the third generation; also the children of Manasseh’s son Makir were born on Joseph’s knees” (Gen 50:23), which means that he acknowledged them as his own children (cf. Ruth 4:14, 17). That this was considered a very special blessing is made evident by the report that Job, the famous “Just Man” of bygone ages, was granted the same distinction, in recognition of his unfailing trust in God even when undeserved disaster struck him: “Thereafter [viz., after his fortunes were restored], Job lived one hundred and forty years; he saw his sons and grandsons to four generations” (Job 42:16-17). The notion that a realistic view of future history encompasses three to four generations surfaces most tangibly in what amounts to a treaty formula. Such a formula seals the covenant between Abimelech, King of Gerar and Abraham the Hebrew: Then Abimelech said to Abraham, ”Swear by God to me here and now that you will not lie to me [break the agreement] nor to my offspring (‫)ולניני ולנכדי‬.” (Gen 21:23)

As usually suggested, the Hebrew pair of genealogical terms ‫נכד‬/‫נין‬ indeed may refer to progeny generally, somewhat like “kith and kin.”5 However, in the political context of the treaty concluded between Abimelech and Abraham, which was aimed at ending the tension that had arisen between them and their kinsmen (ibid., ch. 20), it is preferable to invest these terms with a more concrete connotation: Abimelech and his ‫ נין‬and ‫נכד‬ together make up the triad of generations that demarcates the historical horizon which the author, like the dramatis personae of his account, could envisage. Their covenant was established for historical time, not for unfathomable eternity. An extension of the covenant beyond the horizon of history would be indicated by the collocation ‫עד עולם‬. In similar passages, the added term ‫ זרע‬often is introduced into the agreement or covenant formula (e.g., Gen 3:15; 17:7; 1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 7:12 = 1 Chr 17:11; Isa 59:21; cf., furthering addition, Deut 28:46, 59). However, these terms must be investigated separately. The expression ‫( לניני ולנכדי‬Gen 21:23) could also be understood as a triple phrase from which the third component, ‫לבני‬, was omitted. In that case, the 5

See Speiser, Genesis, 158–59; Pope, Job, 133; Gray, Isaiah, 262. The Jerusalem Bible renders Gen 21:23, “that you will not trick me, neither myself nor my descendants nor any of mine.”

[Type text]

Conceptual Patterns of History

15

historical horizon implied in Abimelech’s treaty with Abraham would encompass four generations. Some support for this supposition can be derived from biblical sources; note, for example the oracle against Babylon 6 in Isa 14:22, ‫והכרתי לבבל שם ושאר ונין ונכד‬. In this instance, the hendiadys ‫ שם ושאר‬most probably stands for ‫בנים‬, viz., for the next generation. In this case, the word pair probably would refer to the third and the fourth generation (see discussion below).7 Aramean state treaties of the 8th century BCE from Sefire (I–III), signed between King Bargaʾya of KTK and King Matiʿ-ʾel of Arpad furnish an interesting parallel to the biblical Abraham–Abimelech tradition, both in content and in formulaic phraseology.8 The historical framework of these treaties again appears to take into account three or possibly four generations of royal rulers and their nations (KAI 222:A 1-4): ‫עדי ברגאיה מלך כתך עם מתעאל בר עתרסמך מלך ]ארפד‬ ‫וע[די בני ברגאיה עם בני מתעאל‬ ‫ועדי בני בני ברגא]יה ועקר[ה עם עקר מתעאל בר עתרסמך מלך ארפד‬ ‫ועדי כתך עם ]עדי[ ארפד‬ ‫ועדי בעלי כתך עם עדי בעלי ארפד‬ The compact of Bar-gaʾya, King of KTK, with Matiʿ-ʾel, son of ʿAtarsamakh, King of Arpad, and the compact of the sons of Bar-gaʾya with the sons of Matiʿ-ʾel, and the compact of the grandsons of Bar-gaʾ[ya and his offspring]9 with the offspring of Matiʿ-ʾel, son of ʿAtar-samakh, King of Arpad, and the compact of KTK with [the compact of] Arpad, 6 7

8 9

The function of the term here is like that of ‫יד ושם‬. See Talmon, “‫יד ושם‬,” below, 211–235. The same interpretation may be applicable to the occurrence of these presumably exact terms in the Book of Job. However, there they are employed in a rather loose manner in reference to malefactors generally, and not to specific historical characters: “The [life] light of the evildoer will be put out” (Job 18:5; cf. Ps 37:28); ‫לא נין לו ולא נכד בעמו ואין שריד במגוריו‬, “No ‫ נין‬or ‫[ נכד‬is left] in his family, no remnant [offspring] in his dwelling places” (Job 18:19). In contrast, using the same terminology, Ben Sira holds out to Israel the promise of continuity ‫( לא ]יכרת לבחיריו[ נין ונכד ויתן ליעקב שאר‬Sir 47:22; cf. Isa 14:22 and Jer 11:22-23), although in an inverted sequence which, however, in no way obfuscates the dependence on a biblical pattern: ‫ אב‬,‫ בן‬,‫ נכד‬,‫( נין נמאס‬Sir 41:5-7). This has repeatedly been pointed out. See, e.g., Weinfeld, “‫ברית‬,” 261. The general connotation “offspring” of ‫ עקר‬may be better suited to the translation of the hapax legomenon ‫ עקר‬in biblical Hebrew (Lev 25:47). There it applies to non-Israelites, and actually may be a loan word. See also Talmon, “Barren Wife,” below, 159–170.

16

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

and the compact of the grandees of KTK with the compact of the grandees of Arpad.

The second part of the inscription preserves an almost identical introduction. In juxtaposition to the recurring noun ‫בני‬, the term ‫עקר‬, most probably designates the third generation (KAI 222:B 1-2): ‫עדי ברגאיה מלך כתך עם מתעאל בר עת]רסמך מלך אר[פד‬ ‫ועדי בני ברגאיה עם בני מתעאל‬ ‫ועדי ]בני בני בר[גאיה עם עקר מתעאל‬ ‫ עקר‬is similarly employed in the part of the text in which the main covenanters’ undertaking is spelled out, viz., that they and their successors will faithfully abide by the stipulations of the compact (KAI 222:B 24-25): [‫גבר עדן הא ]אנה לאכהל לא שלח ידי[ בך וליכהל ברי ]ל[ישלח יד בבר]ך‬ [‫ועקרי בעק]רך‬ I am a covenanter [and can never raise my hand] against you and my son can never raise his hand against your son and my grandson (‫)ועקרי‬ against your grandson (‫)בעקרך‬.10

The King of Arpad and his descendants are expected to come to the assistance of the rulers of KTK, whenever they are attacked by a third party. Once more, next to King Bargaʾya himself (l. 26), his son (l. 27), and grandson are explicitly mentioned as his ‫( עקר‬l. 32). In texts A and B the King of KTK is the speaker, whereas in text C the words of the King of Arpad are reported. He admonishes his son and grandson, who will rule after him, to keep the agreement, so that no evil will befall the royal house (KAI 222:C 1-4):11 ‫מה כתבת א]נה מתע[אל לזכרן לברי ]ולבר[ ברי זי יסקן ב]אשר[י‬ That the combined life span of three to four generations was seen by biblical authors and their audiences to constitute the realistic extent of a historical future also is illustrated by Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the period of Babylonian world rule. It will begin with Nebuchadnezzar’s reign: “All nations will serve him, and (after him) his son and his son’s son” (27:7). Whereas this period is defined in unequivocal and precise terms, the

10 11

Cf. KAI 223:B 5-6; 224:1. Cf. Ps 128:5-6 and see below, 19–23.

[Type text]

Conceptual Patterns of History

17

description of the changed situation which is to follow is couched in vague, inexact language. The agents who are destined to bring about the envisaged change are not specified: “then mighty nations and great kings shall use him [Nebuchadnezzar] as they please” (ibid.). The foreboding that the Babylonians’ world dominion is to be terminated, which closes Jeremiah’s prophecy, is also preserved in the oracle of Isaiah mentioned earlier: “Never again shall they rise to conquer the earth” (Isa 14:21). However, here an element of “historical” specification is introduced into the vision of Babylon’s doom, by the detailed elaboration of who will be affected by it. Then, God “will wipe out from Babylon, ‫”שם ושאר ונין ונכד‬ (Isa 14:22). This word string is mostly understood as a commonplace prediction of the total annihilation of Babylon’s “offspring and posterity.” In distinction, II prefer to understand the enumeration of three terms—which, as noted above can have a genealogical connotation—as implying that this oracle was meant to serve as a “negative” foil to Jeremiah’s “positive” prophecy. Just as one prophet had foreseen a period of weal for Babylon which would last for three generations, another foresaw for her a time of woe which would equally extend over the lifetimes of three generations. Concomitantly, Jeremiah circumscribed in similar terms the period of exile to be endured by the Judeans who were deported in 597 BCE. He exhorted them to normalize their life for the duration of this adverse phase in Israel’s history, again enumerating three generations—the deportees, their children and grandchildren: “Marry wives, beget sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters” (Jer 29:6). It follows that the reversal of the exiles’ misfortunes is foreseen as occurring in the lifetime of the fourth generation. One cannot fail to hear in this message of encouragement an echo of the tradition which offers a similar calculation of the expected duration of Israel’s exile in Egypt, although the Jeremiah passage does not refer to it explicitly: “God said to Abraham, know … that your descendants will be aliens living in a land that is not theirs; they will be slaves … but I will punish that nation whose slaves they are, and after that they shall come out … the fourth generation shall return here” (Gen 15:13-16).12

12

See Talmon, “Four Hundred Years,” below, 126–136.

18

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

The passage in the Book of Genesis will yet require our attention. For the present, another point regarding the aforementioned texts in the Book of Jeremiah must be brought into consideration. The period of three generations is mentioned in two independent although related texts, one indicating the length of Babylonian world dominion (Jer 27:7), the other the duration of Judah’s exile (ibid., 29:5-6). The actual extent of this period, however, is specified in yet another prophecy: “When a full seventy years have passed over Babylon [says God], I will take up your cause and fulfill the promise of good things I made to you, by bringing you back to this place” (Jer 29:10, cf. Gen 15:16; Jer 25:11-12; Zech 1:12; 7:5; Dan 9:2; Ezra 1:1 = 2 Chr 36:21). As in Jer 29:1-9, also here the stereotypical number of “seventy years” cannot be construed to mean that the prophet declares that “the exile would last a man’s lifetime,” as presumed, inter alia, by J. Goldingay.13 Such a prediction would place Jeremiah in line with the “lying prophets” (Jer 29:8-9). The number signifies rather that Israel’s restoration would occur in the lifetime of the fourth generation, just as YHWH had promised to Abraham (Gen 15:13-18). Presumably, a similar explanation applies to the term ‫ אחרית הימים‬which closes the oracles about Moab (Jer 48:47) and Elam (Jer 49:39), who are mentioned in the catalogue of nations that will succumb to the onslaught of the Babylonians (Jer 25:21, 25). Like Judah, they will experience the restitution of their fortunes after 70 years. In this context, the term ‫שבעים שנה‬ covers the same range of a period in history as the phrase “sons and grandsons” in the prophecy aimed at Judah (cf. Dan 2:28; 10:14). The equivalence of these texts evidences that both the effective memory of past history and the fathomable horizon of future history encompassed three generations, whose combined lifespan was calculated to extend over “seventy years.” This figure surely is not an accurate chronological datum. However, it can provide an explanation of the number of sixty-five years in the oracle of comfort which Isaiah holds out to King Ahaz of Judah (Isa 7:8). The prophet foresees the dissolution of the Kingdom of Ephraim (possibly also of Aram) at the end of that span of time, that is to say in a predictably close historical future. This explanation makes redundant the fruitless search for an identifiable event in the first half of the seventh century BCE which

13

Goldingay, “The Chronicler.”

[Type text]

Conceptual Patterns of History

19

could serve as a suitable peg upon which to hang Isaiah’s oracle, often defined vaticinium ex eventu.14 The combined evidence of the above passages prompts the conclusion that ancient Israel’s comprehensive view of actual history comprised six to seven generations, each with an average life span of approximately twentyfive years, which together totaled about one hundred and fifty years.15. This calculation certainly is much closer to reality than the schema in which forty years are considered the basic generational unit. III It remains to be shown that the “realistic” view of history, which comes to the fore in traditions concerning individuals and distinctive historical groups at given junctures in the passage of time, indeed mirrors the biblical understanding of history as a conceptual phenomenon. One arrives at this conclusion through a study of texts in which the time unit “six to seven generations” turns up in the form of a proverbial motif which, by definition, transcends the plane of historical actuality. An Israelite who wished to delve into matters preceding his own experience was enjoined to turn to his elders whose historical knowledge and memory penetrated deeper into the past: “remember the days of old, think of generations long ago, ask your father to recount it, your elders [grandfathers] to tell you (the tale)” (Deut 32:7-8; cf. 4:32). The future which one may expect to experience is encapsulated by the days of the children of one’s sons: “Grandchildren [literally: sons of sons] are the crown [pride] of grandfathers; and fathers are the diadem [treasure] of sons” (Prov 17:6); “A good man will leave an inheritance to [his] sons’ sons …” (Prov 13:22). This is considered the expanse of time within which the individual can realistically hope to see one’s family flourish, and within which a society can expect to experience a state of wellbeing and success: “May YHWH bless you from Zion, may you [live to] see the weal of Jerusalem

14

15

See Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 93–94; Wildberger, Isaiah, 1:301–302; Gray, Isaiah, 119–120. The author of the oracle possibly had three generations in mind: King Ahaz, the young pregnant woman, ‫עלמה‬, and her unborn son (cf. Isa 7:10-17). This would provide a possible explanation of the traditions which ascribe a lifetime of between 120 and 140 years to several biblical figures.

20

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

all the days of your life. May you [live to] see your children’s children [while there is] peace upon Israel” (Ps 128:5-6). Whatever lies beyond this range of time cannot be fathomed. Between the historical “now,” the generation of one’s grand- or great-grandchildren, and the far away “then,” stretches the undeterminable expanse of time which can neither be enclosed within the frame of a realistic view of history, nor bridged by reliable information. Beyond the third (or fourth) generation after the author’s/speaker’s lifetime lies eternity, the “forever and ever.” In these terms, the descendants of Jonadab ben Rechab, e.g., define the everlasting immutability of the injunction which their ancestor had imposed on them: “Jonadab ben Rechab commanded us: You shall never drink wine, neither you nor your sons forever” (Jer 35:6; cf. Ezek 37:25). Similarly, it is said of the foreigners whom the Assyrians had transplanted into the territory of the erstwhile kingdom of Samaria: “While these nations paid homage to YHWH they continued to serve their images, [they,] their children, and their children’s children until this [very] day” (2 Kgs 17:41). The phrase “until this day” proves the speaker’s contention that he was an eyewitness to these heathen practices,16 which had continued into his own days, the age of the Return from the (Babylonian) Exile.17 It seems that he did not have at his disposal reliable information pertaining to the approximately one hundred and fifty years which had passed since the Assyrians had forcibly settled, in the former Israelite territory of Samaria, foreigners and their immediate descendants, who had introduced there their polytheistic cults. Or else, this time span did not attract his interest. The lack of historical information which separates the experienced past from the uncharted future finds its most succinct expression in a standard formula belonging to the “retribution motif” which encapsulates the relation of Israel’s God to humanity: A sinner’s punishment for his transgressions is to be meted out to him in the course of history. His misdoings will be visited upon his descendants to the fourth generation: “I punish the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation …” (Exod 20:5; cf. ibid., 34:7; Num 14:18 etc.). By contrast, the reward for steadfast adherence to YHWH and his laws transcends present history, as expressed in the divine promise to Jehu: “You 16 17

See Childs, “Until this Day.” See Talmon, “Polemics and Apology,” 141–144.

[Type text]

Conceptual Patterns of History

21

have done well what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in my mind to do. Therefore your sons to the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel” (2 Kgs 10:30; 15:12). It is the everlasting inheritance of the righteous’ offspring: “I keep [my] faith to the thousandth [generation] of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod 20:6; cf. Deut 5:10). Going beyond the specification of three to four generations in reference to the future clearly implies that a writer has set his eyes on eternity. This can be inferred from the injunction never to admit an Ammonite or Moabite into YHWH’s congregation, viz., never to let them become members of his people: “No Ammonite or Moabite, even down to the tenth generation, shall become a member of the assembly of YHWH” (Deut 23:4). In the context, the connotation of the phrase “tenth generation” is explicated in the second stich of the verse: “They shall not become members of the assembly of YHWH in [all] eternity.” In some cases, one component of an antithetical pair is omitted in the employment of the motif, as in the reference to the “wicked” (Num 14:18), where the “righteous” one and his fate are only implied. The eternality of the righteous one’s reward is highlighted by the conferral upon it of a historical dimension: “God’s love is [assured] for all eternity to those who revere [fear] him; his righteousness to [their] sons and grandsons” (Ps 103:17). IV The foregoing analysis has some bearing on the interpretation of a term which plays a pivotal role in the scholarly discussion concerning ancient Israel’s understanding of history. The suggestion that the biblical comprehension of a period in a historical future extended over the life span of three to four generations, through the inclusion of the lifetimes of ones children and grandchildren, lends support to the proposition suggested by several scholars; viz., that the phrase ‫ בנים‬and ‫ בני בנים‬pertains to actual history, not to metahistory.18 The time span thus defined is seen to be directly linked with the two- or three-generation tier which signifies Realgeschichte.19 It will

18 19

Talmon, “Eschatology and History,“ 174–176; idem, “Partikularität,” 29. See above.

22

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

suffice to adduce a few texts which underpin this supposition.20 In this context, Moses’ last words, addressed to the people of Israel before his death, are most convincing: “For I know that after my death (‫ )אחרי מותי‬you will take to degrading practices. … In the days to come (‫)באחרית הימים‬, disaster will come upon you, because you are doing what is wrong in the eyes of YHWH …” (Deut 31:29). This is another case of the idea that the wicked are to be punished in the course of actual history. In addition, the verse contains what amounts to an inner-biblical explanation that removes any doubt as to the equivalence of the phrases ‫ באחרית הימים‬and ‫אחרי מותי‬, “after my death,” in the context; the phrases clearly refer to the life span of the immediate descendants of the present generation, who will be caught up in sin, and therefore will be chastised (cf. Judg 2:6-15; 1 Sam 12:14-15).21 In several occurrences by itself, the noun ‫ אחרית‬means “offspring,” more precisely, sons or daughters; as used, e.g., in the divine threat: “I will hide my face from them, he [God] said; let me see [the fate of] their offspring, ‫אחריתם‬, for they are a mutinous generation” (Deut 32:20). Again: “[cows of Bashan], you will be carried [into captivity] on shields, your daughters 22 [dragged away] with fish hooks (‫”)ונשא אתכם בצנות ואחריתכן בסירות דוגה‬ (Amos 4:2). Τhe prophet’s prediction of the punishment that is to befall Ephraim, who is pictured as a woman or mother, must also be thus explained: “I will make her [Samaria] like [a wife] mourning over her one and only [husband], and [the fate of] her offspring will be as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10); “I will smash them all [viz., the present generation], and their offspring I shall kill by the sword” (9:1). The same idea finds expression in Ezek 23:25: “I will turn my (jealous) wrath loose on you, they [the Babylonians] will treat you with fury. They will cut off your nose and your ears, [your children] will fall by the sword (‫)ואחריתך בחרב תפול‬.” Like in Deut 31:29, here too the meaning of ‫ אחרית‬is made explicit by an ensuing note, which probably stems from the pen of the author, but may be a reader’s or a scribe’s gloss: “They will take [away] your sons and daughters, and ‫ אחריתך‬will be consumed by fire.”

20 21 22

A tradition which calculates one generation at 100 years may be reflected in Isa 65:20. Contrast the references to preceding text. The rendition of Robinson and Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 53–54, ”your behind,” (“Hinter”) is unacceptable.

[Type text]

Conceptual Patterns of History

23

The wording brings to mind the ending of the tale of Job: “God blessed Job’s new [latter] set of children (‫ )אחרית איוב‬more than his first (‫… )מראשיתו‬ he saw his sons and grandsons to four generations” (42:12-16). Cf. further: “If the fear of God is upon you, there is ‫[ אחרית‬viz., you will be assured of continued existence in your offspring] and your [life]line will not be cut” (Prov 23:18). Again, “Make wisdom your own; if you grasp it, there is a future [for you] ‫[ אחרית‬in your offspring], your lifeline will not be cut” (24:14). “Do not vie with evildoers or emulate the wicked; for the wicked will have no offspring, ‫אחרית‬, the [life-]light of evildoers will be put out” (24:20). The very same concept appears to be present in the accusation against the personified city of Jerusalem: “Defilement clung to her [skirt ]hems; she gave no thought to [the fate of] her offspring” (Lam 1:9). Also in this instance the noun ‫ אחרית‬refers to “daughters and sons.” This is made abundantly clear in the many wailing lines in which the author(s) of the laments bemoan the bitter lot which is to befall the children of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (see 1:4, 5, 7, 18; 2:11, 19, 20, 21, etc.). V Following upon this analysis, it is appropriate to stress some points of more general import: 1. “Motif research” cannot be viewed as an alternative for other, established methods in the modern study of the Hebrew Bible, but it can serve well as an additional exegetical tool which may help in recovering salient aspects of the biblical authors’ literary techniques and conceptual outlooks. 2. In the biblical writings, motifs, themes, and patterns do not serve solely as means for enhancing the aesthetic value of a given piece of literature. The study of such literary tropes shows that they are often also condensations of the biblical authors’ ideas and thoughts. A thorough analysis of central literary motifs, themes, and patterns can enrich our comprehension of biblical man’s conceptual universe. Such an analysis can offer a partial compensation for the lack of systematization and categorization which typifies the Hebrew Bible literature. 3. In a way, such research induces the scholar to emulate the thought processes of the biblical authors, viz., thinking conceptually by association and accumulation, rather than systematically. It offers valuable insights into the biblical view of the human being’s role in the universe, and in society,

24

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the Eigenverständnis of biblical Israel. Thus, it comes close to what may be termed “inner-biblical exegesis.” 4. Motifs, themes, patterns, and other literary tropes are facets of biblical literature in general. They transcend the peculiarities of this or that individual author, of one or another literary stratum or literar-historische Quelle. They overcome the dividing lines which modern Hebrew Bible scholarship has established. The analysis of literary tropes discloses what is common to that literature as a whole, and to a degree acts as a countermeasure to the fragmentation which results from the submission of Scripture to investigations based on the exegetical methods adopted in the contemporary study of the Hebrew Bible. 5. Finally, two avenues for further and intensified study of the biblical literature may be suggested: (a) The theoretical bases of the investigation of literary patterns which can be identified in the biblical writings need to be clarified and buttressed, first and foremost by recourse to procedures and methods established in general literary research. (b) A sizable corpus of central motifs, themes, and patterns in the realm of religion, society, history, and the like, should be submitted to a detailed analysis within the framework of the entire corpus of biblical literature. A synthesis of the results thus obtained may provide a heuristic instrument for an attempt to trace the outlines of the “speculative thought” of biblical people.

~3~ LITERARY PATTERNS AND MOTIFS IN THE BIBLICAL CREATION TRADITION* I A tradition ascribed to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (second century CE) has it that the season when Jews all over the world observed Rosh Hashanah, the festival which marks the beginning of the New Year, coincides with the time of the year in which creation occurred (b. Roš Haš. 10b–11a). While this synchronization obviously cannot be taken at face value, nevertheless it highlights an idea on which I will comment here, namely, that creation merges at some juncture with history and transcends it, ultimately flowing into metahistory. Thus, creation can yet be observed in actual human life experience. One way or another this linking of creation with history reflects the concept of a creatio continua, which is debated by Jewish thinkers—and not only by them. The linking of creation with history by synchronizing the beginning of the world with the beginning of the calendar year was especially accentuated in a dissident Jewish tradition, which has come to our knowledge since the mid-twentieth century. I refer to the discovery in the Judean Desert of a hoard of predominantly pre-Christian ancient manuscripts preserved by the Community of the Renewed Covenant.1 An investigation of the most ingenious lunisolar calendar of 364 days to which the Covenanters adhered proves that their first day of the year always fell on the fourth day of the week, the day on which the Creator God is said to have fashioned the great luminaries (Gen 1:16).2 There can be little doubt that in this instance the synchronization of the flow of time in the life of the individual with that of society is highlighted by harnessing the calendar to the timetable of the biblical creation story. Thus, history is riveted to a time pattern which from the very beginning of the world was divinely established for eternity. I am inclined to see this view of creation merging into history as

* 1 2

Originally published as “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment,” Ex Auditu 3 (1987), 98–119. For the designation of this phrase, see my study, “Renewed Covenant.” See Talmon, “Calendar Reckoning,” 176.

26

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

a guideline for a human commitment to principles of individual and societal behavior. Such can be extrapolated in essence from numerous biblical traditions concerning the beginning of the world. II I propose to structure this essay as follows: I shall approach the matter at hand from two viewpoints which are indeed interconnected, but nevertheless are subject to different modes of description and analysis. The first part of my presentation is determined by the exegetical methods developed and perfected in contemporary biblical scholarship. Here we must bring under scrutiny a variety of creation traditions which are presented in the Hebrew Scriptures, albeit merely in bits and parts. It goes without saying that in such a methodological context, one may expect a high degree of similarity among scholars both in their analytical techniques and in the results at which they would arrive irrespective of creed or confession. Objectivity, determined by scientific reasoning, outweighs or should outweigh subjectivity. The restrictions imposed upon the professional scholar by the demand for objectivity become less stringent when one approaches the problem of creation as an interpreter who aims to extrapolate from the biblical tradition guidelines for human behavior in present time. At this stage of the investigation one necessarily speaks from within the creedal fold, and is actually called upon to bring into play one’s religious beliefs. In doing so, one may integrate oneself into the ongoing process of interpretation of seminal biblical texts in one’s particular tradition as it developed over the ages. In the second part of my deliberations, speaking decidedly as a Jewish Bible scholar, I shall direct my remarks exclusively to the creation story in the book of Genesis which became normative in Jewish tradition. I shall mention only in passing allusions to other depictions of creation found in the Hebrew Bible, which reflect ancient Near Eastern myths that were current among the Hebrews, that had been absorbed into their cultural heritage, and that had infiltrated their sacred writings. While it is desirable to separate the objective approach from the subjective, it would be preposterous to maintain that this separation can be always neatly achieved. At times the ‘two souls that dwell in our breasts’ will strive to be united. At this or the other juncture the realm of scholarly objectivity will be invaded by subjective ideological or religious considerations which arise

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

27

from the condition humaine. This seems to be acceptable as long as the merging occurs under control, that is to say, as long as subjective interpretation is not given full dominance over scholarly objectivity, thus turning the exegesis of biblical texts into eisegesis. The duality of approaches outlined above is linked with two further phenomena which must be taken into account. One pertains to the matter under investigation, the other to the investigator. (a) We should first highlight a difficulty which confronts the student of the Hebrew Scriptures, irrespective of credal affiliation, who sets out to extract from the factual accounts of events which predominate in biblical literature the never fully explicated principles and concepts which supposedly inspired them. It may be considered a characteristic of this literature that rarely, if ever, will a biblical author present in a systematic fashion and in conceptual terms his reflections on matters which in his days were current in the Israelite marketplace of ideas. From this results a dilemma which is commonly experienced by all students of the Hebrew Bible: the investigator who sets out to present an integrated picture of any aspect of the biblical world of ideas must resort to conjoining fragmentary bits mainly of factual information, extracted from a diversity of texts. Thus, e.g., scholars have called attention to the narrative-dramatic tenor of the biblical creation account and the concomitant paucity of abstract terms in the biblical as well as the post-biblical Hebrew vocabulary pertaining to creation.3 Conceptualization does not surface in the texts themselves. Rather, it may be achieved, to a restricted degree, by the scholar’s endeavor to distill from the reported “facts” elements which will assist in revealing the presumed cogitations and conceptualizations of the ancient writers. The result of this labor will perforce always be a mosaic in which many pieces are missing.4 (b) The Jewish scholar faces an additional limitation which impedes his attempt to delineate the specifically Jewish appreciation of conceptual matters pertaining to the Bible, such as the understanding of creation and the imperatives of human commitment which can be elicited from it. Judaism is not monolithic in the interpretation of its heritage. In the present framework it would be impossible to do justice to the diverse nuances, some even varying on principles, which can be discerned in Jewish tradition in reference to the 3 4

E.g., Rowley, Growth, 137; Vajda, Introduction, 12. See Talmon, “Kingship and Ideology,” 9–12.

28

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

issue under review. As is the case in regard to other aspects of speculative thought, the varying interpretations of creation to a large degree also depend directly upon the specific historical situation in which a given interpretation is offered. The application of biblical ideas to the changing realities of successive generations of Jewish thinkers bears the imprint of contemporary political and religious conditions. It follows that in an attempt to define the essence of the Jewish understanding of creation, selectivity is imperative. Even then, what will emerge is the view of a Jew and not of the Jewish tradition in its comprehensiveness. Therefore, one can only hope to recapture some pivotal aspects which in the present age guide, or should guide, Jewish thinking on creation and on its demands for human commitment. Let me add that in reality, Judaism diverged and still diverges from the principles which seemingly can be distilled from the basic normative sources of the Hebrew Bible. Reality seldom dovetails with ideal concepts which bear upon them the stamp of Utopia. To put it in a nutshell, in the words of T.S. Eliot: “Between the idea—And the reality—Between the motion—And the act—falls the shadow.”5 Here arises in full force the problem of relating ideas to actualities. On the one hand, we may run the danger of altogether subjecting actualities in their relativity to visionary absolute morals. On the other hand, immediacy and expediency can cause short range deliberations over practicalities to gain the upper hand over principles. Judaism is fully aware of this predicament and tries to steer a middle path. We may apply to our problem, mutatis mutandis, a statement by Martin Buber relating not to creation, but to the execution of perfect justice in the world of reality: “It is true that we are not able to live in perfect justice, and in order to preserve the community of man, we are often compelled to accept wrongness in decisions concerning the community.“ But, he continues, and here lies the applicability of this dictum to the issue of creation and human commitment, “what matters is that in every hour of decision we are aware of our responsibility and summon our conscience to weigh exactly how much is necessary to preserve the community [and possibly humanity], and accept just so much and no more.”6

5 6

Eliot, “The Hollow Men,” 91–92. Buber, “Hebrew Humanism,” 246.

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

29

III Let me now turn to a consideration proper of the issue under review. I aim at offering a somewhat different understanding of some pivotal texts. My intention is to probe the frame of mind of the biblical writers to the best of my ability, rather than to use their texts as props for underpinning one or another modern theology of creation. Toward this end, I shall endeavor to highlight some aspects of the pertinent texts which in my view are essential for gauging the conceptual bases of the biblical tradition: (a) Creation is seen as the first and fundamental constituent in a time scheme which encompasses primordiality together with experienced history, and comprises the uncharted future as well. (b) The multiformity which inheres in and characterizes creation constitutes the immutable basis of the plurality and diversity of phenomena which we observe in human life and in the cosmos altogether, and which we are duty bound to preserve. (c) From here it follows that the biblical creation tradition, like biblical literature altogether, addresses the question of how the earth goes and how to go about on earth, rather than how the heavens go and how human beings can go to heaven, as Dr. Jaki put it paraphrasing Galileo.7 Not unlike cosmogonies which were transmitted by diverse people in many cultures all over the world, the biblical creation tradition gives expression to a pre- or proto-scientific endeavor on the part of people of faith to fathom the quintessence of the universe, chart the place of humanity in it, and define human tasks and functions. This tradition has necessarily a retrospective thrust. It may enlighten us as to the understanding and intellectual stance of the biblical author or authors, rather than reveal the factualities of creation which remained hidden from the ancients not less than or possibly even more than from us in the present. It is because of this deficiency, namely the fact that “Scripture does not give us definitions of things any more than nature does,” that Spinoza held the Hebrew Bible in low regard.8 It is from this insight that any attempt to define a human commitment to creation in the framework of the Jewish, and similarly in the Christian, world of ideas, must take its departure.

7 8

Jaki, “The Universe,” 138. Spinoza, Chief Works, 101.

30

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

It should be stressed that like its ensuing interpretation in post-biblical Judaism, scriptural tradition concerning creation is not monolithic. There is no need to engage here in a detailed investigation of this well-known fact. Some remarks will suffice to put the issue in perspective. Above all, two quite diverse creation traditions can be discerned: 1. The major tradition, embedded in the first part of Genesis, which, as will yet be concisely spelled out, scholars consider to be itself composite; 2. Diffuse residues of ancient Near Eastern creation tales traceable in Scripture. I will first touch upon these vestiges of ancient cosmogonies which had been current in Mesopotamia and the Canaanite expanse on the coast of the Mediterranean. Of special importance in this respect are survivals of epic texts in the Bible which echo sources that have been known to scholars for approximately a century. These texts were inscribed on tablets discovered at Minet-el-Baida, a small seaside town on the Phoenician coast. Until the thirteenth century BCE the kingdom of Ugarit had occupied this territory. The geographical proximity of the site to ancient Israel, and the linguistic similarity of Ugaritic, a West Semitic language, to biblical Hebrew facilitated the absorption of Ugaritic phraseology and imagery into the Israelites’ literature.9 However, the pagan substance of those mythopoeic works was obviously rejected by the biblical authors. Therefore, these works play only a secondary role in the biblical writings, and in the present context do not require more than cursory attention. However, these mythological residues within the Bible are of importance, and they pertain predominantly to two features of ancient cosmogony: (a) We find recurring references to a creator deity who battles against shadowy forces, represented by primordial monsters that oppose him in the act of creation: Mot, lord of the netherworld, and his allies Yam, Tiamat, Sheol, Behemot, Leviathan, Rahab (mentioned only in the Bible), the Rigid10 (rather than Fleeing) Serpent, and the Twisting Serpent. It will suffice to quote but a few passages in biblical literature which reflect these mostly 9

10

I can absolve myself from dealing in detail with these texts since they were extensively discussed by Janzen, “Creation.” The rendition of Hebrew ‫ נחש בריח‬by “rigid serpent,” connecting it with ‫“ = בריח‬bolt, shaft,” rather than deriving it from ‫“ = ברח‬flee, escape,” accords better with the designation of its companion as ‫“ נחש עקלתון‬bent or twisting serpent.”

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

31

epic tales.11 These residual references were, in fact, intended by the biblical authors to highlight the impotence of those fiends when their futile opposition is viewed in the framework of the monotheistic biblical tradition, which portrays the acts of the sole and sovereign Creator God: Jer 5:22

I set the sand [of the shores] as a limit to Yam [the sea], as an everlasting barrier it cannot pass (cf. Job 7:12);

Ps 74:13-14

By your power you split Yam, you smashed the heads of the Tanninim upon the waters, you crushed Leviathan’s heads.

Job 9:8

He alone stretched out the skies and trampled upon Yam’s carcass;

Job 9:13

God will not let his fury rest [until] Rahab’s minions are brought to their knees;

Job 26:12-13

With his might he subdued Yam, with his wisdom he crushed Rahab, with his will he fashioned heavens, his hand transfixed the Rigid Serpent;

Job 38:8-10

[God] locked in Yam [the sea] behind [closed] gates …, I [God] marked the bounds it was not to cross and kept it behind bolted doors.

Similar terminology is used in passages in which the writer entreats God to reenact his victory over inimical powers in his future battles against them: Isa 27:1

That day, YHWH, with his hard sword, massive and strong, will bring punishment upon Leviathan, the Rigid Serpent, and upon Leviathan the bent [Twisting] Serpent, and he will kill the Tannin of Yam [the sea].

It can be surmised that all these terms had already lost their original pagan content, and that the biblical writers employed mythological terminology as figures of speech, drawing from a storehouse of well-known Canaanite, or rather, ancient Semitic, mythopoeic phraseology. This is borne out by the fact that the same vocabulary is also employed on a quite different plane by biblical authors when they implore God to vanquish his enemies, who are the enemies of Israel in history: Isa 51:9-10

11

Arise, arise! Clothe yourself in strength, arm of YHWH, arise as in the past, in times long ago, when you transfixed Rahab, pierced Tannin, dried up the Sea [Yam], the waters of the great abyss [Təhom = Tiāmat].

Kloos, YHWH’s Combat, provides a succinct discussion of the issue, together with a comprehensive bibliography, to which may be added Geyer, “Twisting Tiamat’s Tail.”

32

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

It is of interest to observe that such borrowed mythopoeic imagery is found mainly in prophetic and wisdom literature, as well as in Psalms, where poetic license facilitates their employment. They are practically absent from biblical historiography and also from the Pentateuch, in which historical narratives and legal materials preponderate. The one mention of Tanninim in the normative creation tradition in Genesis actually substantiates the claim that for the Hebrew writers this pagan terminology had lost its cosmogonic connotations. The biblical tradition emphatically demotes the primordial monsters, whom mythology could present as opposing the Creator God, to the status of creatures which like all creatures were fashioned by the one and only sovereign Creator: “God created the great Tanninim and every kind of living creature with which the waters teem” (Gen 1:21). Mark the insistence on referring to these primordial deities in the plural, thus denying to them any presumed original “divine” singularity. Their reduction to mere creatures is further developed in God’s famous reply to Job, when he rebelled against the injustice that he had suffered: no human has a right to question the mystery of God’s acts, the acts of him who alone created the world. In this context, the ancient myth of a primordial monster opposing the creator deity is given a most interesting twist; the “mighty Leviathan” is turned into a pet that can be paraded in public: Job 40:25-29 [RSV 41:1-5; JB 40:20-24]

Can you catch Leviathan with a fish hook, or put a line through his tongue? Can you put a ring through his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he plead and plead with you, will he coax you with smooth words? Will he make an agreement with you to become your eternal slave? Will you play with him as [with a] pet bird, tie him on a leash for [the amusement] of your maids?

The comparison of this Job passage with the text of Isa 37:29 on which Bennie Ollenburger commented,12 provides a persuasive illustration of the “historicization” of mythic materials in the biblical literature. Some of the imagery which depicts the subjection of the mighty Leviathan in creation myths is used in Isaiah to announce God’s humiliation of the proud Assyrian king, Sennacherib, whose forces threaten to storm the city of Jerusalem: “I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your lips.”13 The mythopoeic 12 13

Ollenburger, “Isaiah’s Creation.” A close reading of the two passages shows the Isaiah text to be a contracted version in

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

33

nature of this phraseology is brought in full light by the preceding reference to the days of yore: “You must have heard it: I fashioned all this long ago from days of old; I created it (‫)יצרתיה‬, now have I brought it” (Isa 37:26); the reason is, obviously, to have it acted out in history. It is probable that the portrayal of the snake in the Garden of Eden, which cunningly persuades man to violate the Creator’s commandments and in punishment is reduced to “eating dust” (Gen 3:1-15), is also meant to ridicule the primordial serpent that had dared to oppose the mythological creator. We may, in fact, have here a dual-register “verbal portrayal” of the Canaanite twin monsters, the “Rigid” and “Twisting” Serpents. The ending of the Garden of Eden episode, which has the snake crawling on its belly and winding in the dust (3:14), not unlike the ‫נחש עקלתון‬, evidently presupposes that in its first encounter with Eve (3:1-4) the snake stood up straight, and thus resembled the ‫נחש בריח‬. Rabbinic tradition indeed pictures the snake as initially standing upright and approaching Eve like a human being, actually a man. Thus interpreted, the Eden episode would contain one other indirect reduction of mythological deities to dust. The biblical garden of Eden story actually may be in its entirety an adjusted ancient Near Eastern mythological tale. What looks like an early pagan version of the Genesis account is also preserved in an oracle against the King of Tyre in the book of Ezekiel. There (Ezek 28:11-19), that king is depicted strutting proudly among sundry precious stones which abound in God’s “garden of Eden,” located on his “holy mountain” (Ezek 28:13, 14). This conception was clearly corrected in the Genesis version of the Eden story, in which the garden is established from the outset to house man, whom God puts there to “cultivate and take care of it” (Gen 2:15). Normal vegetation replaces the mythical abundance of precious stones in the presumably pagan version which is reflected in Ezekiel (an echo of this motif reverberates in Gen 2:12): the human king of Tyre, swollen with pride, aspires to become godlike, saying, “I am sitting on the throne of God” (Ezek 28:2). He considers himself “an exemplar of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect which one term stands for three to four synonymous expressions in the Job wording; unless one prefers to view that wording as a poetic amplification of the shorter Isaiah text. In both, the terms ‫“ שׂים‬put in,” ‫“ אף‬nose,” and ‫“ חח‬hook,” serve as catchphrases. The Job text exhibits three additional coterminous verbs for ‫שׂים‬, namely ‫שקע‬, ‫נגב‬, and ‫משך‬. For ‫מתג‬ it provides the synonyms ‫חכה‬, ‫חבל‬, and ‫ ;אגמון‬and for ‫ שפה‬the synonyms ‫ לחי‬and ‫לשון‬.

34

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

in beauty” and actually wishes to play the role of the “guardian cherub” in charge of the mythical garden (Ezek 28:12-14; cf. Gen 3:24 and 2:15). How different the depiction of Adam and Eve in the Hebrew version— the human couple whom God places in the Garden of Eden for their own enjoyment (Gen 3:1-20). Both the King of Tyre and Adam are punished for their transgressions: the one, for his overbearing hubris, his aspiration to divinity; the other, for disobeying a divine command. The first is consumed when a fire bursts forth from his own body (Ezek 28:18); the other is condemned to live with the realities of human life, toiling with sweat of his brow to win sustenance from the soil, to which he is to return after death (Gen 3:17-19). The message seems to be obvious: myth is rejected by completely revamping its essential content, and by substituting human existential reality for mythopoeic imagery. As a result of this revamping, such literary residues as give evidence of the currency of pagan mythology in ancient Israel in some instances might be combined with references to the normative Hebrew creation tradition. For example, God’s aforementioned reply to Job’s complaints brims with mythological imagery (Job 40, 41). We find there a detailed description of the mighty ‫ בהמות‬of yore (40:15-24), and of the incomparably powerful ‫לויתן‬ (40:25–41:26), which stirs up ‫( ים‬the sea) like a bubbling cauldron (41:23), while “firebrands shoot from his mouth, and sparks come streaming out” (41:11). However, before all this, God is portrayed as rejecting Job’s rebellious outcries, referring to creation in terms which clearly echo the creation pericope in Genesis 1 (Job 38, 39): “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations … Who settled its dimensions … Who stretched its measuring line over it?” (38:4-6). The terminology immediately brings to mind similar phraseology in (Second) Isaiah: “Who has gauged the waters in the palm of his hand, or with its span set limits to the heavens? Who has held all the soil of earth in a bushel, or weighed the mountains on a balance and the hills on a pair of scales …?“ (Isa 40:12). Once again, this creation imagery is historicized in the immediately adjoining passage (Isa 40:15-16). The primordial waters which only God himself can measure become here “drops from a bucket,” to which image all the peoples of the earth together are likened. The “dust of the earth,” which only the Creator can “weigh in a balance,” is transformed into “the nations of the world” who are like “the specks which cling to the scales.” And the well-known Mount Lebanon takes the place of the primeval mountains

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

35

and hills which God laid out and measured when he created the universe: To him nations are but drops from a bucket, no more than specks on the scales; He lifts up islands as if they were feathers. All Lebanon does not yield wood enough for fuel and the beasts in it not enough for a sacrifice. (Isa 40:15-16)

As if to ensure that the point is not missed, the author ends that entire section on a string of creation terms and imagery. Somewhat freely rendered, the passage would read: You surely know this, you have surely heard it, it certainly was told you from the very beginning; you surely are knowledgeable of the founding of the earth, of God’s enthronement above the vault of the earth … unfolding the heavens like a curtain, stretching them out like a tent. (Isa 40:21-22)

Side by side with this “normative” biblical vocabulary, there turns up in the Book of Job the already adduced imagery which is altogether mythpoetic: He enclosed Yam within doors … put it behind gates and bolts and said, “thus far shall you come and no farther.” (Job 38:8-11)

IV We now turn our attention to an analysis and evaluation of the normative Hebrew creation tradition in Gen 1–2. Even though traditional exegetes, both Christians and Jews, insist that this pericope is a literary unit, differences in language and content leave little doubt that the passage indeed is made up of originally independent creation accounts, as is commonly agreed by modern critical Bible scholars. There have been various ways of identifying the major components of this tradition, but the overwhelming majority of students would ascribe one account to the Priestly source (P) and the other to the Yahwistic source (J).14 However, for our present considerations the division is of little consequence. We have to relate to the text as it is, taking a holistic approach, somewhat

14

Scholarly publications on this matter are much too numerous to be listed here. A helpful survey may be found in Westermann, Genesis 1–11.

36

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

along the lines of canonical criticism.15 The question that confronts us is this: what is the message that the final arranger of the pericope wished to convey to his audience? The answer is obvious. The biblical account of creation, in all its presumed subdivisions, propounds one pivotal idea: the universe was established by a sole and sovereign Creator, who went about his task unaided by any helpers, and unimpeded by any opposing forces.16 It could not have been otherwise, since “before the world was created, the Holy One, blessed be He, with His Name alone existed.”17 To put it differently, before the creation of the universe, God was the only reality, and the nonexistence of other beings or powers serves to highlight the divine unity, which is the very opposite of the diversity that is to characterize the created world. The biblical text, however, offers no help for solving a problem which has exercised the minds of theologians and philosophers: is the formation of the universe viewed as creatio ex nihilo; or does the biblical account, rather, conceive of the Creator as giving form to preexisting matter? The Hebrew Bible simply relates facts—and not all the facts—and does not interpret them. To a degree, this method of factual presentation of “events” is accepted by most later Jewish commentators, theologians, and philosophers. They do not endeavor to explain creation, nor will they occupy themselves with revealing the mysteries which preceded the acts of creation.18 The medieval exegete Nachmanides claims: “This is one of the mysteries of the Torah. If its author would have wanted to be better understood, he surely would have been more explicit. [But since he did not do so,] we have no right to fathom what he covered with a veil.”19 The same idea is expressed by a different image as well. In reply to the question as to why the Hebrew Bible begins with the second letter of the alphabet, viz., the ‫ ב־‬in the initial word ‫בראשית‬, it is stated that the ‫ ב־‬is “open” on its left side, but “closed” on its right. This implies (for the Hebrew reader) that one may investigate what follows upon the first letter of the creation story, but one should refrain from exploring what precedes it. The Sages do not delve into questions

15 16

17 18 19

See Childs, Introduction, 109–160; Rendtorff, Introduction. An excellent discussion of the main features of the Jewish concept of creation is offered by Urbach, “He Who Spoke.” Midr. Pirqe R. El., 3 (ed. Friedländer, 10). See, for example, Baron, High Middle Ages, 87; Dantinne, “Creation.” See his commentary on Gen 1:6 (for a more literal translation see Chavel, Ramban, 34).

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

37

about what was before the world was created. They never ask “what is above, what is beneath, what was before time was created, but what will be thereafter?” (m. Ḥag. 2:1; t. Ḥag. 2:1; y. Ḥag. 2:1, 77c). Jewish traditional exegesis indeed does not entirely disregard some discrepancies between various passages of the Genesis creation account; but it tends to get around the problem by conceiving of the entire pericope as a developing tale: the overall presentation of cosmogony in chapter one (which critical scholars ascribe to P), leads to the fashioning of the human beings in chapter two (which critical scholars ascribe to J), as the crowning piece of creation.20 However, some discrepancies and the internal tension which surfaces in the account cannot be glossed over. The Creator God, perfect and omniscient, could not prevent his work from going awry. Therefore he destroys it (Gen 6:5-8), and must fashion a new universe. He is hailed as the sole and sovereign ruler of the cosmos, the only source of the laws by which it is governed. And yet, after the Flood, he submits to his self-imposed restriction never again to destroy the work of his hands. He sets the rainbow in the skies as a memorial and a reminder for himself and for humankind that the onceestablished order of creation should never be disturbed again (Gen 8:22; 9:12-16). We may add here that midrashic Jewish tradition has it that the present world was established after God had destroyed a series of successive previous creations (Gen. Rab. 3:5; Qoh. Rab. 3:11; Midr. Ps. 34). A similar internal tension can be observed in the depiction of humanity. On the one hand, it is stressed that “God fashioned man of dust from the soil” (Gen 2:7) and “to dust you [the humans] will return” (Gen 3:19). This idea is taken up in numerous passages in biblical literature, became a prominent motif in post-biblical Jewish thought, and was accepted by all faith communities that acknowledge the Hebrew Bible as a cornerstone of their culture. On the other hand, God appoints humanity as ruler of the universe, delegating to them authority over the entire creation: Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth. … I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are upon the whole earth and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit, this shall be your food. (Gen 1:28-29) 20

See Urbach, “Man.”

38

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Human mastery over creation is further evinced by Adam giving “names to all the cattle, the birds of heaven and all the wild beasts” (Gen 2:20). This act clearly symbolizes the human assumption of authority over all living creatures, since by naming, Adam emulates God’s own naming of the diverse components of the cosmos which he had created before fashioning humanity: “God called the light day and the darkness night … and God called the vault heaven. … God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters he called seas” (Gen 1:5-10). There indeed is here, as Patrick Miller says, “an apparent paradox.” Ignoring for the moment, the division into sources, we could state with him: “To be ʾĕlohim-like is God’s will for his creatures; to become ʾĕlohim-like is to go precisely counter to the divine will. … In a very real sense the whole narrative of the Primeval History flows out of this tension.”21 The discrepancy between the portrayal of Adam, representing humanity, as being but dust of the soil, on the one hand, and the ruler of the universe, on the other hand, which appears to be a contradictio in se, disturbs the modern, rationalist mind, controlled by the “law of non-contradiction,” but was viewed with apparent equanimity by the biblical writers and by later Jewish thinkers alike. We may, in fact, discern here the imprint of thought processes that acquiesce in the plurality which inheres in human experience and governs human life. This phenomenon was accurately discerned by Gershom Scholem in relation to the intellectual world of post-biblical Judaism. Modified and adjusted, Scholem’s observations can be applied to biblical literature in general, and to the creation narrative in particular: It is precisely the wealth of contradictions, of differing views, which is encompassed and unqualifiedly affirmed by tradition. There were many possibilities of interpreting the Torah, and tradition claimed to comprise them all. It maintains the contradictory views with astounding seriousness and intrepidity, as if to say that one can never know whether a view at one time rejected may not one day become the cornerstone of an entirely new edifice.22

21 22

Miller, Genesis, 21. Scholem, “Revelation and Tradition,” 290.

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

39

V Generally speaking, the biblical creation traditions mirror an adjusted perception of three stages in the making of the universe. A similar conception underlies the creation myths of so-called preliterate cultures, for example in the South Seas or in South America. More importantly, this pattern is preserved in the literatures of the ancient Near East, in Egypt and Mesopotamia: theogony—the creation or emanation of deities—precedes cosmogony—the fashioning of the universe—which for its part is succeeded by anthropogony— the creation of man. It is obvious that the notion of a preexistent, unique and only, immanent God, which permeates biblical monotheism, ruled out any possibility of Israel’s developing a theogony. The total and absolute rejection of any reflection on the origin of God is seen in the fact that even the aforementioned residues of pagan creation myths preserved in the Bible never pertain to theogony. The primordial deities enter the stage when they are already engaged in their primeval battle over the creation of the universe and of humanity, and no thought is given to the question of how they themselves came into existence. One is inclined to perceive in this absence of any discernible trace of theogony one other indication of the basic biblical orientation toward humanity and its place in the world. It appears that rather than being theocentric, the Hebrew creation tradition is first and foremost anthropocentric, then ethnocentric. From this observation, it follows that in order to fathom the intrinsic meaning of the biblical creation tradition, we must go beyond Genesis 1 and 2 and also bring under scrutiny the ensuing block of texts (chs. 3–11) which precedes the narrowing of the narrative focus to the history of the people of Israel, beginning with Abraham’s exodus from his native land (Gen 12:1).23 Viewed in the larger framework, the biblical account tells of two successive creations which exhibit manifest similarities. Both accounts emphasize the basic principle on which the universe is founded. The cosmos was created as an all-embracing organism consisting of diverse and differentiated natural phenomena, creatures and species, which are to remain forever distinct. All mixed breeds are anathema. There is to be no crossing of lines which divide species, above all the borders which set apart animal from human, and the 23

The conceptual and structural unity of this text complex has been recurrently underlined in several modern publications. See, e.g., Westermann, Genesis 1–11; Clines, “Theme”; Fishbane, Text and Texture, 3–39; Miller, Genesis.

40

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

human world from the divine sphere. This principle embodies a concept of particularity which is characteristic of the biblical world of ideas. Mythological cosmogonies, entertained by ancient Near Eastern and classical societies or current among preliterate peoples, do not proclaim this total separation of animal and human, of human and deity. Quite the contrary: In mythic tales, crossbreeds of many colors and shapes roam the scene—heroes and centaurs, demigods, nymphs and flying dragons—and serve as welcome objects for depiction and plastic representation. The story of the primordial creation (Gen 1:1–6:12) comprehends cosmogony, leading up to anthropogony (Gen 1–2).24 Then it depicts the first man’s fate and thus presents to the reader what could be viewed as an incipient biblical anthropology (Gen 3–6). In the account of the history of the first persons, there surfaces a literary pattern which will recur again and again in biblical literature: a father begets three sons, the youngest of whom will surpass his brothers.25 After Abel’s murder at the hands of his brother Cain and the ensuing disqualification of Cain, and Adam’s death, the last-born Seth is destined to ensure the continuance of the human race. This same pattern becomes apparent in the post-Deluge account of the second creation, which is in fact tantamount to the creation of the prehistoric world. Noah indeed takes center stage in the report on the destruction of the world by the Flood and its re-creation. But already in his lifetime, his two sons, Ham and Japheth, serve as a foil for the third, Shem. Shem is accorded ascendancy over his brothers. He is a precursor of Abraham, on whose descendants and their fate biblical literature will focus: Cursed be Canaan (the son of Ham), slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers … Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem, may Canaan be his slave. May God extend Japheth’s bounds, let him dwell in the tents of Shem, may Canaan be their slave. (Gen 9:25-27)

Both accounts culminate in reports of the destruction of the created world as punishment of the human race for transgressing the fundamental principle of the absolute differentiation between God and humanity. But against this background of similarities, some telling differences between the two tales emerge.

24 25

See Albertz, Weltschöpfung. See my “Topped Triad,” below, 82–83.

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

41

The immediate cause of the annihilation of the primordial creation is the cohabitation of the “daughters of men” with the “sons of God,” which produced the “heroes of old” (Gen 6:1-4), evidently semi-divine beings. The reported intermingling of humans with celestial beings suggests an underlying human quest for the attainment of divine status. The prehistoric world was almost destroyed for a similar reason. The tale of the Tower of Babel gives evidence of the attempt of depraved humankind to “reach heaven,” i.e., to arrogate to themselves divine status (Gen 11:1-4; cf. Isa 14:13-14). But in this instance judgment is mitigated. The punishment meted out to the offenders consists in the dissolution of the “oneness,” which had generated their hubris. “Unity” is God’s alone, from before creation. Humankind is scattered over the earth (Gen 11:1-9), and as a result humanity’s reproachable unity dissolves into a plurality of peoples, countries, and languages. Thus, the divinely established differentiation of the original creation, between species and within a species, is reconstituted (Gen 11:11-32), providing the backdrop for the ensuing particular history of the people of Israel. Viewed from another angle, the comprehensive tradition complex of Genesis 1–11 can be subdivided into two components. Genesis 1–2 is determined by the concept of either creatio ex nihilo or of creation which consists of giving form to preexisting amorphous matter, with the Creator functioning as demiurge, as he is conceived in Gnosticism. In contradistinction, the other component, also consisting of two subunits (Gen 3:1–6:8 and 6:9–11:32), is characterized by the concept of emanation: the reconstituted world evolves by way of self-perpetuation out of extant matter. The difference may be partly explained by the fact that in the primordial, i.e., the first creation, all plants and living beings were invested with the faculty to procreate, a faculty which ensured the continued existence of all creatures after the Deluge. The disastrous Flood did not totally annihilate the universe. Nature had been subjected to a mere temporary eclipse. After the waters receded, the peaks of the mountains emerged, then the treetops, until the earth, freed from the last sheets of water, was again revealed in the form it had been given in the primordial creation (Gen 8:1-14) After the disaster had passed, all species were reduced to the barest minimum which allowed for regeneration. According to one tradition, the animal world was cut back to one pair of every species (Gen 6:19-20).

42

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

According to another, seven pairs of all ritually clean animals were preserved, and one pair of all ritually unclean animals (Gen 7:2). Similarly, humankind was reduced to another “first couple,” Noah and his wife, replacing the primary “first couple,” Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve had been placed by God in the Garden of Eden; Noah and his wife were saved from destruction by being put into the Ark. Adam and Eve became the “ancestors of all those who live” (Gen 3:20), “procreating” whereas God had “created.” But biblical Hebrew uses one and the same vocable, ‫קנה‬, for describing the diverse manners of creation. Having given birth to her firstborn, Eve proudly proclaimed “I have [pro]created (‫ )קניתי‬a man like YHWH” (Gen 4:1). This proclamation echoes a statement in Deut 32:6, where it is said of God “Is not he your father, your creator (‫)קּנֶ ָך‬ ָ he made you (‫)ע ְשָׂך‬ ָ fashioned you” (cf. also Gen 14:19, 22 and Prov 8:22–30). After the first creation, procreation was obviously considered an outstanding human achievement, notwithstanding the birth pains which went with it as a divine punishment (Gen 3:16). After the post-Flood re-creation of the world, procreation became commonplace. The production of offspring by Noah and his wife is recorded matter-of-factly. The post-Deluge account moves from the plane of primordial history to the plane of prehistory, which will serve as a backdrop for the ensuing presentation of history proper. VI The biblical text exhibits an almost bewildering variety of vocables pertaining to creation. Terminology signifying technical acts of creation is freely mixed and combined with a vocabulary which connotes emanation: ‫עשׂה‬, “make;” ‫בנה‬, “build;” ‫יצר‬, “fashion.” All these terms apply equally to God the Creator and to human beings, his regents on earth. One other term used both in reference to God and to man, ‫הבדיל‬, “separate,” is mentioned here only in passing, since I will yet refer to it in detail. Two terms are reserved for the description of God’s acts alone. One is ‫אמר‬, “speak.” This verb has a much wider application in biblical literature in general, but in the context under review it signifies the act of creation by divine fiat. The other is ‫ברא‬, the most significant vocable in the biblical creation complex. While the prevailing translation “create” is acceptable, there are grounds for viewing ‫ ברא‬as a parallel to ‫הבדיל‬, “separate,” both signifying creation by differentiation. ‫ ברא‬occurs altogether forty-nine times

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

43

in the Hebrew Bible, exclusively with God as its subject. No certain etymological derivation can be established for ‫ברא‬, nor have equivalents of it been found so far in other Semitic languages.26 The exclusive association of ‫ ברא‬with the creative acts of the one Creator God is highlighted by the fact that this term is never used in biblical texts which contain terminological residues of ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies. Similarly, ‫ ברא‬is not used to describe creative activities of humans, with two exceptions: It has the connotation of cutting down trees—for “creating” arable land (Josh 17:15, 18); and the connotation of cutting up mortals with swords (Ezek 23:47; Ezek 21:24b is unintelligible). The suggested technical connotation of ‫ברא‬, “create by separation,” also colors the meaning of the more general lexeme ‫עשׂה‬, “make.” In the context under review ‫ עשׂה‬likewise signifies creation by separation (Gen 1:25, 26; 2:2, 427). This compressed survey of the most prominent verbs in the “normative” biblical cosmogony account lends substance to the proposition that “differentiation” is considered the pivotal aspect of creation. “To create” means essentially to give peculiar character and specific form to the diverse phenomena which in toto constitute the universe. A glance at the unfolding stages in the biblical account of creation proves the point. The first major step in the process is the separation of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1, ‫)ברא‬. Then follows the separation of light from darkness, identified with day and night respectively (Gen 1:4, 5; cf. 1:18). This sets the stage for the emergence of the earth as we know it. Thereafter, the division of day and night with respect to the upper spheres is achieved by God’s fashioning, ‫עשׂה‬, the two great luminaries: the sun governing day and the moon governing night. The two together are set apart from the minor luminaries, the stars. Again, like the differentiation between the light (day) and darkness (of night) on earth, the distinction between the diverse heavenly bodies is indicated by ‫( הבדיל‬Gen 1:14-18; cf. vv. 4-5; Jer 31:35; Ps 136:5-9). Once “night” has been separated from “day,” a distinction is introduced into “day” itself. The Creator sets apart the seventh day of this and every week, from the preceding six “workdays,” declaring it to be a “holy day of rest” (Gen 2:1–3). It should be pointed out that the root ‫קדש‬, by which the 26 27

For a discussion of the issue see Angerstorfer, Der Schöpfergott. Compare Gen 1:25 with 2:19; and cf. other passages which echo creation terminology, such as Isa 45:7; Amos 4:13; see further Exod 34:10 and Isa 41:20; 48:7.

44

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

special character of the seventh day is singled out, ‫( ויקדש אֹתו‬cf. Exod 20:8 = Deut 5:12), can signify separation in biblical as well as in later Jewish tradition. The principle of differentiation, applied to the luminaries in the upper spheres, is given further expression in that heaven is conceived of as a flat sheet, ‫( רקיע‬Gen 1:8), which divides the supracelestial from the infracelestial waters (1:7). This act of separation, too, is defined by ‫הבדיל‬. Next, the dry land is segregated from the seas (‫)ימים‬. By God’s act of gathering the terrestrial waters (‫ )מים‬in one mass or place, the dry land becomes earth (1:9-10). This detachment of the seas from the dry land (‫)יבשה‬ seems to reflect mythological imagery (see above): having vanquished his primordial foes, the creator deity puts Yam (the sea) in fetters by setting up the sands of the seashore as his eternal boundaries. Once the sea has been set apart, the earth (Gen 1:11) can produce vegetation—plants and trees, again differentiated from the very beginning into their various and distinct kinds, each one ‫( למינ)ה(ו‬1:11, 12); and the seas themselves may then bring forth various kinds of creatures (Gen 1:20, 21b) by divine fiat (‫)אמר‬. These evidently natural beings are distinguished from the mythological great tannīnīm (‫)תנינים‬, whom God creates separately, ‫ברא‬ (Gen 1:21a). Like the seas which teem with various species of aquatic beings, ‫למינֵ הם‬, so are the heavens populated by diverse kinds of winged creatures, ‫( למינֵ הו‬Gen 1:20-21). The same pertains to the earth, which is said to have produced every kind of living creatures: cattle, reptiles, and every kind of wild beast (Gen 1:24-25). The recurring insistence upon diversity cannot be overlooked (cf. 7:14). VII Altogether distinct is humanity. God makes the first human being, ‫עשׂה‬/‫ברא‬, in his likeness or his image, ‫( בצלמנו כדמותנו‬Gen 1:26-27). Therefore, humans differ from all other species of living creatures. Differentiation is also visible in every act of the making of human beings. Humanity appears on the scene in two sexes, male and female. In one tradition, this occurs at the very outset (Gen 1:27); in the other, it occurs in a two-stage development, with the female deriving from the male (Gen 2:21-23).28 28

This particular feature of differentiation into sexes was not mentioned in reference to any previously created living being. It will apply to the animal world only in the “second creation” tradition, featuring Noah and the ark (Gen 6:19–7:16).

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

45

This notion of the separation of humankind into sexes cannot be reconciled with the former statement of humanity’s creation in the image of God, since God is seen to be indivisible and genderless. While the anthropomorphic thrust of the vocabulary cannot be denied, the glaring internal contradiction can only be mitigated if in this context ‫ צלם‬and ‫ דמות‬are not understood in the literal sense of physical likeness, but are given less tangible connotations. To cite J. Derrida: “The face is neither the face of God nor the figure of man: it is their resemblance.”29 And indeed, interpreted contextually, the concept of likeness implied in the Hebrew terms ‫ צלם‬and ‫ דמות‬appears to aim at the Creator’s dominion over the universe, rather than to the visual perception of his “image.” Such an understanding of the terms involved can be achieved if we explain the relevant passages by having recourse to an interpretation which traditional Jewish exegesis brings to our attention. Frequently, an obscure or opaque phrase in a biblical verse or in a part of a verse will be clarified by another part or another verse whose meaning is unequivocally clear. This exegetical method is especially helpful when one is confronted with a term pertaining to an abstract conceptual notion which stands in need of clarification or with a sentence structure which appears to obscure the sense of a verse rather than disclose it. Let me give just one illustration of this technique. The pregnant term ‫ אחרית הימים‬which is often invested with an eschatological content by rendering it “last days” or the like, in Deut 31:29 is “internally” explained to refer to the much more tangible era of the next generation. In this passage Moses admonishes Israel before his death to persist in following God’s ways, since otherwise disaster will befall them ‫באחרית הימים‬. The chronological gap between “now” and “then” is transparently circumscribed at the beginning of the verse in Moses’ own words: “For I know that after my death you will take to degrading practices.”30 Drawing upon a scriptural phrase in Job 36:33, ‫יגיד עליו רעו‬, “his friend will tell of him,” this method of interpretation was construed by early commentators to mean “one verse may help in ascertaining the (inherent) sense of another.“31 29 30

31

Derrida, “Violence,” 135. The NEB translates ‫ באחרית הימים‬in this verse, correctly, as “in days to come,” thus avoiding eschatological implications. See my study, “Latter Days,” below, 137–156. The method was also defined by the phrase ‫ממרחק תביא לחמה‬, said in the praise of a “capable

46

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Applied to the texts under review, the crucial passages would be best read as follows: God said, “Let us make a human being, like us to assume mastery over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts on earth and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.” God created humanity in his likeness, … blessed them and said to them: “Be fruitful and potent, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven and every living creature on the earth.” (Gen 1:26-28)

Thus, the “likeness” of which the text speaks does not pertain to the physical image, but rather to a similarity of functions. It would appear that this passage was thus understood by the psalmist: “you made him (humanity) little less than (a) god, crowning him with glory and honor. You made him master over all your creatures; you put everything under his feet“ (Ps 8:6-7). This portrayal of the human being shows him to be the ruler of all created beings; it brings to mind the Akkadian “Uruk Prophecy,” which states: “The kings of Uruk will exercise their sovereignty like gods.”32 The mastery over the world accorded to humankind indeed reflects God’s rule over the universe. However, as but a reflection of the divine omnipotence, human mastery amounts in fact to stewardship: humanity is called upon to preserve the world and to refashion it only within the limits of what God has singularly created (‫)ברא‬. By stressing the derivative nature of this stewardship, the biblical tradition severely circumscribes human prerogatives and actually denies to human beings the right to subject creation to fundamental changes. Humanity is doubly bound by God’s promise after the destructive flood that creation will not be anymore affected by radical upheavals: “Never again will I strike down every living being as I have done. As long as earth lasts, sowing and reaping, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall cease no more” (Gen 8:21-22, cf. Jer 33:20, 25-26).33

32 33

wife” who “brings home food from far off” (Prov 31:14). From this basic principle are derived several of the thirty-two exegetical rules formulated by R. Eliezer ben Yosei the Galilean; e.g., “the meaning of an expression can be established with the help of another (similar) passage (rule 22); some texts shed light on others (rule 23).” See The Baraita of the 32 Hermeneutic Rules of R. Eliezer (ed. Enelow, 34); t. Par. 10:4 (ed. Zuckermandel, 639); Gen. Rab. 16:2 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 143). See also Bacher, Terminologie, 1:55–56, 2:64; idem, Tannaiten, 2:295; idem, Amoräer, 3:68; Talmon, “Emendation.” Hunger, Spätbabylonische Texte, 21–22, text 3, Rs. 18. See Lohfink, “Der Schöpfergott.”

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

47

These texts cannot be construed as a detailed blueprint for personal and societal behavior. But they offer the possibility of extracting from them principles which can be adapted to novel situations in which humans, individuals and societies, find themselves. VIII The appointment of humanity as “master of the universe,” symbolized also in the giving of names to all living beings (cf. Gen 2:20), leads, almost unavoidably, to the emergences of human hubris, the aspiration to achieve a status beyond what has been accorded to humanity in the divine plan. “When humans began to assume mastery, ‫לרֹב‬,34 upon the earth” (Gen 6:1; cf. 1:28), they also began to mix with celestial beings; the “daughters of men” cohabited with the “sons of God” (Gen 6:2).35 Hebrew ‫ לרֹב‬is usually translated “(When humankind began) to increase” (NEB). I believe, however, that we have here a double entendre. The root ‫ רבב‬expresses increase in both quantity and quality. Thus, e.g., in Isa 5:9, ‫בתים רבים‬, qualified as it is by ‫גד ֹלים‬ ‫ וטובים‬in the parallel stitch, should be translated “mansions” (cf. Amos 6:11) rather than “many houses” (NEB). Accordingly, the Genesis passage speaks of an increase in power which caused humankind to aim at transcending its humanity by interbreeding with superterrestial beings. The Bible emphatically rejects this commingling of superhumans with humans. Although the episode does not pertain to creation itself, but rather is given as the reason for its undoing (Gen 6:1-7), it should nevertheless be viewed and evaluated in the context of the basic motif of differentiation and separation which permeates the creation account. In the condemnation of the fusion of categories which the Creator had intended to be separate, we may discern a concomitant rejection of any positive attitude toward demigods, heroes, and other beings who blur the impenetrable border between this, the human world, and the heavenly spheres. Such belief in the existence of intermediate beings found a prominent expression in ancient Near Eastern cultures in the self-aggrandizement and popular veneration of royalty. The biblical repudiation of these offensive notions is highlighted in the prophecies of Isaiah against the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14) and of Ezekiel against the

34 35

See Herrmann, “Die Naturlehre.” See Flendel, “Demigods.“

48

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28) respectively. Both rulers had aspired to divinity; each wanted to set up his throne next to, if not in place of, the throne of God (Isa 14:13-14; Ezek 28:2, 13-14). God smashed both to earth, and thus they were reduced to their proper position of human inferiority. The biblical creation tradition, especially the account in Genesis 1, reads altogether like an ancient treatise which conceives of the universe as one comprehensive whole, made up in orderly fashion of clearly defined categories. It resembles didactic wisdom literature, offering information in the form of onomastica, in which are enumerated diverse species and subdivisions of species of various phenomena observable in the universe. The Bible ascribes the composition of such rosters to King Solomon, whose wisdom is said to have surpassed that “of all the sons of the East and of Egypt … he composed three thousand proverbs and his songs [of instruction] numbered one thousand and five. He could talk about plants from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop …, and he could talk of animals, and birds, and reptiles and fish” (1 Kgs 5:9-13; cf. Prov 30:15-31). Therefore, the biblical creation account can be viewed as an attempt on the part of ancient man to overcome taxonomic confusion and to grasp in an orderly fashion the bewildering number and variety of phenomena which confront him in his world, without blurring their differences. Indeed, Genesis 1 personalizes the classification of the world.36 In similar fashion, post-biblical Jewish tradition insists on keeping apart what had been created as different. It has been surmised that this principle might explain the large number of injunctions against the mixing of species.37 Biblical law proscribes the interweaving of wool and flax, as well as the cross-breeding of different kinds of animals (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9, 11). Dietary laws forbid the consumption of creatures which exhibit characteristics of more than one basic species, such as aquatic mammals (Lev 11:9-12; Deut 14:9-10) or insects which both fly and crawl (Lev 11:19, 23, 27, 42). Applied to the human sphere, this principle underlies the interdiction of intermarriage between members of different ethnic and/or religious groups. Essentially, the objection evidences a positive intention to preserve the distinctiveness rooted in creation—actually in the re-creation of the universe after the Flood—rather than a negative, overbearing attitude towards outsiders. 36 37

Burke, Rhetoric of Religion, 201–202. See Douglas, Purity and Danger, 41–57.

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

49

Within the Jewish tradition emerges a structured universe in which each species, different and separated from others, is accorded its appropriate place in the divine economy. Particularity and all-embracing universality are seen as complementary, rather than mutually exclusive. Judaism recognizes particularity not only as an undeniable principle underlying human existence. Conceiving of particularity as divinely decreed, Jewish tradition also confers a spiritual dimension upon actual particularity, such as is experienced in all life situations: it is a basic phenomenon of the human condition from the days of creation—anthropologically, ethnically, socially, and politically. Particularity implies diversity of all beings and, therefore, also separateness of humanity under the unifying overlordship of the Creator, who reigns supreme over all humankind. The underlying tenet could be defined with Jacques Maritain as “distinguer pour unir.”38 Judaism affirms the resulting diversity in the realm of the human spirit. It considers multiformity as a reality of human history, in the physical world as in the world of ideas and beliefs. IX The taxonomic character of the biblical creation account, apparent in the operation of the principle of categorization, can further be discerned in the presentation of the progressive socialization of humankind. As has already been pointed out, the story begins by defining the relationship of humanity to other species and to nature in the wider sense of the word by the appointment of humanity as master. Then we are translated to another plane. Now, the individual human being is depicted in the most basic interhuman relationships, primarily within the framework of the nuclear family: husband with wife (Gen 2:22-24; cf. 3:6, 12, 16-17); sibling with sibling (Gen 4:1-16). Thereafter, the canvas is enlarged. “The roll of Adam’s descendants” or possibly “the account of human origins” (Gen 5:1-2), actually endeavors to reveal the progress of “history” in the form of a series of interconnected genealogies. Such genealogies, based on the generational cycle—the issue of a son from his father—may be viewed as early attempts to capture the causal interdependence of events in their chronological sequence. At this stage, family relations, birth, marriage, and procreation, no longer pertain to 38

Maritain, Distinguish to Unite.

50

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the individual alone. Rather, they are means for expressing relationships between social units. The story of the “first man” as a prototypical individual, becomes the story of “first persons,” who are but personified collectivities (5:3-32). The account of progressive socialization is further refined by connecting basic human occupations and crafts to the very beginnings of the world. The first man starts out as a “food gatherer” in the “Garden” provided for him by the Creator (Gen 2:8-17). When expelled from the Garden in punishment for his transgression, he becomes a “horticulturist,” working the recalcitrant soil “by the sweat of his brow” to extract from it his daily bread (Gen 3:17-19). Further categories are introduced in the confrontation of Cain, “the agriculturalist,” and his brother Abel, “the herdsman” (Gen 4:2-4). One of Cain’s descendants, Jabal, removed from Cain by several generations, and considered “the ancestor of the tent-dwellers and owners of livestock” (Gen 4:20), obviously continues his forefather’s occupational line. Jabal’s half-brother Tubal-Cain is presented as the progenitor of “all metalworkers in bronze or iron” (4:22), a technical trade which appears to have been closely affiliated with the growing of livestock. Jabal’s brother Jubal represents the finer arts: “he was the ancestor of all who play the lyre and the flute” (4:21). The crafts which are missing from that list are not less interesting than the occupations recorded as having arisen in the primordial stage. There is, e.g., no mention of a first fisherman or a first sailor. This dovetails with the fact that biblical writers considered seagoing highly hazardous. In their writings, the sea and everything connected with it stands for “danger.” Think for example of the Psalm of Jonah (Jonah 2). The imagery pertaining to the “sea,” carries over notions of destruction and peril that go with the primordial deity Yam of ancient Semitic cosmology. Normally, seafaring was not an occupation in which the ancient Hebrews commonly engaged. When they did engage in it, the results were disastrous. This is demonstrated by the report of the attempted maritime enterprise of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, which is said to have ended with the wreck of his ships at EtzionGeber (1 Kgs 22:49 = 2 Chr 20:37). Solomon’s seafaring undertakings were successful because his men teamed up with the men of Hiram King of Tyre, “sailors who knew the sea” (1 Kgs 9:27 = 2 Chr 8:18). Thus, it would appear that the curtailed roster of trades in the cluster of genealogies pertaining to

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

51

primordial times reflects the existential experience of the ancient Israelite writers. We should highlight the fact that biblical tradition also places the beginnings of Yahwism in the primordial age. Scripture states that in the days of Adam’s grandson Enosh, “the name of YHWH was first invoked”; the LXX reads that he [Enosh] was the first “to invoke the name of YHWH” (Gen 4:26).39 In the ensuing stage of human development, set in the world re-created after the Flood, wider aspects of social organization come to the fore. The “table of nations” (Genesis 10) visualizes the emerging “peoples” in their mutual relations, each implanted in its “country.” Thus the diversity of ethnic entities and their attachment to particular geographical areas is recognized and affirmed. By being included among the cosmological “firsts,” the ethnic and political compositeness of humanity is given an almost prescriptive authority. This conception of basic constitution, colored indeed by an Israelite ethno-centric bias, is reflected in the Song of Moses, which declares: “When the Most High gave the nations [their] appointed lands, when he divided humankind [lit.: sons of man], he fixed their boundaries according to the number [read: the needs] of the sons of Israel [LXX, Qumran: sons of God]” (Deut 32:8; see also Num 23:10). It is worthy of mention that while the Bible registers human diversity in terms of ethnic, geographic, and political particularity, there is no reference to a differentiation by skin color. Indeed, such a differentiation subsequently emerges in biblical records which pertain to historical actualities. This late emergence suggests that in the biblical world of ideas the differentiation of humanity by skin color is considered secondary. In no way does it have the fundamental value which attaches to particularities that are considered to be rooted in the constitutive phase of the primordial age. I tend to interpret similarly the absence of any reference to forms of socio-political organization in the biblical creation account. Other ancient Near Eastern civilizations conceived of ”kingship” as part and parcel of 39

This statement contradicts other texts which maintain that God did not make himself known by his name YHWH even to the Patriarchs: “To Abraham and Isaac and Jacob I appeared as El Shaddai; I did not make myself known to them by my name YHWH” (Exod 6:3). The first revelation of this specific divine epithet is reserved for Moses, and from that time God is to be invoked by this name for all generations to come (Exod 3:13-15).

52

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

cosmogony. From the very inception of the world kings were known to have ruled in orderly succession, thereby establishing what might be defined as dynasties. Lists of primeval kings were preserved in Sumerian and Babylonian texts. In other parts of the world as well, as e.g., on Madagascar and Tongareva, traditions concerning societal organization are couched in terms of royal succession from the beginning. The very primordiality of these king lists conferred a measure of sanctity on monarchy and on the person of the king. In contradistinction, such an ideological dimension was not originally attached to kingship in Israel. Rather, the institution of monarchy is presented as having arisen out of specific historical circumstances. It emerged at a time when the sporadic and diffuse rule of the Judges-Saviors could not stem the advance of the Philistines, whose more efficient political organization was superior to that of Israel. It was only at a later stage that one tried to undergird the de facto advantages of dynastic rule by providing it with a de jure or ideonic basis, emulating conceptual foundations of political structures which prevailed in surrounding nations. This appears to be the thrust of Micah’s prophecy concerning the house of David: “You, Bethlehem in Ephratah, the youngest among Judah’s clans, out of you shall come forth a ruler in Israel, whose roots are far back in the past, in the time (of the beginnings) of the world” (Mic 5:1; NEB: in days gone by).40 The recognition of the basically realistic view of the world which inspires the biblical tradition of creation leads us back to some remarks made at the beginning of this chapter regarding the blending of creation with history. The acquiescence to the bewildering multiformity of natural phenomena, the dissimilarity of human beings from other living beings, and above all, the acceptance of the diversity that marks human society, seem to reveal a process which could be defined as the “historicization of creation.” The Hebrew Bible tends to view creation in historical terms, and to conceive of history in imagery drawn from the creation accounts. In his daily prayers, morning and evening, a Jew praises God “who alone effects mighty deeds, makes new phenomena … master of wondrous acts who in his benevolence forever renews creation day after day.” This understanding of creation as forever present in the life of the individual and the community culminates in a prayer which is recurrently offered on the New Year festival after each

40

See Talmon, “Kingship and Ideology,”16–37.

[Type text]

Patterns and Motifs in the Creation Tradition

53

sounding of the Shofar, the ram’s horn: This day the world was called into being. This day all creatures of the universe stand in judgment before thee as children or as servants. If as children, have pity upon us as a father pities his children; and if as servants, we call upon thee to be gracious unto us and merciful in judgment of us, O revered and holy God.

This riveting of “creation” to “history” makes for an “inbuilt” mechanism of “accommodation.” The historicizing of cosmology causes creation to become subjected to the relativity which governs human existential experience. The creation tradition is couched in the terminology of biblical narrative style and therefore can be assessed by the ideonic yardsticks which apply to biblical historiography in general. To put it differently: the wording of the creation account has the same and no more authoritative force than the wording of the records pertaining to the “historical” times of the biblical kings, such as David, Solomon and Ahab or, for that matter, of the period of the Judges-Saviors, such as Gideon, Jephthah and Samson. There is no insistence in Judaism as a whole on an unqualified literalist acceptance of the biblical creation tradition in its transmitted wording. Jewish thinkers seldom got exercised over the defense of a creedal understanding of creation springing from a literalness which embraces the Genesis text as it stands, vis-à-vis alternative theories based on secular, scientific reasoning. While never doubting the divine inspiration which permeates the creation pericope, as all biblical writings, the Jewish sources exhibit a recurring insistence on the principle that these records were worded to fit human comprehension: “Torah (the Bible) speaks in the tongue of human beings.”41 The tale of God’s deeds in the context of creation was adjusted to the intellectual capabilities of the human recipients of its message. And this human language tends to encapsulate abstract thought and absolute principles in metaphors and imagery which cannot be taken at face value. Rather, this imagery must be recurrently interpreted in line with humanity’s expanding comprehension of the universe. Just as the world is seen to be divinely re-created every day, the phenomenon of creation must necessarily be reinterpreted by every generation.

41

b. Ned. 3a.

54

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~4~

‫ הר‬AND ‫מדבר‬: AN ANTITHETICAL PAIR OF BIBLICAL MOTIFS* I. INTRODUCTION The expression “figurative language” lends itself to two quite disparate interpretations, especially in reference to the cultures of the ancient Near East. The term is usually understood to define a literary mode which uses vivid imagery as a means for concretizing matters of intellectual comprehension rather than visual impressions. However, “figurative language” can also describe a specific genre of ancient Near Eastern art which may be defined “narration in pictures.” This genre is best illustrated by invoking the technique of “registers” which prevails in Egyptian or Mesopotamian pictorial or sculptural representations, where the dynamism of a chain of consecutive events or successive stages in one event is captured in a string of “stills,” comparable to a running series of slides or a filmstrip.1 In view of the biblical injunction against making images, and the concomitant reluctance to pursue the visual arts altogether, it cannot surprise us that figurative language of the pictorial narration type did not take root in ancient Israel. However, it appears that the lack of this medium was set off to a measure by the comparative richness of the “verbal” type of figurative language which distinguishes biblical literature. Using to advantage the dramatic qualities inherent in the Hebrew language, which has complete speech units consisting of one verb (in diverse conjugations and with affixes), a string of verbs, unbroken by other morphemes, can create the impression of motion, similar to that which pictorial narration achieves by stringing together progressive partial depictions of a comprehensive action. An out-standing example of this narrative technique is the terse account of Esau’s conduct when he sells *

1

Originally published in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin, M.J. Geller and J.E. Wansbrough (London: University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1987), 117–142. The article has been shortened and edited for this publication, in order to minimize repetition between articles published in this volume. Elaborations on some of the ideas suggested in section VI may be found in “History” (above, 11–24) and “Four Hundred Years” (below, 125–136). A good illustration of this phenomenon of pictorial or figurative narration is provided by the Burney Relief, discussed by Jacobsen, “Pictures.”

56

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

“the right of the firstborn” to his younger brother Jacob: ‫ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך‬, “he ate and drank, got up, and went” (Gen 25:34). Another example is the poetic description of Sisera’s death at the hand of Jael: ‫בין רגליה כרע נפל שכב‬ ‫ באשר כרע שם נפל שדוד‬..., “At her feet he sank down, he fell, he lay [dead] … Where he sank down, there he fell, done to death” (Judg 5:27). When figurative language is used to concretize abstract notions, such as static situations or physical characteristics, rather than dynamic action, biblical writers will predominantly have recourse to prototypes derived directly from nature, or else from artifacts which one encounters in everyday life, and not from their representations in works of art. To give one or two examples: divine protection is likened to a mother bird hovering over her fledglings, with her outstretched wings shielding them from danger and from hazards of weather (Ps 17:8; 36:8; 57:2; 91:4; Ruth 2:12). Or else, protection can be figuratively visualized as an (overhanging) rock which provides shelter from sun and rain and serves as a bulwark against enemies (Deut 32:15, 18, 37; 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 22:2 = Ps 18:3; 2 Sam 22:32, 47; 23:3; Ps 27:5; 31:4 = 71:3; 42:10; 62:8 etc.). The same notion can be expressed by depicting God and his saving power as ‫מגדל עז‬, a “tower of strength,” a ”fortress” or “stronghold” (Ps 61:4; Prov 18:10), that is to say by imagery deriving from manmade artifacts. A quite different aspect of the ‫ מגדל‬image is invoked in extolling the beauty of a maiden whose “breasts are like turrets on a city wall” (Cant 8:10), and whose “neck is [straight] like the Tower of David” (ibid., 4:4), a prominent structure with which the author’s audience would be well acquainted. In that very same context, figurative language derived from natural phenomena is applied in the depiction of the beloved’s eyes like those of doves, her hair like a “flock of goats streaming down Mount Gilead,” her teeth like “a newly shorn flock of ewes,” and the couleur de rose of her lips like “a pomegranate cut open” (ibid., 4:1-3). Instead of “narrating in pictures,” the Hebrew writers exclusively used linguistic means to convey vivid impressions of both concrete matters and abstract notions by what may be called “painting in words.” This verbal type of “figurative language” emerges in biblical literature in a variety of forms, culminating in intricate patterns and conventions through which even complex speculative thought can be expressed “plastically in words.”2 One

2

See Frankfort et al., The Intellectual Adventure.

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

57

of these literary patterns is the “motif.” My ensuing discussion is intended to help elucidate the employment of motifs in biblical literature generally, and of the antithetical pair ‫הר‬, “mountain” and ‫מדבר‬, “desert/wilderness,” in particular. II. THE ANTITHETICAL MOTIFS ‫ מדבר‬AND ‫הר‬ We can now proceed to apply the above definitions to the elucidation of the antithetical motifs ‫ מדבר‬and ‫ הר‬in biblical literature. I shall refer to the motif employment of ‫ מדבר‬solely in the connotation “desert, wilderness, wasteland,” to the exclusion of passages in which the term is used in the sense of “thrift grazing land.”3 I shall, however, include in the survey uses of the ‫ מדבר‬motif in which both these aspects are intertwined. I shall explore the thesis that: (a) The analysis of the vocables ‫“ הר‬mountain”4 and ‫“ מדבר‬wilderness” shows them to be literary embodiments of existential attitudes and concepts relative to the biblical writers’ understanding of Israel’s history, as well as its societal and religious life. At the same time, the inquiry puts into relief the ancient Hebrews’ conception of an ideal future age, commonly subsumed under the designation “Old Testament eschatology.”5 (b) In this conceptual framework, the wilderness motif represents the negative pole of the biblical world of ideas, whereas the mountain motif gives expression to affirmed, positive socio-religious concepts in the Israelites’ values scale. It must be stressed that ‫ הר‬and ‫ מדבר‬do not constitute a balanced pair of contrastive motifs. Both terms exhibit a spatial, that is to say, a geographical, topographical or ecological dimension. However, in about one-half of its occurrences in the Bible, the noun ‫ מדבר‬also has an unmistakable temporal connotation, relating to the period of Israel’s wandering forty years in the desert between the exodus from Egypt and the settlement in the Land of Canaan. Some such temporal dimensions attaches also to ‫ הר‬in the equation of the expression Mountain of Israel with Land of Israel, in texts in which the term refers to the period between the initial settlement in Canaan and the exile following the Babylonians’ conquest and destruction of Jerusalem in 3 4 5

For a discussion of this aspect, see Talmon, “Desert Motif”; further, idem, “‫מדבר‬.” See Talmon, “‫הר‬, ‫גבעה‬.” See Talmon, “Eschatology and History”; idem, “Future Ideal Age.”

58

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

586 BCE. However, this temporal aspect inheres in the ‫ הר‬motif only implicitly and is not explicated in the Scriptures. III. A CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE ‫ מדבר‬MOTIF IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE 1. (a) The prevailing negative aspects of the wilderness can be briefly indicated. The desert or wilderness is a place of utter desolation: a vast void of parched land, with no brooks or rivers to provide sustenance for plants and wildlife, except for a very few species (Jer 2:24). It is a place unfit for human habitation (ibid., 9:11; 50:40; 51:43; Job 38:26), except for roaming nomads, ‫( ערבים‬Jer 3:2; see also 9:25). (b) Due to its remoteness from settled areas, the wilderness can become the refuge of outlaws and fugitives, who prefer an off chance of survival in exceedingly adverse circumstances to the calamities which will certainly befall them at the hands of their pursuers. Abraham’s concubine Hagar flees into the desert to escape the anger of her mistress Sarah, her master’s primary spouse (Gen 16:6-14). In the wilderness her son Ishmael becomes the prototype of the marauding nomad: “He lived in the wilderness and became a bowman” (ibid., 21:20). David takes to the Judean desert in his flight from Saul: “and everyone who was in distress and everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented, gathered to him; and he became captain over them” (1 Sam 22:2). In repairing to the ‫מדבר‬, Elijah tries to save his life when Jezebel plans to kill him: “He saw [or: was afraid], arose and went [ran] for his life; [he] came to Beer Sheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there. But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness” (1 Kgs 19:3-4). “Flee, save your-selves,” is the prophet’s advice to the Moabites, “Be like a wild ass in the desert” (Jer 48:6). And the psalmist “would wander afar … would lodge in the wilderness” to find shelter from his enemies (Ps 55:7-8). (c) This aspect of refuge gave rise to an incipient positive image which is derived from wilderness language, viz., the employment of the desert as a figure for refuge, as in Jeremiah’s lament: “O, that I had in the desert a wayfarer’s lodging place, that I might leave my people and go away from them” (Jer 9:1). But this theme was not further developed in biblical literature. Even in this Jeremiah passage, the “positive” aspect is subsidiary. The prophet is not drawn into the desert to come there face to face with his God.

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

59

He does not seek there communion with the Deity, but rather longs to dissociate himself from his contemporaries. The use of the ‫ מדבר‬as a refuge by one who has been forced out of society, may have been conducive to the conception of the desert as the locus of a seemingly voluntary retreat. However this positive image remains peripheral to the preponderantly negative qualities of ‫ מדבר‬in the Hebrew writings. (d) The connotation of ‫ מדבר‬as a barren, awe-inspiring, howling wilderness is intimately related to yet another aspect of its employment as a motif. There are residues in the Bible of a mythical conception of wilderness, which is more fully developed in ancient Semitic mythology6 and also in post-biblical, midrashic literature. “In Arabic and Accadian folklore, the desert is the natural habitat of noxious demons and jinns.”7 In Ugaritic myth it is Mot, the god of all that lacks life and vitality, whose “natural habitation is the sun-scorched desert or alternatively, the darkling region of the netherworld.”8 Mot is the eternal destroyer, who periodically succeeds in vanquishing Baal, the god of fertility and life, and in reducing the earth temporarily to waste and chaos. It may be due to this identification of desert and darkness with Mot in Canaanite myth, that an equation of YHWH with the wilderness is an anathema to the biblical writers. “Have I been a wilderness unto Israel or a land of thick darkness” (Jer 2:31), demands YHWH, so that Israel might have reason to reject me? (e) These mythical visions of ‫מדבר‬/wilderness are mirrored in biblical pronouncements which show the desert to be populated by phantomlike creatures, alongside the scanty animal population. Thus, while looking after asses grazing in the ‫מדבר‬, Zibeon’s son Anah captured (rather than “found”) the Yemim (Gen 36:24), whom the midrash identifies as demonic beings. “There [in the desert] ostriches dwell, and satyrs (‫ )שעירים‬dance” (Isa 13:21). The presence of such monsters indicates that a place has been reduced to the state of primeval chaos. Says Mircea Eliade: “An unknown, foreign, and unoccupied territory (which often means, ‘unoccupied by our people’), still shares in the fluid and larval modality of chaos.”9 Such will be the future 6 7 8 9

See Haldar, “Notion.” Gaster, Thespis, 132. Ibid., 125. Eliade, Sacred and Profane, 31.

60

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

fate of Edom: “The hawk and the porcupine shall possess it, the owl and the raven shall dwell in it. He [God] shall stretch the line of confusion (‫ )תֹהוּ‬over it and the plummet of chaos (‫( )בֹהוּ‬Isa 34:11). “Wild beasts shall meet with hyenas, the satyr shall cry to his fellow; there shall the night hag (‫)לילית‬ alight and find for herself a resting place” (ibid., 34:14). The ‫ מדבר‬plays a prominent role in Psalm 29, which brims over with mythical creation terminology in a historicized setting: “The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire. The voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness (‫)מדבר‬, the Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh … The Lord ascends to his throne (‫)למבול‬,10 the Lord sits enthroned as king forever” (Ps 29:7-10). (f) It is this mythic aspect of ‫ מדבר‬which is retained in the ritual of the driving out of a goat (‫ )שעיר‬into the wilderness (‫ )ארץ גזרה‬to ‫עזאזל‬, as an atonement offering (Lev 16:7-10, 22). Subsequently this ritual became permanently associated with the rites of the Day of Atonement (ibid., 16:29). (g) In sum: the predominant aspects of ‫מדבר‬/wilderness in the Bible bear witness to the unfamiliarity with and loathing of the desert which were typical of the ancient Israelites. These attributions reflect the attitude of the city dweller, the farmer, the semi-sedentary shepherd, even the ass-nomad, who may traverse the desert on beaten tracks, but would not venture into its depths by free choice. 2. So far, I have dealt with perspectives on the desert/wilderness in its overall spatial connotation. We can now turn to what I have termed its temporal or historical connotation. As is well known, in a large number of occurrences in biblical literature, ‫ מדבר‬serves as a designation of the clearly circumscribed period which followed upon the exodus and preceded the conquest of Canaan. This period falls roughly into two unequal periods. One, spanning the first two years, includes the events from the crossing of the Red (or Reed) Sea to the Sinai theophany. The other extends from the Israelites’ encampment in the Paran desert to the war with the Midianites. After this last skirmish against desert people, Israel enters the Trans-Jordanian kingdoms. This period encompasses most of the remaining thirty-eight years, the years of the desert trek proper, the wanderings which were imposed upon Israel as a divine punishment for its sins and for doubting God’s power to lead the people safely into the promised 10

For this understanding of the word, see Epstein, “‫מבול‬,” 82.

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

61

land of Canaan (Deut 2:14-16). The episodes of this period are surveyed comprehensively in what may be called “The Book of Israel’s Failings.” This account comprises Num 11:1–31:20 (or possibly 31:54), with the exclusion of 26:1–30:17, which appear to be a secondary intrusion. The incidents related in this literary unit, and the atmosphere which pervades it, have decisively determined the image of the desert period in subsequent biblical writings. 3. We can now establish the themes and ideas which emanated from the tradition of the desert trek, and the moods and reactions which they probably evoked in the audience exposed to them. The Israelites encountered this account by a recital of the story, most probably in a cultic setting, or else by the secondary employment of the trek experience as a literary motif. We may presume that such a derivative use requires a historical and sociological disengagement from the “historical” trek and an ontological perspective toward desert conditions. Therefore, it can cause no surprise that figurative desert language is not used at all in the historiographical parts of the Pentateuch. Neither does it occur in early biblical historiography; here, desert language refers to the wilderness experience proper, not to its imagery. Likewise in wisdom literature, which is non-historical in character, the desert trek does not serve as a source from which literary motifs are drawn, excepting some occurrences of ‫ מדבר‬imagery which are anchored in the wilderness aspect (e.g., Job 1:19; 24:5) or in the creation myth setting (e.g., Job 38:26). (a) The desert trek motif makes its first appearance in attempts to recapture the quintessence of the trek experience; it is presented as the typological crystallization of the immanent relation between the nation and God (Deut 32; cf. Ps 78 and 106). An extensive employment of the desert motif is found in the books of the pre-exilic prophets and in Psalms. Thus, the ‫ מדבר‬theme is in fact concentrated in biblical literature which is assumed to have originated in the period of the First Temple. With the end of the monarchy, the use of the desert motif abates, possibly due to the reexperience of actual wilderness or desolation conditions (e.g., Mal 1:3). In references to the post-monarchical era, the motif is replaced by new themes that represent similar ideas and notions, emanating from events and situations experienced in the period of the kingdom(s). (b) Two major themes emerge from the traditions pertaining to the wanderings in the desert. The first part of the trek is dominated by the only positive aspect of this period: the theophany on Mount Sinai in which YHWH

62

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

revealed himself to Israel and reaffirmed the covenant with his people. The second part of the wanderings is characterized by two complementary thematic strands which run through the account: (1) YHWH provides Israel with sustenance and guides his people in the chaotic wilderness. In his benevolence he shields them from danger, even though the wanderings in the desert had initially been appointed by him as a punishment for Israel. (2) Nonetheless, the people, stubborn and without remorse, continue flagrantly to disobey the Lord and to kindle his anger. The desert period is typified by Israel’s wickedness, as an uninterrupted sequence of transgressions, lacking even the relieving moments of temporary repentance which ameliorate the biblical verdict in the times of the Judges. (c) The theme of disobedience and punishment has a much greater impact on the subsequent formulation of the desert motif in biblical literature than the conception of the desert as the locale of divine revelation and YHWH’s love of his people. The idealization of the desert, which scholars have perceived in the writings of some prophets, derives from an unwarranted isolation of the revelation in the desert theme from the preponderant transgression and punishment motif with which it is welded in the Pentateuchal account of the desert trek. The widespread opinion that “the pre-exilic prophets for the most part [sic!] interpreted the forty years as a period when God was particularly close to Israel, when he loved his chosen people as the bridegroom loves his bride,”11 rests on the slender evidence of two passages, Jer 2:2 and Hos 2:17, which are discussed without attention to the wider context of the prophets’ message. A closer analysis of this theme, viewed in relation to other concepts and motifs in biblical, especially prophetic, literature, indicates that it is of minor importance. In no way can it be construed to serve as the nucleus of a reputed “desert ideal.” (d) The experience of a theophany in the desert is not an intrinsic feature of prophecy as such, but rather a particular instance in the life of some prophets. Nor can it be presented as a fundamental aspect of YHWH, as has been proposed. In fact, one may witness attempts to establish a phenomenological relationship between the Yahwistic religion and the desert. Max Weber’s conclusion, presented as a result of empirical studies, that a provenance from the borderland between desert and cultivated land (Grenzgebiete des

11

Williams, Wilderness and Paradise, 15–16.

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

63

Kulturlandes im Übergang zur Wüste) is characteristic of the biblical prophets,12 is but a phenomenological axiom in a geography of religion.13 The desert is elevated to the position of an especially “appropriate place for the revelation of the true God.”14 Bedouin life and Yahwism are conceived not only as related, but as existentially consanguineous phenomena which were most fruitfully mated in the prophetic experience of the desert deity YHWH, presumably in his natural location.15 Such regional determinism cannot be squared with the prevailing prophetic idea of YHWH as an omnipresent deity who defies any geographical or conceptual circumscription. In revealing himself in the desert, to the prophet as an individual or to his people as a group, YHWH accommodates himself to the actual habitat of the recipients of this revelation. What the Temple is to Jeremiah and Ezekiel (both priests), and to Isaiah, a citizen of the metropolis, the ‫ מדבר‬is to Moses and Amos the herdsmen, and to Elijah, who, like them, lived in the borderland between Kulturland und Wüste. Not in search of God but out of fear of Jezebel, did Elijah go into the desert. That he experienced there a revelation is incidental, not predetermined by YHWH’s desert character. The theophany in the desert does not reveal the nature of YHWH, but rather the existential setting of humans who experienced him there. Being a historical deity and not a nature god, and being invested with unlimited power, geographical or otherwise, YHWH could let them experience him in their own existential setting.16 For this reason, the desert is the exclusive locale of divine revelation in the limited period of the desert wanderings. With the settlement in Canaan, the Israelite concept of YHWH became charged with new imagery. During the conquest of the central mountain ridge, YHWH was identified as a “mountain deity.” In this identification we may perceive a variant of the YHWH image of pre-conquest times, with its specific attachment to Mount Sinai and Mount Horeb. This concept lingered on among neighboring nations like the Arameans, who conceive of Israel’s God as ‫( אלהי הרים‬1 Kgs 20:23). It becomes the dominant concept in biblical religion and is carried over into prophetic

12 13 14 15 16

Weber, Ancient Judaism. Lanczkowski, Altägyptischer Prophetismus, 52–57. Kittel, Men and Movements, 39. Nyström, Beduinentum und Jahwismus. Talmon, “Revelation.”

64

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

eschatology, in which not the “desert god” but rather the “mountain god” motif is reflected. IV. A CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE ‫ הר‬MOTIF IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE The above explications provide the transition to an appreciation of the figurative use of ‫הר‬17 as a contrastive positive foil to the negative ‫מדבר‬. The motif dimension of ‫ הר‬is rooted in and arises out of biblical Israel’s historical experience, from the conquest of Canaan to the dissolution of the Kingdom of Judah in 586 BCE, reverberating in the period of restoration after the Babylonian exile. 1. Biblical historiographies inform us that the Landnahme in Canaan which followed upon the desert period initially could be realized only in the hill country, on the central mountain ridge which rises between the Jordan valley to the east and the lowlands along the shores of the Mediterranean to the west. Being exclusively composed of foot soldiers, the Israelites’ forces were no match for the Canaanites’ chariotry (see, e.g., Judg 1:27-34; 4:3; cf. Josh 11:1-7). The Israelites also lacked the heavy equipment—catapults and battering rams—without which frontal attacks on the fortified cities in the plains, from the outset would be doomed to failure.18 However, once the Israelites had established themselves in the hill country, often settling there on previously unoccupied sites, a positive perception of the highlands developed, which did not abate in the monarchical period, when Israel succeeded in conquering the more fertile lowlands. Several considerations may have induced the change from the complaint about the initial conquest of the hill area (Josh 17:14-18), to a distinct appreciation of the advantages it gave to the people settled there. Elevations could be better defended in times of war. Slopes could become bases for manmade fortifications. When building settlements on the less fertile hilltops where water supply and irrigation were a problem, the arable land in the foothills and valleys could be exploited for agricultural purposes. 2. As in the case of ‫מדבר‬, the theological values (and mythological undertones) associated with the term ‫ הר‬and some of its synonyms must be

17 18

For a more detailed discussion of ‫הר‬, “mountain” in the Hebrew Bible see Talmon, “‫הר‬, ‫גבעה‬.” Biblical authors never tire of bemoaning these adverse circumstances.

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

65

discussed within the framework of the Hebrew conception of space. The geomorphological and territorial formation of the Syro-Palestinian landscape is marked by mountains, with two apparently opposite but in fact complementary characteristics. On the one hand, their imposing height, especially that of the isolated peaks, led men to conceive of them as the focal points of the surrounding lowlands. On the other hand, in Mesopotamia and Egypt,19 mountains and hill ranges delimit the extent of a specifically ethnic or political territory.20 As a result, in the Hebrew Bible mountains are viewed as both focal points and perimeters.21 This notion finds its most striking expression in the description of Jerusalem and holy Mount Zion as being surrounded by several mountain ranges, from the nearby hill of Judah (Ps 125:2) to the neighboring nations and their lands (Ezek 5:5), and to the ends of the earth (Ps 42:7), which was conceived as a disk (Isa 40:22; Prov 8:27; Job 22:14; 26:10) or a quadrangle (Isa 11:12; Ezek 7:2; Job 37:3; 38:13). Mythological thought assigned a special significance to both ordinary and unusual places, a significance which can be traced in references to spatial phenomena in accounts of primeval history, above all in cosmogonies. In the biblical notion of space such mythological concepts play a formative role, but they were effectively transformed and finally superseded by historicaltheological and cultic notions which evolved in the biblical period. Biblical authors rejected the mythological notion of space as being unalterably holy. The theological implications of the tension between these two modes of thought come to the fore, on the one hand, in the idea of a mountain as the chosen dwelling place of YHWH, and on the other hand, in the distinctly different statement that “the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isa 6:3; cf. Ps 72:19). There is no place, not even a mountain, which is sacred by itself. Only an association with the God of Israel confers holiness upon a region 19 20 21

See Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, 10. See Aharoni, “Mount Carmel.” A combination of geographical characteristics, mythic conceptions, and cultic notions caused mountains, like rivers and lakes, to be thought of as territorial boundaries. The impregnable massifs of the Lebanon and Antilebanon, together with Mount Hermon, and likewise the mountains of Gilead, Moab, and Edom, define the northern and eastern boundaries of the territory which Israel considered the ideal extent of its divinely Promised Land, historically achieved in the Davidic empire. To the west, the Mediterranean constituted the boundary, and to the south the great desert. Also within the Land of Israel, mountains were considered boundaries.

66

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

or a locality. This confluence of mythological thought with strictly biblical notions and expressions must be taken into account in the examination of theological dimensions of the Hebrew Bible. Mountains represent—not only in Israelite thought—the axis mundi, the connecting link between heaven and earth. Their foundations reach down into the subterranean waters (Deut 32:22; Jonah 2:7; Ps 104:6-8), their peaks into the upper spheres. Mountains are seen as primordial structures which constitute the pillars of the universe, binding together its three great strata: netherworld, earth, and heaven (Exod 20:4 = Deut 5:8; Prov 8:22-29). The Hebrew Scriptures contain transparent allusions to the ancient Near Eastern notion of mountains as the abode of the deities or the locale of their assemblies (puḫrum).22 In Isaiah’s oracle against the King of Babylon, the cosmic mountain is manifestly viewed as heavenly, not earthly: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north’” (Isa 14:13). The same is true of Ezekiel’s lament over the King of Tyre, who had arrogated to himself the role of an angelic being on the holy mountain of God (Ezek 28:14-19). Usurpers of divine status are punished by being hurled from the heights of heaven into the depths of the underworld (Isa 14:15, 19) or “to earth” (Ezek 28:17). Another tradition in Ezekiel’s oracles against Tyre charges its king with having laid claim to divinity (Ezek 28:1–10) and thus having usurped, as it were, the throne of the gods in the midst of the seas (ibid., 28:2), probably the underground mountain on top of which El dwells.23 As punishment the king will be cast down to the base of the mountain, the domain of Mot (Ezek 28:8), the deity of darkness and perdition. A similar idea lies in the background of the Tower of Babel tradition (Gen 11:1-9), in which the tower serves as a manmade substitute for a mountain. To build a tower whose top reaches to the heavens (11:4) is equivalent to attempting to attain the sphere of the gods by ascending a cosmic mountain. 3. In the Israelite predilection for locating “sacred space” on mountains or identifying it with mountains, one recognizes a fusion of mythological

22 23

See van Buren, “Mountain Gods.” Mbk nhrm qrb ʾapq thmtm—CAT 1.17 VI 47–48; 1.2 III 4; 1.3 V 6–7; 1.4 IV 21–22; 1.6 I 33–34; cf. 1.100 3. Cf. Whitaker, Concordance, s.v. mbk , 410–411.

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

67

motifs with notions derived from the geographical and geophysical realities experienced by the Hebrews in the initial stages of their contact with the land of Canaan, and reinforced by economic and military circumstances. In depicting the period between the exodus and the settlement in Canaan, an early, poetically framed tradition describes how the God of Israel went from south to north with or before his people, from mountain to mountain, with or without a manmade temenos. There are found references to Mount Seir (Judg 5:4; cf. Ezek 35:2, 3, 7, 15); Teman (Hab 3:3; cf. Ps 78:26); Paran (Hab 3:3); Sinai/Horeb (Exod 3:1; 18:5; 19:20; 24:13; Judg 5:5; 1 Kgs 19:8-14; Ps 68:9); Ebal and Gerizim (Deut 11:26-29; 27:11-14; Josh 8:30-35). Other references include Bashan (Nah 1:4; Ps 68:16); the mountain where the Gibeonites executed Saul’s sons in a cultic ceremony “before God” (2 Sam 21:6-9), which is certainly to be identified with the nearby Gibeah of Saul;24 and the mountain of Bethel (Gen 28:10-22; 1 Sam 13:2 etc.). Finally, Mount Moriah must be mentioned, where Isaac was to be sacrificed by his father (Gen 22:1-19). Tradition identified this mountain with the future site of the Temple in Jerusalem (2 Chr 3:1). This association of the God of Israel with a series of mountains (Hab 3:10; see also Gen 31:54 etc.), which were invested with an aura of sanctity or came to be viewed as “holy mountains” on account of this association, caused YHWH to be perceived by non-Israelites as a typical “mountain god” (1 Kgs 20:23-28). In addition, these traditions caused mountains to be understood as the preferred sites of theophanies (Gen 22:14; Exod 3:1; 4:27; 18:5; 19:20; 34:32; Deut 4:11; 5:4; 9:15; 1 Kgs 19:11-14; etc.) and as places where God establishes his covenant with individuals (e.g., Gen 31:54) as well as with his people. Because of this development, “sanctuary” and “mountain” became conceptually identical, as is illustrated by the fact that the earliest Israelite sanctuaries were located upon mountains: Gilgal, Bethel, the twin peaks Ebal and Gerizim, Shiloh, and finally Mount Zion and Jerusalem. These places represent the stage in the development of Israelite religion in which the permanence of the divine dwelling place had been accepted. After all previously chosen places were rejected (Ps 68:15-17; 78:67), God’s presence finally and definitely came to rest upon Mt. Zion (Ps 68:17; 78:68; 132:13-18), “his holy mountain” (Isa 11:9; 27:13; 66:20; Jer 31:23; Joel 2:1; 4:17; Zech 8:3;

24

For ‫ הר‬// ‫ גבעה‬see Isa 10:32.

68

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Ps 3:5; 43:3; 48:2; Dan 9:16, 20); “his own mountain,” which he had created for himself (Exod 15:17; cf. Ps 78:54). The formative influence of historical fact on the cultic, ideological, and mythological appreciation of mountains becomes fully apparent in the traditions of Zion and Jerusalem. Mount Zion, in its majestic height, if not geographically at least in the vision of the devout, is seen to tower above all other mountains of Canaan and the lands around it (Isa 2:2 = Mic 4:1; Isa 10:32; Ezek 17:22-24; 20:40; 40:2; 43:12). The complex ideas associated with mountains, which culminated in the Zion traditions, were drawn upon to a significant extent to develop the vision of the future, which illustrates the fundamentally historical and restorational outlook of the biblical vision of an ideal future time.25 Once again, cosmic, mythological, physical, and metahistorical features coalesce in the mountain imagery of the future age.26 Hebrew Scriptures speak of the mountains of Canaan as being wellwatered. Since they are close to the heavens, the peaks get the first benefit of rain (Ps 104:13 etc.). At the same time, brooks and springs flow from and between the mountains (Ps 104:5-10; cf. also Deut 8:7). These features are reflected in the description of the days to come, when “upon every lofty mountain and every high hill there will be brooks running with water” (Isa 30:25). Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives, and the Temple Mount are the focal points of visionary scenes: “A fountain shall come forth from the house of YHWH” (Joel 4:18); “On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea [viz., the Dead Sea] and half of them to the western sea [viz., the Mediterranean]; it shall continue in summer as in winter” (Zech 14:8), so that the drought of summer is miraculously overcome. The abundance of water will produce a luxuriant growth of fruit trees (Ezek 36:8). “The mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk” (Joel 4:18; cf. Amos 9:13: “all the hills will be fertile”). This picture symbolizes the future restoration of Israel’s fortunes (Amos 9:13-15). The mountain (of Zion) again will be the pride of the Davidic ruler, whom YHWH “will plant on the mountain height of Israel” (Ezek 17:22-24). The restoration of Israel’s political fortunes is associated with the Day of Judgment. On the mountains of Israel the final battle against Gog will be fought (Ezekiel 38–39). As in the past, YHWH will then defeat the nations 25 26

Talmon, “Messianic Expectation,” 205–212, 218–220. Gressmann, Ursprung, 113–118.

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

69

upon the Mount of Olives (Zech 14:3-5; cf. Joel 4:1-17). In these battle scenes, the wrath of God is turned against the nations: “the mountains shall flow with their blood” (Isa 34:3 and passim), an antithesis to the image of the “hills that flow with milk.” On this canvas of future events is also portrayed the great banquet which YHWH will lay out upon his mountain for all nations (Isa 25:6-8; Ezek 39:17-24).27 From a mountaintop the liberation of Israel will be proclaimed (Isa 25:9-12; 40:9-11; 52:7-12). These pronouncements prepare the way for the final reconciliation, which in cosmic dimensions has as its focal point the Temple Mount of Israel’s God, the biblical “holy mountain” par excellence (Isa 2:2-4 = Mic 4:1-4; Isa 11:6-9 = 65:25; Jer 31:6; Zech 14:16). It cannot cause surprise that neither the desert, nor indeed anything related to the period of the desert wanderings, figure at all in biblical visions of the future. Their déclassement also affected the Stellenwert of Moses, Mount Sinai, and the Sinai theophany. In the portrayal of the ideal world to come all matters pertaining to the ‫ מדבר‬period were replaced by distinctive particulars derived from Israel’s existential experience of settled life as a sovereign body politic: the city of Jerusalem, signifying the Land, replaces the desert; Mount Zion takes the place of Mount Sinai as the locale of the new giving of the law (Isa 2:3 = Mic 4:2); and the Davidic king, not Moses, is center stage (Isa 11:1-10; Jer 17:14-26; 22:1-4; Hos 3:5; Amos 9:11-15; Mic 5:1-2 etc.). V. A CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE ‫ מדבר‬MOTIF IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE At this juncture it is appropriate to consider the Stellenwert of the ‫מדבר‬ period in the biblical writers’ understandings of Israel’s socio-religious history and of the wilderness motif in biblical literature. The analysis of the meaning and content value of ‫ מדבר‬in the biblical literature, based on geographical and ecological, viz., on “spatial” criteria, puts in full light the Israelites’ depreciation of the wilderness/desert. Existentially, the very term ‫מדבר‬, like its synonyms ‫ערבה‬, ‫ציה‬, ‫שׁממה‬, ‫חרבה‬, signifies the negative pole of human experience, whereas ‫הר‬, ‫ גבעה‬etc. constitute the opposite positive pole. Viewed as a phenomenon relating to 27

In these themes reverberates an echo of the banquets on Mount Zaphon given by El after having vanquished his enemies (CAT 1.4 IV 30–37), and by Baal (CAT 1.3 I 1–22) after having built his house (CAT 1.4 V 44–57; VI 38–59).

70

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

time, the days of the desert wanderings are considered a low point in Israel’s history. In contradistinction, Israel’s settlement in the Land of Israel, ‫ארץ ישראל‬, often identified with ‫הר ישראל‬, represents the height of achievement, the consummation of the divine promise. A close reading of the pertinent texts makes it evident that neither in its space nor its time dimension is the desert per se considered a value. The wilderness is not presented as a goal towards the attainment of which the Israelites strove in days gone by, nor an aim which they expected to attain in some future time, as one school of biblical theologians would assert. In past history, the desert trek merely served as a rite de passage, a preparatory transition stage between the nadir of enslavement in Egypt and the apex of settled life and socio-political autonomy in the Promised Land. This mere transitional character of the desert trek experience finds a literary expression, e.g., in the ring composition which brackets the reference to that period between the Pesach celebration in which the exodus from Egypt culminated (Exod 12), and the observance of the Pesach ritual in Gilgal, which symbolizes Israel’s taking root in Canaan (Josh 5:10-12). The subordinate status of the desert experience in biblical thought is accentuated by the short time span which tradition accords to it—a mere “forty years” (Exod 16:35; Num 14:33; 32:13; Deut 1:3; 2:7; Josh 5:6; 14:10; Amos 2:10; 5:25 etc.), the (schematic) life span accorded to one generation (Num 32:13 = Deut 2:14; Deut 1:35; 32:5; Ps 78:8; 95:10; cf. Judg 3:11; 5:31; 8:28; 13:1; 1 Sam 14:18 etc.).28 In contrast, infinitely greater importance attaches to the era of Israel’s existence as a settled people in “the Land.” Tradition has it that between the exodus from Egypt and the building of Solomon’s Temple, 480 years passed (1 Kgs 6:1); i.e., the schematic life span of twelve generations, of whom only the first experienced the wilderness trek. In parentheses we may add that a rabbinic tradition (which, however, lacks any biblical support), reports that the Temple stood in Jerusalem for 410 years, from the early days of the monarchy until its destruction in 586 BCE.29 The ascription of the much shorter time span ascribed to the desert period conveys a clear impression of the minimal weight ascribed to the wilderness experience in the biblical scheme of Israel’s history, revealing its 28 29

For further discussion see below and my article “Four Hundred Years,” below, 130–133. S. Eli. Zut. 8 [ed. Friedmann, 185]. Cf. also Matt 1:17. Fourteen generations passed from the time of David to the Babylonian Exile.

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

71

provisional and transitional character. For these reasons, the historical interlude of life in the desert could not be invested with the values previously experienced in the period of statehood in the Land of Israel and could not in any way be conceived as a model to be relived in a future age, as is implied by advocates of the “nomadic ideal in the Old Testament.” VI. THE “FORTY YEARS” SCHEMA IN RELATION TO ‫ הר‬AND ‫מדבר‬ 1. Two Different Attitudes to Historical Time Let us recall that biblical tradition consistently presents the period of the desert wanderings as having lasted for forty years, reflecting the first of two different biblical conceptions of “historical time.” This conception is based on the schematic reckoning of the life span of one generation as forty years. This basic schema then is set up as the central pillar of an equally schematic system of chronological calculations, which determinates the contours of a resulting stereotype of biblical historiography. The other conception is a “realistic” schema which sees actual history as encompassing six to seven generations: two to three preceding that of the transmitter or author, and two to three succeeding. The two schemas appear to be unrelated. Seldom, if ever, will they impinge on one another. Their separation from each other lends credence to the proposition that they represent two different understandings of history which were concomitantly entertained by biblical thinkers and chroniclers. “History” seen as extending over six or seven generations, reflects “reality.” One may have live memories of one’s father and grandfather, at times also of one’s great-grandfather. This appreciably “realistic” view of the past and the future shows in an ancient Semitic figure of speech. In biblical texts, as well as in inscriptions, and occasionally on seals, a man’s name will be followed by those of his father and grandfather, sometimes his great-grandfather.30 Viewed as reflecting a conception of history, that usage appears to have a significance which transcends that of a mere 30

Seals and seal impressions of this type are rare. One, found in Arad, was published by Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, no. 108: ‫לברכיהו בנ] [הו בנשלמיהו‬. The other is an impression on a bulla from Lachish: ‫לירמיהו צפניהו בנ נבי‬. Aharoni, “Trial Excavation,” 167, restores an ʾaleph at the end of [‫ נבי]א‬and takes the word as the designation of a profession. N. Avigad rejects this conjectural reading and its interpretation. See Avigad, “New Names,” 71; idem, “Titles and Symbols,” 305. He rightly understands ‫ נבי‬as a nomen proprium probably derived from the nomen loci (‫( נ)ו(ב)ה‬1 Sam 21:2; 22:9, 19). See also my article, “History,” above, 12–19.

72

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

symbol of status—a “long” genealogy serving as an expression of an elevated position in society—as is presumed at times. By the same token, a man can expect or may hope to see his children, grandchildren, even his great-grandchildren. Such reality is captured in biblical accounts of the lives of historical personalities. An example is the tradition of three generations of Patriarchs—preserved in practically all strata of biblical literature—or the report of Jacob’s going down to Egypt, together with “his sons and grandsons” (Gen 46:6-7; cf. 48:1-12). That the combined life span of three to four generations was seen in biblical times to constitute the realistic extent of the historical future is further illustrated by Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the period of Babylonian world rule. It was to begin with Nebuchadnezzar’s reign: “All nations shall serve him, and (after him) his son and his grandson” (Jer 27:7). Whereas this period is defined in unequivocal and precise terms, the description of the changed situation which is to follow is couched in vague, inexact language. The forces which are destined to bring about the envisaged change are not specified: “then mighty nations and great kings shall use him [Nebuchadnezzar]” (ibid.). The threat with which Jeremiah’s prophecy winds up, viz., that the Babylonians’ world dominion will be terminated, is also picked up in the already mentioned oracle in Isa 14:21: “Never again shall they rise to conquer the earth.” However there, some “historical” specification is introduced into the vision of doom by elaborating in detail who will be affected by it: “God will wipe out from Babylon ‫( ”שם ושאר ונין ונכד‬Isa 14:22). These words are mostly taken to refer in general to the total annihilation of all of Babylon’s offspring and posterity. In distinction, I prefer to understand the enumeration of three terms which can have a genealogical connotation, as implying that this oracle was meant to serve as a negative sequel or foil to Jeremiah’s positive prophecy. Just as one prophet had foreseen for Babylon a period of wealth which would last for three generations, another foresaw for her a time of woe which would equally extend over the lifetimes of three generations. Concomitantly, in the Book of Jeremiah the period of exile to be endured by the Judeans who were deported in 597 BCE is circumscribed in similar terms. The prophet enjoined them to normalize their life for the duration of this adverse phase in history (but, nota bene only for its duration): “Marry

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

73

wives, beget sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters” (ibid., 29:6). Again, three generations are enumerated: the deportees, their children and grandchildren. It follows that the reversal will occur in the lifetime of the fourth generation. One can hardly fail to hear in this message of encouragement an echo of the tradition which offers a similar calculation of the expectable duration of the Israelite’s exile-like serfdom in Egypt, although the above Jeremiah passage does not refer to it explicitly: “God said to Abraham, know … that your descendants will be aliens living in a land that is not theirs; they will be slaves … but I will punish that nation whose slaves they are, and after that they shall come out … the fourth generation shall return here” (Gen 15:13-16). That prophetic message will yet require our attention.

The combined evidence of the above passages prompts the conclusion that biblical Israel’s comprehensive view of actual history comprised six to seven generations, totaling about one hundred and fifty years. It follows, that we may assume that the authors reckoned the average life span per generation at approximately twenty-five years, which was considered a realistic expectation. This calculation is distinct from and certainly much closer to reality than the schema in which forty years make up the life-span of one generation. It now remains to be shown that the “realistic” view of history, which comes to the fore in traditions concerning individuals and definable groups at given junctures in the passage of time, indeed mirrors the first understanding of history as a conceptual phenomenon. One arrives at this conclusion by a study of texts in which the time span of six to seven generations occurs as a proverbial motif, which by definition, transcends the plane of historical actuality: Whosoever wishes to delve into matters exceeding the limits of his own experience per force must turn to his elders whose historical knowledge and memory penetrate deeper into the past: “require of your father to recount it, your elders to tell you the tale” (Deut 32:7). Likewise, the future time which one may expect to experience are the days of one’s grandchildren: “Sons of sons are the crown (pride) of grandfathers, and fathers are the diadem (treasure) of sons” (Prov 17:6). Also, “A good man will leave an inheritance to [his] sons’ sons … ” (ibid., 13:22), viz., for the time span which one can realistically hope to see one’s family

74

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

flourish, and one’s society to experience a state of wellbeing and success: “May God bless you from Zion, may you [live to] see the weal of Jerusalem all the days of your life. May you (live to) see your children’s children [while there is] peace upon Israel” (Ps 128:5-6). Whatever lies beyond that range of time cannot be fathomed. Between the historical now, i.e., the generation of one’s grandchildren or great-grandchildren, and the far away “then,” lies the unfathomable expanse of time which cannot be encompassed in the frame of history. The conceptual gap of information which divides known history from the uncharted future, finds a most succinct expression in a standard formula of the “retribution motif,” which connotes the relation of Israel’s God and humanity: A sinner’s punishment for his transgressions will be meted out to him in history, and his misdoings visited upon his descendants to the third and fourth generation (Exod 20:5 = Deut 5:9; cf. Exod 34:7; Num 14:18). In distinction, reward for steadfast adherence to YHWH and his laws transcends history. It is the everlasting inheritance of a righteous offspring: “I keep (my) faith to the thousand[th generation] to those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod 20:6 = Deut 5:10). Going beyond an enumeration of three to four generations in reference to the future clearly implies that the author has set his eyes on eternity. 2. The “Forty Years” Schema and Motif We noticed that according to the passage in Gen 15:13-16 the period of bondage in Egypt affected three generations. The generation following upon them, viz., the fourth was divinely assured to be delivered and to “return here,” the Land of Canaan (Gen 15:16). Since that generation was doomed to perish in the wilderness, it follows that in the “four generations” schema, the desert wanderings take up only one part, whereas the period of the Egyptian bondage takes up a full three. Tradition obviously gave more weight to the threegeneration period of serfdom in Egypt than to the one-generation wanderings in the desert. Even more impressive is the comparison with the length of time schematically ascribed to the settlement (in the Land of Israel) in the calculation of historical periods by generations of 40 years each. Biblical tradition does not provide any chronological assessment of the entire era of Israel’s implantation in the Land, from the conquest to the destruction of the Temple and the ensuing exile. But it does give some stereo-

[Type text]

‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬: An Antithetical Pair

75

typed figures for the first part of that era, and these are rather revealing. As said, the Book of Kings reports that Solomon built the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, “four hundred and eighty years after Israel had come out of Egypt” (1 Kgs 6:1). This figure evidently stands for a block comprised of 12 generations of 40 years each. Similar results are achieved by adding up the schematic units of chronology ascribed to the pre-monarchic “Great Saviors” who achieved periods of peace for Israel: Othniel—40 years = one generation (Judg 3:11); Ehud—80 years = two generations (ibid., 3:30); Barak and Debora—40 years = one generation (ibid., 5:31); Gideon—40 years = one generation (ibid., 8:28); Samson—40 years (twice 20) = one generation (ibid., 15:20 and 16:31). Likewise, David was king over Israel for altogether 40 years (1 Kgs 2:11). These figures add up to 280 years, the schematic lifetime of seven generations. Discounting the exact figures adduced for the rule of the “minor Judges” (Judg 10:1-5; 12:8-15) and of Jephthah (ibid., 12:7), which do not tally with the generation schema, we still have to account for five generations between Moses and David, whose years of rule are not given: on the one hand were the generations of Joshua and the “Elders” who followed Moses (ibid., 2:7; cf. Josh 24:31), and on the other hand were the years of the leadership of Eli, Samuel and Saul. We may presume that their terms of office were reckoned according to the same generation schema. Therefore, the sum total of the rule of these five generations amounts to 200 years. Together with the rule of seven generations of “saviors,” totaling 280 years, all in all 480 years, this set of data also mirrors the tradition which calculates the average lifetime of one generation at 40 years. Only a part of the schematic lifetime of the first of these twelve generations, the generation of Joshua, stands for the desert period, whereas the remaining eleven-plus represent the early time of Israel’s settlement in its Land. The unequal length of time apportioned to the first and the latter underlines the exceeding importance which the biblical model of history accorded to settled life in the Land of Israel, over and against which the desert period is shown to be of little account. The analysis of the “one generation = 40 years” pattern or motif in the reports of history in progress reveals the contours of biblical Israel’s vision of the perfect politeia, which does not exhibit even a vestige of wilderness imagery, nor of a presumed desert ideal. Rather, it is clearly fashioned after the image of the imperfect nation-state, actually experienced in the fertile and secure mountainous area of the Land of Israel.

76

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~5~ THE TOPPED TRIAD IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE ASCENDING NUMERICAL PATTERN* I. INTRODUCTION The 3/4 or 3/3+1 convention, which frequently recurs in the Hebrew Bible, has been extensively investigated within the wider framework of the “ascending numerical” or “staircase” pattern X/X+1.1 This pattern was first discussed by Bishop R. Lowth in the late 18th century who conceived of it as a technique pertaining to the comprehensive collection of parallelismus membrorum,2 the outstanding feature of biblical poetry. The discussion of the staircase pattern gained momentum in the wake of the discovery of ancient Semitic literatures, especially the Ugaritic epics, which supplied more examples of this literary mode.3 Scholars now could gauge its occurrences in biblical writings, and appraise its significance by way of synoptic investigations that also brought under scrutiny its employment in other Semitic literatures.4 Over the passage of time, Lowth’s seminal analysis of the staircase pattern was considerably refined. However, on the whole, the discussion continues to proceed on the course which he charted. The basic notion that the ascending numerical pattern generally, and in particular the 3/4 or 3/3+1 type, should be considered a literary precept which pertains to the wider category of parallelismus membrorum still dominates the investigation of its employment in the Hebrew Bible. By contrast, in the present paper, I endeavor to show that the frequent and variegated occurrences of the 3/4 or 3/3+1 model in Hebrew * 1

2

3 4

A revised version of an article originally published in Maarav 8 (1993), 181–198. For a comprehensive survey and detailed discussion of the matter under review see Zakovitch, Three and Four. I concur with Zakovitch on conclusions at which we arrived independently, and in bringing under scrutiny pertinent examples. However, the thrust of my analysis of the pattern differs in many basic aspects from his approach. See Lowth, De sacra poesi. An English translation of this work was published by Gregory (Lowth, Sacred Poetry). See, inter alia, Ginsberg, “History.” Pertinent publications are cited by Weiss, “Pattern.” The following items should be added to the list given there: Buzy, “Numériques”; Bea, “Zahlenspruch”; Grintz, “ʿAluqah“; Haran, “Graded Numerical Sequence”; Loewenstamm, “Graded Number”; Paul, “Amos 1:2–2:3”; Avishur, “Parallelism”; idem, “Repetition Techniques”; Talmon, “Four Hundred Years,” below, 125–136.

78

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Scriptures should first and foremost be examined as a category in themselves, independently of comparison with other configurations of the ascending or staircase pattern in the Bible and in ancient Near Eastern sources. Two prominent features which characterize the occurrence of this literary convention in the biblical writings, and are not shared by any other ancient Semitic literature, appear to require this separate study: (a) Scholars have discussed the ascending numerical pattern in great detail, but have not paid attention to the exceeding rarity of the 3/4 or 3/3+1 pattern in non-biblical ancient Near Eastern sources, in comparison with the much more frequent occurrence of other patterns based on ascending numerals, such as 2/2+1, 6/6+1 or 7/7+1, etc.5 Cassuto,6 Dahood,7 Gevirtz,8 Ginsberg,9 Roth,10 Weiss,11 Avishur,12 et al., could adduce only one and the same solitary occurrence of the 3/4 or 3/3+1 model in Ugaritic epics (CAT 1.16 II 22–24),13 and none in any other ancient Semitic source. It seems that only Sauer referred to this remarkable fact en passant, without elaborating, and without drawing any conclusion.14 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14

The 3/4 pattern occurs thirteen times altogether, as against the patterns 2/3 (five times), 7/8 (forty times), and 9/10 (two times). See Avishur, “Parallelism,” n. 5. Cassuto, “Biblical Literature.” Dahood, “Ugaritic–Hebrew Parallel.” Gevirtz, “Early Poetry.” See Ginsberg, “History.” Roth, “Numerical Sequence”; idem, Numerical Sayings. Weiss, “Pattern.” Cf. Avishur, “Parallelism.” The staircase pattern serves there in a description of Keret’s illness for three months after which he recuperated: tlt yrhm km[rs] ʾarb kdw k[rt]. The same pattern shows in the episode of the Egyptian slave who tells David that his Amalekite master abandoned him because he had been ill for three days, and had not eaten nor drunk. David’s men fed him “and his spirits revived,” clearly on the fourth day (1 Sam 30:12). It is of interest to note that in a similar context, the book of Hosea (6:1-2) employs the 2/3 staircase pattern: ‫כי הוא טרף‬ ‫—וירפאנו יך ויחבשנו יחינו מימים ביום השלישי יקמנו ונחיה לפניו‬unless ‫ ביום השלישי‬is to be understood here the way it functions in other occurrences of the phrase, to mean “after nightfall of the third day”; viz., on the fourth day (see, e.g., my discussion of Esth 4:15–5:1, below). Sauer, Sprüche Agurs, 51: “Seltener ist die Verwendung der Zahlen drei und vier. Eine mit vier endende Zahlensteigerung findet sich deutlich nur ein einziges Mal. KRT’s Krankheit, eine sehr undurchsichtige Angelegenheit, wird auf drei bis vier Monate begrenzt.” I shall adduce below still further examples of the employment of this specific pattern in similar situations.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

79

(b) The staircase pattern prevails in biblical and extra-biblical writings which display a parallelismus membrorum structure to varying degrees of transparency. Contrary to the claims of Lowth and Haran, in the Hebrew Bible the 3/4 or 3/3+1 pattern is found predominantly in narrative prose,15 and less frequently in texts commonly defined as poetry—i.e., texts which conform to the rules of parallelism. Therefore, the particularities of the employment of the 3/4 or 3/3+1 convention in the biblical writings warrant a self-contained analysis of its modalities and significance, before the scope of inquiry is widened to bring it under scrutiny in the framework of a comprehensive investigation of the staircase pattern in Hebrew Scriptures and ancient Near Eastern sources.16 In the ensuing discussion, I designate the 3/3+1 or 3/4 figures of speech in the Hebrew Bible as the “topped triad,” to highlight its intrinsic conceptual signification as a message-bearing motif, rather than as a mere stylistic turn of speech.17 The pattern underscores the singularity of the item explicitly numbered “four” or “fourth,” (‫רביעי)ת‬/(‫ ;ארבע)ה‬elsewhere, the pattern is implicitly understood to constitute the fourth versus a triad, whether severally specified or not. At times, the number “three” serves as a cipher signaling the contrastive superiority of the “fourth” in comparison with all items in a given category of phenomena. The notion which underlies the 3+1 or 3/4 convention, therefore, may be formulated as follows: whatever surpasses “three,” irrespective of whether that triad is explicated or only implied, thus is shown to be invested with special propensities which are not to be found in any component of the preceding triad. In a way, this literary mode compensates for a deficiency of the Hebrew language which possesses no special forms either for the comparative or superlative of the adjective.18 The qualitative differentiation between comparable entities which in Western languages can be achieved through internal modification of the adjective—e.g., in English “hot-hotter-hottest,” “great-

15 16

17 18

See, e.g., Jer 36:23. These aspects of the 3/4 pattern were not addressed in by Forti in her finely-honed analysis of the “Graded Numerical Sequence” in Animal Imagery. See especially pp. 21–23, 83, 122, 125–126. I first introduced this term in my essay, “Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles,” esp. 347–349. See Haran, “Graded Numerical Sequence,”253–257.

80

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

greater-greatest”; or in German “frisch-frischer-frischest”—in Hebrew can only be attained through verbal additions, such as ‫מן‬, ִ ‫יותר ִמן‬, ‫עד מאד‬ (cf. Gen 27:33, 34 etc.). Within such constraints, the purpose of the topped triad pattern becomes apparent. This stratagem answers the implied but not verbalized question of how to differentiate an exceptional “one”—a living being, an inanimate item, an event, a specified length of time, et sim., from all other items in the same category, which the triad conceptually represents in toto. As the smallest indicator or manifestation of “many,” the terms “three” or “third” serve as the contrastive foil to the “fourth,” the unique “topper.” II. THE UNIT “THREE” A compressed survey of the figurative employment and the conceptual meaning of “three” in Hebrew Scriptures makes fully apparent the qualitative rather than quantitative difference between the preceding triad and the topper. Biblical literature abounds with instances in which the figure three denotes and symbolizes the smallest number of a plurality, of many, or of completeness, as correctly discerned by Meir Weiss.19 “Three” fulfills a similar symbolic, at times sacred function, in Ugaritic,20 Egyptian,21 Qumran,22

19 20

21

22

Weiss, “Pattern.” E.g., Baal evidently “tops” three beings (hypostases), sometimes understood to be his daughters Pdry, Tly and Arsy (CAT 1.3 III 5–8; cf. also 1.3 IV 48–53; V 38–44; 1.4 I 9–18; IV 50–57; etc.), who accompany him in the desert. See also Talmon, “Desert Motif,” esp. 240–241. Sethe, Von Zahlen, 37–38. Sethe illustrates the use of ‘three’ “als runde oder heilige Zahl” by adducing excerpts from magical texts, omina and cultic customs. Some examples from the writings found in the Qumran caves prove the point: Three priests sit on the community council, together with twelve lay members (1QS 8:1), and three Levites serve as camp overseers (1QM 7:13). The figure “three” recurs in relation to military matters (1QM 1:13 [x2]; 5:7; 6:1; 8:3-4, 6; 9:12, 13; 4Q491, frg. 1-3:11-12 etc.). In keeping with a biblical rule, three days constitute the prescribed period of preparation for a holy war (1QSa 2:6). In CD 4:14-15, 16-18, “three nets of Belial” are listed in which sinners become ensnared. The Covenanters’ penal code recurrently mentions periods of punishment consisting of three units of time (1QS 7:6, 9, 11). Newsom, Sabbath Sacrifice, 178–180, reconstructed in 4QShirShabb the formulaic pattern in which the position of the Fourth Chief Prince in the middle of a roster of seven is evident. Cf. the partly reconstructed text in the Masada fragment of the songs: Newsom and Yadin, “Masada Fragment,” 128, Mas 1k ii 8–11. See further Glessmer, “4QOrdo,” 183–184.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

81

rabbinic,23 and New Testament24 writings. The occurrence of three as a stereotype or a religious symbol is found all over the world.25 In this respect, the employment of three signifying totality26 is comparable to the figure seven, as denoting a larger or higher degree of completeness.27 Because of their symbolic significance, the figures three and seven are recurrently conjoined, foremost in narrative texts.28 In the Book of Samuel, for example, the Judean patriarch Jesse is presented as the father of eight sons, the youngest of whom (‫ )הקטן‬is David (1 Sam 16:1-12). However, only three of the older brothers are mentioned by name,29 thus making David the topper of a triad. Similarly, as a punishment for his transgression by commanding Joab, the chief of the Israelite army, to conduct a census of the people (2 Sam 24:1-9), the prophet Gad offers King David the choice

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Series of ternary epigrams are found in m. ʾAbot 1:1–2, 5:19; b. Ber. 57b; and b. Pes. 108a–114a, occasionally arranged according to a common denominator: “three whom God loves” or “whom God hates”; “three who love each other,” “do not envy each other,” or “hate each other.” In b. Pes. 113a–b several sayings are ascribed to unnamed sages (‫)תנו רבנן‬, others to R. Joshua b. Levi and R. Joḥanan, who transmit some sayings ‫משום אנשי ירושלים‬, which evidently implies that they had a special currency among Jerusalemites. See also Sir 25:1-2; cf. also 23:22-23. Luke has been singled out for displaying a penchant for triadism. See Sparks, “Partiality.” See also Acts 9:9; 2 Cor 12:8 etc. Heinz-Mohr, Lexikon, 307–309; Rühle, “Zahlen,” 2064; Schimmel, “Zahlensymbolik”; Usener, “Dreiheit”; Lehmann, Dreiheit. Three categories of citizens with full rights make up the people of Israel: ‫כהן‬, ‫לוי‬, ‫—ישראל‬ Priests, Levites and Israelites. Similarly, the stereotypical threesome ‫גר‬, ‫יתום‬, ‫ אלמנה‬represents the entire stratum of the underprivileged in the biblical society. Hehn, “Siebenzahl”; Roscher, Heptomadenlehre; see also Avishur, “Parallelism,” 6–8; RosenthalHeginbottom, “Seven.“ Sethe, Von Zahlen, 37–38 records couplings of “three” with “seven” in Egyptian sources: “Am 3. Tag des Monats soll über eine dreinablige Zwiebel, die von drei eisernen Nadeln durchbohrt ist, ein Zauberspruch 7 mal gesprochen werden, um zu wirken (Demot. Mag. Pap. 15, 5). Neben der 7, wie hier, oder zur Wahl gestellt mit ihr, erscheint die 3 auch sonst mehrmals in dem Papyrus (ibid., 10, 13; 16, 19; 17, 24).” Jesse’s sons are listed by name in 1 Chr 2:13-15. However, David is counted there “seventh.” The Peshitta ad loc. adds the name Elihu who is mentioned as David’s brother in 1 Chr 27:18, thus bringing up to eight the number of Jesse’s sons, as in 1 Sam 16:1-12. For a discussion of the problem involved, see McCarter, 1 Samuel, 276. Gordon, “Review,” 181, traces the conflicting sum totals to a lost epic version of the biblical account in which the ascending numerical sequence 7/8 served in parallelismus membrorum (1 Sam 16:5-9; 17:13).

82

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

between seven years of famine, three months of military defeat and pursuit by the enemy, and three days of pestilence befalling the country (2 Sam 24:13). Again, in the opening part of the “narrative envelope” of the dialogues in the Book of Job (1:1–2:13), the righteous hero of the story is introduced as the father of seven sons and three daughters (1:2), who loses all his children and possessions for no fault on his part (1:6-22). Ultimately vindicated in the closing component of the envelope, God restored Job’s fortunes (Job 42:12), and once again blessed him with seven sons and three daughters (42:13).30 The employment of three31 as a literary convention can be subsumed under four main headings, which can be further subdivided: A. Characters or dramatis personae; B. Living beings; C. Inanimate matter; D. Events or units of time. Numerous examples illustrate the employment of this pattern. While the figure three often denotes an accurate number, in many cases of its occurrence, the figure has a formulaic signification. A. Characters or Dramatis Personae and B. Living Beings A father, and at times a mother, is recurrently introduced as the parent of three sons, three daughters or three children altogether: (1) Adam, “the first man” (Gen 4:1-2, 25) begets three sons, Cain, Abel and Seth, with himself presumably seen as the “topper.” (2) Noah, the second first man,32 likewise tops a triad of male descendants: Shem, Ham, and Japheth, following the primordial Deluge and the re-creation of the universe (Gen 6:10; 9:18). (3) Bath-Shua the Canaanite bears the patriarch Judah three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah (Gen 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3). Together with their father they constitute a topped triad in a genealogical tale which concerns the tribe of Judah as much as its eponym (Genesis 38). Bath-Shua ceased to bear children after giving birth to Shelah, her youngest (Gen 38:5b).33 30 31

32 33

Cf. 1 Sam 9:20, in conjunction with 10:8. Arithmetic progressions of three, such as six, twelve, thirty, three hundred etc. also serve as stereotypes or symbols. See my paper “Creation,” above, 42. Cf. Gen 29:35.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

83

(4) Amram and Jochebed were the parents of Aaron, Miriam, and Moses (see especially Num 12:1-4). (5) Most awe-inspiring among the inhabitants of Canaan whom the Israelites encountered, were the “three sons of Anak,” men of giant stature (Num 13:22, 32-33; Josh 15:14; Judg 1:20).34 (6) Samuel’s mother Hannah “gave birth to three [unnamed] sons” (1 Sam 2:21). MT does not explicate whether Samuel was one of the three or whether he “topped” the triad of his brothers.35 (7) Three brothers, Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, warrior sons of David’s sister Zeruiah, (2 Sam 2:18-22; 1 Chr 2:16), form a triad evidently topped by the king himself.36 (8) In the book of Ezekiel, the principle of individual responsibility is illustrated by a triad of righteous men of old: Noah, Daniel, and Job. In a sinful world doomed to perdition, their laudable conduct could save only their own lives, but not the lives of their children or their contemporaries (Ezek 14:14-20). It is of interest to note that these ancient paragons of virtue together constitute a paradigmatic trio. In other biblical traditions each of them is individually linked with a specific triad: Noah with three sons (Gen 9:18-19), Daniel (Dan 1:6 etc.), and Job severally topping a “triad of friends” (Job 2:11; 42:7, 9).37 Various biblical figures dispatched three envoys or deployed three units of men on various missions: (9) Joshua delegates a contingent of three men from each tribe to map out the land which remained for distribution in Cis-Jordan after Judah, Joseph, and another five tribes had received there their allotted tracts, and Gad, Reuben and half the tribe of Manasseh had occupied theirs in TransJordan (Josh 18:1-10). (10) Ailing King Ahaziah dispatched in succession three companies of fifty soldiers, each led by a captain, to bring the prophet Elijah to his chamber (2 Kgs 1:9-17).

34 35 36

37

Cf. Talmon, “Rephaim.” On this, see below, 89–90 (example no. 35). Cf. also the trio of commanding officers in charge of David’s special unit of “thirty knights” (2 Sam 23:8-39 = 1 Chr 11:10-47). I shall elaborate on these traditions below.

84

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

In some of these instances, the ternary arrangement may reflect realities of Israelite, or ancient Near Eastern warfare tactics, based on the coordinated deployment of three subdivisions which together make up forces of varying sizes.38 The system shows up in several biblical military reports and battle accounts. Therefore, it must be stressed that the use of stereotypes does not necessarily stamp a report as altogether fictitious. Biblical authors probably used well-known data to enhance and transmit to their audiences the factuality of the events which they reported. (11) David’s bodyguard of “thirty warriors” is said to have been headed by three explicitly named commanding officers (2 Sam 23:8-39 = 1 Chr 11:10-47). (12) Gideon selected a special detachment of 300 handpicked fighters to mount an attack on the Midianites (Judg 7:15-22). (13) Saul’s army numbered 3000 chosen soldiers, of whom 2000 were under his command and 1000 under his son Jonathan’s (1 Sam 13:2). (14) The Philistines sent out three raiding parties against Israel in three different directions (1 Sam 13:17-18). (15) Joshua deployed three units of Israelite warriors in the assault on ha-ʿAi (Josh 8:1-28). (16) In their battle against Gibeah of Benjamin the combined forces of the Israelite tribes reportedly took to the field in three divisions (Judg 20:30-34). In every one of these tales an explicitly named dramatic figure—Joshua, Gideon, Saul, David and the Philistines, constitutes the “topper” of a triad. These reports may be based on historical data, but it is equally possible to argue that they reflect a literary convention. (17) Three heavenly messengers advised Abraham that his wife Sarah would bear him a son. Thereupon, he bade her to bake bread for them from “three bushels of flour” (Gen 18:2-6). Further ternary themes pertaining to Abraham and Sarah are preserved in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran: (18) A fragmentary passage speaks of “three men of the princes of Egypt” who came to Abraham, apparently to transmit to him a comforting message (1QapGen 19:24).

38

See, inter alia, Malamat, “Conquest of Canaan”; idem, Malamat, Early Israelite Warfare.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

85

(19) Again, the King of Egypt “desired her (Sarah) exceedingly” when he “heard the words of ‫ הרקנוס‬and the words of his two companions, for all three spoke as one man,”39 praising Sarah’s beauty (ibid., 20:8). (20) Saul encountered “three men”40 who were on their way to Bethel, ‫אל האלהים בית אל‬,41 “one carrying three lambs, the other three loaves and the third a skin of wine” (1 Sam 10:3),42 evidently three components of the sacrifice which they intend to offer.43 C. Inanimate Matter The specification of the tripartite constitution of the sacrifice described in example 20 above leads to a consideration of other threesomes of inanimate matter: (21) Jonathan secretly undertook to warn David of his father Saul’s, inimical intentions (1 Sam 20:1-42), and bids his friend to escape for three days to an agreed upon hiding place (20:19, cf. v. 5). Jonathan would then come there, and “shoot44 three45 arrows” (20:20),46 to advise David by a signal and

39

40

41 42 43 44

In these confrontations with a triad, Abraham is center stage and may also be seen as the topper. In this instance, the triad constitutes one item in a numerically ascending sequence of divine messengers whom Saul encounters in the search for his father’s asses, which culminates in his finding greater treasures (1 Sam 9:20). The account begins with the report of Saul’s meeting the solitary seer Samuel (1 Sam 9:17-20); then proceeds to mention two men, whom Saul is to meet at Rachel’s tomb, and who (will) reiterate Samuel’s announcement that the asses have been found (1 Sam 10:2). After that, the three men who are on their way to Bethel cross his path. Finally, as Samuel had foretold, Saul comes upon “a company of prophets” who descend from the high place in Gibeah (1 Sam 10:10, cf. 10:5). Probably an apocopated reading of ‫אל בית האלהים ]ב[בית אל‬. Note that the sacrifice consists of a total of seven items. For the composition of this sacrifice, see Haran, “Zebaḥ Hayyamim.” The somewhat opaque reading ‫( צדה אורה‬v. 20) was correctly rendered in several TargJ MSS as ‫בקשת אשדי‬. LXX, ἀκοντίζων ἐκπέµπων, is less explicit. Some modern commentators and translations (e.g., JB) simply ignore the Hebrew word altogether, thus missing the point. I propose that we read ‫ ירה אורה‬rather than MT ‫צדה אורה‬. Daleth and resh are frequently interchanged at various stages in the transmission of the biblical text. For the less common graphic confusion of ṣade and yod in the paleo-Hebrew alphabet, see Talmon, “PaleoHebrew Alphabet.”

86

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

a watchword whether to return to the court or to flee (20:21-22). Before setting out on his way, David prostrates himself three times before Jonathan as an expression of deference and gratitude (20:41).47 (22) A volley of three arrows plays a similar role in an act with magical overtones, which King Joash of Judah performed at the bidding of the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs 13:14-19). (23) Note also the proverbial “three-fold cord” which will not snap (Qoh 4:12), unlike the equally proverbial “seven new bow strings” with which Delilah bound Samson, and which he broke as easily as the touch of fire will snip a single strand of hemp (Judg 16:6-9).48 D. Units of Time or Events Clusters consisting of three time units are recurrently recorded in biblical literature: D.1. Three Days (24) A triad of days will intervene between two events (Gen 22:4). (25) A fruitless search maybe abandoned after three days (Josh 2:16; 2 Kgs 2:17; see further 1 Sam 9:20). (26) A three-day march is considered an appropriate duration in an extended trek (Gen 30:36; Exod 5:3; Num 10:33; 33:8 etc.). D.2. Three Months (27) Sinful farmers experience proverbial divine punishment when rainfall ceases “three months before the harvest” (Amos 4:7).

45

46

47

48

In this instance, too, translators and commentators tend to ignore the Hebrew numeral, although it is reflected in LXX τρισσεύσω, and TargJ ‫תלתא גרין‬. See e.g., McCarter, 1 Samuel and JB ad loc. This was probably the usual round at target shooting practice, which because of its commonality would not arouse any suspicion. A comparable series of seven prostrations precedes Jacob’s meeting with Esau (Gen 33:3), see below, 105–106, n. 106. The custom of three or seven prostrations in meetings between individuals of unequal status is documented in various ancient Near Eastern literatures; e.g., the Ugaritic epics. This is another case of the topical association of the conventional figures “three” and “seven” (see above).

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

87

D.3. Three Years (28) An extended sea voyage may last for three years (1 Kgs 10:22 = 2 Chr 9:21). (29) Several kings ruled for three years (Judg 9:22; 1 Kgs 15:2 = 2 Chr 13:2), or else crucial events happened in their third year of reign with the tacit implication that the fourth year differed basically from the preceding three (Dan 8:1; 10:1; 2 Chr 17:7 etc.). D.4. Three Events The employment of “three times” as a basic unit becomes exceedingly visible in episodes pertaining to the sphere of the sacred: (30) The angels extol God’s incommensurable holiness by thrice proclaiming ‫( קדוש קדוש קדוש‬Isa 6:3). (31) The prophet Elijah revives a widow’s son at Zarephath by stretching himself “three times on the child,” while praying to God (1 Kgs 17:21; cf. above). (32) King Hezekiah’s census of the priesthood takes into account all males “aged three years and upwards” (2 Chr 31:16).49 III. THE TOPPED TRIAD The above-documented employment of triads as a motif in diverse literary genres serves as the backdrop for an investigation of the “topped triad” and its signification in the Hebrew Bible. As said at the outset, under this convention can also be subsumed instances of the 3/3+1 or 3/4 staircase pattern, especially in literary works which do not operate according to the principles of parallelismus membrorum. However, a close analysis shows that the characterization of the 3/3+1 or 3/4 pattern as an ascending numerical device, rather than as a motif, obfuscates the message which it is intended to convey, namely the qualitative ascendancy, in substance or importance, of the fourth vis à vis the triad. The “one” is not added to the “three” with the purpose of attaining a total of “four,” even though this is precisely what they equal in a purely numerical scheme; nor is “three” but a parallel to “four reduced by one” with the same signification, as Segal maintains.50

49 50

Commentators tend to emend the text to read ‫“ שלושים‬thirty.” See Segal, “The Study.”

88

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Rather, the fourth, the one up, is singled out as being intrinsically different from the three that are considered a tripartite unit, putting in relief the qualitative singularity of the “one” that outranks them in a positive, and occasionally a negative sense. E.g., in the Jotham fable (Judg 9:8-15) the infertile bramble bush is portrayed as the unproductive topper that boastfully offers to outflank three fruit-bearing trees: olive, fig, and vine. I propose to illustrate the employment of the topped triad model by adducing examples culled from biblical narratives, in which the pattern is clearly recognizable through the detailed identification of the “three,” like that of the “fourth” which tops them—and not only through the use of the numerals (‫ שלוש)ה‬and (‫ארבע)ה‬. Like in the schematic employment of the unit three illustrated above, so will the occurrences of the topped triad be discussed under four headings: (a) dramatis personae or characters; (b) living beings; (c) inanimate matter; and (d) events and units of time. A. Dramatis Personae or Characters I shall first consider instances of this category in which the names of all four dramatis personae involved are carefully recorded. On the surface, the specification appears to accord equal weight to all four. However, a close reading of the texts under scrutiny reveals the authors’ intention to put in relief the qualitative superiority of the topper in relation to the triad, as in traditions concerning four brothers: (33) Jacob’s wife Leah felt neglected by her husband, who favored her sister and rival Rachel (Gen 29:30-31). She expected to win his attention and love after bearing him three sons one after the other—Reuben, Simeon and Levi (Gen 29:32-34). Then she gave birth to a fourth, Judah, who was destined to top not only the triad that preceded him, but all his father’s sons, viz., his brothers and half-brothers.51 With the birth of Leah’s son Judah, the pattern

51

It should be pointed out that the topped triad convention figures conspicuously in traditions and narratives concerning King David, the forefather Judah’s most prominent descendant, and the Davidic line (see below). The attraction which David held for the biblical authors is exceedingly evident in biblical psalmody, which by its very nature is especially receptive to literary conventions and imagery. See, inter alia, Talmon, “Kingship and Ideology,” 29–34. The same attraction appears in other texts which pertain to David and his line where special literary techniques, such that of a break in mid-verse (“pisqâ be-

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

89

attains completion. The episode culminates in the statement: “she had no more children” (Gen 29:35; cf. 30:9). However, later she gave birth to another two sons, Issachar and Zebulun, and a daughter Dinah (Gen 30:17-21). This means that all in all Leah gave her husband Jacob the significant total of seven children. (34) The Judean Jesse’s youngest son certainly outranked on every count (1 Sam 16:12; 16:18) his seven older brothers (16:10), of whom only three are named (16:6-9). The youngster convincingly proved his excellence by defeating Goliath, the Philistines’ giant champion, whom all King Saul’s men deemed invincible (1 Samuel 17). A vignette, possibly an independent, partially preserved account spliced into the wider framework,52 enumerates Jesse’s three older sons who had followed Saul to the war: “Eliab the firstborn, and the second Abinadab, and the third Shammah” (1 Sam 17:13). The next verse provides a piece of information which at this point is irrelevant, namely that “David was the youngest, ‫הקטן‬.”53 He had come to the battlefield as a camp runner carrying provisions for his grownup brothers, and not as a fighting man (17:14-18). However, eventually he will top the triad of his seniors in military prowess by single-handedly vanquishing the giant enemy, whom neither his brothers nor any other Israelite dared to engage in combat (17:11, 23-24). (35) In 1 Sam 2:21 MT (followed by TargJ, Pesh and Vulg) reads: “she [Hannah] became pregnant and gave birth to three sons, ‫ותלד שלשה בנים‬, and two daughters, and (JB adds “meanwhile”) the boy Samuel grew up in the presence of YHWH.” This wording suggests that Samuel was one of three brothers. However, the variant 4QSama reading, ‫ותלד ע ו ד שלושה בנים‬, evidently implies that after the birth of Samuel, Hannah gave birth to yet (another)

52 53

ʾemṣaʿ pāsuq”), are used. I have suggested that this phenomenon is meant to draw the reader’s attention to elaborations of the matters reported, which were not transmitted in the biblical account. See my essay, “Pisqah Beʾemṣaʿ Pasuq.” To the list of pertinent publications adduced there, should be added Weisberg, “Break.” See, e.g., McCarter, 1 Samuel, 298–309. The motif of the younger or youngest son conveys a message which counters the prominence conferred upon the firstborn in biblical law. See, inter alia, Goldin, “The Youngest Son.” Frye, The Great Code, 182, speaks of “the theme of the passed-over firstborn.” I believe that the message which inheres in this motif needs yet to be put in focus. See Talmon, “Barren Wife” (below, 159–160), and the comprehensive survey of diverse models of interpretation by Fox, “Stalking.”

90

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

three sons. This reading, which is reflected in LXXB, καὶ ἔτεκεν ἔτ ι τρεῖς υἱοὺς,54 makes Samuel, Hannah’s firstborn, her one son mentioned by name. He is the peer of his siblings, tops a triad of younger brothers, and thus is singled out as the only one of his mother’s sons destined to play an important role in Israel’s history. In this instance, the literary analysis impinges on textual criticism.55 The diverging traditions can be shown to preserve differing literary conventions: MT, TargJ, Pesh and Vulg reflect the “three sons” model, 4QSama and LXXB the “topped triad” pattern. (36) Solomon was David’s fourth son, born to him in Jerusalem by Bathsheba, his preferred wife, after his other wives had given him the triad of Shammua, Shobab and Nathan (2 Sam 5:14). Vying for the succession to the throne, Solomon prevailed over them and over another trio of his father’s older sons: Amnon, Absalom and Adoniah. As in the case of David himself, in this instance as well, the topped triad pattern explicitly or implicitly connects with the motif of the younger son who outranks his seniors. The convention can also be traced in the Joseph cycle, in which it is less accentuated, however, than in the Judah and David narratives. (37) Biblical tradition emphasizes the preeminent status of the tribes of Judah and Joseph in Israelite history by investing their eponyms with the prerogatives accorded by custom and law to a firstborn son, in this instance Reuben. Judah is said to have won “rulership over his brothers” (1 Chr 5:2; cf. also Gen 49:8-10, and Deut 33:6-7). (38) In punishment for having lain with his father’s concubine (Gen 35:22; 49:3), Reuben’s “birthright was given to Joseph’s offspring” (1 Chr 5:1-2; cf. Gen 49:22-26 and Deut 33:13-17). (39) Joseph excelled over not only his siblings. When his father Jacob declared that his son’s sons, who were born in Egypt, “Ephraim and Manasseh shall be as much my sons as Reuben and Simon” (Gen 48:5), he formally ranked his grandsons with his own sons in the generational scheme. Concomitantly, he moved their father Joseph one notch up in the lineage 54

55

The LXX does not render ‫ותהר‬, but some witnesses translate the Hebrew lexeme by καὶ συνέλαβεν. In some manuscripts of LXX (the O and L recensions), ἔτι is attached to συνέλαβεν, and not to ἔτεκεν. However, it is doubtful whether in the reading καὶ συνέλαβεν καὶ ἔτεκεν MT is indeed conflated with 4QSama, as was suggested by McCarter, 1 Samuel, 80. For further such instances see below.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

91

system, making him the peer of their grandfather. In other words, tradition conceptually raised Joseph to an equal footing with the three patriarchs.56 (40) The topped triad pattern underscores Joseph’s preeminence even in comparison with the patriarchs. Judging by the sheer expanse of text of the Joseph novel, thirteen chapters in the book of Genesis (Genesis 37, 39–50),57 Joseph appears to top the three forefathers, whose combined life stories take up twenty-four chapters altogether (Genesis 12–35).58 (41) The preferential status which biblical tradition evidently accords to Joseph, over and above that of his peers and ancestors, is reflected in the portrayal of his mother Rachel.59 The biblical account puts in full light Jacob’s intense affection for Rachel, relative to his three other wives—her sister and rival Leah, and the two concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. Rachel’s preferential status in her husband’s household becomes fully apparent in the account of Jacob’s return from Aram Naharayim to Canaan. Preparing for the meeting with his brother Esau, and fearing lest Esau might mount an attack on his camp, he puts Bilhah, Zilpah, and Leah together with their sons in front of the column, actually making them a protective buffer for the topper—Rachel and her sons, who bring up the rear (Gen 33:2). (42) The topped triad convention signals more than Rachel’s superior position in reference to Jacob’s other wives. On the strength of her son Joseph’s dominance over his brothers and the three patriarchs, his mother Rachel, the fourth matriarch, becomes equally elevated above the triad Sarah, Rebecca and Leah. (43) After King Saul and his three older sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malkishua were slain in the battle on Mount Gilboa (1 Sam 31:2, 6, 8), Abner ben Ner, the commander of the king’s army, enthroned Saul’s fourth son Ishboshet60 in his father’s stead (2 Sam 2:8-10). 56

57 58 59

60

The same idea may be alluded to in Jacob’s pronouncement, which is a crux interpretum: ‫ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך‬, “I gave you one ridge of land (NEB) more than your brothers” (Gen 48:22). A count of verses or words does not produce any different results. The imbalance foreshadows the superiority of the tribe of Joseph in Israel’s history. A fragmentary Qumran text, 4Q474, concerning Rachel and Joseph, which may be the remnant of a lengthy Joseph narrative or a short apocryphon, highlights the great love which God and Jacob extended to Rachel and her son: ‫שמ[חה בבן אהוב ל]א[ב]י[ו] [על כול] אחיו השת[בח בבן‬ ‫ [אה]ב י[הוה מאודה רחל‬... . ‫( ידיד‬4Q474 2–5). See Elgvin, “4Q474.” LXX: Ιεβοσθε; the Three: εισβααλ = 1 Chr 8:33; 9:39: Ισβααλ, Ασαβααλ.

92

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

(44) Eleazar, son of the High Priest Aaron, likewise prevailed over a triad of brothers. After Aaron’s two older sons, Nadab and Abihu, were consumed by fire from heaven (Lev 10:1-2), “it fell to (his surviving sons) Eleazar and Ithamar to exercise the priesthood under their father Aaron” (Num 3:4; cf. 4:27; Lev 6:13; 10:6). (45) However, Eleazar soon totally overshadowed his brothers. He took his father’s place as “chief of the Levite leaders” (Num 3:32; 20:28), at first next to Moses (Num 17:2-4; 26:14; 27:1–11; 31:1–32:42), and then next to Joshua (Num 34:17; Josh 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1). The ascendancy of Eleazar and his line was finally assured when Solomon banished from Jerusalem the priest Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27), whom biblical tradition derives from Eli, a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar (1 Chr 24:3). (46) A possible variant of the 3+1 model presumably underlies the statement that “three sons and a daughter were born to Absalom.61 The daughter’s name was Tamar; she was a beautiful woman” (2 Sam 14:27), like her namesake, Absalom’s sister (2 Sam 13:1). She evidently had inherited her father’s exceptional comeliness (14:25-26), outshining her brothers who remain unsung.62 The motif dimension which attaches to a foursome of characters becomes fully apparent in some exemplary legendary tales revolving around a triad of brothers topped by a fourth. (47) Of the four awesome sons of the legendary Harafah,63 whom David’s men vanquished in perilous duels (2 Sam 21:16-22), the one introduced last, viz., the fourth, was the most fear inspiring because of his strange bodily features: “A giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all” (21:20). (48) The biblical account concerning the post-Deluge universe begins by listing Noah’s sons: Shem, Ham, and Japhet (Gen 9:18a). Then, for no apparent

61

62

63

The model of three sons and one daughter (for which see also 1 Chr 7:32) could be viewed as a counterpart to the 2+1, i.e., the three children pattern which surfaces in the Amram tradition (see above), and the 6+1, viz., the pattern of the father of seven children in the Leah–Jacob tale (Gen 30:20-21). I am not concerned here with the glaring contradiction between this passage and the statement that Absalom set up a memorial pillar for himself because he had no children (2 Sam 18:18). See my discussion of this point, inter alia, in “‫יד ושם‬,” below, 219–220. For ‫בני הרפה‬/‫ ילידי‬or the ‫ רפאים‬see Talmon, “Rephaim.”

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

93

reason, the author informs his audience that “Ham is the father of Canaan” (9:18b).64 The ensuing reiteration, “these three were Noah’s sons” (9:19), reveals the underlying 3+1 pattern. At the same time, Ham’s son Canaan is surprisingly introduced as Noah’s “youngest son” (Gen 9:25), probably with the intention to mark him, the forefather of the Canaanites, Israel’s future enemies, as the “fourth,” surpassing in wickedness the trio of his elders (Gen 9:20-27). (49) The surprising reference to Canaan actually foreshadows the role assigned to Noah’s only grandson mentioned in the passage, viz., in the ensuing tale of Noah’s inebriety in which Canaan figures as “the one” pitted against “the three.” Overcome by the wine he had drunk, Noah uncovered himself in his tent. Canaan’s father Ham, saw his own father’s nakedness, and told his brothers outside (Gen 9:20-22), presumably with a smirk on his face. When Noah awoke from his stupor and learned what his youngest son had done to him (9:24), he cursed not his son Ham, as might have been expected, but rather his grandson Canaan: “Accursed be Canaan, he shall be his brothers’ meanest slave” (9:25). (50) Like all events set in the prehistoric eon and recorded in Genesis 1–11, the curse which the primeval ancestor put on Canaan transcends the confines of history by projecting a situation which is to obtain for all times. Noah’s curse epitomizes the future subjection in history of the Canaanites to the Israelites, the sons of Shem. The biblical author highlighted the proleptic thrust of the episode of Noah’s drunkenness by modeling it on the topped triad pattern, which in this instance involves three sons and a grandson who outranks them in evil. (51) It should be noted that in Ham’s genealogy Canaan is preceded by a triad of older brothers: “The sons of Ham are Cush, Miṣraim, Put, and Canaan” (Gen 10:6 = 1 Chr 1:8). A comment added to the biblical tradition in the Book of Jubilees underscores Canaan’s special position by applying to him the epithet ‫הקטן‬, which in the tale of Noah’s drunkenness originally identified Ham in relation to his brothers (Gen 9:24): “And Ham knew that his father had cursed his youngest son, and it was disgusting to him … and

64

Cf. the statement “David was the youngest” (1 Sam 17:14).

94

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

he separated from his father, he and his sons with him, Cush and Miṣraim and Put and Canaan” (Jub 7:13).65 (52) A replica of the tale pertaining to a father, three sons and a grandson, the son of the youngest brother, is mirrored in the Abraham cycle. Terah equals Noah. His three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran, parallel Shem, Japhet, and Ham. Once again, a grandson, Lot, the son of Haran, is introduced prematurely in Terah’s genealogy: “This is the table of the descendants of Terah. Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. Haran was the father of Lot” (Gen 11:27). Thus is foreshadowed Lot’s prominence in the ensuing events (Gen 12:4-9; 13:1-12), foremost in the Sodom and Gomorrah tale (Genesis 18–19). He is presented as the fourth, preceded by a triad, which he tops.66 (53) In the Judah and Tamar episode (Genesis 38), we seem to encounter a modified version of the “father and three brothers” model, in which the father “tops” a triad of sons.67 Judah’s firstborn Er died without leaving an heir, because “he was wicked in YHWH’s sight” (38:7). Also Onan, the second son, to whom Er’s widow Tamar was given in (Levirate) marriage, died childless because of his sins (38:8-9). Fearing lest his youngest son Shelah might also die if he married the twice-widowed Tamar, Judah resorts to a subterfuge to prevent such a marriage (38:11). In the end, he himself will surpass the triad of his childless sons by involuntarily producing twin (grand)sons with his daughter-in-law (38:27-30; 46:12; Num 26:19-22; 1 Chr 2:4 etc.).68 One of the twins, Perez, is destined to rise to prominence by becoming the forefather of the Davidic house (Ruth 4:12, 18-22; 1 Chr 4:1-2 etc.), whereas his brother Zerah’s offspring will be doomed to everlasting disgrace.

65

66

67

68

This is the Geʿez reading. In the Amharic version the order is changed: Miṣraim, Cush, Canaan and Put. Cf. Noah’s curse of his grandson Canaan instead of his son Ham, the actual villain of the episode (Gen 9:20-27). I thank Dr. R. Ratner for independently pointing out the applicability of the topped triad convention to the interpretation of this narrative. In this tale “the theme of the passed-over firstborn” (see Frye, The Great Code, 182) is fused with the topped triad pattern. In distinction from the Judah–Tamar narrative, genealogical rosters list the descendants of Shelah, but without mentioning their mother’s name (Num 26:20; 1 Chr 4:21-23).

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

95

(54) It is hardly a coincidence that Zerah’s inferiority will become exceedingly manifest in an event reported to have occurred in the fourth generation of his descendants. After the battle of Jericho in the days of the conquest of Canaan, an ignominious member of that family, Achan son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, defied the divine command that everything in the city should be consecrated to YHWH (Josh 6:17-19), by surreptitiously stealing valuables from the spoil, which had been put under a solemn ban (7:1, 20-21). In punishment for this transgression, an Israelite contingent of three thousand men was utterly routed in the ensuing attack on the town of Ai (7:2-9). When it transpired that the culprit who had caused the debacle was “Achan son of Carmi son of Zabdi, son of Zerah,” (7:18)—mark the reiterated enumeration of names leading up to the fourth in the roster—he was stoned (7:25-26). Achan, and the locale of his death, named after him ‫עמק עכור‬, “Vale of Trouble” (7:26b; cf. 6:18), with ‫ עכ)ו(ר‬punning on ‫עכן‬, became an everlasting symbol of calamity in the biblical tradition (see Isa 65:10; Hos 2:17; 1 Chr 2:7). The numerous occurrences of the topped triad pattern in traditions pertaining to the tribe of Judah highlight the exceeding attraction which the Davidic house held for the biblical authors.69 (55) The 3+1 generational model emerges in an interesting variant in the genealogy of the tribe of Levi. The fourth generation is singled out here from the preceding three by a triad of Israel’s distinguished leaders: Moses, Aaron and their sister Miriam, the children of Amram, son of Kehat, son of Levi. We can now give attention to the occurrence of the topped triad pattern in biblical traditions, whether factual or fictional, historical or legendary, which revolve on four figures that are neither brothers nor kin: (56) The Garden of Eden tale (Gen 3) pertains to a “threesome” of sinners— snake, woman, man—who are “topped” by the Creator, a fourth dramatis personae of distinct and incomparable characteristics. The punishment for their transgressions is recorded at the end of the tale in a tripartite condemnation in an inverted sequence: man, woman, snake (Gen 3:8-19). (57) The story of Job of Uz, a blameless and upright man (Job 1:1), and his three friends is a prime example of the topped triad convention in a narrative framework. In this instance, the names and ethnic origins of the friends are fully spelled out, both at the beginning of the narrative envelope

69

To a degree, the same applies to Joseph and his house; see above, 90–91; below, 117–118.

96

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

(Job 2:11) and its end (42:9): Eliphaz of Teman, Bildad of Shuah and Zophar of Naamah. These details evince the writer’s intent to drape his tale in a seemingly authentic atmosphere of historical realism. However, the paradigmatic nature of the narrative was already recognized by the sages, who opined that Job never existed, but rather was a proverbial figure, ‫איוב לא היה‬ ‫( ולא נברא כי אם משל היה‬b. B.Bat. 15a), known as one of a trio of famous just men of bygone days (Ezek 14:14, 20).70 Modern scholarship has revealed ancient Semitic and folkloristic tales from other cultures, which preserve a similar tradition of “the undeservedly suffering just [one] who ultimately is restored to his good fortunes.”71 The shared theme underpins the definition of the Job narrative as a fable, structured in accord with widely accepted literary conventions. Among these, the topped triad pattern is central to the story. It highlights the qualitative superiority of Job over his friends, whom he outranks on any count (Job 42:7-8). (58) The tale of Daniel and his three companions provides another illustration of the topped triad motif. From the very beginning and throughout the narrative account, all four dramatis personae are identified by their original Hebrew names, as well as by their Babylonian appellations (Dan 1:6-7, 11; 2:17, 49 etc.). As in the case of Job and his three friends, the reader is never left in doubt in regard to the exceeding prominence of Daniel, who in all respects overshadows his three fellow-exiles. A succession of three undifferentiated messengers or units of men dispatched one after another can serve as a backdrop for the coming on stage of a distinct fourth dramatis persona: (59) Jacob sends to Esau three messengers bearing generous gifts to mollify him (Gen 32:14-21), before he himself, topping the threesome, dares to face his brother (Gen 33:1-11) whom he had cunningly robbed of their father’s blessing (Gen 27:1-36). (60) Similarly, Saul charges three units of his men, one after the other, with the task of apprehending David. Since his first efforts are abortive (1 Sam 19:11-16), he dispatches another contingent of captors (19:20), and then a second and a third, ‫( שלשים‬19:21) who equally fail to capture David. In a last effort, the king himself mounts a posse and follows in their footsteps as a fourth (19:22-24). 70 71

See above, 83. Pope, Job, lvi–lxxi.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

97

(61) Three informants, following one upon the other, bring Job the sad news of three calamities which had befallen his children: Marauders had carried off their asses and oxen after putting the herdsmen to the sword (Job 1:13-15); God’s fire had flashed from heaven and consumed sheep and shepherds (1:16); three bands of Chaldeans had carried off the camels after slaying the drivers (1:17). The account culminates in the fourth disaster, the most tragic of all: a whirlwind had struck the four corners of the house which collapsed, killing all his children who had assembled there (1:18-19). The discernment of the topped triad convention in a given biblical tradition should at times be taken into account as a weighty factor in the assessment of the primacy of one or another of diverging textual or literary versions of such a tradition. The following examples will illustrate the point: (62) The evident centrality of the topped triad pattern in the opening and closing components of the tale of Job and his three friends (Job 2:11-13; and 32:1)—which frame the cycle(s) of dialogues—gives credence to the claim, which can be substantiated on other grounds, that the belated addition of another dramatis persona, Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite (32:2, 6), who is not introduced as Job’s “(fourth) friend,” suggests that this addendum most probably was not a part of the original narrative account that envelops the series of dialogues (Job 1:1–2:13 and 42:7-17). Rather it is a secondary expansion of the original tale of Job and his three friends, possibly a variant of the topped triad motif in which the emphasis on the one up vis-à-vis the three is shifted from the positive topper, Job, to the negative topper, Elihu son of Barakel. (63) The prominence of the topped triad pattern, which marks the tale of Daniel and his three companions, prompts the surmise that this literary feature also underlies the account of Daniel’s election by King Darius as regent over his realm (Dan 6).72 The book of Daniel reports that Darius “set over his kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps” (6:2),73 and appointed

72

73

The episode reflects a motif known from other biblical tales which revolve around an Israelite exile who rises to prominence at a foreign court: Joseph in Egypt (Gen 41:37-45); Mordecai and Esther in Susa (Esth 6:1-12); and Ezra and Nehemiah in the Persian Empire (Ezra 7:1-28; Neh 2:1-9). Theod: ἑκατὸω εἴκοσι, like MT. By adding ἑπτὰ, the LXX converts the figure 120 into the equally conventional figure 127 (Gen 23:1) which is given as the sum total of provinces in Ahasuerus’s Empire (Esth 1:1; 8:9; 9:30). Commentators fail to recognize the stereotypical

98

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

over them “three chief ministers” (6:3). The transmitted text specifies that “one of them was Daniel.” This detail seems to be in conflict with the next piece of information: “because of the extraordinary spirit that was in him, [Daniel] so outshone the other chief ministers, that the king was inclined to set him over the whole kingdom” (Dan 6:4). We may assume that the text originally described an administrative system, introduced by Darius, in which 120 satraps (or 127, according to LXX) reported to three chief ministers, who on their part were supervised by Daniel.74 However, in MT, and evidently in the considerably expanded LXX translation, a version based on a three characters, or three units pattern may have supplanted the original topped triad convention. The LXX version maintains throughout the notion of a triad of ministers, one of whom was Daniel, by repeatedly introducing the figure “three” into the account, whereas MT and Thd simply speak of “the ministers.” Thus in 6:3 MT has ‫ =( ועלא מנהון סרכין תלתא די דניאל חד מנהון‬Thd, LXX: καὶ ∆ανιηλ εἷς ἦν τῶν τριῶν ἀνδρῶν). Similarly, in a textual expansion in 6:4 (missing in MT and Theod), LXX reads καταστῆσαι τὸν ∆ανιηλ … καὶ τοὺς δύο ἄνδρας; 6:5, οἱ δύο νεανίσκοι; and again in 6:25, at the end of the pericope, MT reads ‫ =( גבריא אלך‬Theodotion καὶ ἠγάγοσαν τοὺς ἄνδρας) and LXX τότε οἱ δύο ἄνθρωποι. The recovery of the topped triad pattern in the description of the administrative structure of the realm ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar shows the superstructure of the Persian empire introduced by Darius to be an exact replica of that of Nebuchadnezzar, described in Dan 2:48-49, “the king made him (Daniel) ruler over the entire realm of Babylon … and appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the realm of Babylon, and Daniel (was/sat) in the king’s gate,” occupying the office of viceroy.75 (64) I am inclined to assume that the 3+1 convention can yet be recovered in the apocryphal book, 1 Esdras, in the contest of the “Three Pages,” one of whom is Zerubbabel (1 Esdr 3–4). The type-plot76 court setting of this story

74

75 76

character of these figures and dismiss them as “exaggerations” or “inaccuracies.” See, e.g., Montgomery, Daniel, 269; Hartman and DiLella, Daniel, 197–198 (for the figure 120 cf., e.g., Gen 6:3; Deut 31:2; 34:7; Judg 8:10; 1 Kgs 8:63). A similar three-tiered system seems to underlie the structure of David’s special unit of thirty warriors, commanded by a triad of officers, and topped by the king himself (2 Sam 23:8-39 = 1 Chr 11:10-47). Cf. the similar terminology in the Mordecai account (Esth 2:21; 6:10; 10:3). See Talmon, “Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.”

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

99

resembles the tradition of Daniel and his three compatriots. In debating the question of which thing is strongest, the first page suggests “wine,” the second “the king,” and Zerubbabel proposes a double answer: “Women are strongest, but above all things Truth bears away the victory” (1 Esdr 3:10-12). Scholars have correctly pointed out that the double reply clashes with the symmetry of the tale,77 which is restored by positing that in the original version, Zerubbabel was preceded by three pages and that it was the third who suggested that “women are strongest,” whereupon Zerubbabel, as the fourth, answered, “truth is strongest.” This option would be in keeping with the general tenor of that competition at the Persian court in which Zerubbabel was “found wisest.” Darius sat him next to his throne (1 Esdr 4:42), thus conferring on him an honor which raised him to a status at court far above the other three pages.78 (65) This apocryphal tale seems to echo a divine dictum preserved in the Book of Jeremiah, which likewise pertains to a triad outranked by a fourth, the topper: “These are the words of YHWH: The wise man shall not boast of his wisdom nor the valiant of his valor; the rich man shall not boast of his riches; rather of this a man may boast that he understands and knows me” (Jer 9:22-23). Biblical literary conventions are wont to persist in the works of later authors who purposefully employ scriptural thematic materials and literary techniques. This dependency can be readily traced in the writings of the Community of the Renewed Covenant which were discovered in the Qumran caves, in the New Testament and in the corpus of rabbinic literature. The application of the pattern under scrutiny, which revolves on a quaternary of characters, can be illustrated by a well-known rabbinic tradition in which R. Akiva tops a trio of prominent figures of the second generation of sages 77

78

Lupton, “1 Esdras,” ad loc., quoted by Cook, “1 Esdras,” 1:30; Talshir, First Esdras, 63; Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten,” 132–135, 155 (and publications cited there). Neither this apocryphal example of the topped triad convention, nor the series of 3/4 sayings, ascribed to one Agur bin Yaqeh (Prov 30:15-33), lend support to Eissfeldt’s thesis that this “late” literary model evolved from the “Riddle Gattung.” See Eissfeldt, Introduction, 85–86: “So we may assume that a type which is a favourite in the later wisdom literature, namely the numerical saying—like the one which begins: Three things are never satisfied: four never say ‘Enough’ (Prov. xxx, 15), and then enumerated the three or four things or persons (Ecclus. xxv, 1–2, Prov. vi, 16–19; xxx, 15–31, and also presumably xxx, 11–14) developed out of a riddle which asked: ‘Which are the threewhich are never satisfied?’ etc.”

100

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

who are said to have engaged in esoteric speculations: “These four entered the ‫פרדס‬:79 Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma, Aḥer80 and R. Akiva … Ben Azzai caught a glimpse (of mystic matters), ‫הציץ‬, and died … Ben Zoma caught a glimpse and became (mentally) affected, ‫ … נפגע‬Aḥer cut down the plants in the garden (viz., violated commandments) … (only the superior) R. Akiva came out hale and healthy, ‫( ”בשלום‬b. Ḥag. 14b). B. Living Beings and C. Inanimate matter The topped triad pattern pertaining to living beings and inanimate matter is amply represented in biblical wisdom literature, in which the numerical ascending model occurs to a much lesser degree, as, e.g., in Prov 6:16-19. An entire series of the 3/4 or 3+1 convention is present in Prov 30:11-31, with some differences in the wording of the individual sayings.81 Next to the formula “three … and four” (Prov 30:15, 18, 21, 29), both a mention of only “four” items (30:24) and an enumeration in detail are found (30:11-14). The variation seems to indicate that these epigrams are not subject to the canon that governs the rather stereotyped staircase pattern. However, in toto, all adages collated in 30:11-31 are set apart from the preceding maxims with which they are bound up in “The Sayings of Agur” (30:1), by the common theme to which only they and no other sayings give expression, viz., the qualitative singularity of a fourth over against a triad. This central idea is expressed by examples drawn from the animal world and from various phenomena in human life.82 (66) There are “four small creatures on the earth” whose wisdom is proven by their success in fending for themselves: ants, rock rabbits, locusts, and the lizard (Prov 30:24-28). Three of these creatures are referred to in the plural, whereas the fourth, the lizard is distinguished from the preceding three by being mentioned in the singular. While the wisdom of ants, rabbits, and locusts shows in their ability to establish an organization which helps

79

80

81

82

An acronym consisting of the initial letters of four modes of interpretation of biblical texts: ‫ = פשט‬the plain meaning; ‫ = רמז‬allusion(s); ‫ = דרש‬explanatory exegesis; ‫ = סוד‬hidden implications. A derogatory appellation for the sage Elisha ben Abuya, who was considered an apostate because of his heretical pronouncements. See Bacher, Tannaiten, 1:430–434. Grintz, “ʿAluqah,” 137, presumes that the numerical pattern has its origin in the riddle. Likewise Eissfeldt, Introduction, 85–86. For a recent painstaking discussion of this matter see Forti, Animal Imagery.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

101

them to compensate for their inherent weakness, only the lizard’s wisdom transcends that of the other animals. Because of its ability to climb up on walls, it can escape dangers by entering the abodes of humans, even “frequenting the palaces of kings.” (67) Similarly, three strutting83 beasts—the lion, the cock, and the billygoat—are at the pinnacle of various categories in the animal hierarchy, yet are outdone in pride by a “human king who looks down upon his people” (30:29-31).84 (68) Another saying speaks of three things in the animal world which are beyond comprehension: “the way of an eagle in the skies, the way of a snake on the rock, the way of a fish (not a ship)85 in mid-ocean.” But even more unfathomable is a fourth phenomenon: “the way of a man with a (young) woman” (30:18-20). The “three … four” formula also occurs in the following proverbial sayings which are altogether set in the framework of human experience: (69) One such saying lists “three insatiable things … four that never say ‘Enough,’ [namely:] Sheol,86 and a barren womb, a land which did not have its fill of water, and fire which never says ‘Enough’” (Prov 30:15-16). But

83

84

85

86

Torczyner, Proverbs of Solomon, 123–129, thus correctly understands the Hebrew idiom ‫מיטיבי לכת‬. This free rendition of the obscure term ‫ ומלך אלקום עמו‬is inspired by the injunction laid down in the King’s Statute that the king should not assume an overbearing attitude towards his people, ‫( לבלתי רום לבבו מאחיו‬Deut 17:19-20). Cf. b. Pes. 113b, and see below. This attractive understanding of ‫ אניה‬in this context goes back to M. Sheli (Bogden), as recorded by Sadan, “At the Outset,” 383. The MT reading is born out by LXX ᾅδης and TargK ‫שיול‬, and accordingly is accepted by commentators. Indeed, ‫ שאול‬goes well with ‫ ארץ‬and ‫אש‬. All three terms pertain to phenomena with mythical propensities. But ‫ שאול‬does not at all correspond to ‫עצר רחם‬, with which it is linked by a copulative waw. I venture to suggest that the original reading was ‫שכול ועצר רחם‬ in which the mention of a woman bereft of children, viz., plagued by ‫שכול‬, is coupled with a reference to a “barren wife,” i.e., one whose womb is closed. See my study, “Barren Wife,” below, 160–168. Together, the terms ‫ עצר רחם‬and ‫ שכול‬form a hendiadys, similar to combinations like ‫( שכול ואלמן‬Isa 47:9); ‫ שכול‬... ‫( אלמנה‬Isa 47:8); and especially ‫מות ומשכלת‬ (2 Kgs 2:21). McKane, Proverbs, 656, would “hazard the suggestion that this numerical saying focuses on the barren woman …”.

102

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

even more disagreeable is a fourth, namely “the eye which looks jeeringly on a father, and scorns a mother’s rebuke (or: an aging mother)” (30:17a).87 (70) The other speaks of different kinds of humans whom the earth cannot endure: worse than the tern of a slave who becomes king, a brute who prospers, and a hated wife who conceives, is “a maidservant who supplants her mistress” (30:21-23).88 The tenor of this maxim, and the progress from a triad of disastrous or harmful natural phenomena to a societal one which is even worse, brings to mind a similarly structured epigram in the Wisdom of Ben Sira which runs as follows: Of three things (‫ )משלש‬is my heart afraid, and concerning a fourth (‫ )ומפני ארבע‬I am in great fear:89 Slander in the city, and a concourse of the rabble, and a false accusation. Worse than the death are they all. [But an even worse] grief of heart and sorrow is a rival [jealous] wife (‫ )צרה‬the scourge of the tongue are they [is she?] altogether. (Sir 26:5-6)90

We should mention two further epigrams of the same category in biblical literature: (71) One, quoted in b. Nid. 16b–17a, is ascribed to Ben Sira,91 but is not extant in any of the transmitted versions of the book: Three things (‫ )שלשה‬I hate, and a fourth (‫ )ארבעה‬I do not like: A grandee who frequents (‫)הנרגל‬92 alehouses, one who sits around in public places 87

88

89 90

91 92

This reconstruction of the triad is based on Torczyner, Proverbs of Solomon, interpretation of the passage. Like other commentators, e.g. Toy, Proverbs, 529, Torczyner understands Prov 30:15aα as a fragment of a lost saying which can be partially recovered. Therefore, Prov 30:15aβ–b ‫ ארבע‬... ‫ שלוש‬should be viewed as the opening of an adage which ends with 30:17 (Torczyner, Proverbs, 81, 99, 123). Schneider severs the Blutegelspruch from the ensuing Zahlenspruch. Unlike Fritsch, Proverbs, ad loc., Schneider deems the ʿAluqah proverb to be the earliest form: “besonders altertümlich” (Schneider, “Töchter,” 264). This state of affairs spells the undoing of proper societal structure. Cf. Isa 3:1-7 and the Egyptian “Admonitions of Ipu-wer,” ANET, 441–443. Thus appropriately translated by Box and Oesterley, Sirach, 1:403. The larger part of Ben Sira is not preserved in the Masada fragments, which contain parts of chs. 39–44. See Yadin, Ben Sira. ‫מבעי ליה לכדכתיב בספר בן סירא‬. Two variant readings are adduced, in which lamed of ‫ הנרגל‬intercanges with final nun, ‫הנרגן‬, and zayin, ‫הנרגז‬, respectively.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

103

(‫)במרומי קרת‬93 one who holds his member and pisses water.94 (But worse of all is a fourth:) One who enters his neighbor's house suddenly (unannounced).95

(72) The other saying is preserved in b. Pes. 113b without a reference to Ben Sira: ‫ ופרנס‬,‫ וזקן מנָ ֵאף‬,‫מכ ֵחש‬ ַ ‫ ועשיר‬,‫ דל גאה‬:‫ אלו הן‬,‫ארבעה אין הדעת סובלתן‬ ‫מתגאה על הצבור בחנם‬ Four I cannot bear: A proud pauper, and a rich man who denies his wealth,96 and an old man who commits adultery. [Worse than these is] a community leader lording it unjustly over the public.97

The above quaternary formulation of the epigram appears to be better than the seemingly truncated ternary version preserved in Ben Sira (25:2): :‫שלשה מינים שנאה נפשי וקצתי מאד בחייהם‬ [‫מכ ֵחש וזקן מנָ ֵאף ]חסר מדע‬ ַ ‫דל גאה ועשיר‬ Three types (of men) does my soul hate, and I am greatly offended at their life: a poor man who is haughty, and a rich man that denies (his wealth),98 and an old man that is an adulterer lacking understanding.

I suggest that the bracketed phrase ‫חסר מדע‬, “lacking understanding,” which is missing in quotations of the proverb in two midrashic sources, Midrash Maʿaśeh Torah and Pirqa deRabbenu ha-Qadosh,99 is but the remnant of

93 94

95

96

97

98

99

Cf. Prov 9:3. Such an act was obviously considered highly offensive. B. Nid. 13a: ‫ר' אליעזר אומר כל האוחז‬ ‫באמתו ומשתין כאילו מביא מבול לעולם‬. Another formulation of this saying is attributed to R. Simeon bar Yohai: ‫( ומשתין מים ערום לפני מטתו‬b. Nid. 17a). Viz., is trespassing on his privacy. R. Yohanan adds ‫אפילו בביתו‬, “even in his own house” (b. Nid. 16b). Viz., a poor man who gives himself the air of being rich, and a rich man who pretends to be poor. This is evidently a paraphrastic quotation of or an allusion to Prov 13:7, ‫יש מתעשר ואין‬ ‫כל מתרושש והון רב‬, “One man pretends to be rich, although he has nothing; another plays the poor while he has great wealth.” Cf. the Pentateuchal admonition addressed to the king, ‫לבלתי רום לבבו‬, “not to become overbearing toward his fellowman” (Deut 17:20), discussed above. The translation proposed here reflects the sense of the passage better than that of Box and Oesterley, Sirach, ad. loc.: “The rich man that is deceitful.” See Segal, Sirach, 153.

104

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the fourth member of the tetrad, still preserved in b. Pes. 113b, which for unknown reasons was dropped from the Ben Sira version. As a result, this version now exhibits the ternary rather than the original topped triad model.100 (73) The reference to the unbearable behavior of a son who is contemptuous of his parents links Prov 30:15–17a with the preceding saying in the collection attributed to Agur, in which four reprehensible “breeds of men,” ‫ דור‬are listed: the first is one “that curses his father and does not bless his mother” (Prov 30:11). In this case, the “four” are enumerated one after the other. Each generation of the triad is given one line (two stichs), whereas “the topper,” i.e., the worst ‫דור‬, is described in two lines (four stiches): There is a breed of man who curses his father and does not bless his mother; a breed that considers himself pure, (and) yet has not been cleaned of its filth; a breed haughty of eye, (and) whose eyebrows are raised (overbearingly). [And worst of all:] A breed whose teeth are like swords, and whose jaws are like scimitars (fit) to devour the poor off the earth, and the needy off the land. (30:11-14)

In the epigram quoted above the term ‫ דור‬designates a breed of disreputable men, (Prov 30:11-14) viz., a “generation,” and therefore a specific period of time. D. Units of Time or Events In this context, the application of the “topped triad” convention emphasizes the critical caesura which sharply divides a succession of three units of time from the fourth that follows, Once again, an intrinsically qualitative and not merely quantitative dimension attaches to the progression from three to four or the fourth. D.1. Three Days The time unit “three” defines a survivable period of deprivation (Exod 15:22; 1 Sam 30:11-12; Acts 9:9).

100

Cf. the variant MT and LXX readings in 1 Sam 2:21 (above, 89–90).

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

105

(74) For “three days and three nights” recalcitrant Jonah kept miraculously alive in the belly of that equally miraculous fish (Jonah 2:1).101 After being rescued, evidently on the forth day, Jonah roams Nineveh “a vast city, three days journey across” (3:3), and proclaim the destruction of the city after the passage of another three days, according to the LXX reading: ἔτι τρεῖς ἡµέραι καὶ Νινευη καταστραφήσεται, “three days more and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (3:4; MT reads 40 days: ‫)עוד ארבעים יום ונינוה נהפכת‬.102 (75) The grim enough plague of “three days of deep darkness” which came over Egypt (Exod 10:22-23) is a mere prelude to an even more excruciating punishment: the death of all firstborn sons in one night (Exod 11:4-7). (76) Recuperation from illness may last three days (Gen 34:25; 1 Kgs 3:18; 2 Kgs 20:5, 8; Hos 6:2).103 (77) In the wake of a successful raid, King Jehoshaphat and his men pillage the enemy’s camp for three days. On the fourth day they assemble to give thanks to God for the victory (2 Chr 20:25-26). (78) The severity of “three days of pestilence” equals that of “three months” of military defeat or of “three years of famine, ‫שלוש שנים רעב‬, LXX τρία ἔτη λιµός (2 Sam 24:12-16 = 1 Chr 21:10-15).”104 This last “triad of triads” leads conveniently to a consideration of the uses of the stereotypes “three months,” “three years” and “three times” as thematic literary elements. (79) A triad of days is considered the proper period of deliberation or preparation for an important event which is expected to occur on the following, viz the fourth day (Gen 42:17-18; Exod 3:18; 5:3; 8:23; 19:10-11, 14-16;105 1 Sam 21:6; cf. Ezra 8:15, 32; 10:8, 9; cf. 4 Ezra 11:58; 12:1; Neh 2:11 etc., as will be shown below).106 101 102 103

104

105

106

Landes, “Three Days.” Acts 9:9. See further: Shemesh, “Three Days.” It would appear that the mention of ‫ ביום השלישי‬often presumes a preceding reference to a unit of three days which ends on the evening of the third. In the parallel passage, 2 Sam 24:13 MT reads ‫שבע שנים‬, whereas LXX τρία, reflecting the reading ‫שלוש שנים‬, as in MT in 1 Chr 21:12. Cf. the same variation in a similar motif context in Jonah 3:4 (see above, no. 74). The topped triad convention underlying this passage was not discerned by Demsky, “The Three Day Period.” In this context, “three” is recurrently coupled with “seven” (cf. Num 19:12, 19; 31:19), or else these proverbial figures interchange with one another in identical or similar circumstances. Thus, when Jacob encounters his brother Esau, who in all likelihood is irate, “he bowed to

106

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

(80) In some instances, the transition from three to four is explicitly recorded: “When we arrived at Jerusalem, we rested for three days. And on the fourth day the silver and gold and the (Temple) vessels (which Cyrus had returned to the exiles) were deposited in the house of our God … The returnees who had come home from captivity … offered as whole-offerings to the God of Israel twelve bulls for all Israel. … They also delivered the king’s commission to the royal satraps … and these gave support to the people and the house of God” (Ezra 8:32-36). It can hardly be doubted that the wording of the post-exilic report echoes a recurring theme in the Exodus tradition, viz., Moses’ demand of Pharaoh “give us leave to go a ‘three days’ journey in the wilderness to offer sacrifice to YHWH our God” (Exod 3:18; 5:3; 8:23), evidently on the fourth day. The interdependence of the two passages shows in the added claim, with which Moses charged Pharaoh: “you must yourself supply us [with animals] for sacrifice and wholeoffering to YHWH our God” (10:25). It is put in full relief by the information that in addition to the request of animals for sacrifice, the departing Israelites also were equipped with “jewelry of silver and gold and clothing” (12:35-36, cf. 11:1-3). The Pentateuchal text does not explicate that the sacrifices in the desert were to be offered on the fourth day after the Exodus from Egypt, but this becomes evident through the comparison with its echo in the book of Ezra.107 (81) A comparable situation seems to be reflected in the tradition of the Binding of Isaac (Genesis 22). Journeying from Beer Sheba to “the land of Moriah,” as commanded by God, “on the third day Abraham looked up and

107

the ground seven times” (Gen 33:3), whereas David “bowed humbly three times” when he met his sworn friend, the crown prince Jonathan (1 Sam 20:41). See, inter alia, Hurvitz, “Continuity”; Gordis, “The Heptad”; Nativ, Formulary Numbers. This method of interpretation has been given the designation ‫( יגיד עליו רעו‬Job 36:33) by early commentators, which was construed to mean: “one verse may help in ascertaining the sense of another.” From this basic principle are derived several of the thirty-two rules laid down by R. Eliezer son of R. Yosei the Galilean: “What is said in one place may be applied also to a similar context” (rule 19); “The meaning of an expression can be established with the help of another passage” (rule 22); “some texts shed light on others” (rule 23), etc. See The Baraita of the 32 Hermeneutic Rules of R. Eliezer (ed. Enelow, 34): “Its fellow can teach us about it, etc.”; t. Par. 10:4 (ed. Zuckermandel, 639); Gen. Rab. 16:2 (ed. Theodor–Albeck, 143). See also Bacher, Terminologie, s.v. ‫ ;חבר‬1:55–56, 2:64; idem, Agada, 2:295; idem, Amoräer, 3:68. This is the opposite approach to that put forward by Schildenberger, “Parallelstellen.”

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

107

saw the place in the distance” (22:4). He left his two men at that point, and proceeded from there with Isaac108 and the paraphernalia needed for sacrifice—fire-wood, fire and knife—to worship at “the place of which God has spoken” (22:9). The seemingly irrelevant remark, “Abraham … saw the place in the distance” makes sense only if it is meant to indicate that it would yet take some time for Abraham and Isaac to get there. The implied lapse of time is highlighted by the dialogue between father and son while they proceed. The author pays more attention to the description of this scene in four verses (22:6-9) than to the portrayal of the preceding more than two full days, which he covers in a single verse (22:3). This seems to indicate that the storyteller had Abraham and Isaac reach their destination in the late after-noon, or more probably in the evening of the third day, an unlikely time for a sacrificial act. From here it follows that the father and son spent the night on the mountain, and that the events related in the ensuing part of the story—the building of the alter, the binding of Isaac and the unconsummated sacrifice—actually took place in the morning of the fourth day. (82) A critical transition from three days of deliberation and preparation, leading to a decision on the fourth day to take action, is evidently implied in Nehemiah’s report of his inspection of the broken down walls of Jerusalem: “When I arrived in Jerusalem I waited three days … then I set out by night … (and) arrived back” (Neh 2:11-15), obviously on the morning of the fourth day. When he described the situation to the magistrates, they resolved to start rebuilding the walls (2:17-18). (83) I suggest that the very same pattern of 3+1 day underlies the episode of the man who brings David the news of Saul’s death (2 Sam 1:1-16). After having defeated the Amalekites, David and his fighters rested for two days in Ziklag (1:1, cf. 1 Sam 30:9-18). On the third day, a fugitive from the battle field up who identified himself as an Amalekite and reported that he had killed dying Saul at the king’s own request (2 Sam 1:2-10). Thereupon David and his men rent their garments in mourning, fasting until the evening. There and then, David commanded one of his men to execute the messenger for having slain “God’s anointed” (1:13-16). The sequence of events leaves no doubt that the execution took place the next morning, viz., 108

In this instance, Abraham and his two men constitute the triad that serves as a foil for the topper, Isaac.

108

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

on the fourth day, after David had contemplated the matter during the preceding night.109 (84) Another 3+1 day sequence may be seen in the steps taken by Ezra concerning the members of the returnees’ community who had married women from among the ‫( עמי הארצות‬Ezra 9–10). In the wake of Ezra’s public prayer and exhortation, a proclamation was issued that all (returned) exiles should assemble in Jerusalem in three days (10:8, 9) evidently to contemplate steps to be taken in the matter on the fourth day (for other examples of waiting three days for an important event to be held on the forth day, cf. Gen 40:12-13, 18-19; Josh 9:16; 1 Chr 12:40).110 (85) After three days of purification, the impure individual is readmitted into the community (1 Sam 21:6 etc.). The potency and the sanctioned consumption of certain sacrifices is restricted to three days (Lev 7:17-18; 19:6-7; Num 19:12, 19; 31:19). (86) Joseph interprets the three vine branches and the three trays of bread which the imprisoned cupbearer and baker had seen in their dreams as pre Pharaoh dictive omina: after three days the courtiers’ fate will change, for one for better, for the other for worse (Genesis 40). (87) Joseph kept his brothers for three days, ‫שלשת ימים‬, under house arrest (Gen 42:17), Then, “on the third day,” ‫( ביום השלישי‬42:18), he instructs them to return home, whereas he will retain one of their number as “hostage” until they come once more to Egypt and bring their youngest brother with them. While the brothers bemoan their bitter fate, Joseph has Simeon put in fetters, gives orders to fill their sacks with their grain and at the same time “to replace each man’s silver in his bag” (42:21-25). When “all this was done they loaded the corn on their asses and went away” (42:25-26). Also in this instance it can be assumed that these various activities took up the entire third day. The brothers certainly did not set out in the evening on the home journey,111 but rather, as was the custom, early

109

110 111

Fokkelman (Narrative Art, 2:635) correctly stresses that “the story (2 Sam 1:1-16) is dominated by the ternary principle,” proving his point by a detailed analysis of the passage in question; but he did not discern the inherent 3+1 pattern. See Wise, “Three Days.” Departure in the late afternoon or at nightfall forebodes disaster. Cf. Judg 19:5-30.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

109

in the morning,112 which in this case meant on the next, viz., the “fourth” day,113 the proverbial point in time at which events take a critical turn. (88) A triad of days plays an important role in Mordecai’s and Esther’s endeavor to counteract Haman’s evil scheme. Before venturing to approach King Ahasuerus in the matter without being summoned, thus risking the death penalty, Esther asks of Mordecai to assemble all Jews in Susa and have them fast for three days and three nights. She and her maids will do likewise. Then, obviously on the fourth day, she will “go to the king despite the law” (Esth 4:15-16). The Greek translation interpolates at this juncture the text of prayers offered by Mordecai and Esther. This prayer may emulate a biblical tradition exemplified, e.g., by the psalm attributed to the prophet Jonah, who spent “three days and three nights” praying in the belly of the fish that had swallowed him and that had thus saved him from drowning in the sea (Jonah 2:1-2);114 David’s psalm (2 Sam 22 = Ps 18); and Hezekiah’s canticle (Isa 38:9-20). Then, ‫ביום השלישי‬, “On the third day, Esther dressed herself in her full splendor” and presented herself before Ahasuerus (Esth 5:1). The foregoing mention of the fast, observed by all Jews of Susa as well as by Esther and her maids (4:15-16), can leave no doubt that ‫ביום השלישי‬ (5:1) must mean “after a triad of days and nights.” Therefore, it was on the decisive fourth day that Esther took the first step toward bringing about the undoing of Haman’s plan. (89) The understanding of ‫ ביום השלישי‬as meaning “after the third (viz., on the fourth) day,” can be buttressed by having recourse to a similar situation described in the account of the treaty which the emissaries of the Gibeonites managed to establish with the Israelites (Joshua 9). Pretending that they had come “from a distant country” (9:6, 9), they tricked Joshua and the leaders of the community into believing that the injunction against making peace with the Canaanites did not apply to them, since they had come from far away (9:14-15). However, “at the end of three days after the treaty was concluded, it became known that they were a neighboring people whose home was in the midst of Israel” (9:16). The MT reading ‫מקצה‬ ‫שלשת ימים‬, echoed by TargJ ‫מסוף תלתא יומין‬, emphasizes the fact that the Gibeonites” trickery was exposed after the conventional triad of days (LXX 112 113 114

Cf. Gen 22:3. Cf. Judg 19:5-6. See above examples 81 (“The Binding of Isaac”); 74 (Jonah).

110

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

µετὰ τρεῖς ἡµέρας). The Israelites then set out to investigate the matter, possibly considering punitive measures. This certainly was done on the fourth day, notwithstanding the MT reading: ‫( ויבאו אל עריהם ביום השלישי‬9:17) reflected in TargJ ‫ביומא תליתאה‬. Once again, ‫ ביום השלישי‬must be taken to mean “after the third (viz, on the fourth) day.” Or else, the phrase ‫ביום‬ ‫השלישי‬, not rendered in LXX, should be altogether deleted. The recovery of the underlying literary convention 3+1 carries some weight in the choice between the two textual traditions. In the present instance, it gives the 115 Greek version the edge over the MT (and TargJ). D.2. Three Months (89) For three months the infant Moses was hidden by his parents, and thus was saved from death (Exod 2:2). (90) After capturing the Ark in the days of Samuel, the Philistines kept it in their territory for a schematic period of “seven months” (1 Sam 6:1). When it was returned to the Israelites, it stayed at Kiryath-Yearim for “twenty years,” viz., for half a generation (1 Sam 7:2), another conventional time unit.116 David recaptured the Ark after another war with the Philistines, and planned to return it to Jerusalem. However, in the wake of an ominous mishap, the holy shrine was held up for “three months” in the house of Obed-Edom at Gath (2 Sam 6:10-11), before David brought it to its final resting place in Jerusalem (6:12-17) in the fourth month. D.3. Three Years A triplet of years figures prominently in biblical narratives and historiography: 115

116

The same interchange surfaces also in NT traditions concerning the resurrection of Jesus “on the third day” (Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7) or “after the third day” (Matt 27:63-64; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). See also 1 Sam 30:12. Additional examples of 3+1 days can be found in Josh 1:11, Judg 20:30 (See Sutterwaith, “Narrative Artistry”); 1 Kgs 12:5-12; Amos 4:4. The schematic calculation of the life span of one generation at forty years finds a salient expression in the wilderness trek tradition (Num 14:33; 32:13; Deut 2:7; 8:2; Josh 5:6; Amos 2:10; Ps 95:10 etc.). See Talmon, “‫מדבר‬,” 110–111. This pattern figures prominently in the chronological data of the book of Judges which shows a preference for the stereotype figure “forty”— whole (Judg 3:11; 5:31; 8:28; 13:1); halved (Judg 15:20; 16:31); or doubled (Judg 3:30). It may also be reflected in CD 1:10, ‫שנים עשרים‬, which derives from Ezek 4:6, ‫ארבעים יום יום לשנה‬. See Talmon, “Messiah.”

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

111

(91) A country is said to have enjoyed three years of peace (1 Kgs 22:1). (92) The siege of a city may last three years (2 Kgs 17:5; 18:10). (93) The duration of an occupation of a country (2 Kgs 24:1). Some of these data may reflect historical circumstances, while others more likely evidence a literary convention. (94) A period of “three years” was considered the customary length of service of hired laborers (Isa 16:14) or of servitude (Deut 15:18). (95) When two of Shimei’s slaves absconded “at the end of three years,” he goes after them to Ashdod, violating Solomon’s order that he is never to leave the city of Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:36-46). (96) The produce of fruit trees may not be eaten for three years, and the crop of the fourth year “shall be consecrated to YHWH,” an obvious sign of distinction (Lev 19:23-24). (97) Bright youngsters from among the Judean exiles are selected by Nebuchadnezzar’s chief official to receive an education at the king’s court lasting for three years, after which they will be deemed “fit for the king’s society” (Dan 1:3-5). (98) Units of three spans of time, such as three years, constitute a proverbial period of divine punishment followed by an especially harsh affliction or, in contrast, by clemency (2 Sam 21:1-14). (99) After the murder of his brother Amnon, Absalom fled to Geshur, and remained there in exile for three years. During that time “David’s heart went out to him with longing” (2 Sam 13:38-39). Seeing that “the king’s heart was set on Absalom” (14:1), Joab, the commander of the Israelite army, cunningly managed to get David’s consent “to go and fetch back the young man” (14:21), by implication in the fourth year. (100) In the third year of his regency, King Ahasuerus of Persia and Media is said to have treated the upper crust of the population in the empire to a lavish banquet lasting six months, followed by a seven-day feast for all the people who were present at the citadel in Susa (Esth 1:1-8). In the fourth year (cf. 2:12) the King raised to prominence the courtier Haman, an archenemy of the Jews, and the fate of Jewry in the realm took a critical turn. D.4. Three Generations The 3+1 schema of generations, which underlies the enumeration of four ‫דורות‬ one after the other, reflects a biblical concept which sees actual history as

112

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

encompassing blocks of three generations, i.e., one such block of approximately sixty to seventy-five years117 which precedes the speaker’s or author’s own generation, and another such triad which spans the expanse of future time lying within the limits of his existential experience.118 A period of six to seven decades may indeed be considered a realistic comprehension of history. But at the same time the standard depiction of historical time as a “triad of generations” opens the door for the presentation of the fourth generation as topping the triad. In addition to the examples of the 3+1 pattern of generations mentioned above, the following occurrences of this convention can be registered: (101) The distinction accorded to Joseph relative to his forebears, and to Job in relation to his peers (friends), is reinforced by the fact that they alone were considered worthy of living long enough to see not only three but also a fourth generation of descendants: ‫( בני שלשים‬Gen 50:23) or ‫( ארבעה דרות‬Job 42:16).119 (102) The special significance which attaches to the fourth generation becomes manifest in the story of Jehu, who at God’s command killed Ahab and eradicated his house. As a reward for this deed he is divinely promised that his sons “shall sit on the throne of Israel down to the fourth generation,” ‫בני רבעים‬120 (2 Kgs 10:30; cf. 15:12). (103) I suggest that in contrast, the rendition of TargPs-J of the “Curse of Amalek” (Exod 17:14-16) is meant to bring into play the paradigmatic notion of a “fourth” generation, which is to experience a momentous, in this instance negative change in history. In rendering the collocation ‫מלחמה ליהוה בעמלק‬ ‫( מדר דר‬Exod 17:16), the phrase ‫ מדור דור‬then serves the translator as the point

117 118 119 120

See my “Four Hundred Years,” below, 133. Talmon, “Eschatology and History”, 172–177, and “History,” above, 18–19. Cf. Genesis 16, and my essay “Four Hundred Years,” below, 125–136. The expression should be understood as an absolute, “sons of the fourth (generation),” not as a construct state. The very same term turns up in the Aramaic inscription of gbr of Nerab who records that he was rewarded for his righteousness, ‫בצדקתי‬, by seeing a fourth generation of descendants who would bemoan his death: ‫ ובעיני מהזה אנה בני רבע‬... ‫ביום מתת‬ ‫( בכוני והום אתמהו‬KAI 226:4–6, Gen 50:23-26). The wording ‫( בני רבעים‬2 Kgs 10:30), instead of ‫( בנים רביעים‬15:12) might have resulted from a haplography of a final mem with ‫ ני‬written as a ligature. See Weiss, “Ligatures.”

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

113

d’appui for a midrashic expansion in which the lexeme ‫ דור‬is understood as “era” or “period”:121 ‫וישיצי יתהון לתלתי דריא מדרא דעלמא דין ומדרא דמשיחא ומדרא דעלמא‬ ‫דאתי‬ He (viz., YHWH) will destroy them in (the days of) three generations: the generation(s) of this world, and the generation (of the days) of the Messiah, and the generation of the world to come.122

In the instances adduced, the singularity of the fourth generation found expression in traditions linked with individual biblical figures. This circumstance evokes an impression of reality, and concomitantly dims the recognition of the literary 3/4 or 3+1 pattern which permeates the accounts. The pattern becomes fully apparent, however, in contexts lacking a definite historical setting, which can be more easily discussed at the level of motif and conceptualization. (104) A case in point is the recurring pronouncement that Israel’s God is a jealous God who punishes the sins of humankind down to the fourth generation, ‫( רבעים‬Exod 20:5 = Deut 5:9; Exod 34:7; Num 14:18); this can be construed as the negative counterfoil of the divine promise to Jehu that four generations of his descendants will sit on the throne of Israel (2 Kgs 10:30; 15:12; and see above). (105) Another such instance occurs in the account of God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15). Here the notion of “peril and promise,” which by convention inheres in the fourth generation, as illustrated above, is applied to history on the large scale. Three generations of Abraham’s offspring, the basic triad, are foreseen to suffer enslavement in “a land not their own,” an indeterminate but nevertheless transparent reference to Israel’s serfdom in Egypt, ‫( ועבדום וענו אתם ארבע מאות שנה‬15:13), further underpinned by the added comment ‫ואחרי כן יצאו ברכש גדול‬, “after that they shall leave with great 121

122

The interpretation of ‫דור‬, equaling or signifying “appointed period of time,” is frequently found in Qumran writings. See Talmon, “‫ ;”קץ‬idem, “Between the Bible and the Mishnah,” 45–48. Reider, Targum Jonathan, 109. The addition is not recorded in the rabbinic Bible edition of TargPs-J nor in TargN; the latter uses a different expansion, in which ‫ מדור דור‬is understood as a proleptic reference to the days of Saul who shall vanquish Amalek (1 Sam 15), and the days of Mordecai and Esther who shall overcome Haman, a descendant of Agag (cf. Mekh. R. Ishmael, Amalek 2 [ed. Horovitz and Rabin, 185]).

114

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

possessions,” (15:14), which clearly echoes a theme of the Exodus tradition (Exod 11:2-3; 12:35-36; cf. Ezra 1:4). Then the suppressor himself will be punished, ‫וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו דן אנכי‬, and then ‫“ דור רביעי‬the fourth generation” of Abraham’s descendants “will return here,” viz., to the land of Canaan, (Gen 15:16).123 (106) The tenor of peril and promise which characterizes God’s covenant with Abraham is echoed in Jeremiah’s prediction of the subjection of Judah and “all the nations” to Nebuchadnezzar, “his son and his son’s son,” ‫ועבדו‬ ‫ אתו כל הגוים ואת בנו ואת בן בנו‬viz., for three generations, “until the destined hour of his own land comes, and then mighty nations and great kings shall enslave him,” ‫( עד בא עת ארצו גם הוא ועבדו בו גוים רבים ומלכים גדולים‬Jer 27:7; cf. 25:11), evidently in the fourth generation. This entire verse is missing in LXX. The surmise that it was dropped purposefully because it was known that Nebuchadnezzar was not succeeded by a grandson, ascribes to the translator a historical awareness beyond what may be expected of him. This and some other considerations lead commentators to assume that the verse was retrospectively added in MT,124 “possibly after 539 BCE, the last regnal year of Nabonidus (who though was not Nebuchadnezzar’s descendant).”125 However, the proponents of this hypothesis fail to discern the Hebrew author’s deliberate employment of the topped triad mode, which carries the message that in the proverbial fourth generation Judah’s history will take a turn for the better. Nor do they take note of the author’s manifest intention to draw a pointed parallel between Judah’s historical enslavement to Babylon and Israel’s prototypical serfdom in Egypt.126 In the instance under scrutiny, it is not textual criticism which

123

124 125 126

A reference to four generations is also contained in the parallel statement “they will be oppressed for four hundred years” (Gen 15:13) which means that they are to be redeemed in or at the end of the fourth century of their enslavement. The figure most probably reveals an Egyptian conventional reckoning of the lifespan of one generation at one hundred years. See Talmon, “Four Hundred Years,” below, 131–132. See Tov, “Contribution,” 173–174. Tov, “Contribution,” 174. Equally, in giving 390+40=430 years as the combined period of deprivation which is to befall “the house of Israel” and the “house of Judah,” (Ezek 4:4-17) Ezekiel harks back to Israel’s serfdom in Egypt, which according to one biblical tradition lasted for 430 years (Exod 12:40-41).

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

115

contributes to literary criticism. Rather, a proper literary analysis proves the textual superiority of MT to LXX.127 (107) This judgment can be buttressed by bringing under consideration a “distant literary parallel”128 in the book of Jeremiah, in which the very same message of hope finds a complementary expression, again through the employment of the 3+1 generations model. In this instance, the prophet does not address the propitious tidings to his compatriots in the days before the debacle of 586 BCE, but rather transmits his message to the Judean exiles who were deported in 597 BCE: “Thus said the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel to all the exiles whom I have deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: ‘Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Marry wives and beget sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men, so that they may bear sons and daughters and you may increase there and not dwindle away’” (Jer 29:1-14, quote taken from 29:4-6).129 Three generations of exiled Judeans are taken here to represent the predicted period of peril: the exiles who were deported with King Jeconiah in 597 BCE (Jer 29:1-2), their children, and their grandchildren. The combined life span of these three generations is taken to equal the envisaged seventy years of exile.130 Then, in the days of the fourth generation, the age of promise will set in: When a full seventy years has passed over Babylon,131 I will take up your cause and fulfill the promise of good things I made you, by bringing you back to this place. I (alone) know my purpose for you … says YHWH: prosperity and not misfortune, and a long line of children after you … I will … gather you again from all the nations and all the places to which I have banished you, says YHWH, and bring you back to the place from which I have carried you into exile. (Jer 29:10-11, 14)

Post-exilic biblical literature proves that the first wave of returning exiles viewed itself as the implied “fourth generation” in whom Jeremiah’s prophecy was realized: 127 128

129 130 131

Cf. also Jer 29:6. For the signification of this term see Talmon, “New Outlook,” and the pertinent literature cited there. Note the allusion to the tradition of Israel’s enslavement in Egypt, see Exod 1:7, 11. See my “History,” above, 18–19. Jer 25:11-13; 27:7.

116

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, so that the word of YHWH spoken through Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the heart of Cyrus king of Persia and he issued a proclamation throughout his kingdom. … To every man of his people among you (I say,) God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah. (Ezra 1:1-3 = 2 Chr 36:22-23)132

As in the tradition of the Exodus from Egypt, once again the transition from the third to the conceptually different fourth generation marks a critical turning point in the chain of events. The idea is echoed in a “historiographical psalm” in which the psalter praises God’s deeds which (a) we, viz., the psalter’s generation, heard and know, having been instructed by (b) our fathers; we will not hide them from (c) our sons who will pass them on to (d) the next generation133 (Ps 78:3-8) (108) In a vision of comfort, the prophet Ezekiel foresees for the present generation of his countrymen a period of future wellbeing. This newly envisioned era will outshine the bygone days of life of former generations in their land by again employing the pattern of a triad of forebears surpassed by a future fourth generation living in the land “where (a) your fathers lived; they and (b) their children, and (c) their children’s children (d) forever” (Ezek 37:25). (109) The positive aspect which marks the fourth generation in these traditions is possibly reflected in the Temple Scroll from Qumran, in a fragmentary passage which has a quite different thrust, speaking apparently of the admission to the sanctuary of a “all of Israel … the fourth generation,” ‫( דור רבי]עי[ בן ישראל‬11QTa 39:5-6).134 D.5. Three Events Again, events which last for three periods of time or occur three times in a row, without a perceptible difference, will be topped by a fourth event which indicates a definite change in the data or situation described.

132 133 134

Cf. also Zech 1:12-17; 7:4-7. For this understanding of the expression ‫דור אחרון‬, see my “Latter Days,” below, 143–149. Yadin, Temple Scroll, 166. (Qimron [Dead Sea Scrolls, 178] has a different reading: ‫דור רביעי מבן‬ ‫)עשרים שנה‬.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

117

(110) An example of a thrice-recurring event, topped by a fourth occurrence, occurs in the Samson tales. Three times Samson eluded Delilah’s question as to the source of his strength, and she plaintively rebuked him for his evasive reply: “Three times you have made a fool of me135 and have not told me the secret of your great strength” (Judg 16:15). Thereupon, on the fourth time, Samson succumbed to her coaxing, revealed his secret to her (16:16-17), and paid with his death for the disclosure of the source of his power (16:18-31). (111) Three times in a row, Samuel thought that the voice he had heard in his sleep calling his name was Eli’s voice. Therefore, he thrice presented himself before his master. Only after the threefold false alarm did he recognize the divine origin of the fourth call (1 Sam 3:4-10). (112) The seer Balaam underwent a similar experience. Following King Balak’s summons, and riding from his city Pethor to Moab, his ass three times saw “the angel of YHWH standing in the road, a drawn sword in his hand” (Num 22:23, 31) to stop him from continuing on his way. Again and again the ass veered off the road to avoid the threatening sword; the unseeing seer thrashed his animal all three times for its apparent unruliness (Num 22:21-28). Only then, at the fourth time, did God open Balaam’s eyes. He now espied the ominous angel himself and realized that his ass had three times saved him from deadly danger (22:31-33). (113) Instead of cursing Israel, as Balak had commissioned him, Balaam blessed the people three times, rousing the King’s ire: “Balak flew into a rage with Balaam. He beat his hands together and said to Balaam, ‘I brought you to curse my enemies, and you bless them three times over’” (Num 24:10). Rather than repenting, the seer then proclaims a fourth blessing which vastly surpasses the preceding triad in foreseeing Israel’s victory over Moab (24:17; cf. v. 14).136 (114) Constrained by the famine which had struck the Land of Canaan (Gen 42:1-2; 43:1), Jacob twice sent his sons to Egypt (42:1-3 and 43:11-15).

135

136

Cf. Sir 13:7, ‫עד אשר יועיל יהתל בך פעמים שלש יעריצך‬, and possibly Sir 35:7 (not extant in the Masada fragments). Further, see Job 33:29, ‫הן כל אלה יפעל אל ַפ ֲע ַמים שלוש עם גבר‬. There it is preferable to vocalize ‫ פעמים‬in accordance with LXXO ὁδοὺς τρεῖς, “three ways.” The different vocabulary and stylistic characteristics show the ensuing verses to be an addition to Balaam’s oracles. Most modern interpreters concur in the opinion that these verses comprise a series of brief prophecies against foreign nations which were attached to the Balaam pericope. See the discussion of the matter by Gray, Numbers, 372–373.

118

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

There “the whole world came to buy corn” (41:57) which their “lost” brother Joseph had gathered and stored through wise planning in the preceding seven years of plenty (41:46-49). The brothers’ second trip actually included a third, since after setting out to return to Canaan, they were taken back to Egypt because of the trumped up accusation that they had stolen Joseph’s golden cup (44:4-13). The added scene was probably introduced so as to suspend the ending of the story and give the author another chance of displaying his narrative skill. As a result, the brothers’ two trips become a triad, which serves as a foil for a fourth journey which is inherently different, namely Jacob’s descent to Egypt with all his sons and their families (46:1-27), not for the restricted purpose of procuring provisions for his household, but in order to settle there in Goshen “where they acquired land and were fruitful and increased greatly” (47:27). The fourth journey constitutes the climax of the entire novel of Joseph and his brothers. At the same time, this event raises the curtain on the ensuing account of incomparably larger proportions and importance: Israel’s sojourn in Egypt for four generations of four hundred years (Gen 15:13-16),137 and according to another tradition for 430 years (Exod 12:40-41). IV. CONCLUSIONS At this juncture it is appropriate to give some thought to the various designations in biblical Hebrew for the basic triad, on the one hand, and for the topper, on the other. A synopsis of the aforementioned examples shows that both phenomena can be referred to by either the cardinal numbers (‫ שלוש)ה‬and (‫( ארבע)ה‬Prov 30:15, 18, 21, 29; cf. Sir 26:5-6; b. Nid. 16b–17a; as well as Job 42:13, 16; Esth 4:15-16 etc.), or else by the number-derived nouns ‫ ִש ֵלשים‬/‫ ִר ֵבּעים‬,138 which serve as technical terms pertaining exclusively to “generations” (Gen 50:23; Exod 20:5 = Deut 5:9; Exod 34:7; Num 14:18). However, the fourth generation can also be indicated by the ordinal numbers (‫( רב)י(עי)ם‬Gen 15:16; 2 Kgs 10:30; 15:12; 11QTa 39:5-6).139 We may therefore conclude that in the context of the topped triad convention, the cardinal number (‫ ארבע)ה‬has actually the same connotation as the ordinal 137 138 139

See my analysis of this text in “Four Hundred Years,” below, 125–136. The term occurs in biblical Hebrew only in what is formally a masculine plural form. Ginsberg discerns a historical linguistic development in the employment of ordinal and cardinal numbers in the staircase pattern. See Ginsberg, “History.”

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

119

number (‫רביעי)ת‬, and that both can be used interchangeably to designate the one up. The recognition of the equivalence of these two numerical forms in reference to the topped triad pattern bears on the interpretation of the formula ‫ ועל ארבעה‬... ‫ על שלשה‬that recurs six times in the cluster of Oracles against the Nations, which constitutes the opening pericope of the book of Amos (1:3–2:3), and twice in the ensuing prophecies against Judah (2:4) and Israel–Samaria (2:6). For our present concern, it is of no consequence whether the entire introit should be ascribed to Amos of Tekoa or only the pronouncements concerning Judah and Israel; in the latter case, the oracles against the six foreign nations should be considered extraneous material, attached by Amos himself or a compiler to the collection of the prophet’s sayings and visions.140 The answer to these questions, which pertain to history and structure, does not affect the assessment and interpretation of the formula ‫ ועל ארבעה‬... ‫על שלשה‬. The numerous texts adduced above induce the conclusion that in each instance the formula is meant to highlight the unparalleled severity of the transgression singled out by the term ‫ארבעה‬, which tops the triad, ‫—שלשה‬in respect of the political viciousness of the foreign nations, and in respect of the moral sinfulness and cultic misconduct of Judah and Israel. Therefore, it is irrelevant for gauging the intrinsic content of the formula whether ‫שלשה‬ stands for an accurate “three,” as some commentators maintain, or whether it is but a cipher for all other outrages perpetrated by the respective transgressor, as others opine. The emphasis lies exclusively on the evildoing referred to by ‫ארבעה‬, which is deemed to be fundamentally different from all the others, and which exceeds them in an immeasurable degree of heinousness and depravity. Once again, the distinction between the triad and the topper, and the progress from three to four, are found to mark a qualitative and not merely quantitative difference.

140

The issue has been discussed in numerous publications which do not need to be listed here. The reader is referred to recent commentaries which also provide a selection of the pertinent bibliography, foremost Wolff, Joel and Amos, 127–173. Special mention should be made of Y. Kaufmann’s suggestion that the composition of the “Oracles against the Nations” be dated approximately one century before Amos of Teqoa. See Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel 3:61–62; Paul, Amos, 7–103; Weiss, Amos, 1:15–70, 2:29–108.

120

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

The perpetrators of these especially obnoxious crimes will incur most severe punishment, defined by the formulaic and much debated collocation ‫לא אשיבנו‬. In keeping with the patently political tenor of the Oracles Against the Nations, this term most certainly carries a threat of a political nature. Therefore, ‫ אשיבנו‬can hardly be derived from the common stem ‫שוב‬. This derivation results in translations such as “will not take back,” “will not turn back” or “I have made my decree and will not relent” (JB).141 I suggest that it rather should be understood as a denominative verb derived from the noun ‫שובה‬, which in Isa 30:15 is combined with ‫ נחת‬in a hendiadys ‫בשובה ונחת‬, connoting “constancy” or “permanence.” Through the application of intertextual exegesis, the oracles in Amos 1:3–2:16 are understood as foreboding a situation into which the reprobate nations involved will be hurled, and which is the very opposite of the blissful state of affairs which God holds out as a promise to his people if they abide by his commands: ‫בשובה ונחת תושעון בהשקט ובבטחה תהיה גבורתכם‬ (Isa 30:15; cf. 32:18; as well as 7:4-7 and 2 Chr 20:30). The specific connotation of ‫ שובה ונחת‬in this context is made fully explicit by the comparison with the synonymous hendiadys ‫השקט ובטחה‬. The inherent signification of this expression, “political tranquility and safety,”142 is proven by passages in which it is employed to describe the peaceful setting of Laish/Dan at the time of the Danites’ conquest of the town (Judg 18:7, 10, 27), and similarly by the portrayal of the resettlement of repatriated Israel, restored to its fortunes in its land (Ezek 38:8-16; see below).143 An inner-biblical synopsis suggests that in the Amos oracles ‫אשיבנו‬ echoes the collocation ‫ בשובה ונחת‬by way of pars pro toto. The take-up of only one part of the hendiadys accords with the technique of the breakup pattern, like in Ps 132:14, ‫יה‬ ָ ‫( זאת מנוחתי עדי עד פה אשב כי ִאוִּ ִת‬cf. Deut 3:19-20).

141

142

143

See commentaries. KJV “I will not turn away the punishment thereof”; JB “Je l’ai décidé sans retour ”; EU “nehme ich es nicht zurück,” et sim. This connotation is altogether lost by deriving ‫ שובה‬from ‫שוב‬. See, e.g., Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 292, 296–297; Wildberger, Isaiah, 2:155–157: “still and trust” (=EU); Fohrer, Die Propheten, 1:135–136, “Bei Abkehr (vom Kriege) und Vertragstreue”; KJV “returning and rest”; JB “conversion and tranquility [=la conversion et la calme].” See Talmon, “Navel of the Earth.”

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

121

It has been suggested that ‫( שובה‬Isa 30:15) derives from the root ‫ישב‬ rather than from ‫שוב‬.144 This derivation recommends itself in the Amos oracles. We may in fact be dealing there with an intended double entendre, such as comes to the fore in the closing stanza of the martial “Song of the Ark”: ‫( ובנחה יאמר שובה יהוה רבבות אלפי ישראל‬Num 10:36), with ‫לא אשיבנו‬ suggesting a possible derivation from ‫ שוב‬and/or ‫ישב‬, the first harking back to (‫ )ויהי( בנסע )הארון‬and (‫קומה )יהוה‬, the latter to (‫ובנחה )יאמר‬. We may further compare ‫ וישבו לבטח‬... ‫מקבצת מעמים רבים‬ ֻ ‫ארץ משובבת מחרב‬ ‫( כלם‬Ezek 38:8), and ‫ על חרבות‬... ‫השקטים י ֹשבי לבטח כלם י ֹשבים באין חומה ובריח‬ ‫מאסף מגוים‬ ֻ ‫( נושבֹת ואל עם‬38:11-12). The Hebrew lexemes involved are employed in a similar parallel structure in other Semitic languages. Suffice it to draw attention to the following texts: AZTWDA, I 17–18 II, 7–8 II, 13–14 CAT 1.6 III 18–19

‫לשבתנם דדנים בנחת לבנם‬ ‫ושבת נעמת ונחת לב‬ ‫ בשבת נעמת ובנחת לב‬145 atbn. ank. wanḫn. wtnḫ. birty. npš.

The Babylonian Inscription: libba māti uṭībba māta šubta nēḫti ušēšib mugalittu aya ušaršînatu146 reflects the Akkadian phrase šubtu nēḫtu, šubat nēḫtim or šubat nēḫtim šušūbum.147 The etymological, stylistic and textual investigation of the phrase ‫לא אשיבנו‬ in the Oracles against the Nations bears out the contention that the transgression defined by ‫ארבעה‬, i.e., “the fourth,” is singled out in every instance by comparison with the “three,” ‫שלושה‬, which encompass all preceding attacks on Israel by any of the six foreign nations severally listed. The sinners had escaped adequate punishment for preceding offenses against

144

145 146

147

See the references adduced by Wildberger (Isaiah, 2:155) who, however, dismisses the possibility that ‫שוב‬/‫ ישב‬might interchange. To the list of publications which Wildberger cites should be added: Ahuviah, “Once again.” KAI 1:6–7, text 26. Originally published by Lambert, “Nebuchadnezzar,” 6. Cf. also Greenfield, “Notes,” 74–75. H. Tadmor ascribed this text to Nabonidus, as reported by Greenfield. Greenfield, “Notes,” 74–75.

122

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Israel signified by “three,” but will summarily punished for the “fourth,”148 the most heinous crime, which is understood to be in a category by itself. Each one of these neighboring nations is doomed to incur the severest punishment of all—defeat and flight, followed by political ruin and deportation.149 Thus, because the Ammonites “have ripped up the mountainous region (or: women with child) of Gilead, that they might enlarge their own territory,” their capital city with all its palaces (or: fortifications) will be totally burned down, and their king will go into exile together with his nobles (Amos 1:13-15). The understanding of ‫ שלשה‬as a literary stereotype or catchword rather than as a precise figure, when the term precedes a topping fourth, removes a difficulty in the explanation of Daniel’s well known vision, of the “four kingdoms” (Dan 7–8). These kingdoms are likened to “four beasts” (7:17; 8:18-26; ch. 11 passim) with the series culminating in the fourth, which differs from all inimical kingdoms mentioned before, ‫והיא משניה מן כל חיותא די‬ ‫( קדמיה‬7:7), and will top all preceding empires (Dan 7:17, 23; 10:20-21; 11:2-3).150 The fourth represents the Greek Empire (11:2). The immediately preceding “third” kingdom is obviously Persia, and the “first” Babylon. The exact definition of the “second” has been subject to speculations since antiquity. Its identification as the Kingdom of Media, which supposedly arose between the fall of Babylon and the rise of Persian Empire, as the book of Daniel appears to imply, is unacceptable. The supposed existence of such an empire cannot be backed up by historical evidence. All attempts to solve this mystery, ancient as well as modern, are speculative, and none has achieved unanimous approval.151 But the speculations may be unnecessary. If these visions of Daniel are viewed as further examples of the 3+1 pattern, the clue to their meaning would lie in the “fourth,” the Greek Empire, with the

148

149 150

151

By spelling out the tacitly implied ‫אשיבנו‬, the full text would read ‫ אשיבנו ועל‬... ‫על שלשה פשעי‬ ‫ארבעה לא אשיבנו‬. A close parallel may be found in Lam 1:3, ‫היא ישבה בגוים לא מצאה מנוח כל רדפיה השיגוה בין המצרים‬. This image may also reflect an Iranian tradition, preserved by Herodotus, of four world empires (Assyria, Media, Persia, Greece), which is comparable with the schema of four world eras represented by four metals (gold, silver, copper, and iron); cf. Daniel 2. See Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 65–70, 100–116; and see further Montgomery, Daniel, 420–525; Hartman and DiLella, Daniel, 23, 256–260.

[Type text]

The Topped Triad

123

preceding unit of “three” supplying the indispensable foil required by the traditional schema. We have come full circle. The survey of close to 120 texts in the Hebrew Bible in which the “topped triad” figures prominently gives credence to the theses proposed at the outset of this investigation: (a) the literary convention 3/3+1 should be considered a trademark of the ancient Hebrew literati; (b) this model is not riveted to parallelismus membrorum, but to the contrary, rather turns up in narrative prose texts; and (c) that it should therefore be analyzed first and foremost on its own merits and not in the context of the ascending numerical pattern, which finds wide application in ancient Semitic epic and poetic literature.

124

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~6~ “FOUR HUNDRED YEARS” OR “FOURTH GENERATION” (GENESIS 15:13-15): HISTORICAL TIME DEFINITIONS OR LITERARY MOTIFS?* I Nowadays, most scholars consider Genesis 15 to be a predominantly Deuteronomic1 corpus separatum,2 whereas in the past it was usually regarded as a compilation of traditions stemming from J and E.3 In this context, verses 13-16 are correctly viewed as an independent unit,4 distinguishable from the

*

1

2

3

4

Originally published as “‘400 Jahre’ oder ‘vier Generationen’ (Gen 15,13-15): Geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive?,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff, ed. E. Blum et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 13–25. See Rendtorff, Introduction, 158: “the majority [of scholars] for a long time saw its [E’s] beginning in Gen. 15, which then proved to be Deuteronomistic“; and 137: “Genesis 15 as a whole belongs to this Deuteronomistic stratum of revision.“ The Deuteronomic affiliation is particularly emphasized by Anbar, “Genesis 15,” with appropriate bibliographical references (ibid., 54–55): “Genesis 15 in its present form is a conflation of two narratives; the scribe who combined them did not take into consideration the discrepancy thereby created between v. 5 and vv. 12-17. Both narratives were written by scribes of the Deuteronomic school, perhaps during the exile.” E.g., Zimmerli, Abraham, 49: “So ist ernstlich zu fragen, ob nicht 1.Mose 15 seine durchaus eigenständige Entstehungsgeschichte hat.” See also R. Rendtorff on Genesis 15, as part of his theological analysis of the stories of the Forefathers, in his “Genesis 15,” 74: “Die Sonderstellung von Gen 15 innerhalb der Vätergeschichten ist längst festgestellt worden.” E.g., Procksch, Genesis, 299: “Also ist man genötigt, eine vor J und E liegende mündliche Urtradition (=U) anzunehmen, die den Kern unserer Erzählung enthielt, aber noch so verschiedener Ausgestaltung fähig war, daß aus ihr die Formen bei J und E erwachsen konnten.” Among later interpreters we should mention Lohfink, Landverheißung; and Clements, Abraham and David. Skinner argues in a slightly more cautious way in his Genesis, 277: “The phenomena might be most fully explained by the assumption of the Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or Deuteronomic editor (probably RJE), and afterwards combined with extracts from its own original; but so complex a hypothesis cannot be put forward with any confidence.” See the aforementioned literature, and Holzinger (following Wellhausen): “Sodann ist V. 13-16, eine V. 17f. anticipierende Klausel zu der unbedingten Verheissung v. 18bα, zweifelsohne ein Einschub” (Holzinger, Genesis, 147–148), etc.

126

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

broader text5 primarily by the Wiederaufnahme or “resumptive repetition” of ‫( ויהי השמש לבוא‬15:12), by ‫( ויהי השמש באה‬15:17). In this pericope, the two time indications, “fourth generation” and “400 years,” which on the face of it are inconsistent with each other, pose a particular challenge. It is precisely this puzzle that I endeavor to address in this paper. In an essay published in 1986 Siegfried Kreuzer6 offers a comprehensive survey of the then current state of the debate regarding the time indicators mentioned in Gen 15:13-15 in reference to the “sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt”; including the relevance of these indicators for the chronology of Israel’s early history, particularly for the precise length of the “Egyptian slavery.” Kreuzer’s examination of the chapter takes into account the relevant time indicators mentioned in other biblical books, particularly the number of 430 years (Exod 12:40-41). His analysis of the interpretations of that textual unit suggested by traditional as well as modern7 interpreters culminates in five “conclusions.”8 Three of these will receive special attention here: 1. “None of the reviewed time indicators regarding the length of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt, or, respectively, their absence from Palestine, can be regarded a historically proven source. Therefore they cannot be regarded pertinent proof of any assessment of Israel’s early history.”9

5

6 7

8 9

Kuhl, “Wiederaufnahme,“ 9; idem, Drei Männer. Kuhl considers the “Wiederaufnahme” a “Bestätigung der Quellenscheidung im Pentateuch” (Kuhl, “Wiederaufnahme,” 9). His approach seems to derive from H.M. Wiener, who in his Composition utilized a similar concept of “resumptive repetition.” According to Kuhl, the “resumptive repitition” in Gen 15:12-17 distinguishes “das Sondergut von E gegenüber J.” In my opinion, “Wiederaufnahme” was used by many authors as a literary structural technique, and not only as a composition tool by redactors and compilers. This point was already made by several medieval exegetes, such as Rashi, Nachmanides, Abarbanel and Bekhor Shor. See Talmon, “Synchroneity and Simultaneity.” See also Seeligmann, “Hebräische Erzählung.“ Kreuzer, “430 Jahre.“ See also, e.g., Couard, “Gen. 15“; Anbar, “Genesis 15”; van Selms, Genesis; Rendtorff, Introduction, explains the question in short: “According to the biblical chronology, the Israelites’ stay in Egypt lasted 430 years (Ex. 12.40f.; cf. Gen. 15.13: 400 years). This conflicts with other information, which speaks of four generations (Gen. 15.16; cf. Ex. 6.14ff.: four generations between Levi the son of Jacob and Aaron and Moses). Unfortunately, it is impossible to be clear about the concept behind the chronology.” See Kreuzer, “430 Jahre,” 209–210. All translations of Kreuzer are my own.

[Type text]

“Four Hundred Years” or “Fourth Generation”

127

This categorical statement makes futile any attempt to reconstruct Israel’s early history based on the aforementioned indicators as seen by the biblical authors.10 The traditions are thus even less likely to provide information which could serve the modern historian as reliable tools for dating the slavery in Egypt and/or the Exodus.11 Indications of the length of sojourn in Egypt are said to be 2. “Statements of typological observations concerning Israel’s early history.”

According to Kreuzer, this negative result leads positively to 3. “freeing the reconstruction of Israel’s history from the obligation to consider either one or the other or even all [biblical] statements as exact or even historically feasible.”

Kreuzer reached these essentially correct conclusions on the basis of an analysis which is in full accord with literary-historical methodology.12 I propose to buttress his conclusions through a partial investigation of the structure of Genesis 15 and the revealing of a literary convention which underlies in this tradition. As stated, the “resumptive repetition” of ‫ ויהי השמש לבוא‬in v. 12aα by ‫ויהי‬ ‫ השמש באה‬in v. 17aα proves that vv. 13-16 comprise a separate literary unit, put in parenthesis, as it were. Equally, the double indication of the extent of the period of “enslavement of Abraham’s descendants”—once as ‫ארבע מאות‬ 10

11

12

E.g., Speiser, Genesis, 113: “The documentary source of this passage is still unclear. There can be no doubt, however, about the significance of the contents in Israelite historical thought.” In this context Kreuzer quotes Noth, Exodus, 99–100; idem, Geschichte Israels, 114; Gunneweg, Geschichte, 24 ; Donner, Geschichte, 92; Herrmann, History, 62, 67. Kreuzer lists a selection of relevant publications: Bright, History, 83; de Vaux, Early History, 317–320. Two additional and more recent studies should be added: Naor, “Fourth Generation”; Ray, “Duration.” J. Neusner offers a comprehensive overview of the midrashic material concerning this question in his “210 Years.” Kreuzer agrees with the widely accepted opinion that the (quasi) historical note in Genesis 15 is to be regarded as an “Element nach rückwärts extrapolierter Periodisierung der Heilsgeschichte,” which “letztlich ebenfalls existentieller Geschichtsbetrachtung und Vergewisserung dient (Ex 12,40).” Ancient and modern attempts to elicit from these statements accurate historical information should be similarly assessed: “Die Harmonisierung der Angaben (Gen 15,13) bemüht sich wiederum—wenn auch in anderer Weise—um den Aufweis der Richtigkeit und damit der Relevanz der heilsgeschichtlichen Urzeit des zur Gemeinde gewordenen Volkes” (Kreuzer, “430 Jahre,” 210).

128

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

‫( שנה‬13bβ) and once as ‫( דור רביעי‬16aβ)—suggests that the verses in between these notations, namely vv. 14-15, were secondarily spliced into the originally independent unit 15:13-16 (see below). With the help of this insight, two interpolations in the pericope 15:12-17 can be identified: 12aα 13bβ 14 15 16aα 17aα

‫ויהי השמש לבוא‬ ‫ארבע מאות שנה‬ ‫וגם את הגוי‬ ‫ואתה תבוא‬ ‫ודור רביעי‬ ‫ויהי השמש באה‬

The technique of bracketing out an insertion by repeating parts of the relevant text can be shown to occur in other parts of the Hebrew Bible. It will suffice to illustrate this structural device by a few examples: (1) In Leviticus 14, the final statement, ‫( זאת התורה לכל נגע הצרעת‬v. 54), which summarizes the entire roster of instructions regarding leprosy (Leviticus 13–14), is repeated in 14:57bβ ‫)זאת( תורת הצרעת‬, following the appendix, ‫( להורת ביום הטמא וביום הטהֹר‬14:57a). (2) The repetition of the finis notation, ‫זאת תורת הבית‬, which in Ezek 43:12a concludes the description of the internal structure of the Temple (40:6–42:20aα), fulfills there a similar function through the repetition of the slightly different wording, ‫( הנה זאת תורת הבית‬43:12bβ). Here the doubling seemingly resulted from the secondary insertion of the notation ‫על ראש ההר‬ ‫( כל גבלו סביב סביב קדש קדשים‬43:12bα), which refers back to the introduction of Ezekiel’s detailed description of the Temple (40:1-5a), overarching the description of the interior design.13 In all the aforementioned examples, the differences between the repeated texts are negligible. They show that it was legitimate to slightly modify the repeated textual element within certain limits. Another example is extant in the repetition of Gen 37:36 in Gen 39:1, to which I have previously drawn attention: The two bracketing verses are not completely identical. However, the differences are well within the acceptable limits of stylistic-textual variation. The clause in 37:36 may be considered a compressed version

13

See Talmon and Fishbane, “Structuring.”

[Type text]

“Four Hundred Years” or “Fourth Generation”

129

of its counterpart in 39:1, or vice versa, the latter an expanded version of the former. One further observes a partial inversion of components in the two verses which almost amounts to “chiastic distant parallelism.” Viewed from the angle of biblical stylistics, [rather than from the point of view of “source criticism,”] the reference to “Midianites” (37:36) as against the mention of “Ishmaelites” (39:1) is but an instance of legitimate variation, and should not be construed as proof, that the redactor of Genesis has welded together different “strands” or “sources,” as is widely held. In the present context, as also in other settings, the designations “Ishmaelites” and “Midianites” are devoid of any ethnic connotation but coterminous, both being equivalent to “caravan traders.”14

This fact is of utmost importance for the answer to the question of whether the dates under discussion, “fourth generation” and “400 years,” indeed evidence two completely different conceptions of biblical history and go back to entirely different independent “sources,” or whether they should be regarded as synonymous and interchangeable, or in other words, as equal in principle.15 It has been correctly pointed out that if these notations are regarded as historical data they suggest a significant chronological difference between various biblical traditions concerning the extent of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt. Historians estimate the average life span of one generation in biblical times at 20 to 25 years. Therefore, the life span of four generations would be about one century, and the resulting difference between “four generations” and “400 years” would amount to ca. 300 years. Even if one figures the life span of one generation at 40 years according to the prevalent biblical schema,16 the life span of four generations still would amount to only 160 years. The discrepancy between the “four generations” and the “400 years” tradition thus would be reduced but not eliminated. The discrepancy between the two data still remains so considerable that they must be ascribed to two different “sources,” whose authors had such discordant conceptions of Israel’s early history. We must conclude that from the historical point of view the

14

15 16

Talmon, “Synchroneity and Simultaneity,” 123–124. Cf. Kuhl, “Wiederaufnahme”; Seeligmann, “Hebräische Erzählung,” particularly 314–315; and Talmon, “New Outlook,” 53–60. This question has been sufficiently documented in the aforementioned studies. See Talmon, “‫ ;”מדבר‬idem, “‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬,” above, 71–75; idem, “History,” above, 13.

130

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

two widely diverging data in Genesis 15 regarding the length of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt cannot be squared with one another. It thus follows that neither the tradition-historical method nor historical considerations can provide means for resolving the problem. We must, therefore, resort to other theories. II It is my thesis that a satisfying explanation of the apparent double tradition in Gen 15:13-16 may be found by submitting the data mentioned above to a literary analysis. Notwithstanding the seemingly unbridgeable chronological discrepancy, the dates “four generations” and “400 years,” from a literary point of view, are in fact identical. As already suggested, their identity can be shown through highlighting their function as complementary elements in a literary com-position, in which the opening words of v. 16, ‫)ו(דור רביעי‬, recapitulate the closing phrase of v. 13, ‫ארבע מאות שנה‬. The doubling of that textual element (not of the entire two verses, as postulated by Kuhl17) serves to bracket the divine assurance to Abraham recorded in another context, ‫( ואתה תבוא אל אבתיך בשלום תקבר בשיבה טובה‬Gen 15:15; cf. 25:8). Concurrently, also, the additional preceding remark, ‫וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו דן אנכי ואחרי כן יצאו‬ ‫( ברכש גדול‬15:14), is taken out from its context. This verse is most probably a proleptic insertion18 connected with Exod 3:21-22; 11:2; and 12:35, which presumably does not fit the thematic framework of the chapter.19 The “functional” equivalence of ‫ דור רביעי‬and ‫ ארבע מאות שנה‬results from the fact that both indications are essentially only slightly different concretizations of the convention I have referred to as the “Topped Triad.”20 In both cases, “four” represents the formula 3+1.21 In both cases there is an attempt to assign special significance to a unit identified as (‫ רביעי)ת‬or (‫ ארבע)ה‬in 17 18 19

20 21

Correctly observed by Blum, Komposition, 378 n. 114. Similarly to Gen 15:5, which can be understood as an “internal” prolepsis of v. 12 (and v. 17). This suggestion is adopted by almost all exegetes and commentators. See for example Blum, Komposition, 379. For this term and related literary connotations see Talmon, “Topped Triad,” above, 77–123. Y. Zakovitch identified this biblical convention through adducing many examples and showed its occurrence also in Genesis 15 (Zakovitch, Three and Four; cf. Blum, Komposition, 378). My interpretation of the “Topped Triad” convention differs in several points from Zakovitch’s “Three–Four Pattern.”

[Type text]

“Four Hundred Years” or “Fourth Generation”

131

order to distinguish it qualitatively from the implied triad, which it tops. The ordinal number ‫ )דור( רביעי‬clearly presupposes three preceding generations, whereas the cardinal number ‫ ארבע מאות‬implicitly presumes a triad of centuries. The aforementioned formulations of the “Topped Triad” convention are distinguished by the different time frameworks that underlie them. The first is most likely based on the common biblical schema of 40 years per generation,22 which is closely tied in with the Exodus tradition and the wanderings in the desert.23 The second formula most probably refers to a 100-year schema mentioned only once in the Bible, in Isa 65:20, where ‫מאה‬ ‫ שנה‬symbolizes a “fully lived human life.”24 An echo of this schema reverberates in the tradition that Abraham conceived a son at the age of 100 years, in other words, at the end of a person’s “normal” life expectancy (Gen 17:17; 21:5). We must also consider the possibility that Gen 15:12-17 mentions two culturally distinct time schemas: a specific Israelite “40 years” schema which predominates in the Bible; and an Egyptian tradition preserved in the Insinger papyrus, in which the average life expectancy of a generation is set at 100 years: He (man) spends ten (years) as a child before he understands death and life.25 He spends another ten (years) acquiring the work of instruction by which he will be able to live. He spends another ten years gaining and earning possessions by which to live. He spends another ten years up to old age before his heart takes counsel. There

22

23 24

25

I have not seen any suggestion proving the assertion that the (‫ דור)ות‬schema possibly contains a realistic assessment of the life span of a generation as 20–25 years. See the references to my discussion of the topic in n. 16, above. The possibility that ‫ ארבע מאות שנה‬is based on a 100-year scheme has of course already been noted. See e.g., Albright, “Abraham,” 50–51. However, one is prone to misinterpret the passage by taking this schema as well as the mention of ‫ דור רביעי‬at face value. See, e.g., Sarna, Genesis, 116: “The ‘four generations’ in the present passage may thus be understood as the sum of four life spans, a figure in no way incompatible with the 400 years of the preExodus period.” According to Isa 7:14-17, childhood seems to extend over a much shorter period, certainly not longer than three or four years. Compared with ten years of childhood in the Egyptian tradition, this would equal the ratio of 40:100 regarding life expectancy.

132

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

remain sixty years of the whole life which Thoth has assigned to the man of god.26

In this context, it is appropriate to point out a particularly striking Egyptian parallel to the date of “400 years” mentioned in Gen 15:16, viz., the “400-year-stela” of Tanis which recounts how the city of Tanis was founded by the Hyksos 400 years before Ramses I. Many scholars doubt the chronological reliability of this date.27 It can be assumed that the stereotypical Egyptian tradition of “400 years” equals the Israelite stereotype of “four generations.” The possible use of an originally Egyptian literary motif or convention in a biblical text which evokes the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt (cf. particularly v. 13), cannot surprise.28 Egyptian traditions also occur in other biblical texts relating to Egypt or reflecting an Egyptian background. It will suffice to mention the following examples: (1) In the pericope of the hail plague (Exod 9:13-35) a “learned gloss” concerning agricultural conditions in Egypt is woven into the text (9:31-32).29 (2) Mummification is mentioned in the Bible only at the end of the Jacob-Joseph tale (Gen 50:2-3, 26), and only in this context occur the termini technici ‫ חנט‬and ‫ארון‬, which seem to be of Egyptian origin. (3) Further, the biblical accounts of the deaths of Joseph (Gen 50:26) and Joshua at the age of 110 years (Josh 24:29) should be brought to attention, since both play an important role in the biblical tradition pertaining to Egypt. It is certainly remarkable that these two individuals are

26

27

28

29

Quoted from Lichtheim, “Instructions,” 199 (lines 17:22–18:3). This rather late papyrus (first century CE) is based on much earlier sources. Cf. Crenshaw, “Youth and Old Age,” 3–4. Rowley, “The Biblical Traditions,” 74, discusses this question as part of a comprehensive review of the biblical dates of Israel’s early history. One could even say that the images of darkness and fire (‫ אימה חשכה‬and ‫)תנור עשן ולפיד אש‬, which frame “historic dates” (vv. 12 and 17)—similarly hint at another feature of the biblical Egypt tradition; namely, the plagues that preceded the Exodus: ‫פיח הכבשן‬, the “soot from the kiln,” which brought about “festering boils” (Exod 9:10); the fiery hail stones falling down from the sky together with the “fire rain” ‫ ואש מתלקחת בתוך הברד‬... ‫ותהלך אש ארצה‬ (9:23–24), and ‫חשך‬, the last-but-one plague of “darkness” (10:21–23). See Talmon, “Gezer Calendar,” 95; idem, “Agricultural Metaphora,” below, 171–181. Similar information about economic conditions in Egypt is preserved in the biblical “Oracles Against the Nations,” e.g., Isaiah 19. It is, therefore, unnecessary to underline the “Egyptian atmosphere” which pervades the entire Joseph story.

[Type text]

“Four Hundred Years” or “Fourth Generation”

133

reported to have surpassed the life expectancy of 100 years, a norm regarded in Egypt as the ideal age.30 III Regardless whether the “400 years” time schema in Gen 15:13 goes back to a biblical or to an originally Egyptian tradition, it cannot be understood as denoting a historical date, but must rather be regarded as a parallel statement to ‫דור רביעי‬. The first as well as the second phrase are examples of the “Topped Triad” convention. It is possible that here the concept finds expression which refers to the 3+1 schema of the generational triad, Levi–Kehat–Amram, followed by Moses as the “topping” fourth (Exod 6:16-20; cf. Num 3:17-19; 26:58-59; 1 Chr 5:27-29; 6:1-3). However, thus seen, the triad is also intended to highlight and to emphasize Moses’ special status as the “fourth.”31 A parallel to the special status of the “fourth generation” also comes to the fore in the later biblical exile and return tradition. Jeremiah predicts the suppression of all nations, including Israel, by three generations of Babylonian rulers: Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his grandson. Then, in the fourth generation, the fate of Israel will change for the better (Jer 27:7).32 Jeremiah expresses the same idea in the message he sends to the elders, priests, prophets, etc., who had been deported by the Babylonians together with Jehoiachin. He encourages the exiles to make sure that their sons and daughters, in other words the second generation, will take wives and husbands and have children of their own, who constitute of a third generation (Jer 29:5-6). During this period, which will extend over 70 years (29:10; cf. 25:11 et sim.) they should “pray for peace in their city of exile [synonymous with land of exile]” (29:7), because only after this period ends, namely in the fourth generation, will their fate change for the better. God will have mercy on them and lead them back into their homeland (29:10-14). Let me return once again to Genesis 15. The 3+1 schema turns up here, too, in the detailed depiction of the animal sacrifice, which Abraham offers

30 31

32

See Talmon, “Ägypten und Israel.“ It is also possible that the “fourth generation” is meant to refer to the particularly emphasized grandsons of Manasseh, in other words, to the great-grandchildren of Joseph, who must be included in the Exodus generation (Gen 50:23). LXX does not render this verse. However, this should not be a reason to consider it an addition in MT. See Tov, “Contribution,” 172.

134

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

upon divine orders (vv. 9-10).33 Zakovitch argues correctly that the three “cut up” three-year-old animals, calf, goat and ram, ‫עגלה משלשת ועז משלשת ואיל משלש‬ represent three generations, or 300 years of slavery. In contrast, the fourth sacrifice, namely ‫ )ו(תר וגוזל‬is not “cut up”: ‫( ואת הצפר לא בתר‬v. 10). This component of the sacrifice clearly symbolizes the fourth, liberated generation which by its “completeness” “tops” the triad of the preceding “cut up” generations (or centuries).34 The identification of the 3+1 convention in the aforementioned text proves that the phrase ‫ תר וגוזל‬does not refer to two birds, as is usually assumed.35 The text speaks only of one bird. This follows clearly from the remark in v. 10, ‫( ואת הצפר לא בתר‬singular!). The explanation suggested by N. Sarna that “Hebrew tsippor is here a collective. The two birds were probably placed face to face”36 is misleading.37 The term ‫ תר וגוזל‬is a hendiadys, in which the second noun defines the first adjectively as a “young dove.”38 The bird, ‫ ִצ ֹפּר‬, is as clearly qualitatively distinguished from the triad of “threeyear-olds,” that is, fully developed animals, by the description ‫תר וגוזל‬, just like the fourth generation is distinguished from the three “already completed” ones preceding it. IV In Abraham’s night visions, ‫ ארבע מאות שנה‬equals ‫דור רביעי‬, and if both formulations are to be understood as variations of the “Topped Triad” convention, then a third tradition, which sets the duration of Israel’s 33

34 35

36 37 38

Hasel, “Meaning,” presents an overview of the explanations for this sacrifice in the biblical exegesis. Zakovitch, Three and Four, 150–157. Cf. Blum, Komposition, 378. To the best of my knowledge, according to all commentators and translators in antiquity and modernity. Explicitly so, with wrong conclusions, Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 225: “a heifer, a she-goat, and a ram, each three years old, together with a ‫ תור‬and a ‫גוזל‬, two species of dove. As v. 10 expressly states, the two doves are divided, i.e., they cannot have been an original part of the ritual of the cutting up of the animals.” Of the old versions let me mention the LXX, καὶ τρυγόνα καὶ περιστεράν ... τὰ δὲ ὄρνεα οὐ διεῖλεν, and Vulg, turturem quoque et columbam ... aves autem non divisit. See Anbar’s remarks, “Genesis 15,” 46. Sarna, Genesis, 115. Regarding ‫ גוזל‬see, inter alia, Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, 6:89; Driver, “Birds,” 6. For the stylistic hendiadys convention which cannot be illustrated in the present study, see, inter alia, Talmon, “Synonymous Readings”; Melamed, “Stereotype Phrases”; idem, “Hendiadys”; Avishur, Word-Pairs.

[Type text]

“Four Hundred Years” or “Fourth Generation”

135

enslavement in Egypt at “430 years” (Exod 12:40-41), cannot be connected with the “400 year” tradition. The invariable structure of the 3+1 convention contradicts the frequently suggested explanation of 400 years as but a “rounded off” version of 430.39 This is an independent tradition founded on a more historical basis than the two dates mentioned in Genesis 15, as is often argued.40 While the “fourth generation” (=“400 years”) tradition is echoed in Jeremiah’s message to the exiles (see above), the “430 year” tradition is reflected solely in the account of the divine order addressed to Ezekiel to announce the duration of the punishment of Israel through a symbolic act: the prophet is to lie for 390 days on his right side, and 40 days on his right side (Ezek 4:4-6). Every day represents one year of exile (v. 6): for Israel– Samaria 390 years, and 40 years for Judah. The tradition of an exile in Egypt of 430 years (Exod 12:40-41), which in the book of Ezekiel was reinterpreted as following upon the conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians and of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (390+40 years) is picked up in the Damascus Document (CD).41 This text reflects major aspects of the spiritual world of the community of the “Renewed Covenant.”42 The author of the text conceives of the founding of his community 390 years after Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy (CD 1:5-11), much as the Judeans returning from the Exile in the time of Zerubbabel (Ezra and Nehemiah) saw their return as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Ezra 1:1-3 = 2 Chr 36:22-23; Zech 1:12; 7:5 etc.).43 It is remarkable that these two communities, each of whom were motivated by a messianic hope, inferred their chiliastic calculations from two separate

39

40 41

42 43

The literary equivalence of the expressions “fourth generation” and “400 years” postulated here speaks against Zimmerli’s assumption (Abraham, 58), accepted by Blum (Komposition, 379 n. 120), that 400 should be regarded as a [secondary] “rounding off” of 430 in Exod 12:40-41, adjusted to “four generations.” In addition to the literature listed above, see A. van Selms, Genesis; Riggs, “Length.” The contents and terminology of CD and the fragments found in Qumran indicate clearly that this writing, discovered first in medieval manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, was highly regarded by the community of Qumran. For this designation of the community see Talmon, “Renewed Covenant.” See Talmon, “Messiah.”

136

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

biblical traditions: one from the double dates in Genesis 15, the other from an extrapolation of Exodus 12.44

44

Addendum: One tends to entertain the supposition that both these independent traditions may be severally reflected in diverse textual transmissions of 2 Esdras 7:28. In speaking of the messianic age, the Latin version reads iucundabit qui relicti sunt annis quadringentis, “they will be rejoiced for 400 years.” An Arabic version and the Georgian version also read 400. The Syriac has “thirty,” maybe a Christian transposition corresponding to Jesus’ mission of thirty years, but possibly representing an original reading of 430 years. The “rejoicing” for 400 or 430 years could constitute an eschatological inversion of the biblical tradition of a period of sorrow and anguish in Egypt. See Weber, Vulgata, 2:1944–1945; Myers, 1 and 2 Esdras, 208.

~7~ THE SIGNIFICATION OF ‫אחרית הימים‬, “LATTER DAYS,” IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND IN THE COVENANTERS’ LITERATURE* I The detailed analysis, since the 1960’s, of the thirteen biblical occurrences of the phrase ‫באחרית הימים‬1 along with the Aramaic hapax legomenon ‫באחרית יומיא‬ (Dan 2:28), and their similarity to the analogous Akkadian ina/ana aḫrât ūmī, has led scholars to conclude that the collocation pertains to the realm of history proper, and connotes “in the course of time” or “in the future,” in distinction from “in the present (days).”2 In the past, says E. Jenni, “the interpretation of the expression was determined for too long by the later usage of the term eschatos in apocalypticism,”3 coupled with the LXX translation of ‫אחרון‬, ‫אחרית‬, and especially of ‫ אחרית הימים‬by ἔσχατος.4 As a result, the term was invested with a metahistorical dimension and rendered “last days,” “end of time,” “Endzeit,” “la fin des jours,”5 et sim. The factual or historical explanation of ‫ אחרית הימים‬still predominates in biblical as in Qumran research. However, it would seem that in some

*

1

2

3

4

5

A revised version of “The Signification of ‫ אחרית‬and ‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Hebrew Bible,” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S.M. Paul et al. (VT Supp. 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 795–810. One may actually count eleven basic instances, since two occur in identical texts: Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; 31:29; Isa 2:2 = Mic 4:1; Jer 23:20 = 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; Dan 10:14. Cf. also Ezek 38:8 ‫באחרית השנים‬. The Aramaic equivalent, ‫באחרית יומיא‬, likewise connotes a future period in actual history. When Daniel is summoned to interpret a dream of Nebuchadnezzar (2:28), he informs the king that he has been shown what is to be ‫באחרית יומיא‬. See, inter alia, Buchanan, “Eschatology”; Carmignac, “La notion d’eschatologie”; Kosmala, “At the End”; Talmon, “Eschatology and History”; Jeppesen, Nielsen, and Rosendal, In the Last Days. This understanding of ‫אחרית הימים‬, already suggested by Albright in “Balaam,” prompts the suggestion that the historical signification of ‫ באחרית הימים‬inheres also in the announcement made to Daniel by a heavenly messenger, ‫( איש אחד לבוש בדים‬10:5): ‫ובאתי להבינך‬ ‫( את אשר יקרה לעמך באחרית הימים‬10:14). See Jenni, “‫אחר‬,” with a concise survey of the discussion in pertinent literature (quote taken from p. 87). See, e.g., with some exceptions, Num 24:14; Deut 29:21; Isa 30:8; Jer 5:31; Ezek 23:25; Amos 4:2; 8:10; 9:1; Ps 36(37):37; 77(78):4, 6; 101(102):19; Prov 5:4; 23:18; 24:20. See, e.g., Carmignac, “Le retour.”

138

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

publications the term is again being “eschatologized.”6 Thus, e.g., in his edition of 4QCommentary on Genesis A (4Q252 IV 1, 2), George Brooke carefully translates ‫באחרית הימים‬, in a paraphrastic reference to the biblical text (‫ ;באחרית הימים תמחה את זכר עמלק מתחת השמים‬Deut 25:19; Exod 17:14), as “in the latter days.”7 Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, however, in their Study Edition (ad loc.),8 and Moshe Bernstein in his discussion of the document9 render the expression, “in the last days.” The proclivity to reeschatologize the term comes to light in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, where John Collins’s discussion of ‫ אחרית הימים‬is included under the entry “Eschatology”; and, as in the past, is translated “the End of Days.”10 In view of this tendency, a new examination of the signification of ‫אחרית‬ ‫ הימים‬in Hebrew Scriptures and in the Covenanters’ literature appears to be warranted, aimed at reinforcing the historical connotation of this and related expressions, such as ‫אחרית השנים‬, ‫אחרית העת‬, and ‫אחרית הקץ‬.11 The required investigation of the wider semantic field of ‫ אח"ר‬and the derivatives ‫אחרית‬/‫אחרון‬/(‫ אחר)י‬cannot be attempted here. In my ensuing remarks, I propose to concentrate on an analysis of the few occurrences of these terms in the Bible and in the Qumran writings, occurrences which throw light on the intrinsic meaning of ‫אחרית הימים‬. 12 II My discussion is based on the following exegetical premises: 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

See Steudel, “‫אחרית הימים‬,” esp. 225–226. Brooke, “4QCommentary on Genesis A,” 204. See García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Edition, 1:505. Bernstein, “4Q252.” Collins, “Eschatology.” The reverse is the case in Hirschberg’s essay, “Latter Days,” in which “‫ ”אסכטולוגיה‬is subsumed under “‫אחרית הימים‬.” A more adequate discussion of the term may be found in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, which offers separate entries for ‫( אחרי‬Helfmeyer, “‫ )”אחרי‬and ‫( אחרית‬Seebass, “‫)”אחרית‬, including a paragraph (III,1) in which the non-eschatological connotation of ‫ אחרית הימים‬is adequately presented. Thus, in the Covenanters’ vocabulary, in turns of speech such as ‫שלום הקץ‬, ‫גמר הקץ‬, ‫)ה(קץ‬ ‫)ה(אחרון‬, ‫( אחרית הקץ‬4Q169 [=4QpNah] 3–4 iii 1, 3) or [‫( לאחרית הק]ץ‬4Q173 1:5); and as in the restored expression [‫( קץ אחרית ]הימים‬5Q16 3:5), the noun ‫ קץ‬predominantly signifies “period” or “appointed time” rather than “end.” Above all in instances in which (‫ אחר)י‬denotes “offspring.” Cf. Nabatean ‫ אחר‬iv, and Imperial Aramaic ‫“ = אחרה‬posterity.” See Jean and Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire [Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary, 1:40–41].

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

139

(a) The range of meanings of a term or phrase in the biblical literature that gives expression to a concept is unavoidably colored by the specific context in which the word in question occurs. Therefore, before having recourse to analogies to ‫ אחרית הימים‬in other Semitic languages, such as Akkadian ina/ana aḫrât ūmī et sim., the range of signification of the opaque expression must first be ascertained contextually and intertextually. This may be done by comparing it with synonyms and expressions of a similar content,13 and also with antonyms which occur next to it in pertinent scriptural texts, above all in parallelismus membrorum.14 In this procedure the concordance takes precedence over the dictionary. (b) In parenthesis it may be said that because of the incontestable dependence of the Covenanters’ theology on the biblical world of ideas, it is fully justified to link their writings with the biblical corpus of literature in the investigation of phrases which give expression to concepts. In respect to ‫אחרית הימים‬, this basic affinity is underscored by the Yaḥad authors’ employment of the term for the most part in “actualizing” interpretations of scriptural quotations, through which they present their community as the exclusively legitimate heir to biblical Israel of the First Temple Period. They conceive of the Yaḥad as the latest link in the generational chain, which had snapped with the Babylonians’ capture of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. The Covenanters appropriate for themselves the very position in the history of Israel which the post-exilic prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, ascribe to the returnees from the Babylonian/Persian exile in the days of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah.15 Like the repatriates of that time, they view themselves as “the holy seed,” ‫( זרע הקודש‬CD 12:22 reads ‫ ;זרע ישראל‬but cf. Ezra 9:2, ‫זרע קדש‬, and Neh 9:2, ‫“ ;)זרע ישראל‬the holy men,” ‫אנשי הקודש‬/‫איש‬ (1QS 5:13, 18; 8:17, 24; etc.); or “the holy congregation,” ‫עדת הקודש‬/‫עצת‬ (1QS 2:25; 5:20). With them, Israel’s God has renewed his covenant, as foreseen by the prophet Jeremiah: ‫הנה ימים באים נאם יהוה וכרתי את בית ישראל ואת‬

13

14

15

I have illustrated this investigative technique by employing it, rather than invoking presumably parallel extra-biblical texts, in the clarification of the connotations of the hapax legomenon ‫( שדי תרומֹת‬2 Sam 1:21). See Talmon, “Emendation.” I venture to say that insufficient attention has been given to this facet of research in scholarly publications. I have repeatedly drawn attention to this major trait in the Covenanters’ belief system. See, e.g., “Between Bible and Mishnah,” esp. 21–52.

140

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

‫( בית יהודה ברית חדשה‬Jer 31:31). The Covenanters claim that the momentous promise did not materialize seventy years after Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem, as Jeremiah had announced (Jer 25:12; Zech 1:12; 2 Chr 36:22; cf. Ezra 1:1). Rather it has been realized in their own community, the ‫דור אחרון‬ (CD 1:12; 4QDa 2 i 16). It is their community that constitutes the positive component in the post-exilic ‫קץ )ה(דורות )ה(אחרונים‬, the age of the congregation of traitors, ‫( עדת בוגדים‬CD 1:12), and the ‫קץ חרון‬,16 which I tend to read as ‫קץ אחרון‬. It is their “present time”, precisely 390 years after the destruction of Jerusalem (CD 1:3-6), as foreseen in Ezekiel’s dramatization of Israel’s punishment on the eve of the fall of the city to the Babylonians. At that time, the prophet was charged by divine command to lie for three hundred and ninety days on his left side, and then for forty days on his right side, thus to bear symbolically first the punishment of Israel–Ephraim, and then that of Judah, one day for every year of their iniquity; that is, the four hundred and thirty days signifying four hundred and thirty years of punishment.17 (Ezek 4:4-5).18 (c) The biblical sources, and likewise the Covenanters’ writings do not reflect a hope of an “eschatological” time of redemption, but rather of a “restoration in actual history” of Israel’s ancient civitas. In the post-exilic biblical tradition the restoration is expected to be achieved under the twopronged leadership of the Davidic scion, Zerubbabel, and the Aaronide high priest, Joshua. In the Qumran version of this concept, the two leaders are symbolically referred to as (1) “a root (or shoot) of planting out of Israel,” evidently a reference to the (royal) “shoot of the stock of Jesse” (Isa 11:1); and (2) “one of Aaron,” viz., a scion of the high-priestly dynasty, whom God “caused to sprout so as to take possession of his land,” ‫ויצמח מישראל‬ ‫( ומאהרן שורש מטעת לירוש את ארצו‬CD 1:7-8). Neither the biblical nor the Covenanters’ vision came to fruition. The resulting deep disappointment of the returnees from the Babylonian exile reverberates in the angel’s plaint before God: “How long will you withhold your compassion from Jerusalem

16

17 18

The pertinent passage is not preserved in the fragmentary copies of CD from Qumran, which thus do not help in proving or disproving the conjectural emendation. For ‫דור אחרון‬ and ‫קץ אחרון‬, see also 4Q169 3–4 iv 3; 1QpHab 7:7, 12; 4Q177 9:8. Cf. also ‫( כוהן אחרון‬4QHosb 2:3) and ‫( מלך אחרן‬4Q246 1:7 [DJD 22:169]) CD buttresses the MT reading against LXX’s 190 days. For this interpretation of the CD text, see Talmon, “Messiah,” esp. 278–283.

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

141

and the cities of Judah upon whom you have vented your wrath these seventy years?” (Zech 1:12). The founding fathers of the Yaḥad similarly felt like blind persons, groping their way for twenty years until God raised up for them the “Teacher of Righteousness,” who gave their yearning a new direction (CD 1:5-11). In both instances, the promised restoration was not projected into a metahistorical, eschatological future. Rather it was deferred to a later stage in history. The prophet Zechariah was divinely commanded to proclaim once more: “these are the words of YHWH Zebaoth: My cities shall again overflow with good things; once again YHWH will comfort Zion; once again he will make Jerusalem his choice” (Zech 1:17, cf. 8:1-17); but there was no delineation of a time differential between the present and the “once again.” Likewise, the author of Pesher Habakkuk avers, “the vision pertains to an appointed time … it will not fail (‫)עוד חזון למועד ולא יכזב‬. … (Although) the present period (‫ )הקץ האחרון‬will extend more than all that the prophets said … (however) while it might tarry, wait for it, because it will definitely come” (1QpHab 7:4-10). (d) My investigation will culminate in the attempt to ascertain the character of the span of time defined as ‫אחרית הימים‬, as well as its status in the biblical writers’ conception, with only some references to the Yaḥad authors’ conception of the periodical progress of time. Some exemplary texts, in which ‫אחרית‬ ‫ הימים‬pertains to events fervently expected to occur in the near future, prove that the historical connotation is not limited to particular literary strata of the biblical writings or specific Qumran documents. Rather, this sense can be shown to be firmly rooted in the conceptual universe of the authors of these literary corpora. At the same time, I do not entirely preclude the possibility that in some occurrences the idiom ‫ )ב(אחרית הימים‬may have a metahistorical thrust; this must, however, be proven in each individual instance. 19 III In the attempt to ascertain the intrinsic meaning or meanings of the noun ‫אחרית‬, the vocables ‫אחר‬, ‫אחרון‬/‫ אחרונים‬are of help. They often connote “later,” “after,” even “next,” relative to the time of the speaker or writer, and do not 19

The expressions ‫ )ב(אחרית השנים‬and ‫)ב(אחרית העת‬, which turn up once in 4Q398 14–17 i 8, also need to be brought under scrutiny in this context. See DJD 10:63 n. 30.

142

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

point to an absolute end.20 Here are some illustrations of the use of ‫אחרון‬ signifying temporal proximity: 1. The “capable housewife,” ‫אשת חיל‬, takes care of her husband’s needs (Prov 31:11, 12, 16, 23), and keeps her eyes on the doings of her household. She toils from before daybreak, ‫( ותקם בעוד לילה‬31:15a), to make sure that everyone in her home is properly fed and clad (31:13, 14, 15b, 19, 21). 21 Therefore, “she can afford to laugh at the day ahead” (31:25, cf. vv. 22, 23). By translating ‫ יום אחרון‬as “last day,” instead of “next day” or “tomorrow,” one invests the term with the notion of finality, which is totally out of place in the context. 2. The meaning “tomorrow” for ‫ יום אחרון‬comes into full light in the biblical tale of the woman who in a time of severe food shortage implores King Jehoram of Samaria to come to her assistance, telling him of her dispute with a neighbor whom she accuses of having cheated her (2 Kgs 6:24-31): “That woman said to me, give up your son for us to eat today, and we will eat mine tomorrow, ‫מחר‬. So we cooked my son and ate him; but when I said to her the next day, ‫ביום האחר‬, give up your son for us to eat, she hid him” (6:28-29). 3. Similarly, biblical law decrees that a divorced woman, who married another man, after the death of that man or after being divorced by him, may not be remarried to her first husband: ... ‫ והיתה לאי ש אח ר‬... ‫כריתת‬ ֻ ‫ וכתב לה ספר‬... ‫כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה‬ ‫ לא‬... ‫ ושלחה מביתו או כי ימות האי ש ה אחר ון‬... ‫ושנאה האי ש הא חר ון‬ ‫ לשוב לקחתה‬... ‫יוכל בעלה הר אש ון‬ When a man marries a wife and has intercourse with her … and (later) writes her a note of divorce … and she becomes the wife of another man … and the other (second22) man … hates her … and dismisses her, or the other (second) man dies, … then her first husband may not again take her to be his wife. (Deut 24:1-4)

20

21

22

Likewise, the related term ‫ראשונים‬/‫ ראשון‬often does not refer to an absolute “first,” but rather to a relative “before.” See Deut 4:32 (with 4:30). See Ibn Ezra’s comment ad loc.: ‫ל ע ת ז ק נ ת ה תוכל לעמוד משחקת ואינה מפחדת מן החסרון או ל ע ו ל ם‬ ‫ ה ב א‬, “in her old age she can still laugh and is not afraid of deficiency or the world to come.” For ‫אחרון‬/‫ אחר‬meaning “second, next,” see also Exod 4:8.

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

143

In this instance, as in similar cases, the coupling of ‫ האחרון‬with ‫הראשון‬ shows that the term must be translated “second,” not “last,” since the law does not restrain the woman from becoming the wife of a third husband. The synonymity of ‫ יום אחר‬and ‫ מחר‬is found in other Semitic languages, and was rightly compared with Aramaic ‫ מחר או יום אחרן‬in the Elephantine Papyri, with ‫למחר וליומא אחרנא‬23 in early rabbinic literature, and with Syriac ‫ܝܘܡܐ ܐܚܪܢܐ‬.24 However, for the clarification of the meaning of the term in Scripture, the above Hebrew instances outweigh the parallels in other Semitic languages. In some biblical contexts, this connotation of ‫אחרון‬/‫ אחרונים‬is inner-textually ascertained through an added explanatory reference to “offspring,” as in: 4. Deut 29:21, ‫הדור האחרון בניכם אשר יקומו מאחריכם‬, “the next generation, your sons who will arise after you.” The LXX avoids here the use of ἔσχατος and correctly renders ‫ הדור האחרון‬as ἡ γενεὰ ἡ ἑτέρα. Likewise, Vulg [29:22] has sequens generatio rather than a form of novissimus which regularly is used in the translation of ‫האחרון‬, as in Ps 48:14: ‫למען תספרו לדור אחרון‬, where LXX [47:14] has εἰς γενεὰν ἑτέραν, but Vulg in generatione novissima (TargJ ‫)לדר אוחרן‬. 5. The same goes for Ps 78:3-6, ‫ לא נכחד מ ב ני ה ם ל דור א חרו ן‬.‫אשר שמענו ונדעם וא בו תי נו ספרו לנו‬ ‫ למען‬.‫ אשר צוה את א ב ותי נו להודיעם לב ניהם‬... ‫מספרים תהלות יהוה‬ ‫ידעו דו ר אח רון ב נים י ול ד ו ֻיקמו ויספרו לב ני ה ם‬ Things we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. We will not withhold them from their children, telling the future generation the praises of the Lord … who charged our fathers to make (them) known to their children, so that a future generation (LXX γενεὰ ἑτέρα; Vulg generatio subsequens; TargJ ‫ )דר בתראי‬will know, sons to be born (to you), who ‫לדור‬ ‫ אחר‬will arise and tell it to their sons”. Cf. Joel 1:3, ‫עליה לבניכם ספרו ובניכם‬ ‫לבניהם ובניהם לדור אחר‬.

6. In the hyperbolical promise that the glory of the post-exilic sanctuary will eventually surpass the grandeur of Solomon’s Temple, ‫גדול יהיה כבוד הבית‬ ‫( הזה האחרון מן הראשון‬Hag 2:9), the term ‫ הבית האחרון‬does not refer to a “last” Temple but to the “later,” viz., the Second Temple, which the returnees 23 24

Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 5:6, 8; 8:18, 26, etc.; Kraeling, Aramaic Papyri, 2:7, 9, 10, 12, 13, etc. See Jenni, “‫אחר‬,” 84.

144

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

from the Babylonian exile had built. On its part, ‫ הבית האחרון‬could yet be followed by another sanctuary, like the Temple, which the Covenanters aspired to erect in the “New Jerusalem.”25 Nevertheless, here LXX ἡ δόξα τοῦ οἴκου τούτου ἡ ἐσχάτη and Vulg domus istius novissimae exhibit an eschatological emphasis, possibly because of a theological bias. 7. Haggai’s contemporary Zechariah refers to the pre-exilic prophets by the title ‫( נביאים ראשונים‬Zech 1:4, 7:12), thus implicitly presenting himself and his post-exilic contemporaries, Haggai and Malachi, as ‫נביאים אחרונים‬.26 The ‫ראשונים‬, “the former,” were preceded by pre-classical prophets like Samuel, Nathan, and Gad; the ‫אחרונים‬, the “latter,” were expected to be succeeded by Elijah (Mal 3:23-24). In these instances, the end of the First Temple period constitutes the demarcation line between ‫ראשונים‬/‫ ראשון‬and ‫אחרונים‬/‫אחרון‬. 8. In the Covenanters’ terminology the pre-exilic era of the “former generations,” ‫דורות ראשונים‬, is likewise differentiated from the post-exilic age of “the latter generations,” ‫)קץ( דורות אחרונים‬, in which the ‫דור אחרון‬, the present generation of Yaḥad members, comes center stage. 9. The temporal, chronological signification of these terms is irrefutably demonstrated by their employment in records pertaining to the Covenanters’ history, next to references to specific events and dramatis personae who played a central role in the conflict with their adversaries In the last fragment of the Pesher Micah, which ends with a reference to [‫הדור ה]אחרון‬, the ‫מורה הצדק‬, the Yaḥad’s mentor and protagonist, is mentioned together with the ‫מטיף הכזב‬, probably another major inimical figure in the Covenanters’ contention with their adversaries (1QpMic [1Q14] 8–10 4). 10. The connotation “present time” of ‫דורות אחרונים‬/‫דור אחרון‬, ‫קץ אחרון‬ comes most distinctly to the fore in the Habakkuk Pesher. Here, the recurring employment of the phrases ‫הדור האחרון‬, ‫כוהני ירושלים האחרונים‬, ‫מורה )ה(צדקה‬, and ‫ הכוהן הרשע‬date the events of the ‫ קץ אחרון‬to the appearance on the scene of the Kittim, viz. the Romans: ‫]פשרו על[ הבוגדים עם איש הכזב כי לו]א האמינו‬

25

26

Cf. also Jer 50:17, ‫הראשון אכלו מלך אשור וזה האחרון עצמו נבוכדראצר מלך בבל‬. In this contrasting pronouncement, the term ‫ ראשון‬refers to the Assyrian capture of the Northern Kingdom, and ‫ האחרון‬to the Babylonians’ later conquest of Judah. Cf. b. Sot. 48b: “Who are the ‫( ?נביאים הראשונים‬All), with the exception of Haggai, Zechariah and, Malachi who are ‫אחרונים‬.” For more examples see Jastrow, Dictionary, 40–41.

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

145

‫ה‬

‫( בדברי[ מורה צדק‬1QpHab 2:1-2), and ‫פשרו על כוהני ירושלם הא חר ו נים אשר יקבוצו‬ ‫( הון ובצע משלל העמים ול אחר ית הימים ינתן הונם עם שללם ביד חיל הכתיאים‬1QpHab 9:4-7). IV At this juncture, we can examine the employment of ‫ אחרית‬in reference to a future period in history, a usage which is similar to the signification of ‫ אחרון‬exemplified above. In several texts that use biblical “generation pattern” phraseology, the noun ‫אחרית‬, like ‫אחרון‬, connotes “offspring,” and more precisely “sons” and/or “daughters”: (a) In threats of punishment and woe, in which the loss of offspring signals the termination of a societal unit; (b) in pronouncements of well-being and success, wherein the blessing of (numerous) children is extolled as guaranteeing the continuance of a family, a clan, or a people. Both these aspects are commemorated in Ps 37:37-38: ‫שמר תם וראה ישר כי אחר ית לאי ש ש ל ום ופֹשעים נשמדו יחדו אח ר י ת‬ ‫ר שע ים נ כר ת ה‬ Watch the good man and look at him who is honest, for the man of ‫שלום‬ leaves (has) descendants, and transgressors are wiped out altogether, the offspring of the wicked is cut off.

LXX (36:37-38) renders ‫ אחרית‬twice by ἐγκατάλειµµα; Vulg has once ad extremum, and once novissimum). As in similar texts, the verb ‫ כרת‬serves here as a technical term which equals ‫ שמד‬and ‫מחה‬, “to destroy” or “to wipe out.” 11. Ps 109:13, ‫יהי אחריתו להכרית בדור אחר ימח שמם‬, “may his (family) line be cut off, may their name be wiped out in the next generation” (cf. Ps 34:17, ‫)פני יהוה בעֹשי רע להכרית מארץ זכרם‬. The reference to the present generation of evildoers, collectively designated ‫( רשע‬109:2, 6, 9) by ‫שמם‬, and the possessive pronoun of ‫( אחריתו‬LXX τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ, but Vulg novissimum eius), is complemented in the next verse by a mention of their forebears, ‫ אבֹתיו‬and ‫אמו‬, showing that the text actually speaks of three generations. 12. Deut 32:20, ‫תהפכֹת המה ב נים לא ֵא ֻמן בם‬ ֻ ‫אראה מה א חר יתם כי ד ור‬, “let me 27 see what their offspring (LXX αὐτοῖς ἐπ΄ ἐσχάτων; Vulg novissima eorum) will be, for they are a mutinous generation, sons who are not to be trusted.”

27

NEB “their end.”

146

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

13. Prov 24:20, ‫כי לא תהיה אחר ית לרע נר רשעים ידעך‬, “the wicked will not have offspring (LXX ἔκοντα; Vulg futurorum spem), the light of evildoers will be put out.” The term ‫נר‬, like ‫אור‬, serves as a metaphor for “progeny,” as in Job 18:5-6, ‫ א ור ָח ַשְׁך באהלו ו נר ו עליו ידעך‬... ‫גם אור רשעים ידעך‬, “the wicked’s light is extinguished … the light fades in his tent and his candle (light) goes dark” (cf. Prov 13:9, ‫ או ר צדיקים ישמח ו נר רשעים ידעך‬, “the light of the righteous gives pleasure [by burning brightly], the candle of the wicked will be put out”; cf. 20:20). The metaphor is explained in Job 18:17-19, ‫זכ רו א בד מני ארץ ולא שׁ ם‬ ‫ לא נין לו ולא נ כד בעמו ואין ש ר י ד במגוריו‬... ‫לו על פני חוץ‬, “the memory (of the wicked) vanishes from the face of the earth, he leaves no name in public … he leaves no descendant or grandchild among his people, no survivor in his dwellings.”28 14. Amos 4:2, ‫הנה ימים באים על יכם ונשא א תכם בצנות ואחר יתכן בסירות דוגה‬ (LXX καὶ τοὺς µεθ´ ὑµῶν; Theodotion τὰ ἐκγονα ἡµῶν; Vulg reliquias vestras). The picture is self-explanatory: The prophet warns the women of Samaria that in the near future, they will be carried into exile in baskets or on shields or dragged away with fish-hooks.29 The same fate will befall their “posterity,” viz., their daughters. The term ‫ אחרית‬was thus correctly understood by the medieval commentators—such as Rashi (in the name of Dunash Ibn Labrat), Ibn Ezra (who compares ‫ לאחריתו‬in Dan 11:4 and explains the term by ‫)שהוא בנו‬ and Qimḥi, as by most modern exegetes.30 The rendition of ‫ ואחריתכן‬by “your Hintern” or “your posterior,” suggested by some scholars,31 misses altogether the major thrust of the prophet’s woe oracle. The threat that two generations of Samarian women, or possibly more, will be exiled is especially severe, since their deportation spells the total annihilation of the population of the Northern Kingdom. The same warning of imminent doom is sounded in another of the prophet’s oracles:

28 29

30

31

See Talmon, “‫יד ושם‬,” below, 211–235; idem, “Topped Triad,” above, 111–116. For the various interpretation of ‫ צנות‬and ‫ סירות דוגה‬see the detailed and exceedingly well documented discussion by Paul, Amos, 130–135, and Weiss, Amos, 1:103–104; 2:168–174 nn. 74–128. Paul’s translation “the very last one of you” (Amos, 135), suggests a similar understanding of the phrase, but lacks the concreteness of “offspring/posterity.” Robinson and Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 53–54; Hammershaimb, Amos, ad loc.

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

147

15. Amos 9:1, ‫ראיתי את אדני נצב על המזבח ויאמר הך הכפתור וירעשו הספים ובצעם‬ ‫בראש כלם ואחר יתם בחרב אהרג‬. In spite of the somewhat opaque wording, the basic sense of the message is evident: God is seen standing on the altar, presumably in Bethel, announcing the destruction of the local sanctuary, and the killing of all inhabitants, ‫כלם‬, of the city or the country, together with their offspring, ‫אחריתם‬. The LXX translation, καὶ τοὺς καταλοίπους αὐτῶν, correctly reflects the realistically tangible meaning of the term, whereas in the Vulg rendition, novissimum eorum, the eschatological thrust comes to the fore (cf. Ps 109:13, and Jer 50:21, 26 below). 16. In Ezek 23:25, ‫ ואח ר יתך בחרב תפול המה ב ניך וב נותיך‬... ‫ועשו או תך בחמה‬ ‫יקחו וא חר יתך תאכל באש‬, the meaning “offspring” of the twice-reiterated term ‫ אחרית‬is specified through the explanatory phrase ‫המה בניך ובנותיך‬. The prophet threatens the city or the kingdom of Samaria, named Oholibah, with destruction by the enemy, the inhabitants of the realm with mutilation, and their sons and daughters with death by the sword: “They will deal with you in anger, they will cut off your nose and your ears, your offspring will fall by the sword, your sons and your daughters they will take (away), your offspring will be devoured by fire.” In both instances, this understanding of ‫ אחרית‬is mirrored in LXX, καὶ τοὺς καταλοίπους σου. In Vulg it is reflected by et quae remanserint in the first half of the verse, but in the second half, the rendition by novissimum tuum invests the term with an eschatological dimension. 17. A woe oracle of the imminent downfall of Taḥpanḥes in Egypt in Ezek 30:18, in which the city and her satellites are designated by the mother and daughter metaphor, contains almost identical wording albeit without a mention of the term ‫אחרית‬: ‫ ונשבת בה גאון ֻעזה היא ענן‬... ‫ובתחפנחס חשך היום‬ ‫יכסנה וב נ ותי ה בשבי תלכנה‬, “in Taḥpanḥes daylight shall fail … her mighty power shall be subdued, a cloud shall cover her, and her daughters shall go into captivity” (cf. Amos 4:2). 18. Jer 50:26. A very similar phraseology is employed in an oracle of doom against Babylon: ‫סלוה כמו ערמים והחרימוה אל תהי לה שארית‬, “Pile her up of as in heaps, destroy her, that there will not be (left) to her posterity.” The third person pronouns in ‫ סלוה‬and ‫ החרימוה‬refer to the population of the city, and the term ‫ שארית‬to the next generation. The threat of the implied total annihilation of the citizenry of Babylon suggests that the MT of Jer 50:21, ‫על הארץ מרתים עלה עליה ואל יושבי פקוד חרב והחרם אחריהם‬, should be

148

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

restored to read ‫ והחרם אחריתם‬instead of ‫אחריהם‬, on the basis of the Targum’s ‫שארהון‬, “their offspring.”32 19. Jer 29:11, ‫ לתת לכם א חר ית‬... ‫כי אנכי ידעתי את המחשבת אשר אנכי חשב עליכם‬ ‫ו תקו ה‬, “I know the (good) plans which I have made concerning you … to give you offspring and a (long) line of descendants.”33 LXXL [36:11] correctly translates ‫ אחרית‬as τὰ µετὰ ταῦτα, cf. 5:31; but Vulg has finem. 20. Jer 31:16-17, ‫ ושבו מארץ אויב ויש תקוה‬... ‫ כי יש שכר לפעלתך‬... ‫מנעי קולך מבכי‬ ‫ ושבו ב נים לגבולם‬... ‫ לא חר יתך‬, “Cease your sound of weeping … for there shall be a reward for your toil … they shall return from the land of the enemy, a line (generations) of your descendants, (your) sons (LXX [38:17] τοῖς σοῖς τέκνοις, but Vulg ad terminos suos) … shall return to their land.”34 21. Prov 23:18, ‫כי אם יש א חר ית ו תקו תך לא תכרת‬, “(if you fear God) there will be progeny (for you) (LXX ἔσται σοι ἔκγονα; Vulg habebis spem in novissimo) and your (family) line will not be cut off.” 22. Job 42:12-13, 16, ‫ויהוה ברך את אח ר ית איוב מר אש ת ו‬, “God blessed Job’s (later) progeny (LXX τὰ ἔσχατα; Vulg novissimis) more than his earlier,” as previously promised to the God-fearing Job (Job 8:7): ‫והיה ר אש יתך מצער‬ ‫ ואחר יתך ישׂגה מאד‬, “(though) your beginnings were humble, your offspring (LXX τὰ δὲ ἔσχατά σου; Vulg novissima tua) will be great.” ‫ויהי לו ש בע נ ה ב נים‬ ‫ו של ו ש ב נ ו ת‬, “He had (again) seven sons and three daughters,” (42:13, cf. 1:2), ‫וירא את ב ניו ואת ב ני ב ניו ארבעה ד ֹר ו ת‬, “And he saw his sons and grandsons to four generations” (42:16). Like Joseph (Gen 50:23), Job experienced the very limit of humankind’s exemplary historical horizon, seen as extending to the fourth generation (cf. Exod 20:5 = Deut 5:9; Exod 34:7; Num 14:18; cf. KAI 226:8). That generation marks a caesura in history, the end of one major phase in history and the beginning of another. In the lifetime of the fourth generation of enslaved Israelites, the period of slavery in Egypt would be terminated. After their Exodus from Egypt, they were to return to the

32 33 34

Cf. v. 34; Jer 29:11; 31:16-17; Prov 23:18; and see below. Possibly a double entendre playing on two meanings of ‫תקוה‬, “hope” and “line.” In Jer 33:14-16, a vision that is contextually related to 29:11 and 31:16-17 is introduced by a “history-riveted” date: ‫ה נ ה י מ י ם ב א י ם נאם יהוה והקמתי את הדבר הטוב אשר דברתי אל בית ישראל‬ ‫ ;ועל בית יהודה בימים ההם ובעת ההיא אצמיח לדוד צמח צדקה‬cf. 23:5-6 and Talmon, “Agricultural Metaphora,” below, 171–181; “Ezra–Nehemiah,” below, 369.

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

149

Promised Land: ‫( ודור רביעי ישובו הנה‬Gen 15:16).35 23. Jeremiah admonishes the Judean expatriates to adjust to life in Babylon for three generations, “a full seventy years” (Jer 29:6, 10; cf. 25:11): ‫קחו נשים‬ ‫והולידו בנים ובנות וקחו לבניכם נשים ואת בנותיכם תנו לאנשים ותלדנה בנים ובנות‬, “Marry wives and beget sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and gives your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters” (29:6). After that, in the fourth generation, says God, “when Babylon’s seventy years are over, I will take up your cause … by bringing you back to this place, … giving you “a long line of children after you,” ‫לפי מלאת לבבל שבעים‬ ‫ לתת לכם אחר ית ו תקו ה‬... ‫ להשיב אתכם אל המקום הזה‬... ‫( שנה אפקד אתכם‬29:10-11). Historical time is not seen then to end, but rather to take a critical turn. The text does not speak of a Zeitenende but rather of a Zeitenwende, opening up an entirely new phase in history.36 24. A textual variant in 1QIsaa underscores the non-eschatological connotation of ‫ אחרית‬by replacing it with the reading ‫אחרונות‬, thus highlighting its general meaning, “future things/events”. While MT Isa 41:22 reads ‫יגישו‬ 37 ‫ויגידו לנו את אשר תקרינה ה ראש נ ו ת מה הנה הגידו ונשימה לבנו ונדעה אח ר יתן א ו‬ ‫ ה בא ו ת השמיענו‬, whereas 1QIsaa has for the latter part of the verse: ‫ונשימה לבנו‬ ‫ונדעה א ו א חר ו נו ת א ו ה בא ות השמיעונו‬. The realistic, non-eschatological understanding of the triad ‫ ראשונות–אחרונות–באות‬is echoed in a slightly different formulation in Jub 1:26-27, which may possibly evince a dependence on the textual tradition reflected in 1QIsaa: ‫] א ת הר אש נים וא ת ה [ אח ר ני ] ם ו א ת‬ [‫( אש ר יב וא בכל מחלקות העתים לתור[ה ולתעו]דה לשבועות היובלים עד עולם‬4QJuba [4Q216] IV 3-5). I propose to translate the text: “[the former and the] latter (rather than: “the first and the last” things/events),38 and what will come/occur (in between them), in all divisions (periods) of the times for the La[w] and for the testim[ony and for the weeks of the jubilees forever].” After that, the author or the scribe reveals his understanding of the phrase ‫ עד עולם‬as a reference to the rebuilding of the Temple on Mt. Zion, ‫( ]עד אש[ר יבנה מקדשי‬l. 7), which is to become God’s resting place “for ever and ever” (l. 8–10). 35 36 37 38

For these issues see Talmon, “Four Hundred Years,” above, 125–136. See Talmon, “Topped Triad,” above, 115–116. Here, as with numerous similar instances in biblical Hebrew, ‫ או‬equals conjunctive waw. VanderKam and Milik, “4QJubilees,” 11–12.

150

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

25. It is of interest to note that a midrash on 1 Sam 8:7 attaches the very same meaning to the collocation ‫ אחרית הימים‬in Hos 3:5, ‫ישבו בני ישראל‬ ֻ ‫אחר‬ ‫ובקשו את יהוה אלהיהם ואת דו ד מלכם ופחדו אל יהוה ואל טובו באח ר ית הימים‬. R. Simon ben Menasya is quoted there as interpreting the mention of King David as a reference to the future restitution of the Davidic dynasty, ‫מלכות‬ ‫בית דוד‬, and the term ‫ באחרית הימים‬as referring to the rebuilding of the Temple ‫זה בנין בית המקדש‬, evidently in historical time, not in metahistory.39 V Now, we can bring under scrutiny the signification and status of the time or period designated ‫אחרית הימים‬. The occurrence of the term in a variety of biblical books strongly suggests that its employment with the pronounced history-related signification of “imminent future” is an integral component of the vocabulary of various biblical authors. This sense is not limited to specific literary strata. Some exemplary texts highlight the pertinence of the term to events which are fervently expected to come about in the near future, in the lifetime of the next generation or of one of the next generations. The term ‫ אחרית הימים‬actually serves as a Kennwort which denotes, “in the days, ‫הימים‬, of (our) progeny, ‫אחרית‬.”40 At the same time, the possibility cannot altogether be precluded that in some instances the collocation ‫ )ב(אחרית הימים‬is invested with a metahistorical thrust. However, the ascription to the term of an eschatological content in a specific context needs be proven in every particular instance.41 The reference to ‫ אחרית הימים‬is a distinctive feature of the advice or admonition in a poetically worded “last testament,” addressed by a father or a “visionary,” who stands for the “present,” to his children or to members of the next generation who represent the “future.” The following texts illustrate this characteristic conjunction of death and “future generations,” 39 40

41

Midr. Sam (ed. Buber, 84). It is tempting to conjecture a metathesis of the components of the construct ‫= אחרית הימים‬ ‫ ;ימי )ה(אחרית‬as, e.g., in the case of ‫( בפשתי העץ‬Josh 2:6): LXX ἐν τῇ λινοκαλάµῃ = ‫בעצי פשתים‬, similarly Targum: ‫“ בטעוני כתנא‬in the loads of flax”; cf. m. Šabb. 2:3, ‫כל היוצא מן העץ אין מדליקין‬ ‫בו אלא פשתן‬, “one may not kindle the Sabbath candle with anything growing out of ‫העץ‬ except ‫פשתן‬. “ Scholars tend to differentiate between occurrences of ‫ אחרית הימים‬which have a historical thrust and others in which the idiom has an eschatological signification. See, inter alia, Driver, Deuteronomy, 74; Vriezen, “Prophecy and Eschatology,” esp. 202–203, 227–229.

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

151

or more concretely “progeny”: 26. Deut 31:27, ‫ בעו ד ני ח י עמכם היום ממרים היתם עם יהוה ואף כי אחר י מותי‬. Moses accuses Israel, “(even) during my lifetime you have defied YHWH, how much more (will you do so) after my death.” Deut 31:29, ‫ידעתי אחר י מותי כי השחת תשחתון וסרתם מן הדרך אשר צויתי אתכם‬ ‫וקראת אתכם הרעה ב אחר ית הימים‬,42 “I know that after my death you will certainly do evil and turn aside from the way which I commanded you (to follow), and in days to come disaster will come upon you.” Deut 4:30, ‫ומצאוך כל הדברים האלה ב אחר ית הימים ושבת עד יהוה אלהיך‬, “When all these (evil) events get hold of you43 in days to come, you will turn back to YHWH your God.” In Moses’ review of past history and his admonitions to the Israelites on the eve of their entering Cis-Jordan, the trenchant historical, non-eschatological signification of ‫ באחרית הימים‬is communicated through allusions to his lifetime, ‫בעודני חי‬, and his imminent death, ‫( אחרי מותי‬cf. 31:1, 14-16, ‫הן‬ ‫ הנך שכב עם אבתיך‬... ‫)קרבו ימיך למות‬. These references lead up to events that are to occur after the demise of Moses, ‫( באחרית הימים‬34:5-7), and that will be experienced by the offspring of the present generation, ‫כי תוליד בנים ובני בנים‬ (4:25), and to their imminent settlement in the Land of Canaan (31:3-13). 27. An essentially identical situation is portrayed in the account of the days preceding Jacob’s death in Egypt (Gen 48–49). The dying patriarch, who represents the “present,” foretells to his offspring that in the near future, ‫באחרית הימים‬, they will “return” to the land of their forefathers: Gen 48:21, ‫ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף הנה אנכי מת והיה אלהים עמכם והשיב אתכם אל ארץ‬ ‫אבתיכם‬, “Then Israel said to Joseph, “I am dying. God will be with you and bring you back to the land of your fathers.” These events are then located ‫באחרית הימים‬: Gen 49:1, ‫ויקרא יעקב אל בניו ויאמר האספו ואגידה לכם את אשר יקרא אתכם‬ ‫ באחר ית הימים‬, “Jacob summoned his sons and said, “Come together, and I will tell you what will happen to you in the days to come.” After that, ‫ ו יג וע ויאס ף אל ע מי ו‬... ‫ויכל יעקב לצות את בניו‬, “when Jacob had finished 42

43

Cf. 4Q504 1–2 iii 12–14 (DJD 7:141): ‫אשר כתב מושה ועבדיכה הנביאם אש]ר ש[לחתה ל]קר[תנו הרעה‬ ‫ ב א ח ר י ת ה י מ י ם‬. See also Josh 23:14-15. For the meaning “to get hold of/capture,” rather than “to find/come upon,” see for the present Iwry, “Striking Variant Reading.”

152

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

instructing his sons … he died and was gathered to his kin” (49:33). The return is implicitly dated to the lifetime of the fourth generation of his son’s Joseph descendants (Gen 47:29-31): ‫ויקרבו ימי ישראל למו ת ויקרא לבנו‬ ‫ אל נא תקברני במצרים‬... ‫ליוסף ויאמר לו‬, “When the time of Israel’s (Jacob’s) death drew near, he summoned his son Joseph and said to him … do not bury me in Egypt” (cf. 50:22-23 and 15:16). 28. The occurrence in the Balaam episode of the above motifs and connotative terminology reveal the “history-riveted” signification of the expression ‫אחרית הימים‬. These turn the visionary’s intended curses into blessings44 (Num 22:6, 11, 23:11, 25; 24:1, 10; cf. Deut 23:5-6; Josh 24:9-10; Neh 13:2), and put them into the same category as the poetic “last words” of Jacob and Moses. Also Balaam connects his own wish that his progeny be numerous like Israel’s offspring with the mention of his own death: 45 Num 23:10, ‫מי מנה ע פר י עק ב ומספר את רבע י שר אל תמת נפשי מות ישרים‬ ‫מהו‬ ֹ ‫ותהי אחריתי כ‬, “Who can count the host of Jacob or number the multitude of Israel? May I die the death of yesharim,46 and may my offspring (LXX τὸ σπέρµα µου; Vulg novissima mea) be like his” (viz. Israel’s). The prevalent translations of ‫ ישרים‬by “men who are righteous,” (NEB) or “the upright,” are out of tune with the literary and conceptual context. I suggest that we connect the term with the Book of Yashar, ‫ספר הישר‬, which is twice quoted in the Bible (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18). This work is said to have contained poetic compositions on war and death, which extolled the feats and told of the fates of ancient heroes. This type of poetry is exemplified by David’s e1egy, ‫קינה‬, over the death of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam 1:17-27), with which Balaam’s parables exhibit some resemblance in tone and texture (cf. Num 23:19-24; 24:8-9, 17-22).47 The theme of the seer’s death is presumably picked up once again towards the end of the pericope by way of a double entendre on the phrase ‫ועתה ה נ ני ה ו ל ך ל עמי‬, “Now I am going to my kin” (24:14). The expression 44

45 46 47

In a discussion of the question of who authored, ‫כתב‬, the several biblical books, or rather included them in the biblical corpus of ‫כתבי הקדש‬, the authorship of the Balaam pericope (Num 22:2–24:25) is ascribed to Moses, in addition to the Torah: ‫משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם‬ (b. B.Bat. 14b). Possibly read as ‫ומי ספר‬. For explanations of ‫ ישרים‬see Loewenstamm “Death of the Upright.” See below.

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

153

indeed can simply mean “I am going home,” like ‫ויקם בלעם וילך וישב למקמו‬, “then Balaam arose and returned home” (24:25). However, at the same time, it may echo Jacob’s request of Joseph that after his demise he should be buried with his fathers: ‫( אני נאסף אל עמי קברו אתי אל אבתי‬Gen 49:29). Thus, Ba1aam’s announcement ‫ הנני הולך לעמי‬points proleptically to the brief mention of his death in the Israelites’ battle against the Midianites, ‫ואת בלעם בן בעור‬ ‫( הרגו בחרב‬Num 31:8;48 cf. Josh 13:22). This remark again is followed by the seer’s predictable vaticination concerning the fate of the Israelites and their historical adversaries “in the days ahead”: ‫( לכה איעצך אשר יעשה העם הזה לעמך באח ר ית הימים‬24:14b). In the ensuing cluster of Balaam’s “last words” against the nations (24:15-24), the prediction about Amalek is the most important for our present concern. The seer’s “prophecies” concerning Moab, Edom, the Kenites, etc. are aimed against Israel’s “present” enemies. In contrast, in the Amalek oracle the annihilation of that nation’s offspring, ‫ אחר יתו עדי אבד‬, is also announced. It is foreseen that this event will materialize ‫באחרית הימים‬. In view of the signification of the term ‫אחרית‬, as derived above, this means, “in an appreciably near future time”: Num 24:20, ‫וירא את עמלק וישא משלו ויאמר ר אשית גוים עמלק ו אחר ית ו עדי אבד‬, “he saw Amalek and uttered his oracle, “First of the nations is Amalek (at present), but his offspring will perish” (cf., inter alia, Ps 109:13, ‫יהי א חר ית ו‬ ‫ ימח שמם‬49‫)להכרית בד ור א ח ר‬.50

48

49 50

The thread of the tale of the Israelites’ fornication with Moabite and Midianite women (25:6–15) in the wake of the Balak–Balaam episode again is picked up before the divine command to make war on the Midianites, who were struck by a plague (25:16-18). After a lengthy interpolation of quite different legal materials (26:1–30:17), the account of the plague and the ensuing war is resumed in 31:1 with the truncated half–verse ‫ויהי אחרי המגפה‬, marked by a pisqâ be-ʾemṣaʿ pāsuq, which by rights should be placed before 31:1. However, at the time of the splicing in of the interpolation the “resumptive repetition” was erroneously appended to the report of the plague (25:19, in some traditions 26:1a). For pisqâ beʾemṣaʿ pāsuq see, inter alia, Talmon, “Pisqah Beʾemṣaʿ Pasuq”; idem, “Apocryphal Psalm,” esp. 264–272. For the literary technique of “resumptive repetition,” see Wiener, Composition; Kuhl, “Wiederaufnahme”; idem, “Drei Männer,” 130; Talmon, “Synchroneity and Simultaneity.” Viz., “the next generation.” See further KAI 226:9–10, ‫שהר ונכל ונשך יהבאשו ממתתה ואחרתה תאבד‬, “may Shahar and Nikkal and Nashku make his death miserable, and his offspring shall perish”

154

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

The author of 4QCommentary on Genesis A (4Q252 4:1–3)51 correctly conceived of the terms ‫ ראשית‬and ‫ אחרית‬as pointers to two historical periods in the inimical relations of Israel and Amalek. He took ‫ ראשית‬to refer to the days of Moses, and ‫ אחרית‬to the days of Saul: ‫תמנע היתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשיו‬ ‫ותלד לו את עמלק הוא אשר הכ]ה[ שאול כאשר דבר למושה ב אחר ית הימים תמחה את‬ ‫ עמלק מתחת השמים‬52‫זכר‬, “Timnah was the concubine of Eliphaz, the son of Esau, And she bore him Amalek (Gen 36:12a), whom Saul vanquished (cf. 1 Sam 14:48; 15:3, 7);53 vacat as he said to Moses, ‘In the latter days you will wipe out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens’ (Deut 25:19).”54 29. The persuasive contextual combination or intertextual affiliation of ‫ באחרית הימים‬with references to future generations suggests that also in texts which are considered prime witnesses to its eschatological signification, the expression actually pertains to “real history.” In this respect, the ‫אחרית הימים‬ vision preserved in the books of Isaiah and Micah (Isa 2:2-4 = Mic 4:1-4) 56 takes pride of place:55 ‫והיה באחרית הימים )נכון( יהיה הר בית יהוה )נכון( בראש ההרים‬ ‫ לא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב ולא ילמדו עוד מלחמה‬... ‫ ונהרו אליו כל הגוים‬... , “In days to come the mountain of the house of YHWH shall be set over all other mountains … all nations shall come streaming to it … nation shall not lift sword against nation, nor ever again be trained for war.” Later in each prophetic book, the vision of cessation of war is transformed to that of the positive dominion of peace and linked with the birth of a child:

51 52

53

54

55

56

See Brooke, “4Q Commentary on Genesis A,” 204. As in similar contexts, ‫ זכר‬serves here as a synonym for ‫אחרית‬. See, e.g., 4Q416 2 iii 7–8: ‫ובמותך יפ]דה לעו[לם זכרכה ואחריתכה תנחל שמחה‬, “when you die your offspring will blos[som for ev]er, and your progeny will inherit joy.” Bernstein, “4Q252,” failed to recognize the historical connotation of ‫אחרית הימים‬, and had difficulties in explaining the presumably eschatological signification of the term in the context; as correctly pointed out by Ta-Shma, “Byzantine Bible Exegesis,” 251 n. 11. Biblical tradition actually offers the possibility of dating to the days of Joshua the realization of the divine declaration that Amalek will be annihilated: ‫ויאמר יהוה אל משה כתב זאת זכרון בספר‬ ‫ מלחמה ליהוה בעמלק מדר דר‬... ‫( ושים באזני יהושע כי מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק מתחת השמים‬Exod 17:14-16). It is immaterial for our present concern whether the Isaiah version was “borrowed” from Micah or vice versa, or whether both derive from a common Vorlage. The slight textual difference between the two versions does not weaken the argument.

[Type text]

The Signification of “Latter Days”

Isa 7:14, ‫הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן‬ ‫וקראת שמו עמנו אל‬

155

she will bear a son, and will call him

Mic 5:1-4, ... ‫ואתה בית לחם אפרתה‬ ‫ לכן‬... ‫ממך לי יצא להיות מושל בישראל‬ ‫ כי עתה‬... ‫ עד עת יולדה ילדה‬58‫יתנם‬ ‫ והיה זה שלום‬... ‫יגדל עד אפסי ארץ‬

Immanuel.57

But you, Bethlehem (in) Ephrathah

Isa 9:5, ‫כי ילד ילד לנו בן נתן לנו ותהי‬ ‫ שר‬... ‫ ויקרא שמו‬... ‫המשרה על שכמו‬ ‫שלום‬

… out of you shall come forth for me

For a child has been born to us, a boy

for now (then) his greatness shall

has been given to us, the symbol of

reach to the ends of the earth … and

dominion will be on his shoulder …

he shall be (a man or sign) of peace.

A young woman is with child, and

a governor of Israel …until the time that a woman in labor gives birth …

and he shall be called … Prince of Peace.

The linkage of the picture of the world at peace with motifs of birth and posterity is meant to indicate that the vision will not materialize in the days of the present generation but rather in the days to come, the days of the next or a future generation. A similar situation obtains in the Book of Hosea. The report of the prophet’s taking another wife, which ends with a mention of ‫באחרית הימים‬ (3:1-5),59 seemingly closes the preceding accounts in chapters 1 and 2 of his former marriages, and are replete with references to his offspring. These considerations tip the scales in favor of ascribing a “historical” rather than an “eschatological” connotation to the term ‫ באחרית הימים‬and synonymous idioms in the context of other prophetic pronouncements, such as Jeremiah’s prediction of the impending divine punishment which God will bring upon the wicked: ‫לא ישוב חרון אף יהוה עד עשתו ועד הקימו מזמות לבו‬ ‫( באחרית הימים תתבוננו בה‬Jer 30:23-24 = 23:19-20). The same pertains to Ezekiel’s oracles, where a similar fate is foreseen as befalling Gog of Magog and his multitude. In the description of the enemy’s advance upon the Land (of Israel), ‫ באחרית הימים‬... ‫ובאת ממקומך מירכתי צפון‬ 57

58

59

Cf. Isa 8:3, ‫ואקרב אל הנביאה ותהר ותלד בן‬, “Then I lay with the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son”; Isa 8:18, ‫הנה אנכי והילדים אשר נתן לי יהוה לאתות ולמופתים בישראל‬, “I and the sons whom YHWH has given me are to be signs and portents in Israel.” It may be possible to read ‫יתנוֹ‬. A ligature of ‫ נו‬resulted in its being misread as final mem, and doubled. The phrase ‫ לכן יתנהוֹ‬is connected to the Davidic scion from Bethlehem Ephrathah, but still remains a crux interpretum. See discussion of 3:5 above, 150.

156

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

‫( תהיה והבאותיך על ארצי‬Ezek 38:15-16), the signification of ‫ באחרית הימים‬is explained by the synonymous expressions ‫ באחרית השנים‬and ‫ מימים רבים‬in the preceding oracle: ‫מימים רבים ִת ָפּ ֵקד באחרית השנים תבוא אל ארץ משובבת מחרב‬ (38:8). Finally, in view of the Yaḥad authors’ evident linguistic and stylistic dependence on biblical literary prototypes, it cannot surprise us that an indepth analysis of the occurrences of the idiom ‫ באחרית הימים‬in their writings produced results which concur with the above-illustrated employment of the phrase in the Hebrew Bible. CONCLUSION The biblical expression ‫ אחרית הימים‬denotes an eternally yearned for historic “tomorrow,” which is forever held in abeyance and never experienced in reality. The term implicitly reveals a dissatisfaction with the present generation and an ever-recurring shift of hope to the next or a future generation, at the end of the proverbial time span of seventy years, (cf. Jer 48:47; 49:39, and Isa 23:15, 17). The term ‫ אחרית הימים‬denotes a future period in history, of peace and well-being for the god-fearing, of doom and perdition for all evildoers (Mal 3:13-24).

~8~ THE BARREN WIFE MOTIF AND ITS SPECULATIVE SIGNIFICATION* I The validity of the theses proposed in this volume1 will be tested in this chapter through the analysis of several representative biblical narratives which illustrate the meaning and the message contained in the motif of the “barren wife.” I intend to show that this motif discloses a conflict between, on the one hand, the matter-of-course transfer of possessions and power from father to firstborn son as a norm grounded in the laws of inheritance, and on the other, the concept that prominence of status in Israel ultimately derives from divine election. The automatic transfer of leadership from father to son, irrespective of the inheritor’s stature and merits, safeguards stability in the family as in the res publica. This type of governance would be favored by any political regime based on dynastic succession. In contrast, the principle of election, by its very nature, is intermittent and discontinuous, elevating personal charisma as the decisive criterion for the allocation of significant roles in the family and in society. The very same principle surfaces in the predilection shown in biblical narratives for a later- or last-born son, over and against the preference accorded to the firstborn in legal texts and customary law, which bar the father from preferring a “beloved” wife’s later-born son (Deut 21:15-17). Whereas the firstborn son, like the fruitful wife, hardly attracted the storytellers’ attention, numerous tales concerning the fate of last-born sons, like those about barren wives, are extant in biblical literature. Almost all biblical figures of renown are presented as younger or youngest sons, who in the course of their life history unfailingly surpass their older brothers. It will suffice to draw attention some of the more famous cases: Isaac–Ishmael (Genesis 15 passim; 17:15-25; Jacob–Esau (Gen 25:19-34; 27

* 1

Originally published as the latter part of “Literary Motifs and Speculative Thought in the Hebrew Bible,” Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 16 (1988), 150–168. See the introduction to this volume, pp. 3–9.

160

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

passim); Judah–Pereṣ/Zeraḥ (Genesis 38);2 Joseph/Benjamin–Reuben (Gen 49:3-4, 22-27; cf. 1 Chr 5:1-2); Ephraim–Manasseh (Gen 48:13-20);3 Moses– Aaron; Gideon (Judg 6:15); Abimelech–Jotham (Judg 9); David and his brothers (1 Sam 16:11-13; 17:12-14; cf. Mic 5:1);4 Solomon and his brothers (2 Sam 5:14). In all these instances, the legal norm is primogeniture, but narrative literature champions ultimogeniture. II The barren wife motif constitutes the core of five biblical narratives. Three revolve around the matriarchs Sarah (Gen 11:30; 16:1-2; 17:15-19; 18:9-15; 21:1-10; cf. 15:1-3), Rebecca (ibid., 25:19-26), and Rachel (ibid., 29:31; 30:1-8, 22-25).5 One pertains to the unnamed wife of the Danite Manoah (Judg 13:1-7), and the fifth revolves centers on Hannah, the Ephraimite Elkanah’s wife (1 Sam 1–2).6 In every one of these narratives the woman’s childlessness is simply recorded as a fact. No explanation of the dire circumstance is offered. There is no mention whatsoever of a transgression perpetrated by the wife or by her husband.7 Therefore, the predicament cannot be construed as retribution 2 3 4

5 6

7

For a discussion of this constellation, see: Goldin, “Youngest Son.” See, inter alia, Syrén, Forsaken First Born. The theme is fully elaborated in an extra-canonical autobiographical psalm from Qumran, attributed to the young David in gratitude for having been chosen as king of Israel: “Hallelujah of David the son of Jesse. Smaller was I than my brothers and the youngest of the sons of my father, he made me shepherd of his flock and ruler over his kids. … He (God) sent his prophet to anoint me, Samuel to make me great; My brothers went out to meet him, handsome of figure and appearance. Though they were tall of stature and handsome by their hair, ‫( שער‬rather ‫שעור‬, ‘height’, S.T.) the Lord chose them not. But he (Samuel) sent and took me from behind the flock and anointed me with holy oil, and he made me leader of his people and ruler over the sons (better: members, S.T.) of his covenant” (DJD 4:54–60). See Dresner, “Rachel and Leah.” Donaldson, “Kingship Theory.” The presumed conceptual content of the motif is not brought under consideration by Mary Callaway, Sing, or J. R. Baskin, “Rabbinic Reflections.” This characteristic feature is emphasized in Luke’s narrative of the childless couple, Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5–20), which draws heavily on the biblical barren wife traditions by way of imitative historiography. Of this couple the text says: “Both of them were upright and devout, blamelessly observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. But

[Type text]

The Barren Wife Motif

161

for an offence committed.8 Quite to the contrary, the barren wives manifestly have the sympathy of the author, and by inference, also of the audience. Indeed, on the level of cognitive abstraction, the temporarily barren wife is extolled more than “the mother of many sons” (1 Sam 2:5; cf. Isa 54:1). Therefore, traditions revolving on a barren wife cannot be fitted into the persuasive biblical scheme of sin and punishment. The accounts of the childlessness of the wives of Israelite men differ fundamentally from the report on the barrenness that afflicted the wives of the Philistine king Abimelech (Gen 20:18), as punishment for his lusting after Abraham's wife Sarah (ibid., 20:1-2). In that case, the affliction is remedied when Abimelech professes his innocence (ibid., 20:3-5) and Abraham implores God on his behalf (ibid., 20:17).9 The biblical episodes concerning barren wives are modeled upon a common “type scene,”10 composed of several components. The facets which are the more important for our present concern can be quickly summarized as follows: A married woman who was denied offspring for an extended period seeks a remedy for her plight. She prevails upon her husband to end her misery by giving her a son by way of a substitute mother (Sarah, Rachel). Alternatively, the woman (Hannah) or her husband invokes divine assistance to redress the predicament, so that she can give birth. This detail is absent from the tale of the unnamed wife of Samson’s father, Manoah. In all instances the issue is resolved by divine intervention, which in some cases is

8

9

10

they had no children, for Elizabeth was barren, and both were well on in years, etc.” See Fitzmyer, Luke, ad loc. The empathy with childless women, conspicuously displayed in biblical narratives, stands in glaring contrast to the high appreciation of “fruitfulness,” which numerous texts of formative legal literature eulogize, even prescribe (see Gen 1:28; 9:1; 48:4; Exod 1:7, 12; Lev 26:9; Jer 23:3; Ps 128:3 etc.). The theme of intercession by a divinely affirmed “Just One”—Abraham (Gen 18:17, 23-33)— on behalf of an opponent—Abimelech the Philistine (20:18)—turned friend (20:14-15), is mirrored in reverse in the Book of Job: Job, the proven “Just One” (Job 1:8,20-21), successfully intercedes with God on behalf of his former friends (ibid., 42:10; cf. 2:11-13) turned accusers (42:7-8; cf. 42:1-3). See Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 47–62, 178–189; idem, “Convention.”

162

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

mediated by a heavenly messenger (Sarah, Rebecca, Manoah’s wife).11 In each case a son is born, whose name is meant to reflect the circumstances that preceded his birth, and who as invariably is destined to greatness. Ultimately, he will assume a position of public leadership in Israelite society.12 The Ugaritic epic tradition has preserved a similar tale. The heirless King Keret invokes divine assistance to remedy his plight (CAT 1.14 II 1–5). Likewise, Danʾil, another epic hero who has no son, prostrates himself before the deity, in mourning over his bitter fate (CAT 1.17 I 1–33). The prayers of both are heard: a wife is provided for the widowed Keret, who bears him seven sons, and Danʾil’s wife becomes pregnant (cf. 1 Sam 2:5).13 I have refrained from including these Ugaritic tales in the ensuing discussion which, as has been said, is deliberately restricted to the analysis of the biblical barren wife motif.14 Moreover, the specific pattern of these tales is unique in the corpus of Ugaritic literature. They cannot be subsumed under the category of motif, since they lack the feature of recurrence, which by definition is a sine qua non for bringing home the intended message to the writer’s audience. The scenario outlined above shows that the prevalent designation of the motif under review as that of the “barren wife” is misleading. The very fact that all pertinent biblical tales culminate in the birth of a son who is destined to attain prominence in his society suggests that we are concerned with 11

12

13

14

The guiltlessness of barren wives, exemplified in the NT (see n. 7 above), is also highlighted in a midrash in which the question is raised: “Why were the matriarchs barren? R. Levi said in the name of R. Shilah (and) R. Helbo in the name of R. Johanan: ‘Because the Holy One blessed be He desires their prayers and their supplications; as it is written “Oh, my love in the depths of the rock‘ [Cant 2:14], why did I make you barren? So that you “show me your countenance, let me hear your voice”’ (Gen. Rab. 45:4, ed. Theodor–Albeck, 450). Wallis, “Theologische Bedeutung,” analyzes the theological content of the miraculous birth tradition, but does not address its sociological thrust. For a concise discussion of the above Ugaritic tales in comparison with the biblical tradition, see Parker, “Birth Announcement.” Cf. also B. Otzen, “The Promoting Mother.” If these stories can at all be subsumed under a specific literary convention, the appropriate category would be that of the “heirless man.” This convention is present in the biblical writings in the Abraham–Isaac tradition (Genesis 15), and in the notice concerning Absalom’s childlessness (2 Sam 18:18). Yet, as mentioned below, according to 2 Sam 14:27, Absalom did have children. Note also the plaint of the ‫סריס‬: “I am like a withered tree” (Isa 56:3). See discussion below, 168.

[Type text]

The Barren Wife Motif

163

a literary convention which belongs in the category of “hero tale.”15 The apparent barrenness, seemingly an incurable deficiency, turns out to be an only temporary revocation of the wife’s natural ability to procreate. Thanks to divine intervention, she ultimately conceives, and invariably gives birth to a son. From the outset, this fact of divine intervention conveys an aura of distinction upon the son. He is predestined to outshine all his older paternal siblings, born to his father by other wives, as is wont to be the case in a polygamous society. The delay of his birth is revealed as but a literary ploy intended to focus attention on the supernatural circumstances of his birth, which confer upon him the sign of divine election. This idea finds transparent expression in Gal 4:22-25: “It is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave, and one by the freeborn wife. The slave woman’s son was born in the course of nature, but the free woman’s through God’s promise.” In addition to the type-scene setting shared by the above traditions, the recording of the main events which lead up to the birth of the hero is couched in identical or very similar terminology. The most significant term, which identifies the wife’s initial deplorable situation, is ‫עקרה‬, derived from ‫עקר‬ (Gen 11:30; 25:21; 29:31; Judg 13:2-3). In the Hannah episode, this key term does not occur in the primary tale (1 Sam 1–2). Rather it is introduced in Hannah’s Song of Thanksgiving, with the transparent intention of bringing the account of Samuel’s birth into line with the tenor of the other barren wives tales, which actually serve as backdrop for the ensuing birth of a hero son. In the context of the Song, we may observe an instance of motif transfer from the anthropological to the societal level: “The barren woman [wife] has seven children, and the mother of many sons is left to languish … YHWH lifts the weak out of the dust and raises the poor from the dunghill; to give them a place among the great, to set them in seats of honor” (1 Sam 2:5-8). The passage culminates in the mention of an “anointed” (ibid., 2:10), undoubtedly a royal figure. This motif transfer echoes the closing lines of Psalm 113, in what almost amounts to a paraphrase of the parallel text in Hannah’s Song: “There is none like YHWH our God … who lifts the weak out of the dust and raises the poor from the dunghill, giving them a place … among princes of 15

This widespread type of tale has been extensively discussed. See, inter alia, Raglan, Hero; Rank, Myth.

164

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

his people; who makes the childless (wife) in the house (‫ )עקרת הבית‬a happy mother of children” (Ps 113:5-9).16 Another development of the motif occurs in Isa 54:1-3. Here the keyword ‫ עקרה‬is applied to the exiled people of Israel, depicted in their present state as a barren wife who, however, will yet be blessed with numerous and prosperous offspring: “Sing aloud, O barren one who never bore a child, break into cries of joy, you who have never been in labor; for the childless wife has more sons than she who is fecundated by her husband, says YHWH … your descendants shall inherit [the regions of] nations and repopulate cities now desolate.”17 In Hebrew, as in Aramaic, the root ‫ עקר‬connotes the permanent infertility of animals that results from castration (Gen 49:6; Josh 11:6, 9; 2 Sam 8:4 = 1 Chr 18:4); or the (permanent) uprooting of trees (Qoh 3:2; cf. Dan 4:23) and cities (Zeph 2:4). However, in reference to humans, it clearly takes on the meaning of temporary infertility of barren wives, which causes the temporary suspension of their ability to give birth (Exod 23:26; Deut 7:14; Job 24:21). The specific and intrinsic meaning of ‫ עקרה‬in this context is revealed by a close analysis of its occurrence in the Sarah episode, the most developed of the barren wife tales, which may be considered their prototype. In Sarah’s complaint, ‫ עקר‬is coterminous with ‫עצר‬: “YHWH has prevented me from giving birth,” ‫( עצרני יהוה מלדת‬Gen 16:2); it echoes the descriptive statement in the preceding verse: “Sarah, Abraham's wife, did not bear him children,” which in turn is parallel to the author’s statement “Sarah was ‫עקרה‬, she had no child” (Gen 11:30). In the Hannah episode, the author explains the childlessness of Elkanah’s wife as resulting from the fact that “God had closed up her womb” (1 Sam 1:6). In this statement, ‫ סגר‬evidently expresses the same notion which in the Sarah tale is conferred by ‫( עצר‬cf. Prov 30:16). A textual synopsis shows ‫עקר‬ to parallel ‫עצר‬, and both to be coterminous with ‫סגר‬. The notion expressed

16

17

The intertextual comparison leaves no doubt that here ‫ עקרת הבית‬connotes the previously “barren” wife who ultimately rejoices over the sons she has borne. It is certainly of import that in a parallel depiction of Tyre as a permanently childless woman, the crucial term ‫ עקרה‬is missing: “Be in anguish, O Sidon; you … the sea-fortress, cries out: ‘I have not been in labor and have not given birth, I have not reared sons or brought up daughters’” (Isa 23:4).

[Type text]

The Barren Wife Motif

165

by all three terms, viz. that a woman’s womb was “closed up,” actually foreshadows future developments: the pitiable situation will be remedied without fail by divine intervention. The capability to give birth will be restored to the woman when God “opens up her womb,” ‫ויפתח את רחמה‬ (Gen 30:22) and lets her become pregnant, ‫( ותהר‬Gen 21:2; 25:21; 30:23; Judg 13:3, 5, 7; 1 Sam 1:20) and give birth to a son, ‫( ותלד בן‬Gen 21:2; 25:24-26; 30:23; Judg 13:3, 5, 7, 24; 1 Sam 1:20; cf. Isa 66:9). This condensed survey of the predominant terms which characterize the barren wife motif demonstrates that ‫ עקרה‬is the keyword in the tales. In this context, the term never signifies irremediable unproductiveness, but, to the contrary, invariably foreshadows the ensuing announcement of the birth of a son who is predestined to become a leader of his people. This conclusion can be supported by considering the terminology employed in biblical traditions which contend with the predicament of childlessness, yet do not exhibit the specific characteristics of the barren wife motif under review. Consider first the well-known episode concerning “the great lady of Shunem” and the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs 4:8-37). The story indeed exhibits the trappings and trimmings of an “annunciation” plot, but does not display the signifier ‫ עקר‬of the barren wife” motif. The Shunammite had set aside a room in the attic of her house in which the prophet Elisha could rest whenever he passed through the city. Upon his question as to whether he could repay her for her kindness by interceding on her behalf with the authorities, she proudly refuses to ask him for favors: “I am content where I am …” (ibid., 4:13). However, the prophet’s servant Gehazi informs his master that the woman “has no child and her husband is old” (ibid., 4:14; cf. the Sarah and Abraham episode, Gen 18:11-12), evidently implying that if the prophet would bring into play his miracle-working faculties (cf. ibid., 2:19–4:7), he could alleviate her sorrowful situation. Thereupon, Elisha assures the woman: “In due season, this time next year, you shall hold a son in your arms” (ibid., 4:16). In practically the same words, both the divine messenger and God himself announce to Abraham that Sarah will bear a child: “In due season … about this time next year, (and) Sarah shall have a son” (Gen 18:10, 14). In each of these instances, the childless woman expresses doubts that such a miracle could indeed happen, and refuses to rely upon what appears to be an unredeemable promise (compare 2 Kgs 4:16 with Gen 18:12-15).

166

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Nevertheless, at the appointed time, like Sarah the Shunammite gives birth to a son. These events, too, are described in identical wording: “Next year in due season, the woman conceived and bore a son, as Elisha had foretold unto her” (2 Kgs 4:17) and “God showed favor to Sarah as he had promised. Sarah conceived and bore a son … at the time which God had appointed” (Gen 21:1-2). But here the similarity ends. The Shunammite and her son are blessed with another wondrous experience. The child suddenly dies and is miraculously revived by the prophet (2 Kgs 4:18-35). However, even this doubling of miracles in no way confers a special status on him. He will exit the stage unnamed and unsung. All we are told is that after he has been restored to life, the mother “took her son and went out” of the prophet’s chamber (2 Kgs 4:37). The child’s wondrous birth and his equally miraculous rebirth are on record. His life and death remain unrecorded, because they affected only his immediate family and were of no consequence to Israel’s history. This fundamental distinction between the episode of the Shunammite and the barren wife traditions is highlighted by the fact that the biblical author refrains from using in his tale even one of the pivotal terms which characterize that motif: (‫עקר)ה‬, ‫עצר‬, (‫פתח )רחם‬/‫סגר‬. This specific terminology is also conspicuously absent from traditions pertaining to a wife (or for that matter a husband, as we shall presently demonstrate) whose infertility indeed was permanent. A case in point is the curt statement concerning King Saul’s daughter Michal, who became David’s wife: “Michal, Saul’s daughter, had no child to her dying day” (2 Sam 6:23). The Michal tradition is the very antithesis of the ‫ עקרה‬motif, which without fail culminates in the birth of a hero son, destined to achieve fame and glory. The diametrical opposition to the ‫ עקרה‬motif is more evident in the Michal episode than in the tale of the Shunammite, with which it shares the total absence of the key terms (‫עקר)ה‬, ‫עצר‬, ‫סגר רחם‬. The Shunnamite eventually does give birth to a son, albeit a son of no account. The polarity of the “birth motif” and the “sterility tale” is especially accentuated in the story of King Saul’s daughter. In Michal’s case, infertility is not only a purely personal, tragic fate. Rather, it spells the extinction of Saul’s family and royal line. Even by becoming the wife of David, the popular champion who vies with her father over the kingship of Israel, Michal is not granted the possibility of assuring her father’s house of

[Type text]

The Barren Wife Motif

167

dynastic continuity. Her inability to produce a son, let alone a son of distinction, effectively puts an end to the status of prominence which her family had gained through Saul’s election as king over Israel. Concomitantly, it paves the way for the ascendancy of David and his line, in which the house of Saul will have no part for ever. The author or redactor of the Michal story was not content with communicating these thoughts to his audience implicitly, by means of literary tropes which enclose Michal’s dialogue with David (2 Sam 6:20-22): Her undue disdain for David (6:16, 20) is (by implication) the cause of her infertility (6:23). The author makes sure to drive the point home through verbalizing these thoughts, by having David retort to Michal’s mockery of his ecstatic dancing: “Before YHWH (I danced), who chose me instead of your father and his entire house and appointed me prince, ‫נגיד‬, over Israel, the people of YHWH; before YHWH I gambole(d)” (6:21). This note is appended to the report of David’s bringing up the Ark to its appointed resting place in Jerusalem, when he “danced without restraint before God” (ibid., 6:14). We are told, that, looking out of her window, “Michal … saw King David leaping and capering before YHWH, and she despised him in her heart” (ibid., 6:16). While the text is not explicit on the matter, this reference can be construed as an obvious intention on the part of the author (compiler or redactor) to present Michal’s childlessness as a divine punishment, which she incurred for her contempt of David’s inspired capering. Michal’s infertility contrasts sharply with the quite different understanding of this physical disorder in the barren wife narratives. This episode must therefore be subsumed under a different literary convention, if such a convention operates here at all. This conclusion is further substantiated by a consideration of the vocabulary which defines Michal’s sterility. The description of her condition—“Michal, Saul’s daughter, had no child,” ‫( לא היה לה ילד‬ibid., 6:23)—is a unique echo or take-off on the phrase ‫ אין לה ולד‬which describes Sarah’s childlessness (Gen 11:30). However, whereas the permanence of Michal’s barrenness is emphasized by the added comment “to her dying day,” the temporary nature of Sarah’s affliction is underlined by the prefixed explanatory comment, ‫ותהי שרי עקרה‬. The presence of the keyword ‫ עקרה‬in this terse proleptic statement (Gen 11:30) sets the tone for the ensuing extensive and detailed Sarah–Abraham account (ibid., 16:1–18:15; 21:1-7), thus linking this

168

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

tale firmly with the barren wife motif. In contradistinction, in the Michal episode, the added phrase “to her dying day” emphatically divorces her story from that motif, as does the manifest absence of the keywords of the barren wife motif, ‫עקרה‬, ‫עצר‬, and ‫סגר רחם‬. The cluster of signifiers in the Michal episode brings her case in line with other biblical references to a childless parent. Absalom’s plaint: “I have no son to carry on my name,”18 is a case in point. It echoes Abraham’s recriminating speech against God, who had promised to give him “a very great reward”: “What can you give me? I am childless … You have given me no children, so that a slave born in my house will be my heir” (Gen 15:2-3). The very same theme underlies a passage in the Book of Isaiah in which the lament of a ‫ סריס‬is quoted, to whit: “I am like a withered tree.” This image must be interpreted in the light of the preceding expression of dejectedness, voiced by the God-fearing ‫בן הנכר‬: “YHWH has verily segregated me [or rather: cut me off] from his people” (Isa 56:3). Whatever the exact connotations of the Hebrew terms ‫ בן הנכר‬and ‫ סריס‬may be,19 in the context under review they designate individuals whose name and family, like Absalom’s, are in danger of being cut off. Absalom sets up for himself in the King’s Vale a pillar which “he named after himself,” and which “to this day is called Absalom’s Monument” (2 Sam 18:18). Similarly, God promises the ‫ סריסים‬to give them in his “house and walls [viz. in the Temple] a named pillar, ‫יד ושם‬,20 which will be better than sons and daughters … an everlasting name which will never be cut off” (Isa 56:5). Absalom and the ‫ סריסים‬could conceive of makeshift substitutes for a son to preserve their names. However, childless women, like Michal, evidently were denied such vicarious and ultimately unsatisfactory alternatives.

18

19

20

This notice contradicts the statements that “three [unnamed] sons were born to Absalom” (2 Sam 14:27) and a daughter Tamar (according to 2 Sam 14:27) Maachah (according to 2 Chr 11:20-21). The disparate reports cannot be reconciled and surely derive from independent traditions. The prevalent renditions of ‫ בן נכר‬as “foreigner,” and of ‫ סריס‬as “eunuch,” can be defended on etymological and semantic grounds. But they fail to do justice to the specific connotation with which they are used here. For the interpretation of this term, see S. Talmon, “‫יד ושם‬,” below, 211–233.

[Type text]

The Barren Wife Motif

169

III We can now try to sketch the conceptual essence of the barren wife motif and extract from it its polemical message. I propose that the traditions in which this motif manifestly is the point d’appui, and which consistently culminate in the birth of a son of renown, must be evaluated in the context of an ideological issue that in premonarchic Israel evidently was very much on the minds of authors and their audiences alike. It amounts to a recurrent penchant for leaders who have upon them the mark of divine election, over and against a leadership rooted in hereditary succession. This ideology gives preference to “personal charisma” over “institutional charisma.”21 Authority invested in inspired individuals, intermittent as it may be, is presented as being superior to power automatically transmitted from father to son, irrespective of the latter’s qualifications, even though the latter model offers a desirable continuity in family life and public affairs. The issue was obviously hotly debated in biblical times, especially in the period of the Judges or Saviors, after Israel had taken root in the Land of Canaan. The discord between the champions of leadership based on divine election, which by definition is intermittent, and the proponents of a continuously functioning system of government, in this instance a monarchy, surfaces in several biblical key texts. The preference for divine election underlay Gideon’s refusal to initiate a hereditary regime (Judg 8:22-23). It is at the background of Jotham’s Fable, in which Abimelech’s kingship is held up for ridicule (ibid., 9:7-15). The desire for hereditary continuity motivated the demand for the introduction of the monarchical regime which the representatives of the people are reported to have insistently put before Samuel (1 Sam 8:4-22; 10:1-27; 12:1-5). Over the course of biblical history, the dynastic system gained the upper hand. The introduction of the monarchy in Samuel’s days, with the appointment of Saul as king over Israel, tipped the scales in favor of a regime based on the transfer of authority in orderly succession from the ruling king to one of his sons. While the biblical sources are not explicit on the matter, it may safely be presumed that ultimately the custom of primogeniture prevailed.

21

Max Weber introduced these terms into the description of the biblical society as designations of two contrastive types of public leaders. See Weber, Ancient Judaism.

170

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

It appears that the voices of those who still preferred to see divinely appointed men as leaders of the nation were effectively silenced. Alternatively, it could be that the idea of dynastic rule, established by King David’s successors, also became the favored model of the erstwhile champions of national leadership springing from personal charisma. The biblical accounts make manifest that this indeed was the communis opinio in the Southern Kingdom. There, a single dynasty ruled continuously for close to half a millennium, from David’s days (ca. 1,000 BCE) to the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.22 Davidic loyalists sought to give the de facto situation a de jure underpinning, which permanently riveted divine election to the Davidic house, viz., to an institution. This fusion of contradictory concepts is epitomized in the speech of the court prophet Nathan (2 Sam 7). In this royalist manifesto, the factual rule of the Davidic dynasty is given an ideational underpinning, which foreshadows the crystallization of the messianic concept, the fervently expected rise of an ideal “shoot out of Jesse's stock” (Isa 11:1). In contradistinction, such an idealization of the monarchy seemingly did not develop in the Northern Kingdom. There, leadership springing from personal rather than from institutional charisma appears to have encountered less opposition. This could explain the survival of a watered down version of the barren wife motif in the Shunammite episode, which is firmly set in a North Israelite context. Whatever may have been the case, the idea of individual election, symbolized in the miraculous birth of a son to a barren wife, ultimately lost out to the preferred system of dynastic kingship which derives its authority from institutional charisma. In view of this development, it should cause no surprise that all biblical traditions in which the motif of the barren wife plays a prominent role are set in the premonarchic era, the days of the Patriarchs and the Judges. The latest, the Hannah–Samuel episode, actually straddles the dividing line between the age of inspired sporadic Judges-Saviors, the ‫שופטים‬, and the institutionalized continual dynastic monarchy.

22

Court intrigues indeed brought in their wake temporary disruptions of the Davidic line, but these did not have a lasting effect on the fate of that dynasty.

~9~ PROPHETIC RHETORIC AND AGRICULTURAL METAPHORA* I Biblical writers, in particular authors of prophetic oracles and visions, often have recourse to motifs, patterns, and parables derived from experiences in which they and their audience share, thus clothing their messages in wordings which confer easily understood visual impressions.1 Such imagery is especially prominent in prophetic pronouncements that foreshadow historical events. This use of realia in metaphors may be seen in the Hebrew Bible in a great variety of applications. Authors will draw upon familiar socio-political experiences, such as war and peace, and on others rooted in traditional occupations, such as viticulture (Isa 5:1-6, cf. 16:6-12; Jer 2:21 etc.) and shepherding (e.g., Jer 23:1-8; Ezekiel 34), which shaped the everyday life of their audiences. At times, the elucidation of literary patterns and imagery can provide added information on aspects of the biblical society of which descriptive and prescriptive scriptural texts give only a partial picture.2 I propose to illustrate this well-known literary strategy by bringing under scrutiny some biblical prophecies that portray divinely ordained events in terms which in essence pertain to the domain of agriculture. Biblical authors are wont to present the immutable march of history in images and terminology derived from the perennial revolution of the annual cycle of seasons in nature, which was considered the basis of the covenant that God established with humankind after the flood: ‫זרע וקציר וקר וחם וקיץ וחרף ויום ולילה לא ישבתו‬ (Gen 8:22, see below).3 Some preliminary observations concerning the annual cycle of the agricultural seasons in ancient Israel are in order, before we come to discuss in more detail several texts in prophetic literature which illustrate the use of * 1

2

3

Originally published in Storia e traditioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin, ed. D. Garrone and F. Israel (Brescia: Paideia, 1991), 267–279. These “literary tropes and rhetorical figures … are not just embellishments but rather mediums of persuasion” (Exum, “Broken Pots,” 331). The literary investigation thus can supplement information which derives from other sources. See Healey, “Ancient Agriculture” and relevant literature cited there. The matter undoubtedly requires a much fuller treatment. In the present context it can be illustrated by only a few examples.

172

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

agrarian metaphors in the portrayal of the divinely determined progress of historical events. Valuable information on the annual cycle of husbandry is supplied by the Gezer Calendar (10th century BCE), which is, in fact, a comprehensive roster of technical designations of the major agricultural seasons. While the original purpose of the tablet cannot be unequivocally established, it is best viewed as a condensed hand-list which a (Canaanite or Israelite) farmer had drawn up as guideline in the planning of his activities, or as an aide-mémoire for paying his annual taxes in their due course.4 There is no need to describe the well-known Gezer Calendar in detail. The importance of that tablet for our present purpose lies in the fact that the list of eight consecutive agricultural seasons, namely ‫אסף‬, ‫זרע‬, ‫לקש‬, ‫עצד פשת‬, ‫קצר שערם‬, ‫קצר וכל‬, ‫זמר‬, ‫קץ‬,5 conveys the persuasive notion of a firmly established progression of the seasons in nature. The Gezer Calendar begins with a harvest period. In biblical literature similar lists often also open with the mention of a harvest season. But whereas the Gezer Calendar records first ‫אסף‬, the “gathering of sundry fruits,” at the end of the summer before the beginning of the rainy season, in the Bible such enumerations are mostly headed by ‫קציר‬, the harvest of grain crops in the spring and early summer, after the rains have ceased.6 Biblical Hebrew denotes the diverse phases of the agricultural year by various designations. A season may be alluded to by the name of its most prominent crop, e.g., ‫( ענבים‬Neh 13:15), ‫( קיץ‬Jer 40:10,12; Mic 7:1), ‫( שמן‬Jer 40:10), or by the appellation of the producer of that crop, e.g., ‫כרמים‬, ‫תאנים‬, ‫( זיתים‬cf. Amos 4:9); ‫גפן‬, ‫תאנה‬, ‫רימון‬, ‫( עץ הזית‬Hag 2:19). At times, the mention of an agricultural implement reveals a reference to a specific season: ‫( מגל‬Jer 50:16; Joel 4:13) or ‫( חרמש‬Deut 16:9; 23:26), ‫מזמרה‬ (Isa 2:4 = Mic 4:3, cf. Joel 4:10; Isa 18:5), ‫ את‬and ‫( מחרשה‬1 Sam 13:20-21; Isa 2:4 = Mic 4:3 cf. Joel 4:10). Or alternatively, the seasons may be designated by nomina which reflect the farmer’s most important activity during the

4 5

6

See Talmon, “Gezer Calendar.” In the present context we are not concerned with the question of the meaning of the terms ‫ ירח‬and ‫ ירחו‬which in the Gezer Calendar severally define the time span of four seasons. The prevalent view that ‫ ירח‬stands for a one-month period, whereas ‫ ירחו‬denotes a twomonth season, is highly plausible. The divergent arrangements may reflect a different calculation of the onset of the New Year as in either Tishre or Nisan, respectively.

[Type text]

Prophetic Rhetoric and Agricultural Metaphora

173

period specified: e.g., ‫( חריש‬Gen 45:6; Exod 34:21; 1 Sam 8:12), ‫( זרע‬Gen 8:22; Lev 26:5), ‫( דיש‬Lev 26:5), ‫( בציר‬Lev 26:5; Isa 24:13; 32:10; Jer 48:32). II We can now turn to an analysis of the metaphorical employment of agricultural terminology in biblical literature, foremost as it occurs in prophetic pronouncements concerning Israel’s historical fortunes or misfortunes, and at times also in reference to the historical fate of other nations.7 1. The short pericope Isaiah 27:7-11 can serve as an example of this literary practice which also makes ample use of double entendre. The prophet speaks of a calamity that will culminate in the deportation of Israel. Adding a consolatory note, he foresees a future ingathering of the dispersed from Assyria and Egypt (vv. 12-13). While the two parts of the oracle have each a different thrust, they are intrinsically coherent, interlocked in an ideational development from punishment to restitution. The integrity of the oracle is underscored by the use in both parts of a cluster of terms which essentially mirror a series of consecutive agricultural activities. But here they symbolize diverse phases in the historical fate of the people of Israel, metaphorically presented as God’s harvest (cf. 27:6; Jer 2:3; NEB: bough). The punishment is seen as “the death of the people,” and is expressed in words which originally pertain to the drying up of crops, ‫( ביבֹש קצירה‬v. 11). The prediction of future redemption foresees the “ingathering” of the exiles, one by one: ‫תלקטו לאחד אחד‬ ֻ ‫( ואתם‬v. 12b), and the “threshing” of the enemies who exiled Israel, “from the eddies (cf. Judg 12:6; Ps 69:3, 16) of the (Euphrates) river to the brook of Egypt,” ‫יחבֹט יהוה משבֹלת הנהר עד נחל מצרים‬ (v. 12a), viz., from Mesopotamia to Egypt. The terms which describe the progression of these events evoke the image of a succession of circumstances and activities which farmers experience at all times: failure of the grain crop, ‫ביבֹש קצירה‬, causes that bread, ‫( שבר‬cf. Gen 42:1, 2, 19, 26; 43:2, 22; Amos 8:5), to which ‫( תשברנה‬v. 11) alludes, to be sparse (cf. Ezek 4:16 and esp. Lev 26:26: ‫)בשברי לכם מטה לחם‬. The text hints at the threshing, ‫( יחבֹט‬Isa 27:12; cf. e.g., Judg 6:11; Isa 28:27; see also below) of the cut grain stalks, ‫( שבלת‬Gen 41 passim; Isa 17:5), and the laborious gathering, ‫לקט‬, of the sheaves one by one (Isa 17:5; Ruth 2 passim, etc.). The felicitous utilization 7

The issue merits a fuller investigation than can be presented here.

174

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

of the twofold meaning of the vocables ‫“ יבש‬dry up/perish,” ‫“ קציר‬harvest/ treasure,” ‫“ שבר‬break/bread,” ‫“ חבט‬thresh/thrash,” ‫שבלת‬, “sheaf/ eddy,” ‫לקט‬ “glean/ingather,” greatly enhances the poetic quality of this pericope. 2. In the “Parable of the Farmer” (Isa 28:23-29)8 a plethora of technical verbs and nouns serve as identifiers of various farming pursuits. This concise discourse is meant to give tangibility to the idea that God’s acts in history are consistent and occur in a logical sequence. Concentrating his attention on the horticultural activities of plowing, sowing, and threshing (there is no direct mention of harvesting), the author concretizes the abstract concept of a logical and consistent flow of history by presenting in persuasive detail a vignette-like portrayal of a farmer’s equally logical and consistent procedures in raising his diverse crops.9 The various stages of preparing the soil for sowing are itemized; and not less than five—or possibly seven10—grain crops are enumerated, which must be sown in a definite sequence, each in a specified manner. Then the particular methods applied in the threshing of the diverse crops are detailed. Three or four technical terms are used in the descriptions of each of the three activities: soil preparation: ‫חרש‬, ‫פתח‬, ‫;שדד‬ sowing: ‫הפיץ‬, ‫זרק‬, ‫זרע‬,11 ‫ ;שם‬threshing: ‫דוש‬, ‫סבב אופן עגלה‬, ‫חבט‬, ‫דקק‬. In this instance, the metaphorical application of the agricultural vocabulary to Israel’s historical circumstances with Assyria,12 and the lesson to be learned from the farmer’s actions, is made explicit by the explanatory remark which caps the passage: “This message, too, comes from the Lord of Hosts, whose 8

9

10

11

12

Commentators have given much attention to this parable. It must suffice to mention here the commentaries of Wildberger (Wildberger, Isaiah); Kaiser (Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39) and Irwin (Irwin, Isaiah 28–33, 38–43). See further Guthe, “Egge und Furchen”; Liebreich, “Parable”; Good, Irony, 126–27; Jensen, “Weal and Woe,” 174–175; Exum, “Whom Will He Teach Knowledge?” 129–139. The itemization in this passage surpasses the intricacy of the portrayal in Isa 5:1-7 of the attention which a vine-grower gives to his vineyard. The difficult ‫שׂוֹרה‬ ָ is often considered a defectively written doublet of ‫שעורה‬, and ‫ נסמן‬of ‫( ֻכסמת‬28:25). The balanced structure of four verbs, which defines each phase of the farmer’s procedure, requires the retention of ‫( לזר ֹע‬contra Wildberger, Isaiah, 3:49: “‫ … לזר ֹע‬is treated as a gloss by virtually everyone”; cf. Amsler and Mury, “Yahweh et la sagesse du paysan,” 1–5). See Liebreich, “Parable”; Exum, “Whom Will He Teach Knowledge?”; contra Jackson, “Style,” 87 n. 24, who opines that “the ‘farmer’s parable’ … is not part of the basic structure of this chapter”; cf. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 258–259; Whedbee, Isaiah and Wisdom, 51–68; etc.

[Type text]

Prophetic Rhetoric and Agricultural Metaphora

175

purposes are wonderful, and his powers great” (28:29). 3. The prophet Amos reminds his audience in a hortatory oracle of the desolation which an invasion of locusts had brought upon the land (Amos 4:9). He enumerates the four major sources of produce which had been most severely affected: ‫גנות‬, ‫כרמים‬, ‫תאנים‬, and ‫זיתים‬. This short list, set in a prophetic context, brings to mind the fuller roster of the Gezer Calendar since, as has been said, these terms can serve as designations of agricultural, especially harvest, seasons, or as allusions to them. It stands to reason that in combination with ‫ כרמים‬and ‫גנות‬, ‫ זיתים‬equals ‫שדות‬, which for its part is recurrently conjoined with ‫ כרמים‬and ‫( זיתים‬1 Sam 8:14; cf. 2 Kgs 19:29 = Isa 37:30; Jer 39:10, ‫כרמים‬ ‫ויגבים‬, etc.) and with ‫( תאנים‬2 Kgs 18:31-32 = Isa 36:16-17). Equally, the reference to the threatened produce indicates that the tetrad ‫גנות‬, ‫כרמים‬, ‫תאנים‬, and ‫זיתים‬13 parallels the standard string of four harvest seasons: ‫קציר‬, ‫בציר‬, ‫קיץ‬, and ‫מסיק‬. 4. The post-exilic prophet Haggai similarly refers to the failure of crops, which manifests the returning exiles’ adverse historical circumstances by enumerating the successive agricultural seasons in an almost identical fashion. However, he enlarges the roster by prefacing it with a reference to sowing (cf. above: Isa 28:23-29), and by introducing the pomegranate as an additional fruit crop: ‫( העוד הזרע במגורה ועד הגפן והתאנה והרמון ועץ הזית לא נשא‬Hag 2:19). 5. Analogous imagery is used in the portrayal of the destruction which God will bring upon the Northern Kingdom and upon Damascus (Isa 17:1-2), evidently in punishment for their attempted attack on Judah in the days of Ahaz (Isaiah 7). In this instance three successive agricultural seasons are expressly mentioned or alluded to in their proper sequence, viz., the harvests of grain—‫קציר‬, grapes—‫עולֹלת‬, and olives—‫( זית‬17:4-6). 6. The succession of these seasons, determined for eternity, symbolizes the immutable march of events which culminates in the punishment of Israel’s enemies in history. This is exemplified by the oracle against a foreign nation that cannot be unequivocally identified (Isa 18:4-6). The punishment will come upon this enemy, ‫( ארץ צלצל כנפים‬Isa 18:1), with as much certainty as the seasons follow one upon the other. Therefore God can “look quietly down”

13

Cf. 1 Sam 8:14, ‫זיתים‬, ‫כרמים‬, ‫שדות‬, where ‫ תאנים‬are not mentioned. In Amos 9:14, ‫ כרמים‬and ‫ יינם‬parallel ‫ גנות‬and ‫ ;פריהם‬in Isa 61:11, ‫ גנה‬parallels ‫ארץ‬.

176

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

(v. 4) from his celestial abode to observe the unfolding of this punishment.14 The author of the oracle uses terms which reflect the progress of the annual cycle: from the spring season, ‫( אור‬cf. ‫אב‬, Job 8:12; Cant 6:11), possibly a reference to the grass crop which served as green fodder at the end of the rainy period;15 to the late stage of the growth of grain, ‫כתם פרח‬16 before the harvest, ‫לפני קציר‬. He alludes to the ripening of the grapes before they are picked, ‫( ובסר גמל יהיה נצה‬Isa 18:5; cf. Jer 31:28-29; Ezek 18:2; Job 15:33). Then “the [dead] branches of the vines are cut off and cleared away,” ‫וכרת הזלזלים‬ ‫במזמרות‬, in this fixed order (see below): ‫וקץ עליו העיט וכל בהמת הארץ עליו תחרף‬ (Isa 18:6).17 It is appropriate to give some thought to the term ‫ צח‬which is used in that parable and which some scholars have interpreted as an ancient Canaanite month name.18 This interpretation rests on the discovery of a fragmentary jar-stamp at Arad (dated to the 7th century BCE), which, pace Y. Aharoni, bears the inscription: ‫בשלשת ירח צח‬, “on the third [day] of the month ‫צח‬.”19 The reading ‫ בשלשת בירח‬is either debated20 or altogether rejected by some scholars.21 Others, among them J.A. Soggin,22 concur with Aharoni and attempt to integrate the month name ‫ צח‬into the known ancient Hebrew– Phoenician calendrical nomenclature.23 While the inter-pretation of ‫ צח‬remains under debate, the “Farmer’s Parable” proves that the term indeed belongs with ancient Canaanite agricultural vocabulary, where it designated the hot summer season or summer months of the grain harvest. The succession of terms, ‫צח‬, ‫קציר‬, ‫פרח‬, ‫בסר‬, ‫נצה‬, ‫זלזלים‬, ‫מזמרות‬, ‫נטישות‬, in this order, and the ensuing allusions to ‫ קיץ‬and ‫ח)ו(רף‬, capture the stable progression of the agricultural seasons, bringing into full light the lesson which the “Farmer’s 14 15

16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23

For ‫ כחם צח‬see Talmon, “‫צח‬.” At the same time this is may be a reference to the grass crop, which served as green fodder for cattle at the end of the rainy period (cf. Ps 72:16). See Talmon, “Gezer Calendar.” For the parallelism ‫ פרח‬// ‫ נצץ‬cf. Ps 92:8. For the parallelism ‫ אצמיח‬// ‫יציץ‬, see also Ps 132:17-18. The derivation of the denominative verbs ‫ קץ‬from ‫ קיץ‬and ‫ חרף‬from ‫ חורף‬once again suggests a double entendre which plays on ‫קץ‬,ֻ “despise/disdain” and ‫חרף‬, “put to shame.” See Talmon, “Gezer Calendar.” Aharoni, “Hebrew Ostraca from Arad”; idem, Arad Inscriptions. See: Weippert, “Jahresbericht,” 583; Naveh, “Inscriptions ,” 72; Teixidor, “Bulletin,” 170. Lemaire, “ṣḥ.” Soggin, “Altkanaanäischen Monat.“ See Koffmahn, “Altisraelitischen Monatsbezeichnungen.“

[Type text]

Prophetic Rhetoric and Agricultural Metaphora

177

Parable” is meant to teach: thus will unfold the divinely determined progress of history. Even when only two or three seasons are mentioned on the metaphorical level, their proper sequence in nature is maintained. The fixed succession of the seasons is shown in legal literature. Precepts which pertain to the sowing of the fields and the grain harvests in the spring and early summer regularly precede instructions concerning the cultivation of vineyards (Lev 25:3-4) and the gathering of grapes and other fruits before the onset of the rainy season (ibid., 25:5; cf. 19:9-10). This arrangement can be observed also in prophetic texts. Here are some examples: 7. In response to Hezekiah’s prayer for assistance against Sennacherib’s invading armies, Isaiah brings him a divine word: God had planned Assyria’s downfall in days gone by (Isa 37:26-29 = 2 Kgs 19:25-28); Sennacherib’s plans will come to naught (Isa 37:33-35 = 2 Kgs 19:32-34). The prophet then gives Hezekiah a sign that “the survivors left in Judah shall strike fresh root under ground and yield fruit above ground” (Isa 37:31 = 2 Kgs 19:30), and that he and Israel will see a brighter future: “This year you shall eat shed grain and in the second year what is self-sown; but in the third year sow and reap, plant vineyards and eat their fruit” (Isa 37:30 = 2 Kgs 19:29). 8. The immutable succession of these two harvest seasons symbolizes the confident expectation of a future world at peace. This is usually seen as a promise that is to be realized in eschatological times, mirrored in the famous vision of ‫אחרית הימים‬, preserved in the book of Isaiah (2:2-4) and, with a significant addition, also found in the book of his contemporary, the prophet Micah (4:1-5). In this instance, the metaphorical usage is not based on the designations of the seasons or their produce. Rather it derives from imagery connected with the special implements which are used severally in the cultivation of fields and vineyards: ‫וכתתו חרבותם לאתים וחניתותיהם למזמרות‬ (Isa 2:4; cf. Mic 4:3). 9. The vision of a future time of universal peace is reflected in the continuation of this passage in Mic 4:4. There the added mention of “vine” and “fig tree,” with the implied reference to the immutable succession of grape (harvest) and fig (gathering), gives expression to the unshakable confidence in the realization of that divinely promised serene age: ‫וישבו איש‬ ‫תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו ואין מחריד‬, “and each man shall dwell under his vine and

178

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

under his fig tree unafraid” (cf. 1 Kgs 5:5; 2 Kgs 18:31 = Isa 36:16; Zech 3:10). Similarly, the contrasting announcement of the punishment which Israel is destined to incur for its transgressions is metaphorically clothed in the picture of a host of locusts which brings devastations upon the people’s “vines and fig trees”: ‫( שם גפני לשמה ותאנתי לקצפה‬Joel 1:7; cf. Ps 105:33-34 and Jer 5:17). 10. The same sequence is maintained in Joel 4:10. There the utopian thrust of that vision is applied in reverse, in a portrayal of the future divine judgment: ‫כתו אתיכם לחרבות ומזמרתיכם לרמחים‬. The idea is echoed in an additional agrarian metaphor: “Ply the sickle for the harvest is ripe; come, tread the grapes, for the press is full and the vats overflow,” ‫שלחו מגל כי בשל‬ ‫( קציר באו רדו כי מלאה גת השיקו היקבים‬Joel 4:13). 11. Disappointment over a long period of unfulfilled hopes can find expression in rhetorical figures rooted in the annual cycle of seasons, which extends from the grain harvest to the gathering of summer fruit crops, especially figs which ripen late in the year: ‫עבר קציר כלה קיץ ואנחנו לוא נושענו‬, “Harvest is past, the season of gathering figs is over, and we are not saved” (Jer 8:20). The realism of this trope can be appreciated by comparing it with Nehemiah’s complaint that he saw “men in Judah treading winepresses on the Sabbath, collecting quantities of produce, ‫ערמות‬, and piling it on asses, and also wine, grapes and figs, and every kind of load, which they bring into Jerusalem on the Sabbath” (Neh 13:15). Bearing in mind the persuasive stability of the enumeration order of diverse agricultural products, it is preferable to render here ‫ ערמות‬specifically “heaps of grain” (cf. Hag 2:16; Ruth 3:7; Cant 7:3; 2 Chr 31:6-9), rather than the more loose “quantities of produce” (NEB). Thus, the proper sequence, grain—grapes—figs, is restored. III The terminology which reflects the natural succession of the annual seasons is not applied mechanically to the ideational concept of the immutable march of divinely decreed events in history. Rather, it involves adjustments of the basic vocabulary to the new metaphorical setting. It is in the nature of the matter that an author will occasionally depart from the original order of the seasonal cycle from which he derives his literary imagery, invoking poetic license, as it were. But in some instances the departure from the established pattern appears to be deliberate and therefore is of greater

[Type text]

Prophetic Rhetoric and Agricultural Metaphora

179

import. It seemingly discloses an author’s intention to alert his audience to a specific point which he wishes to make by deviating from the customary (and therefore expected) pattern. At times, the discernment of such a transposition in the sequence of seasons in the annual cycle can reveal the underlying specific message which the author means to convey to his audience. The following examples will illustrate this phenomenon: 12. As said above, the customary sequence of the calendrical terms ‫קיץ‬ and ‫( חורף‬A/B), which denote the two major divisions of the year, illustrates the stability and propriety of the cosmic order which God established after the Flood, in the recreated universe: ‫זרע וקציר וקר וחם וקיץ וחרף ויום ולילה לא ישבתו‬ (Gen 8:22).24 This sequence is maintained in Ps 74:16-17 in a compressed quote which clearly echoes that text: “The day is thine, and the night is thine also … summer and winter (‫ )קיץ וחרף‬thou didst create them both.” Equally, a promise for a new creation in future times in Zech 14:825 is couched in terms which reflect the fundamental Genesis passage: “living water shall issue from Jerusalem … in summer and winter (‫ )בקיץ ובחרף‬alike.”26 13. The same pair of terms is mentioned in a B/A pattern, viz., in reverse, in Amos 3:15: “I will break down both winter house and summer house,” ‫והכיתי בית החרף על בית הקיץ‬. It may be presumed that by inverting the original sequence of the components, the author intended to signify that the Ephraimites’ sins had caused a reversal of the divine order, and to threaten that in punishment for that violation they are doomed. 14. This signification appears to be reflected again in the inverted sequence of the terms in Prov 20:4, where, however, ‫קציר‬, “(grain) harvest,” substitutes for ‫קיץ‬.27 The above-noted A/B pattern ‫ חרף‬// ‫ קיץ‬is inverted in reference to a farmer whose behavior violates established norms: “The sluggard who does not plough in winter (‫)חרף‬, goes begging at harvest (‫( ”)קציר‬B/A).28 24

25

26 27 28

The verse exhibits a chiastic structure. The latter two pairs are arranged in an inverted order in relation to the first two: ‫ זרע‬and ‫ קר‬parallel ‫ חרף‬and ‫ לילה; קציר‬and ‫ חם‬parallel ‫ קיץ‬and ‫יום‬. The psalmist and the author of Zech 14 quote only the first and the last component of the tetrad of coupled seasons enumerated in Genesis 8. See above on the paraphrastic allusion to ‫ קיץ וחרף‬in Isa 18:6. In this context these two terms are “pragmatically” synonymous. The moral is echoed in two further proverbs (Prov 6:8 and 10:5). But as a result of the substitution of ‫“ קיץ‬summer” for ‫“ חרף‬winter” as a parallel to ‫( קציר‬cf. 26:1), the saying has

180

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

15. One is inclined to assume that a “negative thrust” is similarly intended in Mic 7:1, ‫אללי לי כי הייתי כאספי קיץ כעללת בציר‬, “Alas! I am now like the last gathering of summer fruit, the last gleanings of the vintage” (NEB). By putting the mention of ‫קיץ‬, more specifically, “the gathering of figs,” before “the picking of grapes,” the author signifies the people’s contrariness through the reversal of the natural succession of the seasons. 16. The same holds true for Isa 16:9, ‫על קיצך ועל קצירך הידד נפל‬, “over your summer fruits (or: fig harvest) and your (grain) harvest the shouts of the harvesters (cf. Isa 16:10; Jer 25:30; 48:33) are ended” (NEB). On the strength of the foregoing discussion, I tend to see in this verse an allusion to the victorious shouts of conquering soldiers. The passage may be compared with Jeremiah’s oracle against Babylon: ‫ וענו עליך הידד‬... ‫בא קצך אמת בצעך‬, “your end has come, your destiny is certain … a song of triumph shall be chanted over you” (Jer 51:13b-14). The reversal of the progression of the seasons spells a reversal of Babylon’s fate, her doom in history. 17. In contrast, the divergence from the established pattern can raise doubts about the textual integrity of a given passage. The following instance will illustrate this phenomenon. The second chapter of Canticles contains a piece of poetry which is clearly set apart from the surrounding text by its inclusion between the twice recurring line “Rise up my darling; my fairest, come away” (2:10b and 2:13b). This short love song is conceived in the form of a “calendrical ditty.” Five of its six half-lines evidently refer to five successive stages in nature’s annual progress: v. 11 For now ‫הסתו‬29 is past, ‫ הגשם‬is over and gone; v. 12 ‫ הנצנים‬appear in the countryside: the time of ‫ הזמיר‬has come; v. 13 ‫ התאנה‬brings forth ‫ ;פגיה‬the ‫ סמדר‬of the ‫ גפן‬give fragrance. On the strength of synonymous parallelism with the third stich, ‫וקול התור‬ ‫נשמע בארצנו‬, “and the turtledove’s cooing will be heard in our land,” ‫ הזמיר‬in the second stich of v. 12 is mostly taken to refer to a songbird: “the time is coming when the birds will sing” (NEB). This translation can certainly be upheld on linguistic grounds. However, in view of the mention of agricultural seasons in the first and last strophes,30 one expects to find the same termino-

29 30

lost its initial force. NEB: “winter.” See above, on the discussion of Isa 18:4-6.

[Type text]

Prophetic Rhetoric and Agricultural Metaphora

181

logy also in the second. And indeed the comparison with ‫הפרחה הגפן הנצו הרמנים‬, preceded by ‫ גנת אגוז‬and ‫( אבי הנחל‬Cant 6:11), and with ‫נשכימה לכרמים נראה אם‬ ‫פרחה הגפן פתח הסמדר הנצו הרמונים‬31 (ibid., 7:13; cf. Eccl 12:5, ‫)וינאץ השקד‬, suggests that ‫( הנצנים נראו בארץ‬Cant 2:12) refers not to “flowers” (NEB), but rather to the blossoming of a fruit-bearing plant; in this context most probably the vine. Preceded as this is by a reference to vintage (cf. 2:15; 7:13 etc.), and succeeded by mentions of figs and vines (2:13), ‫ עת הזמיר הגיע‬should be understood as a term pertaining to the season of the pruning of the vines, which is termed ‫ ירחו זמר‬in the Gezer Calendar and is directly preceded there by ‫ירח קץ‬, the time of the fig harvest. It cannot be decided whether the introduction of the third (possibly added) stich in Cant 2:12, and with it the mention of the “turtledove,” ‫תור‬, which is out of place, was triggered by an ancient misinterpretation of the term ‫עת הזמיר‬, understood as the designation of a songbird, or whether it resulted from a deliberate double entendre.32 In sum, the elucidation of agricultural imagery in biblical literature, foremost in the prophetic writings, affords valuable insights into beliefs which were current in the conceptual universe of biblical society.

31 32

Cf. the series ‫גנות‬, ‫כרמים‬, ‫תאנים‬, and ‫( זיתים‬Amos 4:9), and ‫גפן‬, ‫תאנה‬, ‫רמון‬, ‫( זית‬Hag 2:19). See further Paul, “Polysensuous Polyvalency,” esp. 150.

182

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 10 ~ THE COLLOCATION ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬ AND ITS MEANING* I. INTRODUCTION The meaning of the composite biblical phrase ‫ משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬is obscure. Translations and explanations of the expression ‫ עצור ועזוב‬from the time of the LXX until the present have failed to reach, indeed even to approach, a consensus.1 My course of investigation in the present study will be, first, to consider the meaning of ‫עצור ועזוב‬. Next, I will discuss ‫ משתין בקיר‬and the way in which its uses shed light on the idiom ‫עצור ועזוב‬. Finally, I will conclude the inquiry with a survey of the entire collocation. The ancient versions base their renditions of this phrase on the prevalent etymologies and translate ‫ עצור ועזוב‬as follows: LXX συνεχόµενον καὶ ἐγκαταλελειµµένον “constrained and abandoned” J Targ ‫“ אחיד ושביק‬captured and abandoned” Pesh ‫“ ܕܐܣܪ ܘܫܪܐ‬he who binds and looses” Vulg clausum et novissimum/ultimum “confined and newest/last” Modern translations only add to the confusion: “bound and free,”2 “imprisoned and released,” “young and old,”3 “married and unmarried,” “clean and unclean,” “kept in by legal impurity or at large,”4 “under taboo and frees,”5 “strangers and fellow-tribesmen.”6 In addition, commentators have suggested such translations as “in private and unrestrained,” distinguishing between the gentleman and the boor in the street,7 protected by the clan and destitute of a clan’s protection, kinsman and (unprotected) guest,8 “under parental restraint (‫ )עצור‬and free from it (‫)עזוב‬.”9 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Originally published with W. W. Fields in ZAW 101 (1989), 85–112. Gerstenberger, “‫עזב‬,” 588, speaks of “the enigmatic expression.” RSV, and cf. NASB, NIV, JB, Berkeley, BDB, HALOT, and many others. TEV. Lewy, “Lexicographical Notes,” 99. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 456. Stade and Schwally, Kings, 166. Montgomery and Gehman, Kings, 272. Driver, “Servant of the Lord,” 94. This goes back to an idea first proposed by Yahuda,

184

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

None of the aforementioned renditions of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬fits the context in which the expression occurs. Rather, they seem to be in the nature of a counsel of despair10 resulting from the two major problems posed by the phrase: (1) the meaning of ‫ עזב‬cannot be easily squared with ‫ ;עצר‬and (2) in the formula, the two terms are grammatically in the passive voice. As a consequence of these difficulties some scholars have come to the conclusion that the original meaning of the phrase has been lost and cannot be recovered.11 Nevertheless, a reexamination of the problem, which takes its departure from an intertextual comparison of relevant biblical passages, may yet provide a feasible explanation of this crux interpretum. This approach may require some words of explanation. I should like to stress that such “innerbiblical exegesis” in no way disparages or dismisses the value of etymological and philological considerations, nor of extra-biblical comparisons. But for reasons of proper methodology, it is preferable to derive the interpretation of biblical words and phrases which seem to escape a meaningful explanation, first and foremost from the immediate context, and then from a comparison with their employment in similar contextual settings within the wider framework of the corpus of biblical literature. Such a method should prove to be especially helpful in dealing with expressions which appear to be in the nature of technical terms whose significance cannot be established by going to the etymological roots, but rather by searching for the root of the matter which they reflect in their societal Sitz im Leben.12 I should make one further remark. All the aforementioned proposals understand the two vocables as antonyms, and the expression as a merismus, a synecdoche in which a totality is expressed by two contrasting parts.13 However, in the Hebrew Bible such merismus usually take the form: from

9 10 11

12 13

“‫”עצור ועזוב‬: “der schutzberechtigte Stammverwandte und der schutzlose Fremde.” The suggestion was picked up by Delekat, Asylie und Schutzorakel, 339. Similarly NEB: “under the protection of the family or not.” Kutsch, “Die Wurzel“: “Der Unmündige ... der Mündige.” See the survey of earlier interpretations offered by Kutsch, “Die Wurzel.“ See Gray, Kings, 307–308 and Noth, Könige, 316. Cf. Seebass, “Tradition und Interpretation,“ 182 n. 27; Gerstenberger, “‫עזב‬.” See Talmon, “Navel of the Earth”; idem, “Emendation.” See also Lewy, “Lexicographical Notes,” 101. On this phrase as a case of merismus, see Gordis, “Jonah,” 7 n. 20. For a general discussion of merism, synecdoche, and hendiadys, see Brongers, “Merismus”; and on merismus alone, Honeyman, “Merismus.”

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

185

A to B (‫ עד‬... ‫)מן‬, as ‫מנער ועד זקן‬, from young to old, meaning everyone; whereas in the case under consideration, the words are simply connected by the copulative waw. Another way of expressing comprehensiveness which encompasses a variety of items is by a formula in which two synonyms or two similar terms are juxtaposed, as ‫אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל‬, not one thread, not one sandal strap, nothing (Gen 14:23). An entire string of such structures occurs in 1 Sam 15:3: ‫מאיש עד אשה מעלל ועד יונק משור ועד שה מגמל ועד חמור‬. A mixture of both these patterns can be found in Jer 6:13 and 8:10, ‫מקטנם‬ (‫)מקטן( ועד גדולם )גדול‬. Likewise, in Ps 148 the author illustrates the praise given to God by the entire universe in a series of such word pairs. All stand for the comprehensiveness of a variety by adducing either opposite poles or two similar or equal items, such as: ‫הללוהו במרומים‬ ‫כל צבאו‬ ‫כל כוכבי אור‬ ‫תנינים וכל תהמות‬ ‫שלג וקיטור‬ ‫רמש וצפור כנף‬ ‫שרים וכל שפטי ארץ‬ ‫זקנים עם נערים‬

‫הללו את יהוה מן השמים‬ ‫כל מלאכיו‬ ‫שמש וירח‬ ‫מן הארץ‬ ‫אש וברד‬ ‫החיה וכל בהמה‬ ‫מלכי ארץ וכל לאמים‬ ‫בחורים וגם בתולות‬

In contradistinction to the prevalent understanding of the phrase as a merism, which would include the entire range of society (from one end of a spectrum to the other), I propose to take it as a hendiadys, a doublebarreled expression, or a form of parataxis, which expresses or refers to one specific societal component only, defining it by the juxtaposition of two designations.14 In such instances, in fact, the two terms mutually illuminate each other, or else one explains the other, e.g., ‫ = גר ותושב‬resident alien; ‫נע ונד‬ = wanderer; ‫ = תהו ובהו‬disorder; ‫ = יין ושכר‬intoxicating drink; ‫ = כסף וזהב‬riches.

14

Such an approach could be taken as well toward the elucidation of other equally perplexing expressions such as ‫ ער וענה‬in Mal 2:12, but the discussion of this and similar phrases must be left for another occasion. For the present see Glazier-McDonald, “Malachi 2:12,” with extensive bibliographic information on the issue. A satisfactory solution, however, has yet to be proposed.

186

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

II. THE USAGE OF ‫ עצור ועזוב‬IN THE BOOK OF KINGS The phrase ‫ עצור ועזוב‬is used three times in the hook of Kings, invariably (a) in an obvious curse context; and (b) concerning an Ephraimite King.15 The expression is used once with reference to Jeroboam I (ben Nebat), and twice with reference to Ahab, in all instances combined with the equally mystifying expression ‫( משתין בקיר‬which I will discuss later). 1 Kgs 14:1016 1 Kgs 21:2117 2 Kgs 9:8

‫והכרתי לירבעם משתין בקיר עצור ועזוב בישראל‬ ‫והכרתי לאחאב משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב בישראל‬ ‫והכרתי לאחאב משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב בישראל‬

In 1 Kgs 14:10, Ahijah of Shiloh predicts the death of the king’s son, a prediction tantamount to the threat of extinction of the royal house. Jeroboam was indeed succeeded by his son Nadab (1 Kgs 14:20), but the latter’s reign was only of short duration: just two years after ascending to the throne he was killed by Baasha (1 Kgs 15:27-28), who thus, in fact, did eradicate Jeroboam’s line, as Ahijah of Shiloah had prophesied (1 Kgs 15:29). In the other two passages listed above, the prophet Elijah likewise threatens King Ahab with extinction of his line in retribution for his having unlawfully killed Naboth in order to expropriate his property. As in the first case, so in the latter instance; Elijah’s prediction is fulfilled sometime after Ahab’s death. His son Ahaziah indeed acceded to the throne (1 Kgs 22:52) and was succeeded two years later by his brother Joram (2 Kgs 1:17); but in the twelfth year of Joram’s reign Jehu staged a palace rebellion, with the sanction of Elisha. The king and the entire royal family were killed, exactly as the prophet had threatened (1 Kgs 21:21; cf. 2 Kgs 9:8). In both instances the accounts do not concern a punishment which is to affect all Israel or all males in the Northern Kingdom, as some commentators and translators seem to imply. Rather, the prediction speaks of a punishment which is to befall the royal line ruling in Ephraim exclusively. This distinction between the fate of the royal house and that of all Israel comes more clearly into focus in a fourth mention of the term ‫עצור ועזוב‬: ‫( כי ראה יהוה את עני ישראל מרה מאד ואפס עצור ואפס עזוב ואין עזר לישראל‬2 Kgs 14:26).

15 16

17

Gray, Kings, 307 agrees that ‫ עצור ועזוב‬must refer to royal males. Notice that Rahlfs, Septuaginta, must reconstruct here the text missing in LXX. See also Codex Alexandrinus, ad loc. Lewy, “Lexicographical Notes,” 101 n. 21, calls the copulative waw in ‫ ועצור‬in 1 Kgs 21:21 and 2 Kgs 9:8 “an erroneous ‫ו‬.” Joüon, Notes, 12, on the other hand, asserts that the copula should be supplied where it does not occur, such as in 1 Kgs 14:10!

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

187

Here the loss of a ruler is further underscored by the additional phrase ‫ואין‬ ‫ עֹזר לישראל‬which at the same time internally explains the obscure expression ‫עצור ועזוב‬. In addition, the ensuing verse highlights the fact that the dire fate of the ruler will not be shared by all Israel. On the contrary, we are told that God will have compassion on his people: ... ‫ולא דבר יהוה למחות את שם ישראל‬ ‫( ויושיעם‬2 Kgs 14:27). That same distinction between the fate (in this case, the destruction) of a royal house, like that of Jeroboam ben Joash in Ephraim, and the fate of the people of the realm, to whom God will show mercy, becomes apparent in Amos 9:8, ‫ אפס‬18‫הנה עיני אדני יהוה בממלכה החטאה והשמדתי אתה מעל פני האדמה‬ ‫כי לא השמיד אשמיד את בית יעקב‬. The term ‫ ממלכה‬in 9:8 must be understood to refer to the king or the king’s house (‫)בית ממלכה‬,19 which alone will suffer destruction. In contradistinction, ‫בית יעקב‬, the house of Israel, will not be annihilated (Amos 9:8): ‫ אפס כי לא השמיד אשמיד‬parallels ‫ולא דבר יהוה למחות את‬ ‫ שם ישראל‬in 2 Kgs 14:27. As a result the basically negative notion of the loss of national leadership, expressed by the eradication of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬in the first stich of Amos 9:8, is balanced by a consolatory nuance in the second. This very same notion turns up in Ps 10:14. The text reads like a paraphrase of 2 Kgs 14:26, using synonymous expressions in an almost identical sentence structure. A juxtaposition of the two texts makes the similarity evident: (B) Ps 10:14 21 ‫ כי אתה‬20‫ראתה‬ 22 ‫עמל וכעס תביט‬

18 19

20

21

22

(A) 2 Kgs 14:26-27 ‫כי ראה יהוה‬ ‫את עני ישראל מרה מאד‬

Cf. Amos 7:9, ‫ וקמתי על בית ירבעם בחרב‬and Amos 7:11, ‫כי כה אמר עמוס בחרב ימות ירבעם‬. Cf. 2 Kgs 11:1 and further, Hos 1:4, where ‫ ממלכות בית ישראל‬parallels ‫בית יהוא‬. In Amos as in Hosea, the annihilation of the royal house in Ephraim paves the way for a reunification of all Israel under the Davidic line (cf. Amos 8:11 with Hos 3:5). Notice that biblical and extra-biblical parallels show that the word ‫ממלכה‬, kingdom, has the meaning of ‫מלך‬, king, in a number of passages (see Talmon, “Kingship and Ideology,” 13 n. 14 and bibliography adduced there). For ‫ ראה‬// ‫ נבט‬cf. 1 Sam 17:42; 2 Kgs 3:14; Isa 63:15; Ps 80:15; 142:5; Job 35:5; Lam 1:11; 2:20; 5:1; 1 Chr 21:21; and especially Hab 1:3, 5. It has been plausibly suggested that MT ‫כי אתה‬, although reflected in the Versions, should be taken as a dittography of ‫ראתה‬. This would restore the chiastic parallelism of the stich: ‫ וכעס תביט‬// ‫ראתה עמל‬. In any event that textual difficulty does not affect our deliberations. The verb ‫ ראה‬in (A) is reflected in (B) by the synonymous verbs ‫ נבט‬... ‫ראה‬. These verbs are used here in two separate stichs for the purpose of parallelismus membrorum. Similarly, the hendiadys ‫( עמל וכעס‬B) is represented in (A) by the two stichs ‫ מרה מאד‬// ‫עני ישראל‬.

188

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

(B) Ps 10:14 23 ‫לתת בידך‬ ‫עליך יעזב חלכה‬ ‫]ל[יתום אתה היית עוזר‬

[Type text]

(A) 2 Kgs 14:26-27 ‫ואפס עצור ואפס עזוב‬ ‫ואין עזר לישראל‬ ‫ ויושיעם‬... ‫ולא דבר יהוה למחות את שם ישראל‬

The collocation turns up once more in biblical poetry, in the setting of a promise of divine assistance to the people of Israel, which again offsets the absence of a ruler, indicated by the phrase ‫ואפס עצור ועזוב‬: ‫כי ידין יהוה עמו ועל‬ ‫( עבדיו יתנחם כי יראה כי אזלת יד ואפס עצור ועזוב‬Deut 32:36). The comparison of Deut 32:36 with 2 Kgs 14:26 also reveals striking similarities in contents and wording, although in a different syntactical order: Deut 32:36

2 Kgs 14:26-27

‫ כי יראה‬... ‫כי ידין יהוה‬ ‫אזלת יד‬ ‫ואפס עצור ועזוב‬

‫כי ראה יהוה‬ ‫את עני ישראל מרה מאד‬ ‫ואפס עצור ואפס עזוב‬ ‫ואין עזר לישראל‬ 24 ‫ועל עבדיו יתנחם‬ ‫ ויושיעם‬... ‫ולא דבר יהוה למחות את שם ישראל‬ The picture of a leaderless people (Israel), as presented in these passages, recurs in the description of the city of Laish prior to the conquest of the town by the Danites, where, however, different idioms are employed: ‫אין מכלים‬ ‫ ואין מציל‬... ‫( דבר בארץ יורש עצר‬Judg 18:7, 28). We shall yet have occasion to consider the importance of this passage, and especially its terms ‫ יורש‬... ‫אין‬ ‫ עצר‬and ‫אין מציל‬, for the elucidation of the meaning of ‫עצור ועזוב‬. The above quotations show how the crux interpretum ‫ עצור ועזוב‬can be explained by the expression ‫ ואין עֹזר לישראל‬appended to it in 2 Kgs 14:26, and by the evidently equivalent phrases ‫ אין מציל‬and ‫אין מכלים דבר בארץ יורש עצר‬, appended in Judg 18:7, 28. This insight is in line with the proposition made at the outset, that wherever possible, a difficult idiom in biblical literature 23

24

Most commentators delete the difficult expression ‫לתת בידך‬. This, again, is of no relevance for our discussion. While I cannot offer a suitable interpretation for the expression, it is certainly mistaken to present ‫ לתת‬as parallel to ‫יעזור‬, as suggested by Fisher, Ras Shamra, 218–219, no. 268. This singular linguistic affinity with the curse formula found above in an exclusively Ephraimite setting supports the assumption that Moses’ Song (Deuteronomy 32) is of northern provenance. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 132, labels ‫ עצור ועזוב‬an “authentic northIsraelite prophetic idiom.” My conclusion, reached independently, concurs with that of Frank (“Moses’ Song,” 134 n. 25) and Lahav (“Moses’ Song,” 85) that the song may be of northern origin. I wish to thank Prof. Avi Hurvitz for having brought these two articles to my attention.

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

189

should be elucidated by utilizing the biblical text itself, where a similar phrase is found either contextually, in a structure of parallelismus membrorum, or inter-textually in “distant parallelism.”25 In the present instance the addition of the phrase ‫( ואין עֹזר לישראל‬2 Kgs 14:26) is especially significant, since by using it the writer clarifies the preceding obscure term ‫עצור ועזוב‬.26 There can be no doubt that in 2 Kgs 14:26, the phrase ‫ ואין עֹזר לישראל‬caps the description of a period in which Israel was without a leader, royal or otherwise. An intertextual comparison suggests that this expression, and similarly ‫אין עצור ועזוב‬, catches the essence of a situation which in a similar context in the book of Judges is characterized four times by the phrase ‫( בימים ההם אין מלך בישראל‬Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). That locution also denotes a time when the Israelite tribes had no leader, whether king or judge (‫מלך‬/‫)שופט‬,27 who could prevent an individual from setting up his own sanctuary (Judges 17), a tribe from acting on its own accord (Judges 18), or the perpetuation of an outrageous act like that described in the Schandtat in Gibeah (Judges 19), and the ensuing inter-tribal war (Judges 20–21). It is of interest to note that in the first (Judg 17:6) and the last (Judg 21:25) occurrences of the above idiom, the underlying idea of anarchy is further highlighted by the additional phrase ‫איש הישר בעיניו יעשה‬.28 This explanatory expansion is comparable to the addition of ‫ אין עֹזר לישראל‬to the basic phrase ‫ ואפס עצור ואפס עזוב‬in 2 Kings 14:26. In view of the apparently passive voice of ‫עצור ועזוב‬, it should be stressed that all the aforementioned “explanatory” terms are exclusively in the active voice. This will prove to be of significance for the explanation of the terms ‫( עצור ועזוב‬see below, section V).

25 26

27 28

See Talmon, “New Outlook,” 53–54, 60–63; Dahood, “Word Pairs,” 1:80–81. I call attention to another example of such an inner-textual explanation: In Moses’ admonition prior to his death, the unequivocal words ‫ אחרי מותי‬explain the succeeding more opaque term ‫ באחרית הימים‬thus making it evident that both these terms refer to the period immediately after his demise. See Talmon, “Eschatology and History.” For the equation of ‫ מלך‬and ‫ שופט‬in this context, see Talmon, “No ‫ מלך‬in Israel.” Together these two occurrences of the expanded phrase ‫בימים ההם אין מלך בישראל איש הישר‬ ‫ בעיניו יעשה‬frame the block of materials appended to the book of the “Saviors” as in a ring composition.

190

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

III. THE PHRASE ‫משתין בקיר‬ The recognition of the technique of explanation by means of similar or synonymous terms helps also in the understanding of the equally obscure phrase ‫משתין בקיר‬, constructed with a verb in the active voice, which occurs in similar contexts, either by itself or combined with ‫עצור ועזוב‬. In the instances listed above, ‫ משתין בקיר‬precedes and amplifies ‫( עצור ועזוב‬1 Kgs 14:10; 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8). Because of the combination it appears that these two phrases are mutually explanatory. Let us first turn to a consideration of the two appearances of ‫משתין בקיר‬ in biblical literature without any accompanying modifier. Both are set in the framework of David’s encounter with Nabal. 1 Sam 25:22 1 Sam 25:34

‫כה יעשה אלהים לאיבי דוד וכה יסיף‬ ‫אם אשאיר מכל אשר לו עד הבקר משתין בקיר‬ ‫ ותבאת( לקראתי‬:‫כי לולי מהרת ותבאתי )קרי‬ ‫כי אם נותר לנבל עד אור הבקר משתין בקיר‬

From these passages the following conclusions may be drawn: (a) The phrases ‫( אם אשאיר‬1 Sam 25:22) and ‫( אם נותר‬1 Sam 25:34) serve in apocopated oath formulae by which David threatens to undo Nabal to the extent of not leaving for him a ‫משתין בקיר‬. They equal the term ‫אפס‬,29 used in the instances mentioned above with the same intent; i.e., to indicate that there will not be left for the one cursed an ‫( עצור ועזוב‬see above).30 (b) In the context, which speaks of Nabal’s ingratitude and David’s reaction to it, the future king vows retaliation, swearing that he will surely ravage his enemy utterly. The phrase ‫ משתין בקיר‬evidently refers to males, and like ‫עצור ועזוב‬, to a special class of males (as I will yet show), who are put under the threat of death. Since the above usages of ‫ משתין בקיר‬occur in curse contexts, as is the case with ‫עצור ועזוב‬, we may again conclude that the eradication of a/the ‫ משתין בקיר‬has an equally negative implication. A ‫ משתין בקיר‬was clearly considered a most positive asset, and therefore his removal was deemed a disastrous punishment to his family. It follows that the term cannot have been simply an appellation for any male, as has been 29

30

Cf. the use of ‫ נותר‬and ‫ אפס‬to connote a “remainder” in the passage concerning Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, the one surviving member of Saul’s family whom David spared (2 Sam 9:1-3; cf. 21:7). Cf. further ‫ ואין עֹזר‬in 2 Kgs 14:26; ‫ אין מציל‬in Judg 18:28; and possibly also ‫ אזלת יד‬in Deut 32:36.

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

191

maintained. The crassly literal and prosaic translation “him that pisseth against the wall” (AV),31 does not catch the point made in the above passages, despite Montgomery’s assertion to the contrary.32 Nor is justice done to the term by presenting it as “a typical example of the direct, graphic, uninhibited speech of the Israelite peasant.”33 In fact, the entire notion that ‫ משתין בקיר‬is, as it were, a biblical literary precursor of the famous Männeke Piss, whose statue adorns a fountain in Brussels, is, as will yet be shown, entirely beside the point. (c) The Bible presents Nabal as a very powerful man, “one who had property” and “was very wealthy” (1 Sam 25:2), describing him in terms which bring to mind the biblical presentation of Abraham (Gen 13:2; 23:16) and Job (Job 1; 42:12). All three traditions evoke the image of quasi-royalty. In the present instance, this impression is further underpinned by the future King David’s marrying Nabal’s widow Abigail, which may well have been a move on his part to inherit Nabal’s property and position (1 Sam 25:39; cf. 2 Sam 16:20-23 and 1 Kgs 2:13-18). The overall portrayal of Nabal actually leads one to assume that, like David, he also may have been a contender for the throne. If this was the case, the eradication of Nabal’s ‫משתין בקיר‬, patently his heir and successor, would equal the annihilation of the ‫עצור ועזוב‬ of a royal house in the Northern Kingdom. However, in the obviously Judean and apparently non-royal setting of the David–Nabal episode, the author seems to have preferred the more general expression ‫ משתין בקיר‬over what was presumably a specifically Ephraimite term: ‫עצור ועזוב‬. A further occurrence of ‫ משתין בקיר‬combined with another important explanatory element, this time in an Ephraimite setting, is found in the report of Zimri’s plot against Baasha: ‫( לא השאיר לו משתין בקיר וגאליו ורעהו‬1 Kgs 16:11). Zimri’s slaughter of King Baasha’s entire family is seen as the fulfillment of the prophet Jehu ben Hanani’s prediction (1 Kgs 16:1-4). The similar context, viz, the extinction of the royal house, suggests the basic identity of

31

32 33

Lewy’s observation that ‫ משתין בקיר‬refers to small children of both sexes, approvingly quoted by Stade and Schwally, Kings, 166 (cf. Haupt, “Mohel,” 254), hardly stands up to scrutiny. It may be true, as he says, that “whoever has lived in Arabic villages knows that in Oriental countries small children of both sexes go to the nearest wall to relieve themselves” (Lewy, “Lexicographical Notes,” 100 n. 17), but it is highly doubtful that David, in the context of his dispute with Nabal, would have made a threat against run-of-the-mill children. Montgomery and Gehman, Kings, 271. Gray, Kings, 337.

192

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

‫ משתין בקיר‬with ‫( עצור ועזוב‬see above). And the use of the term ‫ לא השאיר‬as in 1 Sam 25:22, confirms its technical character: ‫ לא השאיר לו משתין בקיר‬epitomizes the violent termination of a king’s rule in a coup d’état. In 1 Kgs 16:11 the added adjectival phrase ‫ וגאליו ורעהו‬clearly identifies the victims of the prophet’s curse upon Baasha as ranking courtiers, or even members of the King’s family who are first in the line of inheritance. ‫ ֵר ֶעה‬is known in biblical terminology as the title of Hushai, an important official at David’s court (2 Sam 15:37; 16:16). Likewise, the priest Zebud ben Nathan holds the position of ‫ רעה המלך‬in Solomon’s cabinet (1 Kgs 4:5). ‫ גאל‬obviously refers to one of Baasha’s next of kin, who, in his position as ‫ גאל הדם‬would have been duty-bound to avenge the slaughter of the king’s family, if he himself had been spared (cf. Num 35 passim; Deut 19:6,12; Josh 20:5, 9; 2 Sam 14:11; and also Ezek 11:15).34 It, therefore, follows that the wording of 1 Kgs 16:11 (like that of 1 Sam 25:22, 34; 1 Kgs 14:10; 21:21; and 2 Kgs 9:8) expresses a threat to the royal line, its discontinuation, and its substitution by another. We have here one more instance of an inner-textual explanatory expansion. As in the case of the enigmatic ‫עצור ועזוב‬, whose meaning was clarified by the addition of the well-understood expression ‫עוזר בישראל‬, the added phrase ‫גאליו ורעהו‬, whose connotation can be independently established, reveals the signification of the obscure idiom ‫משתין בקיר‬. It may be surmised that the phrase [‫ גואל ורע]ה‬was probably originally present in the almost identical description of a coup d’état in 2 Kgs 10:11. The text reports that after Ahab’s 70 sons had been beheaded by their courtier tutors in Jezreel (2 Kgs 10:7),35 Jehu came to the city and obliterated all the former King’s hierarchy: ‫ויך יהוא את כל הנשארים לבית אחאב ביזרעאל וכל גדליו‬ ‫ומידעיו וכהניו עד בלתי השאיר לו שריד‬. While MT’s ‫ גדליו ומידעיו‬appears to speak of courtiers generally, the Lucianic rendition ἀγχιστέυοντας αὐτοῦ (for which cf., e.g., 2 Sam 14:11, MT ‫גאל הדם‬, LXX ἀγχιστέα τοῦ αἵµατος) suggests that the translator either had before him a Vorlage which actually read ‫גאל‬, or else that he perceived in the biblical text an indication that Jehu had executed all the members of Ahab’s family. If this was the case, a retroversion of Lucian’s text in 2 Kgs 10:11 would yield the reading ‫וכל גאליו ומידעיו‬.

34 35

On the motif level the term is used in reference to God (as, e.g., Isa 44:6; 47:4; Jer 50:34). Cf. the fate of Gideon’s seventy sons (Judg 9:1-5).

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

[Type text]

193

The juxtaposition of the terms ‫ מי]ו[דע‬and ‫ גאל‬is made highly attractive by a comparison with the use of these terms in the book of Ruth. In 2:1 the narrator refers to Boaz, Naomi’s next of kin, as ‫( מידע‬Qere ‫ )מודע‬Naomi herself likewise designates him ‫ בעז מדעתנו‬in the instructions she gives to Ruth (3:2). For her part, Ruth reminds Boaz that he is a ‫( גאל‬3:9). Boaz endorses this designation by declaring of himself: ‫ גאל אנכי‬... ‫( כי אמנם‬3:12; cf. 4:6, 14); i.e., he is one who, like the king’s ‫ גואל‬in the above instances, is duty-bound to perpetuate the line of her childless former husband (Ruth 4:10). Now, the genealogy appended to the Ruth–Boaz narrative records that from this union sprang David, the founder of Israel’s royal house par excellence. Thus, Boaz gave a new lease on life to the line of Ruth’s former husband, which by implication had royal status, and which had been in danger of extinction when he died without a male heir. The situation depicted in the Ruth narrative stands, accordingly, in sharp contrast to Zimri’s and other usurper’s deeds: the total annihilation of their royal predecessors’ offspring. After his successful coup d’état, Baasha did away with the entire house of Jeroboam: ‫ויהי כמלכו הכה את כל בית ירבעם לא השאיר כל נשמה לירבעם עד השמדו‬ (1 Kgs 15:29). Almost simultaneously with Jehu’s slaughter of Ahab’s family in the Northern Kingdom, Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, annihilates all of her son’s offspring in Judah:36 ‫ועתליה אם אחזיהו ראתה כי מת בנה ותקם ותאבד‬ ‫( את כל זרע הממלכה‬2 Kgs 11:1).37 These texts indeed do not contain the specific terms under discussion here. But this linguistic difference does not obfuscate the basic identity of the events and the terminology involved. Against the background of the foregoing analysis of relevant biblical passages, the following flowchart can be offered in illustration of (1) the usage of the terms ‫ משתין בקיר‬and ‫ עצור ועזוב‬in contexts which describe the overthrow, and termination of a ruling royal house, and (2) the significance of parallel phrases associated with ‫ משתין בקיר‬and ‫עצור ועזוב‬.

36

37

Royal line of

Overthrown by

Jeroboam

Baasha

Ahab

Jehu

Baasha

Zimri

The Victims

‫משתין בקיר עצור ועזוב בישראל‬ ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב בישראל‬ ‫משתין בקיר וגאליו ורעהו‬

(1 Kgs 14:10) (1 Kgs 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8) (1 Kgs 16:11)

With the exception of the infant Joash, who was saved by his aunt Jehosheba (2 Kgs 11:2). Cf. the escape of Jotham in the Gideon tradition (Judg 9:5). Cf. Hos 1:4; Amos 9:8 and see above, 188.

194

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

The Synoptic chart shows 1 Kgs 16:11 to be an important linguistic bridge between the terminology applied to the description of the end of Baasha’s line on the one hand, and the portrayal of the termination of Jeroboam’s (1 Kgs 14:10) and Ahab’s (1 Kgs 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8) lines respectively on the other hand. In the latter two instances ‫ משתין בקיר‬is conjoined with the hendiadys [‫עצור ועזוב ]בישראל‬, whereas in 1 Kgs 16:11, the hendiadys ‫גאליו ורעהו‬ replaces [‫עצור ועזוב ]בישראל‬, in apposition to ‫משתין בקיר‬. It follows that in the context given, ‫גאליו ורעהו‬, in the active voice, is considered synonymous with ‫ עצור ועזוב‬in what formally appears to be a passive voice. The interchange shows both [‫ גואל ורע]ה‬and ‫ עצור ועזוב‬to refer to highranking dignitaries in the royal household, including, and possibly first and foremost, the king’s offspring. The alternating use of both these expressions in combination with ‫ משתין בקיר‬strongly suggests that also this latter term has the very same connotation. In light of this evident literary synonymity, a more detailed investigation of the constituents of the composite idiom ‫ משתין בקיר‬is in order. Exegetes— ancient, medieval, and modern—unanimously derive the active participle ‫ משתין‬from a root ‫“ שין‬to piss,” for which an Akkadian parallel can be established.38 This connotation of ‫ משתין‬surfaces as well in the ancient versions: LXX οὐροῦντα, Pesh ‫ܕܬܐܢ ܒܐܣܬܐ‬,39 Vulg Mingentem. In contrast with the general consensus concerning the meaning of ‫משתין‬, the interpretation of ‫ קיר‬continues to be debated by scholars. The current under-standing of it as “wall,” in accord with its prevalent use in biblical Hebrew, causes difficulties. The image evoked—pissing against the wall— reflects a typically Western experience of a male relieving himself. But commentators have correctly observed that such a description does not at all accord with Near Eastern customs, ancient or modern. Realizing this discrepancy, medieval exegetes therefore took the phrase to be a denigrating portrayal of a male connected one way or another with royalty—who relieves himself like a dog.40 The striking incongruity of this picture led S. Iwry to the correct conclusion that in this context ‫ קיר‬does not carry the prevalent connotation 38 39

40

See AHw, 1241–1242. By way of contrast, the Targum consistently renders ‫ משתין בקיר‬by the euphemism ‫ידע מידע‬ which, according to Jastrow, Dictionary, 734, means “male adult.” For this reason it could hardly refer to females.

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

[Type text]

195

of that noun in Biblical Hebrew, namely “wall.” He maintained that it would be better to consider ‫ קיר‬to be a homonym derived from ‫קיר‬/‫קור‬ which he understood as an abbreviated variant form of ‫מקור‬, i.e., a source of living water. Accordingly, the idiom ‫ משתין קיר‬designates someone who pollutes a well by urinating into it, and in so doing transgresses a taboo.41 Iwry quotes a number of biblical passages and adduces Akkadian and Ugaritic texts to prove the posited derivation of ‫ קיר‬from ‫ קור‬with the connotation of “flowing water.” But he falls short of satisfactorily explaining the pertinence of the proposed explanation to matters to which the idiom ‫ משתין בקיר‬is applied in the biblical literary tradition. It can hardly be maintained that, as was shown, the term was used by the biblical writers in settings of a coup d’état, after its true meaning had been forgotten. As we move now further into the discussion of the meaning of ‫קיר‬, a point made above bears repetition: in the interpretation of an obscure term in biblical Hebrew, one should take his departure from the contextual setting before resorting to an explanation based on etymology or on comparisons with other Semitic languages. Thus, in the present instance, we must take into account the juxtaposition of ‫ משתין בקיר‬with terms like ‫גואל‬ and (‫( רע)ה‬1 Kgs 16:11), whose connotations differ decidedly from any of the interpretations of ‫ משתין בקיר‬that have been suggested. At this stage we should also bring into play the phrase ‫עצור ועזוב‬. Because it is juxtaposed with ‫ משתין בקיר‬on the one hand (1 Kgs 14:10; 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8), and ‫ ע)ו(זר‬on the other (2 Kgs 14:26), by implication ‫ עצור ועזוב‬places ‫ משתין בקיר‬in a semantic field which pertains to monarchic leadership.42 The terminology of this semantic field is shown below in the form of a chart in which A equals B, B equals C, and C equals D, thus demonstrating the synonymity of all four idioms involved: (A) (‫ רע)ה‬,‫ג)ו(אל‬

A

41 42

(B) ‫משתין בקיר‬ ‫משתין בקיר‬ B

See Iwry, “Water Pollution,” 324–325. Another term in this cluster is ‫ודע‬/‫מי‬.

(C)

(D)

‫עצור ועזוב‬ ‫עצור ועזוב‬ C

‫עוזר‬ D

196

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

IV. TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH ‫קיר‬ With these considerations in mind, it seems appropriate to look now for biblical passages in which terms associated with ‫קיר‬/‫ קור‬are used in contexts that discuss issues concerning royal dignitaries. There immediately comes to mind the tradition about the Moabite King Eglon. Having sent away their respective retinues for the sake of secrecy, Ehud confronts Eglon alone, while the King is sitting on his throne (‫ )כסא‬in an upper chamber designated ‫( עלית המקרה‬Judg 3:20). It is frequently proposed to derive ‫ מקרה‬in this context from ‫קור‬, “cold,”43 with the further implication that the chamber in which the regicide occurred was preferred by the king over others because it supposedly provided coolness. However, since the text specifically refers to an upper chamber (‫עליה‬, Judg 3:20, 24, 25), such an interpretation seems to be incongruous. A room located in the upper (second)44 storey of a house which is immediately below the roof, would have been more exposed to heat rising from below than a room on the ground floor, and therefore would have been hotter rather than cooler. Nevertheless, it would appear that such an upper chamber was indeed considered as privileged place, although for a different reason: since the major activities of the household were conducted on the ground floor, it provided an extra measure of privacy. This may help in explaining why the “woman of rank” (‫ )אשה גדולה‬in Shunem reserved an upper chamber in her house for Elijah the prophet, in which he could find rest and some comfort whenever he came into town (2 Kgs 4:8-11). I propose to identify the term ‫ עלית מקרה‬used in the Eglon incident with the term ‫ עלית קיר‬employed in the Elijah story, and to associate both with the root ‫—קרה‬a term pertaining to the last stages of the construction of a house when the ‫תקרה‬, the ceiling, is put in. I am quite aware that ‫ מקרה‬derives from ‫ ר‬-‫ ר‬-‫ ק‬or ‫ ה‬-‫ ר‬-‫ק‬, “to be cool, cold,” ‫ קיר‬derives from ‫ ר‬-‫ו‬/‫ י‬-‫ק‬, and ‫תקרה‬ from ‫ ה‬-‫ ר‬-‫ק‬, “to put in beams.” But, as is well known, verbal forms, and equally nouns, derived from weak roots, sometimes interchange in their conjugations or declinations due to a process of assimilation.45 This understanding of these idioms would also apply to the story of 43 44

45

HALOT, 629; BDB, 903; Cf. Moore, Judges, 96, and Boling, Judges, 86. Excavations show that houses in the Israelite period usually had only one storey, with the exception of public buildings or the homes of the upper class, which sometimes had two stories. See GKC, 219, §77.

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

197

Rahab, whose house in Jericho is said to have been located ‫( בקיר החומה‬Josh 2:15). Here ‫ קיר‬can hardly be a “wall” on a wall (‫)חומה‬, but rather designates a house or a room which is either built against the upper part of the city wall or on top of it. Because of its location, Rahab’s house, especially its roof, provided not only privacy (cf. 1 Sam 9:26 where Samuel anoints Saul on the roof), but also a convenient hideout for the spies whom Joshua had sent to reconnoiter. Having first hidden the spies in her home (Josh 2:4), she then takes them up to the roof of her house (2:6-8), and ultimately helps them to escape unseen from the city by lowering them with a rope from an (upper) window of her house, which abutted the city wall (2:15). Another pertinent episode comes to mind. The news of Absalom’s death so upsets David that he retreats to the ‫עלית השער‬, a chamber atop the city gate (2 Sam 19:1), there to mourn his son in privacy (cf. Gen 45:1). This ‫עליה‬ was part of an upper structure on the city gate, and is termed in 2 Sam 18:24 ‫גג השער אל )=על( החומה‬. It appears that this structure, termed ‫ עלית השער‬in 2 Sam 19:1 was similar to the ‫ קיר החומה‬mentioned in the Rahab episode (Josh 2:15). Both resemble the ‫ עליה‬or ‫ עלית הקיר‬which the Shunamite provided as private chambers for the prophet Elijah (2 Kgs 4:10-11); and the ‫עלית המקרה‬, King Eglon’s upper private chamber in his palace (Judg 3:20, 23, 25). Such an upper chamber, especially in a palace (cf. 2 Kgs 1:2; 23:12; Jer 22:13, 14), would be the appropriate place for an act for which secrecy was paramount, such as Ehud’s regicide. In a similar setting, Saul attempted what may be termed an “inverted regicide,” trying to do away with David, his aspiring rival, (1 Sam 18:10-11 and 19:9-10).46 The references to Saul’s mental depression ‫ותצלח רוח אלהים רעה אל שאול‬ (1 Sam 18:10; 19:9), and to his acting like an (ecstatic) prophet (1 Sam 18:10), who in his frenzy may have divested himself of his clothes and exhibited his nakedness (cf. 1 Sam 19:23, 24), imply that the setting for the entire episode was his private chambers. This assumption is buttressed by the specification that Saul acted in this way ‫בתוך הבית‬, which may be taken to refer to “the inner recesses of his palace.” This understanding of the phrase is supported by part of the Greek evidence, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, which identify ‫ בית‬by adding a third masculine possessive suffix: LXXOL

46

In the present context it is of no concern whether biblical tradition speaks of two occasions or whether it preserved two versions of the same account.

198

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

ἐν µέσῳ (τοῦ) οἰκοῦ αὐτοῦ, Pesh ‫ܒܓܘ ܒܝܬܗ‬, Vulg in medio domus suae. To this place David was summoned to play before Saul in order to quiet his mind (1 Sam 18:10; 19:9; cf. 16:23). It may be suggested that, also in this context, the descriptions of Saul throwing his spear at David, ‫( אכה בדוד ובקיר‬1 Sam 18:11), and ‫( ויבקש שאול להכות בחנית בדוד ובקיר‬1 Sam 19:10a), as in the instances adduced above, the term ‫ קיר‬should be understood not in its usual connotation “wall” but as “upper chamber.”47 A synopsis of the passages reviewed results in the following chart of slightly variant expressions, all of which denote an upper private chamber, set aside for royalty or dignitaries,48 serving as the proper location for the execution of business that required secrecy: 2 Sam 18:24 2 Sam 19:1 Judg 3:20 Judg 3:23, 24 1 Kgs 17:19, 23 2 Kgs 4:10 2 Kgs 4:11 Josh 2:6, 8 Josh 2:15 1 Sam 18:11, 19:10

‫החומה‬

‫על‬/‫א‬

‫השער‬ ‫השער‬

‫גג‬ ‫המקרה‬

‫קיר‬

‫עלית‬ ‫עלית‬ ‫העליה‬ ‫העליה‬ ‫עלית‬ ‫העליה‬

‫גג‬ ‫החומה‬

‫קיר‬ ‫קיר‬

Considering this background, it is probable that the text which describes King Saul sitting ‫ מושב הקיר‬49‫( אל‬1 Sam 20:25), also places him in his audience chamber. Rather than thinking in terms of a seat or throne built against a wall as is the usual explanation, I suggest that the term ‫ מושב הקיר‬designates a throne on a raised dais or a seat in an upper chamber, exactly as in the story of Eglon. 47

48

49

This could also be the meaning of ‫ ויך את החנית בקיר‬in 19:10; but it could be argued as well that in this instance ‫ קיר‬indeed denotes the wall into which Saul’s spear smashed when David avoided the thrust—‫ויפטר‬. The employment of a term in two different meanings within one and the same sentence is not without precedent in biblical literature (cf. ‫נער‬/‫נער‬ in 1 Sam 1:24 and ‫עבד‬/‫ עבד‬in 1 Kgs 9:22; cf. also Judg 8:20). These characteristics explain the employment of ‫ה‬-‫ר‬-‫ ק‬combined with ‫ עליה‬as a literary image describing the abode of the Creator in heaven: ‫( המקרה במים עליותיו‬Ps 104:3), to be translated, “who uses (the upper) waters as beams (on which to erect) his upper chambers.” Probably ‫על‬.

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

[Type text]

199

In sum, ‫ קיר‬in the idiom ‫ משתין בקיר‬under consideration here should be understood as a reference to an elevated, that is to say, an upper room, in a house or a palace, set aside for dignitaries and royalty. In such a private chamber there probably would have been an installation for the occupant to relieve himself, as is implied by Judg 3:24. In that passage, we are told that Eglon’s courtiers refrained from opening the door to the private chamber, assuming that their master was relieving himself—‫מסיך רגליו‬.50 Given (1) the derivation of ‫ משתין‬from ‫שין‬, “urinate”; and (2) the proposed identification of ‫ קיר‬as an upper room, the ‫ משתין בקיר‬thus, was a person, predominantly of royal status, who had the privilege of using, and of relieving himself in, a private upper chamber. This interpretation provides an explanation for ‫ משתין בקיר‬which accords well with each of its contextual settings, and sheds light on its usage in juxtaposition with the main idiom under investigation here—‫עצור ועזוב‬. V. GRAMMATICAL AND PHILOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS In the previous sections I have discussed the various contexts in which the expression ‫ עצור ועזוב‬occurs. It now remains to make some grammatical and philological observations to show that in the passages under scrutiny the hendiadys ‫ עצור ועזוב‬is used in a way which is significantly different from the prevalent biblical use of either of its components singly. This recognition cannot cause any surprise, since it is the employment of such an expression in context which ultimately determines the meaning of words—not their etymological derivation. I tread here a narrow path, but with restraint and care it can be traversed safely and profitably. While at first glance ‫ עצור ועזוב‬appear to be standard passive forms, it has been correctly suggested that in the present instance the words should be taken as active forms, notwithstanding the fact that the ancient versions, as previously mentioned, render them as passives: LXX (20:21) TargJ Vulg

50

συνεχόµενον καὶ ἐγκαταλελειµµένον “constrained and abandoned” ‫“ אחיד ושביק‬captured and abandoned” clausum et novissimum/ultimum “confined and newest/last”

We find a parallel for this term in another royal setting, again concerning King Saul: ‫( ויבא שאול להסך את רגליו‬1 Sam 24:3).

200

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Medieval Jewish commentators adopted this same interpretation. As a result, Qimḥi (on 1 Kgs 14:11), for example, has difficulty in understanding these apparent “passives” as designations for human beings, and follows his father in taking them as references to money kept (‫ )עצור‬in the treasury (‫)אוצר‬, and to cattle left out (‫ )עזוב‬in the fields.51 Likewise, Rashi states his acceptance of the passive: ‫ עצור‬is one who is saved by an ‫עוצר‬, a ruler who would restrain them; ‫[ עזוב‬means one saved] by an ‫עוזב‬. Now an ‫ עוצר‬is a ruler (leader) who keeps the people in check that they should not march in scattered groups when they go into war against the enemy … Consequently, ‫( עצור‬the passive) is one who is saved through the restraint of the ruler. ‫ עזוב‬is one who is strengthened, as (Neh 3:8) ‘and they fortified (‫)ויעזבו‬ Jerusalem unto the broad wall’.52

This seems to be just one more counsel of despair, for this interpretation requires a parallel active term to match ‫עוצר‬, for example ‫( עוזב‬or ‫ )עוזר‬instead of the passive ‫עזוב‬. But, as I will yet show, if ‫ עצור ועזוב‬are both understood as active rather than passive voices, the entire convoluted argument becomes superfluous. In spite of the difficulties attending this kind of interpretation, most later commentators have continued to abide by it: “the fettered and the free,”53 “shut up or left at large,”54 “restrained and loosed,”55 and “Unmündige und Mündige.”56 Nevertheless, it seems that all these interpreters have been misled by the same two factors into an exegesis which does not fit the context at all: (1) the apparently passive voice of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬and (2) the prevalent etymology of ‫עזב‬, “forsake, abandon,” and of ‫“ עצר‬restrain, fetter.”57 Let us now consider these questions: 51

52 53 54 55 56

57

A similar suggestion is made by Vinnikov, “ʿāṣūr et ʿāzūb,” 345. He proposes “la désignation d’un bétail qui reste sur un pâturage écarté et qu’on ne ramène pas au village.“ Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Pentateuch, 5:165b (on Deut 32:36). Keil, Kings, 211. Cohen, Soncino Chumash, 1166. Cf. Slotki, Kings, 106. Snaith, 1 Kings, 127. Bruno, Könige, 91. For the same translation see Noth, Könige, 308–309; also Würthwein, 1 Könige, 177, and idem, 2 Könige 246, 325. Cf. Gray, Kings, 337–338, who remarks that the precise meaning of the phrase has been lost, but suggests that in general it refers to “the miserable survivors of a general catastrophe … the lowest class …”

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

201

1. Active or passive voice? Blau,58 followed by Ahuviah,59 has noted a number of instances in which a construction which morphologically looks like a passive must in fact be understood as in the active voice. Some of his examples of this phenomenon are the words ‫רכוב‬, ‫אסור‬, ‫ אמון‬and ‫חמוץ‬.60 An excellent example of an active participle taking on a passive form may be found in Cant 3:7-8, which mentions ‫ אחזי חרב מלמדי מלחמה‬... ‫גברים‬. The predictable active ‫אחזי חרב‬ ֹ , “gripping swords” (for which compare 2 Chr 25:5, ‫אחז רמח וצנה‬, “gripping spear and shield”), became ‫ ֲא ֻחזֵ י‬due to assimilation to ‫מ ֻל ְמּ ֵדי‬. ְ As Ahuviah says in reference to the instances under review: ‫ עצור‬is not a captive (‫ )שבוי‬who was apprehended (Ibn Ezra) [see above], nor ”one who has been saved by a regent or ruler” (‫עוצר ומושל‬, Rashi) [see above], but rather the regent, ‫העוצר‬, [himself]; ‫ עזוב‬is not one who is encouraged (‫מחוזק‬, Rashi ad Deut 32:36), nor one “who has no one to hold him by his hand” (Rashi ad 1 Kgs 14:10), but rather ‫ העוזב‬is [himself] ‫העוזר‬.61

We may compare the nomen proprium ‫עזוּר‬/‫( עזֻ ר‬Jer 28:1; Ezek 11:1; Neh 10:18), which, while morphologically “passive,” is probably synonymous with the nomen proprium ‫ ֵעזֶ ר‬in an “active” voice (Neh 3:19; 12:42; 1 Chr 4:4; 12:10). Both may be understood as apocopated forms of one of these theophoric names: ‫עזריה‬ ‫עזריהו‬ ‫עזריקם‬ ‫עזריאל‬ ‫עזראל‬ 58 59 60 61 62

2 Kgs 14:21; Jer 43:2; Ezra 7:1, etc. 1 Kgs 4:2; 2 Kgs 15:6; 2 Chr 15:1, etc. Neh 11:15; 1 Chr 3:23; 9:14, etc. Jer 36:26; 1 Chr 5:24; 27:19; cf. ‫ עזרי‬1 Chr 27:26 Ezra 10:41; Neh 11:13; 1 Chr 25:18, etc.62

Blau, “Passive Participle. Ahuviah, “‫עצור ועזוב‬.” Blau, “Passive Participle,” 80–81. Ahuviah, “‫עצור ועזוב‬,” 177. The same morphological interchange may be observed in other theophoric names: (1) (2)

‫עקוב‬

Ezra 2:42 = Neh 7:45; Ezra 2:45; 1 Chr 3:24, etc.

‫עקביה‬

Only in post-biblical literature

‫שלוּם‬

2 Kgs 15:10; Jer 32:7; Ezra 2:42 = Neh 7:45, etc.

‫שלם‬

Gen 46:24; Num 26:49

‫ת‬/‫שלמי‬

Num 34:27; Lev 24:11; 1 Chr 3:19

‫שלמי‬

Ezra 2:46 = Neh 7:48, etc.

‫שלומיאל‬

Num 1:6; 2:12, etc.

‫ו‬/‫שלמיה‬

Jer 36:14, 26; 37:3, 13; Ezra 10:39, 41 etc.

202

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Given the contexts in which the phrase ‫ עצור ועזוב בישראל‬occurs, and in keeping with Blau’s statement that “already in Biblical Hebrew we find the ‫ קטול‬formation not only expressing a passive participle … but also connoting an active participle,”63 it is much better thus to understand ‫ עזוב‬and ‫ עצור‬as having a similar function. That is to say, these two terms refer to the actor— the helper, leader, ruler—not to the objects affected by his actions. These vocables should be understood, as we have noted, as technical terms designating prominent personalities in the political hierarchy (of the Northern Kingdom) who were, in fact, members of the royal house. This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that all terms which were seen to parallel ‫עצור ועזוב‬, viz., ‫עוזר‬, ‫גואל‬, ‫מודע‬, (‫ רע)ה‬have, without exception, an active connotation. 2. The second factor which has led to the misinterpretation of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬is the prevalent etymological explanation of these vocables. (a) The connotation of ‫ עצר‬is difficult to ascertain. The more common meaning of ‫עצור‬, “imprisoned, detained,” does not fit the context where it is used together with ‫עזוב‬. There are several indications that in a few instances the root ‫ עצר‬retains a nuance of “ruling, having authority over.”64 This connotation is clearly required in: ‫ושמואל ראה את שאול ויהוה ענהו הנה האיש אשר אמרתי אליך זה יעצֹר בעמי‬ (1 Sam 9:17). The divine announcement that Saul will rule over Israel is confirmed by Samuel’s statement when he actually anoints Saul: ‫ויאמר הלוא כי‬ ‫( משחך יהוה על נחלתו לנגיד‬1 Sam 10:1).65 This passage is especially important for our understanding of the component ‫ עצור‬in the hendiadys ‫עצור ועזוב‬. In 9:16 Samuel had been told: ‫כעת מחר אשלח אליך איש מארץ בנימן ומשחתו לנגיד על‬ ‫עמי ישראל והושיע את עמי מיד פלשתים כי ראיתי את עמי כי באה צעקתו אלי‬, which shows that ‫( יעצר‬9:17) equals ‫ נגיד‬and ‫( הושיע‬9:16), all three terms referring to Saul’s appointment as military leader and king over Israel. This connotation of ‫ עצר‬as a term pertaining to military (royal) leadership may underlie an expression in 2 Sam 18:3, which is another well-known crux

63

64

65

Blau, “Passive Participle,” 67. For a substantial list of further examples of passive forms with active meanings, see ibid., 80–81. Cf. Even-Shoshan, Concordance, 910–911; idem, Dictionary, 105: “‫ שליט‬,‫ ;”עוזר‬BDB, 793; but contrast HALOT, 870–871. As for ‫עוצר‬, Even-Shoshan defines it both as “ruler” and “crown prince” (Dictionary, 966). See Mowinckel, He that Cometh, 198 n. 1.

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

203

interpretum. There David’s men dissuade him from going out to battle, arguing that even the loss of half the army would be less catastrophic than the death 66 of David, who equals 10,000 men: ‫ כי אתה כמנו עשרה אלפים‬... ‫ויאמר העם לא תצא‬. The need to preserve David and, through him, royal leadership, is in addition expressed by the obscure phrase ‫( ועתה טוב כי תהיה לנו מעיר לעזיר‬Qere ‫)לעזור‬. It has been proposed that the difficult ‫ מעיר‬be emended to ‫ בעיר‬in accordance with LXX: ἐν τῇ πόλει;67 to wit, that David should remain in the city, and if the necessity should arise, could assist the fighting army68 by sallying forth from it. In this same vein, medieval Jewish commentators were satisfied with suggesting that David should pray for them “from the city.” I am inclined to propose a quite different solution for the difficult phrase ‫מעיר לעזור‬. The letters ‫ עיר‬were understood by the ancient translators, the vocalizers of the MT, and commentators as ‫“ = ִעיר‬city.” But it would appear that this reading resulted from an ancient scribal mistake in paleo-Hebrew involving the interchange of ‫ י‬for ‫צ‬, for which interchange many more examples can be adduced.69 From this substitution resulted the incomprehensible text: ‫כי תהיה לנו מעיר לעזור‬. It may be conjectured that at some point far back in the transmission of one textual tradition a scribe tried to make some sense out of this wording by prefixing a ‫ ב־‬to the letter combination ‫עיר‬, while at some other time and place another scribe attempted the same by the addition of a ‫מן‬. The former would account for the Greek reading, while the latter survived in the MT. Alternately, the difficult mem could be understood as a dittography of the letters ‫( נו‬at the end of the preceding word ‫)לנו‬, written as a ligature.70 The recognition of this possibility prompts the suggestion that the text originally read: ‫ועתה טוב כי תהיה לנו ע)ו(צר לעזור‬, meaning, it will be better if you will be (remain) for us as (military) leader, to save us. The resulting apposition of ‫ עצר‬and ‫ עזר‬brings to mind the aforementioned instance of

66

67 68

69 70

Reading with part of the Greek evidence, TargJ and some MT manuscripts, ‫ אתה‬with ‫ א‬in place of ‫עתה‬. For discussion of the variants ‫עתה‬/‫ אתה‬see Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle, 285. Cf. OL115. For a discussion of the text see McCarter, 2 Samuel, 400. For ‫ עזב‬in this technical sense see Joüon, Notes, 11, who points out that 2 Chr 14:10 has a similar meaning: ‫יהוה אלהינו אתה אל יעזר עמך אנוש‬, “Jehovah, tu es notre Dieu: qu’un homme ne (nous) gouverne pas avec toi!” See Talmon, “Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet.” Weiss, “Ligatures.”

204

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

such a juxtaposition in 2 Kgs 14:26, ‫ ואין עזר לישראל‬... ‫ואפס עצור‬. At the same time, the idea which underlies the passage discussed surfaces in 2 Sam 21:17. In a similar situation, after David had almost been killed by a Philistine warrior of gigantic proportions, his men swear never to let him go out again into battle, lest the ‫ נר ישראל‬should be extinguished. This latter term is clearly a symbolic title for the king, paralleling ‫ עוצר‬in 2 Sam 18:3. (b) For the connotation of ‫ עזב‬in this context, I refer to Even-Shoshan’s helpful suggestion that in the phrase under scrutiny, ‫ עזב‬should be connected not with ‫ עזב‬I, but with ‫ עזב‬II, which is synonymous with Aramaic ‫ עזב‬in the ‫ שפעל‬form ‫שיזב‬,71 translated by Jastrow, “to release, save, or be delivered,” citing TargJ to Exod 2:19; Deut 32:39; Jer 7:10, etc.72 Furthermore, as Held pointed out, ‫ עזב‬II, which lexica73 had recorded only for Neh 3:8, 34, may, in fact, underlie also ‫ עזוב‬in the expression ‫עצור ועזוב‬ discussed here (Deut 32:36; 1 Kgs 14:10; 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8 and 14:26). He proposed that these terms be vocalized as ‫ עצֹר ועזֹב‬or ‫עצוֹר ועזוֹב‬, in avoidance of the MT vocalization ‫עצוּר ועזוּב‬, which suggests a passive voice. Accordingly, the phrase should be rendered “ruler and caretaker,” He further connects the phrase in the passage already mentioned with 1 Sam 9:17, where it is said of Saul, ‫“ יעצר בעמי‬he will take charge of (or rule over) my people.”74 In this insight Held was preceded by U. Cassuto, who distinguished between ‫ עזב‬I and ‫ עזב‬II, identifying the latter with Ugaritic and South Arabic ʿdb. In Hebrew the two originally distinct roots, one with a medial /d/ or /d/, the other with a medial /z/, came to be represented by a single grapheme ‫עזב‬.75 But while there was no orthographic difference, it is possible that the two roots were still distinguished in pronunciation, and virtually certain that they continued to be distinct in meaning.76 71 72 73 74 75

76

Even-Shoshan, Dictionary, 969. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1558–1559. BDB, 738; HALOT, 807–808. Held, “YQTL–QTL,” 283 n. 8. Cassuto, “Journey of Ashera,”and idem, Exodus, on Exod 23:5, 297–298. Against positing ‫ עזב‬II in Exod 23:5 is Williamson, “Reconsideration.” However, he does not refer to the expression ‫עצור ועזוב‬, which was our starting point. My investigation of this idiom has added credence to the contention that the root ‫ עזב‬II did and does exist (see below). I might add that a similar distinction obtains also in Akkadian. According to CAD E, most Akkadian usages of ezēbu have the same or similar connotations as Hebrew ‫ עזב‬I, “leave” (CAD E, 416–426). But at the same time CAD suggests for some entries of šūzubu translations

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

205

Aistleitner divides the semantic range of Ugaritic ʿdb into two categories: “(1) legen, fügen; (2) zubereiten, machen.”77 Gordon proposes the basic meaning “arrange,” taking into account a fair number of nuances. He translates, for example, 51, VI:38–40 (=CAT 1.4 VI:38–40): ʿdbt. bht[h bʿ]l (39) yʿdb. hd. ʿdb [.ʿdb]t (40) hklh Baʿl arranges the housewarming of his mansion, Hadd arranges the housewarming of his palace.78

He proposes that the same meaning is also appropriate in 1 Chr 16:37, in reference to the assignment of tasks to the Levites: ‫ויעזב שם לפני ארון ברית יהוה‬ ‫לאסף ולאחיו לשרת לפני הארון תמיד לדבר יום ביומו‬. By using this information, Cassuto was able to offer a solution to the difficult verse: ‫כי תראה חמור שנאך‬ ‫( רבץ תחת משאו וחדלת מעזב לו עזב תעזב עמו‬Exod 23:5). On the basis of the foregoing discussion it may be suggested that in Exod 23:5 both ‫ עזב‬I and ‫ עזב‬II are employed, one next to the other.79 Cassuto equates the first mention of ‫ עזב‬with ‫ עזב‬I, “to leave,” whereas the other two occurrences he derives from ‫ עזב‬II, “to arrange.”80 Accordingly, the meaning

77

78

79

80

such as “to save, to rescue, to spare, to cure, to bring prosperity, to preserve” (ibid., 424–425). It may accordingly be assumed that in Akkadian, as in Hebrew, one grapheme (ʿzb) stood for two distinct roots. To quote CAD: “It is possible that there were originally two verbs, ezēbu and *ezēbu, to the second of which šūzubu belongs, differentiated by the nature of the second radical” (ibid., 426); and, “It is quite probable that this verb [šūzubu, ‘to save’] is separate from ēzēbū ‘to leave’” (ibid.). Aistleitner, Wörterbuch, 227–228. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 116 n., 195, however, does not seem to perceive the differing usages quite so clearly. Dahood, “‫ עזב‬II,” points out that an examination of all pertinent Ugaritic passages reveals that the notion most frequently expressed by ʿdb is “to place, set.” But in contrast to Hebrew, which also had verbs like ‫ערך‬ for “arrange,” this latter verb occurs rarely, if at all, in Ugaritic, which explains its preference for expressing “arrange” by ʿdb. See also Ullendorff, “Ugaritic Marginalia II,” 344. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 454, no. 1818. For the complete listings of ʿdb see Whitaker, Concordance, 478–479. See also Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín, “Ugaritischen Lexikographie,“ 94–95; Huffmon, “Exodus 23:4-5”, 274. This may be, but need not be, a case of paronomasia. For similar juxtapositions of the same vocable in differentiated meanings, see above on 1 Sam 1:24. Cassuto, Exodus, 297–298. Even-Shoshan lists the glosses ‫עזר‬, ‫סייע‬, ‫( תמך‬Dictionary, 696). Cf. also HALOT, 807: “to put into an order, arrange”; and Albright, “thou shalt adjust his load” (Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 104). There is another pair which has a very similar semantic range: ‫ עדר‬II, “leave, be lacking” (BDB, 727 [‫ עדר‬III]; HALOT, 793; Jastrow, Dictionary, 1045–1046) and ‫ עדר‬I, “to help, arrange.” On this pair, see below.

206

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

of the verse would be: if one sees the donkey of his enemy break down under its load, he should not leave it (‫ עזב‬I); on the contrary, he should help (‫ עזב‬II) in the rearranging of the load.81 In this interpretation Cassuto was preceded by the ancient versions (LXX συνεγερεῖς αὐτὸ µετ’ αὐτοῦ, TargO ‫תפריק‬ ‫[ עמיה‬unload]), as well as medieval commentators (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Hameiri [Rashbam], ad loc. and ad Neh 3:8). Interpreted thus, Exod 23:5 parallels Deut 22:4, ‫לא תראה את חמור אחיך או‬ ‫שורו נפלים בדרך והתעלמת מהם הקם תקים עמו‬. ‫ עזב‬II is obviously also used in Neh 3:8. In a context of building the walls of Jerusalem the text reads: ‫ויעזבו ירושלם‬ ‫עד החומה הרחבה‬, “They rebuilt Jerusalem up to the broad wall.” The meaning “help”/ ”build”82 likewise provides an adequate explanation for the otherwise difficult phrase (which also refers to Jerusalem) in Jer 49:25, ‫איך לא ֻעזבה עיר‬ ‫ תהלת( קרית משושי‬:‫תהלה )קרי‬, which should be translated: “Alas, that famous city was not helped (or not kept intact)” rather than, “What now! That famous town deserted” (JB), an erroneous translation which resulted from the derivation of ‫ עזבה‬from ‫ עזב‬I. Thus, the deletion of the negation ‫ לא‬in the Vulgate, followed by many commentators (see, for example, BHS), becomes superfluous. In all these instances the connotation of ‫ עזב‬is “to arrange,” but its meaning is broadened to include connotations of building and repairing, as noted already by Even-Shoshan, who equates it with ‫ ביצר‬and ‫חיזק‬.83

81

82

83

Jastrow, Dictionary, 1060, had understood ‫ עזב‬II as ”to relieve an animal broken down under its load, (v. ‫פרק‬, help to unload),” but for some reason this meaning has not been picked up by most modern translations, nor until recently by the biblical lexica. It was also understood as “helper, supporter,” by the Peshitta. See further Driver, Deuteronomy, 376. I should further mention in this connection ‫ מעזיבה‬in Mishnaic Hebrew, which denotes the last part to be put on a building, usually the ceiling or the roof. Even-Shoshan, Dictionary, 969. It should also be pointed out that in the expression (‫)אפס‬ ‫ עצור )ואפס( עזוב‬the word ‫ עצור‬is always the first member and ‫ עזוב‬the second. That is to say, they are always used as a fixed pair in the A–B order. There is merit to the suggestion that ‫ עצור‬is the more easily understood or better known component and helps in elucidating the connotation of ‫עזוב‬: “An A-word is the more common word, used in the first of two parallel clauses; whereas a B-word is usually or even exclusively used in the second of two parallel clauses where the poet had to find a synonym” (Held, “Ugaritic Lexicography”, 6; cited by Boling, “’Synonymous’ Parallelism,” 223–224). See further Ginsberg, “Ugaritic Studies,” 48; Yoder, “A–B Pairs”; Watson, “Fixed Pairs”; and Avishur, Word-Pairs, esp. 6–47.

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

207

VI. ‫ עצור ועזוב‬IN LIGHT OF ‫ עזב‬II We return now to the consideration of the idiom ‫ עצור ועזוב‬used in the predictions of the destruction of royal houses in the northern kingdom. 1. As previously mentioned, 1 Kgs 16:11 uses in place of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬the phrase ‫גאליו ורעהו‬. Both ‫ גאל‬and ‫ רעה‬express the notion of helping, aiding, taking care of, in this context referring to someone who can sustain the nation. Since they can substitute for ‫עצור ועזוב‬, it follows that this latter idiom also expresses the same notion. In this instance, the context in which the idiom appears suggests that it refers specifically to someone who continues or could continue the royal line. 2. The extinction of ‫עצור ועזוב‬, like that of ‫ גאל‬or ‫רעה‬, would result in the termination of the royal line, and beyond that would pose a danger to the entire nation. Such a danger can be averted only by divine intervention. This idea is expressed in Deut 32:36, where God is said to react mercifully to a situation of ‫ אזלת יד‬in which Israel was helpless and bereft of any leadership ‫אפס עצור ועזוב‬. Likewise in 2 Kgs 14:26, 27, God extends succour to Israel (‫ )ביד ירבעם בן יואש ויושיעם‬again saving his leaderless people (‫ואפס עצור ואפס‬ ‫ )עזוב ואין עֹזר לישראל‬having mercifully resolved “not to eradicate Israel’s name (existence as a people)84 from under heaven.”85 These considerations give credence to Held’s suggestion, taken up by Weinfeld, that the translation of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬as “ruler and caretaker,” eminently suits the contexts discussed.86 Perhaps even more suitable is Ahuviah’s equation of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬with ‫מושיע‬.87 As was shown above, there is a similarity between the expressions ‫( ואפס עצור ואפס עזוב ואין עֹזר לישראל‬2 Kgs 14:26) and ‫כי אזלת יד ואפס עצור ועזוב‬ (Deut 32:36): ‫ אפס‬parallels ‫ אין‬and the hendiadys ‫ עצור ועזוב‬parallels ‫עוזר‬. The explanatory addition in 2 Kgs 14:26, ‫“ ואין עזר לישראל‬Israel had no leader/ helper” (i.e., “royal heir”) makes the etymological explanation of ‫ עזב‬II virtually certain. Even more strongly corroborative is 1 Kgs 16:11, in which

84 85

86 87

Talmon, “‫יד ושם‬,” below, 223–235. Deut 32:38 sarcastically contrasts God’s saving intervention to the impotence of foreign deities who cannot give any assistance: “let them get up and help you; let them be the shelter above you.” Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 132 n. 2. Ahuviah, “‫עצור ועזוב‬,” 175.

208

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the hendiadys ‫ גאליו ורעהו‬simply takes the place of ‫עצור ועזוב‬. In sum, the synonymous expressions 1. ‫( עזר לישראל‬2 Kgs 14:26), 2. ‫( גאליו ורעהו‬1 Kgs 16:11), 3. ‫ יתנחם‬... ‫( כי ידין יהוה‬Deut 32:36a), and the antithetical collocations, 4. ‫( אזלת יד‬Deut 32:36b), all convey the intrinsic meaning of the idiom ‫עצור ועזוב‬, which stands in need of explanation; namely, “ruler/deliverer.” All these passages deal with someone in charge of the nation, God himself, or his representative on earth, whose task it was to preserve Israel. It is furthermore of relevance to note that the vocables ‫ע)ו(זר‬, ‫ מושיע‬and ‫ גואל‬which, as shown above, parallel ‫עצור ועזוב‬, are used interchangeably in Isaiah in reference to God, Israel’s savior from its enemies, to the extent that they can even be substituted for one another in different textual traditions: Isa 49:25-26 MT = 1QIsaa Isa 63:4-5 MT = 1QIsaa Isa 43:3 MT

... ‫ואת יריבך אנכי אריב ואת בניך אנכי אושיע‬ 88 ‫כי אני יהוה מושיעך וגאלך‬ 89 ‫כי יום נקם בלבי ושנת גאולי באה ואביט ואין עזר‬ ‫כי אני יהוה אלהיך קדוש ישראל מושיעך‬

VII. COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY We now broaden the scope of our investigation to bring under review a series of Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Aramaic expressions whose meanings are similar to those of the terms discussed above. The comparative evidence appears to confirm what we have already established by an inner-biblical comparison and intra-Hebrew etymological investigation. In so proceeding, i.e., coming to the comparative Semitic material last, I concur with Y. Muffs’ caveat: “Only after new meanings emerge naturally from the context of one language should comparative material be brought into the picture.”90 The roots ‫ עזב‬and ‫ עצר‬can be compared to ‫ עזר‬and ‫ עזז‬in the sense of “‫חזק‬, ‫גבר‬.”91 Ahuviah suggests that the name ‫( עזובה‬1 Kgs 22:42; 1 Chr 2:18) is

88

89 90

91

Inserted supralinearly. It is highly significant that the Qumran text (1QIsaa) replaces ‫מושיעך‬ in this verse with the word ‫גאלך‬. 1QIsab substitutes here ‫איש‬, harmonizing this verse with 63:3. Muffs, “Comparative Lexical Studies,” 103–104. See also Talmon, “Comparative Method,” 343–347; and idem, “Emendation,” 279–287. Ahuviah, “‫עצור ועזוב‬,” 176.

[Type text]

The Collocation ‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬

209

close in meaning to the name ‫( עזור‬Jer 28:1),92 undoubtedly a valid proposal. The Ugaritic equivalent of ‫עצר‬, ġzr, is translated by Gordon “warrior, hero,”93 which would equal Ahuviah’s ‫גבר‬. Also important is Ugaritic ʿdr, “rescue,” equaling Hebrew ‫עדר‬.94 This connotation of ‫ עדר‬clearly appears in 1 Chr 12:34, 39. Likewise, comparison can be made with Ugaritic dmr = “strength,”95 equaling Hebrew ‫זמר‬, which root serves in this latter meaning in apposition to (‫“ = עז)ז‬strength, help,” as in ‫עזי וזמרת יה‬, thrice repeated in biblical literature (Exod 15:2; Isa 12:2; Ps 118:14).96 The following chart presents the several Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ugaritic roots in this semantic field whose semantic ranges overlap: leave:

(Hebrew)

‫ עזב‬I

‫ עדר‬III

arrange, help:

(Hebrew) (Ugaritic) (Aramaic)

‫ עזב‬II ʿdb

‫ עדר‬I ʿdr ‫עדר‬99

‫עזר‬ ġzr98

‫עזז‬

‫ עצר‬II97

In sum: My investigation of this idiom has added credence to the contention that the root ‫ עזב‬II did and does exist. I have tried to explain ‫עצור‬ ‫ ועזוב‬by textual and intertextual considerations in the first instance and have turned to etymological considerations only in the second. As a result, the division of ‫ עזב‬into the etymologically distinct categories ‫ עזב‬I and ‫ עזב‬II is based on usage in a variety of contexts and in a variety of expressions. All told, the cumulative evidence in favor of ‫ עזב‬II is impressive.

92 93 94 95 96 97

98

99

Ibid. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 463, no. 1956; cf. Aistleitner, Wörterbuch, 247. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 454, no. 1831. Ibid., 388, no. 727. SP and 1QIsaa correctly read ‫עזי וזמרתי‬. See Talmon, “Abbreviation.” ‫ עצר‬II is my suggestion for a separate division in the semantic range, to be translated, “rule, lead, help.” Thus, we have in this whole series the common elements ‫ ע‬and ġ for the first, and ‫צ‬/‫ד‬/‫ ז‬for the second radical. In 1 Chr 12, in a context describing military assistance given by the Israelite tribes to David, the root ‫ עצר‬is juxtaposed to ‫( ערך‬12:34, 39), and interchanges with ‫( עזר‬12:1, 18, 20, 22, 23; cf. also 19). This brings to mind the combination ʿdr ʿzrm in Punic (Trip 30, 32); see, Jean and Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire, 206, s.v. ‫ עזר‬II [Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary, 2:837, s.v. ʿzr3]; 204–206, s.v. ‫ עדר‬I; ‫ עדר‬II; ‫ עזר‬I, ‫ עזר‬II.

210

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 11 ~

‫יָ ד וָ ֵשׁם‬ A BIBLICAL IDIOMATIC PHRASE AND ITS VARIATIONS* I The phrase ‫ יָ ד וָ ֵשׁם‬occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible, in reference to people defined as ‫סריסים‬, of whom it is said: ‫ונתתי להם בביתי ובחומתי יד ושם טוב‬ ‫מבנים ומבנות ֵשׁם עולם אתן לו אשר לא יכרת‬, “I will give them in my house and within my walls a ‫ יד ושם‬better than sons and daughters; I will give him1 an everlasting ‫שם‬, which will never be cut off” (Isa 56:5). It is universally agreed that the text speaks of people who have no children to carry on their “name”; the prophet reassures them that their memory will be preserved by means of the ‫ יד ושם‬that God will give to the righteous among them, “who keep my Sabbaths, who choose to do my will and hold fast to my covenant” (Isa 56:4). Most exegetes propose that the expression ‫ יד ושם‬refers to a structure to be erected within the Temple precincts.2 Some ancient and modern interpreters take ‫ יד‬in this context to equal ‫“ מקום‬place.” This interpretation is reflected in LXX τόπον ὀνοµαστόν and TargJ ‫אתר ושום‬. It is derived from the injunction to set up “a ‫ יד‬outside the camp,” viz., a special place to which one was to withdraw for the performance of natural bodily functions (Deut 23:13-14). In that passage, ‫ יד‬was similarly understood by LXX as τόπος and Targs as ‫אתר‬. Traditional commentators take ‫ יד‬simply to mean “place.” Thus Ibn Ezra: “‫יד‬, ‘a place,’ as in ‫( ”ויד תהיה לך‬Deut 23:13); similarly Rashi and Rashbam

* 1

2

Originally published in Hebrew Studies 25 (1984), 8–17. MT ‫לו‬, 1QIsaa ‫להמה‬, TargJ ‫להון‬, LXX (δώσω) αὐτοῖς. Many commentators emend MT to read ‫למו‬. This emendation is unwarranted. See Qimḥi, ad loc.: “(The prophet) says ‫ לו‬after ‫להם‬, meaning each individual of the ‫סריסים‬.” The transition from plural to singular forms and vice versa is common biblical usage. See, inter alia, Ehrlich, Randglossen, 4:198, “‫ יד‬kann in diesem Zusammenhang nur heissen Monument, Denkmal (vgl. 2 Sam. 18,18). Wie man sich in diesem Falle das Denkmal vorzustellen hat, lässt sich nicht sagen.“ Ehrlich presumes that an ancient scribe was troubled by the thought that the Temple area might not be large enough to contain all these monuments. Therefore he added ‫ובחומותי‬: “‫ ובחומותי‬scheint mir eine Glosse, veranlasst durch die Erwägung, dass der Tempelraum oder Tempelbezirk für die Denkmäler sämtlicher frommen ‫ סריסים‬aller Generationen nicht hingereicht hätte.“ For a dissenting opinion see Robinson, “The Meaning.”

212

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

on Deut 23:13, Qimḥi and Isaiah of Trani on Isa 56:5.3 In Qumran writings, the identification of ‫ יד‬with ‫ מקום‬is suggested by their syntactical juxtaposition, with one term adjectively defining the other. In the Temple Scroll, Deut 23:13 is explained as follows: “You shall make them a ‫ מקום יד‬outside the city,” ‫( ועשיתה להמה מקום יד חוץ מן העיר‬11QTa 46:13). In the War Scroll,4 the verse is thus interpreted: ‫ורוח יהיה בין כול מחניהמה למקום היד כאלפים באמה‬, “There shall be a space of two thousand cubits between all their camps and the ‫”מקום היד‬ (1QM 11:6-7).5 The conjunction of ‫ יד‬and ‫שם‬6 can probably also be brought to bear on the collocation ‫ מקום שם‬in Ezekiel’s Gog oracle. This possibility has been noticed by neither ancient7 nor modern commentators.8 The pertinent passage runs as follows: ‫ וקברו שם את גוג‬... ‫והיה ביום ההוא אתן לגוג מקום ָשׁם קבר בישראל‬ ‫ואת כל המונה‬, “And it shall come to pass on that day that I shall give Gog a ‫ מקום ָשׁם‬fit for burial in Israel … and there they shall bury Gog and all his multitude” (Ezek 39:11). TargJ ‫אתר כשר לבית קבורא‬,9 “a place fit for a burial ground,” and Pesh ‫ܐܬܠ ܬܡܢ ܕܘܟܬܐ ܠܓܘܓ ܠܩܒܪܐ‬, “I shall give there a place for Gog to bury him,” mirror the consonantal text and vocalization of MT. However, LXX τόπον ὀνοµαστόν, OL, and Vulg locum nominatum, undoubtedly reflect the vocalization ‫מקום ֵשׁם‬, reading the second noun ‫“ = ֵשׁם‬name” instead of MT ‫“ = ָשׁם‬there.” That phoneme is also vocalized as ‫ ֵשׁם‬in the Cairo Genizah MS Eb 24, an important representative of the Babylonian tradition. This manuscript has

3

4 5 6

7

8 9

Ben Yehuda, Thesaurus 4:1967, lists several occurrences in which he assigns to ‫ יד‬the connotation “place.” Yadin, Temple Scroll, 2:140; see also the editor’s explanatory notes, 1:294–304. Yadin, War Scroll, 73–75, 291. Bernhard Duhm takes ‫ יד ושם‬as a “Doppelbezeichnung für ein und dieselbe Sache für irgend ein Denkmal” (Duhm, Jesaia, 422). Rashi’s explanation, “a place where they will have a burial,” implies that he read ‫ ָמקוֹם‬in the absolute state and not ‫ ְמקוֹם‬in the construct state. Qimḥi tries to dispose of the difficulty which inheres in the construct by taking it as a hyperbaton: ‫מקום קבר שם‬. He cites similar passages for this understanding; e.g., Isa 26:11; Hos 14:3; and Ps 74:3. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:291, 316–317. Notwithstanding the reading ‫אתר‬, the possibility cannot be ruled out that TargJ reflects an understanding of ‫ ָשׁם‬as ‫שׁם‬, ֵ Aramaic ‫שום‬, “name.” In Ezek 39:13 TargJ renders MT ‫ ְל ֵשׁם‬by ‫לשום‬, whereas in 39:16 the MT reading ‫ ֶשׁם ִעיר‬is rendered by ‫לתמן‬, “there.“

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

213

here the reading ‫ ָמקוֹם ֵשׁם‬in the absolute state,10 which prevails in the majority of MT witnesses.11The proposed synonymity of ‫ מקום שם‬with ‫יד ושם‬ (Isa 56:5) gains additional support from the identical Greek translation of both phrases by τόπον ὀνοµαστόν. We may add that ‫ שם‬by itself occurs once more in that very same context, in reference to Gog’s burial: ‫וקברו כל עם הארץ והיה להם לשם יום הכבדי‬, “All the people of the land shall bury [them], and it shall be for them a name, the day that I shall be glorified” (Ezek 39:13). The renditions of LXX εἰς ὀνοµαστόν, OL in nominatissimum, Vulg nominata, TargJ ‫ לשום‬and Pesh ‫ܫܡܐ‬, are very similar to the terms by which the translators rendered ‫מקום שם‬ (Ezek 39:11) and ‫( יד ושם‬Isa 56:5). This concurrence suggests that they correctly understood the lexeme ‫שם‬12 as synecdoche13 for the two-word phrase ‫מקום שם‬. Both expressions evidently refer to the “memorial,” ‫ציון‬, which is explicitly mentioned in Ezek 39:15, “And when wayfarers pass through the land and anyone sees a man’s bone, he shall set up by it a ‫ציון‬14 until the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-Gog.” Qimḥi’s comment brings into full light the synonymity of ‫ שם‬and ‫ ציון‬in the above context: “They are buried in one place and will become a memorial15 for future times.” The fact that the terms ‫ ציון‬and ‫ שם‬both connote a memorial in the form of a pillar set up to mark the burial of human bones may be substantiated by a tradition concerning King Josiah of Judah. Espying the pillar, he said, “What is that ‫ ציון‬that I see?” And the towns-people told him, “It is the tomb of the man of God who came

10

11 12

13 14 15

This vocalization was accepted by C. Ginsburg in his edition of the Prophets (Ginsburg, Later Prophets, ad loc.); he comments that he presumes that ‫ ֵשׁם‬should be read like LXX and Vulg, instead of the construct state ‫מקום ָשׁם‬. The evidence of this MS is interesting, but its value should not be overrated. In Ezek 39:16, TargJ paraphrases ‫ עיר‬by way of midrash: “There, ‫לתמן‬, (viz., ‫שׁם‬,) ָ shall be flung the slain of Rome, the city of many boisterous crowds.” MS Eb 24 also reads ‫שׁם‬. ָ Medieval commentators—Rashi, Qimḥi, et al.—retain the vocalization ‫ ֵשׁם‬and understand ‫ להם‬to refer to Israel. Rashi (on v. 13): “All the heathen will extol their name with praise and love: ‘You cannot find any nation as merciful as this one; is there anyone who will bury an enemy who planned to kill him?’” This phenomenon will be discussed below at some length. LXX σηµεῖον, OLs signum, Vulg titulum, TargJ ‫( צואה‬MSS: ‫ציונא‬, ‫ציותא סוואה‬, ‫)סוואה‬, Pesh ‫ܨܘܝܐ‬. See Meṣudat David: “This is to say … that valley will be called the Valley of Hamon-Gog as a memorial which shows that this is their burial place.”

214

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

from Judah…” And he said, “Let him be; let no man touch [or: disturb] his bones.” (2 Kgs 23:17-18)

A ‫ ציון‬consisted of an upright stone (or possibly several stones) in the form of a stele, like a ‫מצבה‬, e.g.: “Over her grave Jacob set up a ‫ ;מצבה‬this is the ‫ מצבת‬at Rachel’s grave to this day (Gen 35:20, LXX στήλη, TargJ ‫)קמתא‬.” The concise survey of terms and idioms which pertain to the semantic field of memorial stele/pillar buttresses the conclusion that the biblical authors considered ‫ יד ו ֵשׁם‬and ‫ מקום ָשׁם‬synonymous collocations. The ancient translators also seem to have thought this, rendering them by the same equivalents in the target languages, such as ‫אתר שום‬, τόπον ὀνοµαστόν, locum nominatum, et sim. It should be stressed that these expressions can signify a pillar set up to commemorate a past event and/or physically mark a burial place. At the same time, they can denote a metaphorical memorial by which the name and the memory of a person are preserved. The seemingly different connotations, one real,16 the other metaphorical,17 are not mutually exclusive, as is at times presumed.18 Instead, they evince the phenomenon of double entendre which prevails in biblical writings, as in literature generally. Scripture does not enlighten us on the exact form or contours of such a stele, nor on whether it was the custom to differentiate between various kinds of memorials, each serving a specific purpose. Some information on this matter derives from archeological discoveries, such as the stele in the form of a human hand found in the temenos at Hazor.19 As has been said, the wording of relevant texts suggests that such a monument was usually an oblong stone20 (Gen 28:11, 18-19), “set up” (Gen 35:20); “erected” (Gen 31:45); “established” (Josh 24:26); “laid down,” or “installed” (1 Sam 7:12). Occasionally the monument would consist of several stones (Josh 4:2-9, 20-24; cf. Deut 27:2-8).21

16 17 18

19 20 21

Thus Duhm, Jesaia, 422; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 313–314; etc. Robinson, “The Meaning.” See, e.g., the discussion of the issue by Loretz, “Stelen und Sohnespflicht“: “Die Autoren differieren ... in der Frage, ob die Rede von der Errichtung von Steinmalen real oder metaphorisch zu verstehen sei“ (242). I am indebted to Dr. W.W. Fields for bringing this study to my attention. See Yadin et al., Hazor, 1:pls. xxix–xxx; Galling, “Hazor“; Loretz, “Stelen und Sohnespflicht.” See, Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 436, 442. See Qimḥi’s comment on Ezek 39:15.

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

215

A ‫ ציון‬that served as a signpost to indicate directions at crossroads could sometimes be shaped like a human hand, and could be designated a ‫יד‬,22 as in: Man, trace out two roads by which the sword of the King of Babylon may come, both starting out from one land; and [put up] a signpost (‫)יד‬,23 … where the highway forks … that the sword may come to Rabbath-Ammon and to Judah.24 (Ezek 21:24-25)

Yadin suggested that the use of ‫ יד‬in the sense of “signpost” originated in the custom of giving signals to soldiers in battle by means of a raised hand or an extended arm:25 And the ambush rose quickly from their place, and as soon as he [Joshua] had stretched out his hand (‫)כנטות ידו‬, they ran. (Josh 8:19)

Again, On a bare hill raise a standard. … Wave the hand (‫)הניפו יד‬, for them to enter the noble gates. (Isa 13:2)

II However, we are not concerned with defining the physical form of the object or objects designated by any one of the terms mentioned above, but rather with gauging the use in the Hebrew Bible of the hapax legomenon ‫( יד ושם‬Isa 56:5) and its variations. With the exception of LXX, the ancient versions translate the collocation as two nouns joined by a conjunctive waw: The renditions of the “Three” (Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion), χεῖρα καὶ ὄνοµα; of Vulg, locum et nomen; and of TargJ, ‫אתר ושום‬, all reflect the MT reading, and are followed by most modern commentaries26 and translations.27 22 23

24

25 26

27

See Delcor, “Two Special Meanings”; Ackroyd, “‫יד‬.” LXX has χείρ, but TargJ has ‫אתרא‬, which is followed by medieval commentators, e.g., Qimḥi: “‫ יד‬means a place, as in Deut 23:13” (see above). The difficult text seems to contain doublets. Once they are removed we get the reading ‫ויד בראש דרך תשים‬. Zimmerli offers a detailed discussion of this textual crux (Ezekiel 1, 481). See also Licht: “A sign designated ‫ יד המלך‬may have been set up at the entrance of the road to Aran (Wadi Arah). Pharaoh Shishak mentions a locality of this name” (“‫יד‬,” 463). Mazar, “Campaign,” 62. Yadin, War Scroll, 99–101. See, e.g., McKenzie, Second Isaiah; Wade, Isaiah; North, Second Isaiah; Westermann, Isaiah; Luzatto, Isaia. E.g., RSV and NEB “a memorial and a name,” JB “a monument and a name,” SB “une stèle et un nom,” HB “eine Säule und einen Namen.”

216

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Since ‫ יד ושם‬is a hapax legomenon found only in a post-exilic text (Isa 56:5), it can be argued that this two-word expression arose from the conjoining of two nouns28 that were considered synonymous designations of a memorial. In contradistinction, and in accord with Bernhard Duhm,29 Claus Westermann,30 Peter Ackroyd,31 et al.,32 I propose that we understand the collocation as a hendiadys, which by mere chance was only preserved in a single, late source.33 The second component ‫ )ו(שם‬adjectively qualifies the first, ‫( יד‬cf. LXX τόπον ὀνοµαστόν). Accordingly the Hebrew phrase has been correctly rendered by some modern interpreters as one term, e.g., Einheitsübersetzung: “ein Denkmal”; Ackroyd: “eine Art Denkmal oder Stele”;34 and similarly Whybray: “a memorial stele.”35 This conception of ‫ יד ושם‬will serve as guideline in the ensuing discussion, in which I propose to concentrate on the investigation of the collocation and its variations in biblical literature. No parallel to the unique biblical hendiadys ‫ יד ושם‬has been found in ancient Semitic sources. Therefore, comparative studies—whether linguistic, literary or cultic and cultural—which are based on an inquiry into the connotation or connotations of only one of its components, viz., of ‫יד‬, can only be of limited help at best in the elucidation of the intrinsic significance of the Hebrew hendiadys. We must bear in mind that the connotation of a hendiadys does not directly derive from the meaning of one of its components or the combination of the meanings of both, but rather can assume a significance of its own. This is shown by the fact that in the technical employments of ‫יד ושם‬, the noun ‫ יד‬never interchanges with one of its synonyms or with similar expressions, such as ‫כף‬, ‫זרוע‬, or ‫אצבע‬, with which it does interchange in biblical texts,36 nor do these expressions replace 28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35

36

See also Fohrer, Jesaja, 3:189–190; idem, Propheten, 5:83–85. Duhm, Jesaia, 422. See n. 6 above. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 313–314. Ackroyd, “‫יד‬,“ 401. Brongers, “Miscellanea exegetica,” 35–36. On the use of hendiadys in biblical literature, see Melamed, “Hendiadys“; Avishur, Construct State, with extensive bibliography; idem, Word-Pairs. Ackroyd, “‫יד‬.” Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 198. See further Avi-Yonah, “Memorial Stones,” 52: “The words ‫יד‬ and ‫ שם‬refer here [1 Sam 15:12; 2 Sam 8:13—S.T.] to the same object, viz., to a memorial stone (cf. Isa 56:5).” See Ackroyd, “‫יד‬,” 403–407.

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

217

‫ יד‬in parallelismus membrorum constructions with ‫שם‬. Therefore, the attempts to clarify the signification of ‫ יד ושם‬by recourse to comparisons with extrabiblical occurrences of ‫ יד‬alone will not easily lead to explanations of the signification of the biblical hendiadys. From this follows that the interpretation of the biblical phrase as a residual manifestation in post-exilic Judaism of an ancient Canaanite ancestor cult, on the strength of a comparison with Ugaritic nṣb skn ilibh (CAT, 1:17 I 26),37 is altogether unwarranted.38 I have recurrently expressed my reservations concerning the attempted elucidation of biblical cruxes by unqualified comparisons with apparent extra-biblical parallels. Concomitantly, I stress the principle that inner-biblical parallels always take precedence in the clarification of textual cruxes.39 By definition a hendiadys conveys one single unified notion. At the same time, each of its two components, when used separately in a breakup pattern, can by itself express the full concept that inheres in the two-word collocation.40 In the case of ‫ יד ושם‬this stylistic phenomenon can be observed in texts in which the two components of the hendiadys are employed singly in parallelismus membrorum, either in the A–B sequence ‫שם‬//‫ יד‬or in the inverted B–A sequence ‫ יד‬// ‫שם‬,41 as in: This one shall say, “I am YHWH’s [man]”; another shall call [himself] by the name (NEB “a son”) of Jacob (‫ ;)בשם יעקב‬and that one shall write

37 38

39

40 41

Scullion, “Difficult Texts.“ Loretz, “Stelen und Sohnespflicht,” 246: “Eine Zusammenschau von KTU 1.17 I 26 und Jes 56,5 manifestiert nicht nur die Überlebenskraft uralter kanaanäischer Anschaungen aus dem Totenkult inmitten des nachexilischen Judentums, sondern zeigt zugleich auch die erstaunliche Kraft zu Ansätzen für eine Überwindung patriarchaler Vorstellungskomplexe in dieser Gemeinschaft auf.” And again: “Die Handlung wird von der menschlichen Ebene in die göttliche verlegt. Die Pflicht, für den toten Vater eine Stele zu errichten, die den Söhnen obliegt (KTU 1,17 I 26; II Sam 18,18), hat jetzt Jahwe selbst übernommen“ (ibid., 244). See Talmon, “Navel of the Earth,” 59–75; idem, “Comparative Method”; idem, “Emendation,” 279–300; further Talmon and Fields, “‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬,” above, 183–210. See Melamed, “Break-up”; Talmon, “Synonymous Readings.” The employment of the components in both these sequences can also be observed in later Hebrew poetry, e.g., in Yannai’s piyyutim. See Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 220:26, ‫יתּן לו יד ושם‬ ַ ִ‫;נ‬ 224:124, ‫נתן לו ברית שם ויד‬.

218

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

‫( ידו‬LXXB χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, viz., “on his hand”)42 to YHWH, and by the name of Israel (‫)בשם ישראל‬, he will name himself. (Isa 44:5)43

Qimḥi took the two hemistichs to exhibit the same syntactical structure: ‫יאמר בפיו ויכתוב בידו‬, “he shall say with his mouth and write with his hand.” Similarly Ibn Ezra: ‫ ויכתוב בידו לבוא אל מקדש השם‬:‫ וכן הוא‬,‫חסר בי "ת‬, “A beth is missing,44 but the text intends to say, ‘he shall write with his hand (that he wishes) to enter God’s sanctuary’.”45 This emendation is unwarranted,46 since it does not take into account the conceptual and linguistic connection between Isa 44:5, in which ‫ יד‬and ‫ שם‬are used in a breakup pattern in parallelismus membrorum, and Isa 56:5, where the collocation ‫ יד ושם‬serves as a hendiadys.47 The linguistic affinity between the above passages invites further study, because critical scholarship ascribes Isaiah 44 and 56 to different authors. It should be stressed, however, that in one instance (Isa 44:3-4) the broken up collocation is employed in reference to actual future generations, in whom God’s promise to his people is to be fulfilled; in the other (Isa 56:5) it denotes a symbolic substitute for living descendants, as will yet be explained.48 ‫ יד‬does not designate here an artifact, a kind of pillar or stele, but is used metaphorically.49 It stands to reason that both ‫ יד‬and ‫ שם‬should similarly be understood in Jer 16:21, 42

43

44

45 46 47

48 49

The reading ‫ בידו‬is accepted, inter alia, by Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 134, 137 and McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 62. Following Sym., TargJ, and Pesh, many modern commentators interpret ‫ יקרא‬and ‫ יכתב‬as passive forms, unlike the MT vocalization ‫יקרא‬ ָ and ‫יכתֹב‬. Ibn Ezra may have assumed that (due to haplography) the preposition ‫ ב־‬of ‫ בידו‬coalesced with the final letter of ‫יכתֹב‬. See Friedländer, Ibn Ezra, 75, 199. See Ehrlich’s remarks ad loc. (Randglossen,160); idem, Mikrâ, 3:101. It appears that traditional commentators indeed discerned the connection between these passages. Following a rabbinic comment, Rashi explains ‫( ובשם ישראל יכנה‬Isa 44:5) this way: “These are the sojourners,” ‫אילו הגרים‬. A later commentary, Meṣudat David is more precise: “These are Babylonian proselytes who joined them [the exiles],” evidently referring to ‫( בני הנכר‬Isa 56:6-7). I believe, however, that this term should be interpreted differently (see below). Cf. further Mek. R. Ishmael, Neziqin 18 (ed. Horovitz–Rabin, 312); b. Šabb. 118b; Num. Rab. 5:4; Yal. Shimoni, 2:459; Abot R. Nat. A, 36 (ed. Schechter, 107). See also Robinson, “The Meaning,” 282–283. Thus Qimḥi on Isa 56:5: “‫ יד‬means ‫מקום‬, … not an actual place, but a position of sovereignty and prestige, as in [Ezek 3:12] ‘Blessed be YHWH’s … glory ‫ממקומו‬,’ and as in the expression often found in rabbinic writings, ‘filling one’s father’s place,’ ‫ממלא מקום אבותיו‬, et sim.”

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

219

Therefore I will show them, once for all I will show them my power, ‫את ידי‬, and my might; and they shall learn that my name (‫)שמי‬, is YHWH.

The hand of God, ‫יד‬, and his ‫ שם‬symbolize his unlimited power. They are the “signs and wonders” in which his mighty deeds (TargJ ‫ית פורענותי וית‬ ‫ )מחת גבורתי‬and his awe-inspiring name manifest themselves among the nations. The very same notion is present in Ps 89:13-14, North and South you have created, Tabor and Hermon rejoice in your name (‫ ;)בשמך ירננו‬yours is the strength of arm, strong is your hand (‫)ידך‬, your right hand raised high.

It is probable that the word pair ‫ יד‬// ‫ שם‬has the very same connotation in Ugaritic literature: ʿl. ydm. pʾrt. šmk. mdd. ʾi[l] (CAT 1.1 IV:19–20).50 III Literary imagery and motifs as a rule are derived from an author’s personal experience or from the corporate experience of his society.51 This may explain how the abstract noun ‫ ֵשם‬in biblical literature could be invested with the connotation “memorial, monument,” which inheres in the terms ‫מצבה‬/‫ מקום‬and ‫יד‬. The biblical tradition about David’s son Absalom records the erection of a stele or pillar as a memorial by a person who has no sons in whom his name will be perpetuated: Absalom in his lifetime had set up for himself the pillar (‫ את מצבת‬... ‫)ויצב לו‬, which is in the King’s Valley, for he said, “I have no son to carry on my name (‫ … ;”)בעבור הזכיר שמי‬it is called Absalom’s monument (‫)יד‬, to this day. (2 Sam 18:18)

As might be expected, some exegetes identify ‫ יד‬as ‫ מקום‬in this instance as well. Thus, e.g., TargJ ‫אתרא דאבשלום‬. Gersonides explains ‫ מצבת‬as follows: “It seems that he constructed there a lofty building.” This report contradicts the statement in 2 Sam 14:27 that “three sons were born to Absalom and

50

51

Dahood, “Word-Pairs,” 2:219d, correctly lists Isa 44:5 and 56:5, but wrongly cites Jer 11:21 as an additional parallel text, as Avishur pointed out in his “Review.” See the introduction to this volume, 3–9; idem, ”Desert Motif”; idem, “‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬,” above, 55–75.

220

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

a daughter named Tamar who was very beautiful.”52 Traditional commentators tried to get around this problem, which needs not be treated here, by suggesting that Absalom had indeed begotten sons, but that none was suited to reign after him (b. Sot. 11a); or that all his sons had died (Gersonides on 2 Sam 18:18, etc.). This latter explanation is similar to R. Nachman b. Isaac’s presentation of the childless ‫( סריסים‬Isa 56:5) as persons who were not survived by any offspring: “Better than sons and daughters, who were born to them in their youth but had died,” ‫טוב מבנים ובנות שהיו להם בבחרותם ומתו‬ (b. Sanh. 93b). These exegetes evidently drew an analogy between the hendiadys ‫( יד ושם‬Isa 56:5) and the separate use of its components in a breakup pattern in the inverted sequence ‫ שם‬// ‫ יד‬in two parallel cola (2 Sam 18:18).53 We may conclude that both the phrase ‫“ שם עולם אתן להם‬I will give them an everlasting name” (Isa 56:5), and the collocation ‫“ בעבור הזכיר שמי‬to carry on my name” (2 Sam 18:18), give expression to one and the same notion, the expectancy and hope of family continuance.54 A comparison with some other texts in which ‫ זכר‬and ‫ שם‬serve in synonymous or antithetical parallelism will put in full light their equivalence in the semantic field under review: The memory (‫ )זכר‬of the righteous shall be for a blessing but the name (‫ )שם‬of the wicked shall rot. (Prov 10:7) His roots beneath dry up // and above his branches wither. His memory (‫ )זכרו‬perishes from the earth // and he leaves no name (‫ )שם‬in the world. (Job 18:16-17)

In contrast, the “memory” of God, viz., his fame, is everlasting and will be passed on from generation to generation: This is my name (‫ )שמי‬forever // and this is my fame (‫ )זכרי‬for generation after generation. (Exod 3:15)55

52

53

54 55

See, inter alia, the commentaries by Smith, Samuel, 338; Segal, Samuel, 322; McCarter, 2 Samuel, 350, 407. For an application of this well-known rabbinic exegetical principle of analogy, termed ‫גזרה‬ ‫ שוה‬and sometimes referred to by the catchphrases ‫( יגיד עליו רעו‬Job 36:33) or ‫ממרחק תביא לחמה‬ (Prov 31:14), see Talmon, “Emendation.” See the wide-ranging overview of the matter by Daube, Duty. The synonymity of ‫ שם‬and ‫ זכר‬in this context—cf. ‫( הנשבעים בשם יהוה ובאלהי ישראל יזכירו‬Isa 48:1) and ‫( כי לא להזכיר בשם יהוה‬Amos 6:10)—had the result that, notwithstanding their etymological dissimilarity, they could substitute for one another in the transmission of the biblical text, as, e.g., in Deut 25:19 (below).

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

221

The interchange of ‫ שם‬and ‫זכר‬/‫ סכר‬in this specific semantic field suggests that at some stage the two nouns may have formed a hendiadys which is not preserved in the Bible, but is still found in a Phoenician stele erected by one ‫ עבדאלם בן מתן‬in 132 BCE: ‫לכני לי לסכר ושם נעם‬, “that it may be a memorial for me and a good name.”56 In the instances adduced, the hendiadys ‫זכר ושם‬/‫ ס‬and the breakup pattern ‫ זכר‬// ‫שם‬, like ‫ יד ושם‬and ‫ שם‬// ‫יד‬, connote a person’s offspring or designate a symbolic substitute for children. Therefore, in parallelism ‫ זכר‬will at times interchange with ‫זרע‬, another term for progeny, as in: Now swear to me by YHWH that you will not exterminate my offspring (‫ )זרעי‬after me // and blot out my name (‫ )שמי‬from my father’s house. (1 Sam 24:22) For, as the new heaven and the new earth … endure // your offspring (‫ )זרעכם‬and your name (‫ )שמכם‬shall endure. (Isa 66:22) They say, “Come, let us destroy them so that they be a nation no longer // that no more will be remembered (‫ עוד‬... ‫)לא יזכר‬, the name of Israel (‫)שם ישראל‬. (Ps 83:5)

And in contrast: Never again shall your name be scattered (‫)לא יזרע משמך‬. (Nah 1:14)

Interestingly enough, TargJ, ‫ולא יהי דוכרן משמך עוד‬, translates ‫ זרע‬by the Aramaic equivalent of (‫זכר)ון‬.57 I presume that due to the very mention of ‫שם‬, a reference to “offspring,” the author resorted to a word play, substituting ‫זרע‬, another term for “progeny,” for ‫זרה‬, a phoneme which in prophetic oracles recurrently describes the “dispersion of Israel,” viz., the disruption of its synchronous and diachronous societal cohesion (Jer 15:7; Ezek 5:2; 6:8; 12:15; 29:12; 30:23; 36:19; Zech 2:2, 4; Ps 44:12; etc.) IV Let me reiterate. When the two components of a hendiadys occur separately in a breakup pattern, especially in a case of parallelismus membrorum, each

56

57

Donner and Röllig, KAI 1:3–4; 2:26–27, “damit es mir zum Gedenken und guten Namen sei“ (ibid, 2:26). Haldar, Studies in Nahum, 36–37 considers this rendition “a real ‘targum’ on the strength of which commentators tend to emend the text to read ‫ יזכר‬instead of ‫יזרע‬.“ See, inter alia, Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, 248; Robinson and Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 158.

222

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

single element transmits the essential meaning of the entire phrase, in the manner of pars pro toto. As a result the two phonemes involved can substitute for each other in parallel passages and similar contexts, regardless of their etymological distinctiveness. Therefore, as shown, the nouns ‫ יד‬and ‫ שם‬can connote “memorial stele” each one by itself, like ‫ציוּן‬, ‫מצבה‬, et sim. Thus, before encountering Saul again, Samuel was informed that Saul had “gone to Carmel and is setting up a monument for himself (‫”)מציב לו יד‬ (1 Sam 15:12). Likewise it is reported that “David defeated Hadad–Ezer (the Rehobite) king of Zobah, when he went to erect his monument [victory stele] (‫ )להציב ידו‬by the River Euphrates” (1 Chr 18:3). The parallel account in 2 Sam 8:3 reads ‫להשיב ידו‬, probably due to an interchange of the sibilants ‫ צ‬and ‫ש‬, as in: You [Gog] will say, “I will go up against a land of open villages … to spoil and to plunder,” to establish your monument [of victory] ( ‫להשיב‬ ‫)ידך‬,58 on waste places that are now inhabited again. (Ezek 38:11-12)

The same notion can be expressed with ‫ שם‬substituting for ‫יד‬: And David made a name [a victory stele] (‫)ויעשׂ דוד ֵשׁם‬,59 when he returned from defeating Aram in the Valley of Salt. (2 Sam 8:13; cf. 2 Sam 8:3)

The mention of Aram in this report calls for some clarification. Several MSS of MT, LXX, Pesh, and the parallel Hebrew text in 1 Chr 18:12 read ‫אדום‬ instead of ‫ארם‬. Other biblical references to the war with Edom record that either Abishai, son of Zeruiah (1 Chr 18:12–13), or else Joab had led the army in that battle:60 When David was in Edom, Joab, the commander of the army … slew every male in Edom; Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had destroyed every male in Edom. (1 Kgs 11:15-16; cf. 2 Kgs 14:7)

58

59

60

LXX τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι χεῖρά σου; TargJ renders paraphrastically: ‫לכנשא משריתך‬, “to assemble your troops.“ While LXX translates literally καὶ ἐποίησεν ∆αυιδ ὄνοµα, TargJ again offers a clearly paraphrastic rendition, ‫( דויד משרין‬MSS ‫וכנש )ועבד‬, as in Ezek 38:12. On Israel’s wars with Edom, see Liver, “Wars with Edom,” 195–205.

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

223

This tradition is reflected in Psalms: Joab … slew twelve thousand of Edom in the Valley of Salt. (Ps 60:2)61

David probably played only a symbolic role in that battle, as he did in the war against the Ammonites (2 Sam 12:26-31). After Joab had actually taken Rabbah, the capital city of Ammon, he invited the king to complete the seizure of the city formally, lest the conquest should be “called by his name,” ‫( ונקרא שמי עליה‬12:28), viz., be credited to him and not to David. It stands to reason that in this instance the phrase ‫ נקרא שם על‬equals ‫הציב יד‬ (1 Sam 15:12; 1 Chr 18:3) and ‫( השיב יד‬2 Sam 8:3; Ezek 38:12). V As I have said, motifs, literary imagery and patterns on the whole are symbolic reflections of the human experiences from which they are derived.62 This also pertains to the hendiadys ‫יד ושם‬, and equally to the component ‫שם‬, when used separately to connote the erection of a monument, especially in conjunction with the verbs ‫הקים‬/‫ קום‬and ‫( עשה‬see above). In a number of passages in which the noun ‫ שם‬on the surface carries the abstract meaning “glory, fame,” one can still discern vestiges of the underlying reference to progeny in whom a father’s line is perpetuated or a society’s continued existence guaranteed. These texts give expression to the high appreciation of kin-continuity which permeates the ancient Hebrews’ world view and is anchored in biblical legislation to “perpetuate the name of the dead man on his patrimony,” ‫( להקים שם המת על נחלתו‬Ruth 4:5), and thereby to ensure the enduring existence of the dead man’s family (cf. Deut 25:6). Boaz, to whom this duty falls in the Book of Ruth, acts in accordance with the established rule, although he is not the dead man’s brother but a more distant relative, ‫( גֹאל‬4:1-10). There is an opposite to the blessing of enduring continuity conferred upon a family, viz., the concern lest the death of sons will bring about “the blotting out of its ‫שם‬,” meaning in effect its extinction. This concern finds expression in the contrived but exemplary tale of the “Wise Woman of Tekoa,” one of whose sons had killed his brother and had therefore been 61

62

Cf. the report of the war of King Joash of Judah against the Edomites: “He slew ten thousand of Edom in the Valley of Salt”(2 Kgs 14:7). See above.

224

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

sentenced to death by a local court. In her appeal to King David, the bereaved mother employs that very same terminology: [If the elders do this, i.e. carry out the death sentence], they will stamp out my last live ember and leave my husband no name and no descendant on earth (‫ שים[ לאישי שם ושארית על פני האדמה‬:‫)לבלתי שום ]קרי‬. (2 Sam 14:7)

An application of the idea and the ideal of family perpetuation to the wider societal frame of the people of Israel, whose everlasting existence is guaranteed by divine promise, may be found in the divine promise: “I will ִ establish for them [Israel] a [new] plant for a [perpetual] name,” ‫והקמֹתי להם‬ ‫( מטע לְ ֵשׁ ם‬Ezek 34:29; cf. CD 1:7-8, ‫ ;ויצמח מישראל ומאהרון שורש מטעת‬further CD 3:9-14). The somewhat free rendition of TargJ, ‫ואקים להון נצבא לקיימא‬, “I will establish for them an everlasting plant,” captures the essential meaning of the Hebrew phrase (cf. 2 Sam 7:10). In contrast, the Greek translation καὶ ἀναστήσω ἀυτοῖς φυτὸν εἰρήνης, “I will establish for them a plant of peace,” introduces an abstract ideational interpretation that misses the intrinsically concrete content of the Hebrew collocation.63 In biblical literature plant imagery often symbolizes a turn of fate in the history of a family, a people, or a nation, foreshadowing as it were the notion of a family tree. A few examples will suffice to illustrate this literary convention. A mother who has given birth to many children is likened to a “fruitful vine,” and a father’s sons are seen as “olive shoots” round about the family table (Ps 128:3). In contrast, the childless ‫סריס‬, who has no son to carry on his name, bemoans his being a “withered tree.” Like the ‫בן הנכר‬ who complains, ‫הבדל יבדילני יהוה מעל עמו‬, “YHWH has cut me off from his people” (Isa 56:3a),64 he would have no part in the future history of Israel and its sanctified traditions, were it not for the divine promise to give the righteous among these childless ‫ סריסים‬a ‫יד ושם‬, viz., a symbolic presence in the precincts of the Temple (vv. 4-5). Plant imagery finds an especially vivid application in pronouncements pertaining to the Davidic dynasty, e.g., in the prophetic vision of a future Davidic ruler:

63 64

We have no reason to assume that the translator’s Vorlage in fact contained the word ‫שלום‬. In this context the term ‫ בן הנכר‬cannot refer to proselytes, as is usually presumed, but rather designates Jewish exiles who did not return to the land, see below, 234–235.

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

225

Then a shoot shall grow from the stock of Jesse, and a branch shall spring from his roots. (Isa 11:1)

This text evidently inspired Jeremiah’s prophecy: In those days, at that time, I will make a righteous branch (‫)צמח צדקה‬ spring up for David (Jer 33:15),

reiterated with the telling substitution of ‫ אצמיח‬for ‫ ֲה ִקמ ִֹתי‬in The days are coming, says YHWH, when I will establish a righteous branch (‫ )צמח צדיק‬for David. (Jer 23:5)

The post-exilic prophet Zechariah purposefully employs this symbolism twice in his depiction of the Davidic scion Zerubbabel: Listen, Joshua the High Priest … I will now bring my servant, “the branch.” (Zech 3:8)

Here is a man whose name is “The Branch;” he will shoot up from the ground where he is and will build the Temple of YHWH, ‫הנה איש צמח שמו‬ ‫( ומתחתיו יצמח ובנה את היכל יהוה‬Zech 6:12). As is the case with other facets of Davidic symbolism, biblical authors also apply plant imagery to the depiction of the people of Israel and the changing circumstances of their historical fate. When suffering divine punishment, Israel is likened to a tree that has lost its branches; when blessed with God’s mercy, Israel grows again, the firm and holy trunk of the tree, ‫מצבת בם זרע קדש מצבתה‬, (cf. above the terms ‫ מצבה‬and ‫)מצבת‬, allowing for the regeneration of new shoots and sprouts (Isa 6:13). The connotation “memorial, monument” which attaches to ‫שם‬, whether in the metaphorical or in the concrete sense, recurrently comes to the fore in texts where the noun is conjoined with the verbs ‫נתן‬, ‫שׂים‬, ‫ עשׂה‬et sim., in addition to ‫הקים‬/‫קום‬, both in reference to individuals and to society as a whole. Nathan’s prophecy provides a graphic illustration of the divine promise to David that guarantees the infinite duration of his house. Because of his special status as Israel’s king–savior, the announcement to David as an individual, clothed in the collocations ‫נתן ֵשׁם‬/‫שים‬/‫עשה‬, at the same time constitutes an assurance of perpetual existence that God grants to the people of Israel: ‫ועשׂתי לך שם גדול כשם הגד ֹלים אשר בארץ‬ ִ I will make you a great name, like the name(s) of the great ones of the earth. (2 Sam 7:9 = 1 Chr 17:8)

226

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

This promise will be realized in the establishment of the Davidic dynasty after the founding father’s death: ‫והקימֹתי את זרעך אחריך‬ I will set up your offspring to succeed you. (2 Sam 7:12) ‫ונאמן ביתך וממלכתך עד עולם‬ Your family will be established and your kingdom [will stand] for all time. (2 Sam 7:16)

The coalescence of the individual and national significance of the divine promise is recaptured in the ensuing passage (2 Sam 7:18-29), most prominently in David’s prayer, in which the expression ‫ לשום שם‬parallels the equivalent collocation ‫לעשות גדולה‬. David gives thanks to God, ‫לשום לו שם ולעשות לכם הגדולה ונֹראות לארצך‬ who has set out … to make a name for him, to perform great and momentous feats for you [the people] and your country. (2 Sam 7:23)

The phraseology is reminiscent of the aforementioned instance in which the collocation ‫ שם עולם‬serves synonymously with the hendiadys ‫יד ושם‬: ‫שם עולם אתן לו אשר לא יכרת‬ I will give him an everlasting name, never to be cut off. (Isa 56:5)

The same idea is expressed in a negative wording in the statement: “God had resolved not to blot out the name of Israel (‫)למחות את שם ישראל‬65 under heaven” (2 Kgs 14:27). These texts enrich the semantic field with which we are concerned by two further terms, ‫ כרת שם‬and ‫מחה שם‬. The verb ‫כרת‬, which often refers to the cutting down of tangible objects—trees, idols, etc.—is the very antithesis of the verbs ‫נתן שם‬/‫הקים‬, which in similar contexts connote the setting up of such an object, and the terms ‫הכרית שם‬/‫ כרת‬signify the very opposite of ‫שום‬ ‫ ֵשם‬and ‫הקים ֵשם‬. The phrase ‫הכרית שם‬/‫כרת‬, like ‫לבלתי שום שם‬, spells the extinction of a paternal house in which no son survives to preserve a father’s name, or else signifies the annihilation of a people: ‫והכרתי לבבל שם ושאר ונין ונכד‬ I will blot out the name of Babylon and all her offspring, her progeny and posterity. (Isa 14:22) 65

LXX τὸ σπέρµα Ισραηλ = ‫זרע ישראל‬. Cf. the treatments of the following above: 1 Sam 24:22; Isa 66:22; Nah 1:14.

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

227

The very same notion emerges in Joshua’s plea for divine assistance lest Israel be totally routed in an all-out war with the Canaanites, who will encircle us and cut our name off from the face of the earth (‫והכריתו‬ ‫)את שמנו מן הארץ‬. (Josh 7:9)

On the level of the individual: That person shall be cut off (‫ההוא‬ ִ ‫ )ונכרתה הנפש‬from his father’s kin. (Gen 17:14)

It is possible that an echo of these and similar collocations reverberates in the following text, in which “death” and its opposite, “name” (=life), spelling memory beyond death, turn up next to each other: You shall give your name (‫ )שמכם‬as an oath to my chosen, and the Lord YHWH shall give you over to death (‫ )המיתך‬and his servants he will call by another name (‫)שם אחר‬. (Isa 65:15)

Compare that verse with: My enemies say … “When will he die (‫)מתי ימות‬, and his line become extinct (‫ואבד שמו‬, lit.: his name be lost).” (Ps 41:6)

The Sitz im Leben of this literary imagery emerges in texts pertaining to the reality of a family’s assured continuation in children and grandchildren who are considered the ‫ שם‬of their progenitors.66 It will suffice to draw attention to the words of the Wise Woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14:7), to Ps 41:6, and to the complaint of the daughters of Zelophehad, whose father had died without leaving a male heir: ‫למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו‬ Why should our father’s name be eradicated from his family [records]. (Num 27:4)67

In contrast, the opposite statement ‫יד ושם‬, like the affirmative phrases ‫שם עולם‬/‫אות‬, contains the promise of a family’s, or a people’s, continued existence, as in Isaiah’s prophecy of comfort and hope:

66

67

In many instances, the term ‫ אחרית‬connotes “offspring” or “the next generation.” See Talmon, “Eschatology and History“ and “Latter Days,” above, 137–156. In this context, ‫ גרע‬equals ‫ כרת‬and ‫מחה‬.

228

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Before you [Israel], … pine trees shall shoot up in place of nettles, myrtles instead of briars,68 and this will be for YHWH a memorial, a sign never to be cut off (‫)לשם לאות עולם לא יכרת‬. (Isa 55:12-13)

Jacob’s blessing of Joseph contains a veiled reference to an attack upon him planned by his enemies, which will be thwarted by divine intervention: ‫וישטמהו בעלי חצים ותשב באיתן קשתו ויפֹזו זר ֹעי ידיו מידי אביר יעקב‬ ֻ ‫וימררהו ורבו‬ ֻ ‫משּׁם ר ֹעה אבן ישראל‬ ָ The archers have dealt bitterly with him, and shot at him, and hated him. But his bow abode firm, and the arms of his hands were made supple, by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, from thence, from the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel. (Gen 49:23-24)

Despite the fact that every single word in this half-verse is intelligible, viewed in its entirety the text evades clear, unambiguous comprehension.69 Numerous attempts to clarify this crux interpretum, have not been successful. The meaning of the phrase remains shrouded in uncertainty,70 so much so that Ehrlich altogether despairs of making sense of MT. Therefore, he has recourse to radical emendation: “Im zweiten Halbvers ist für ‫משם רעה אבן‬, dem absolut kein vernünftiger Sinn abgewonnen werden kann, zu lesen ‫ = ממשמן זרוע אביר‬vor der Fettigkeit des Armes des Stieres.”71 However, such far–reaching interference with the text is unwarranted. Moreover, it does not provide an acceptable interpretation of the difficult phrase. A single, slight change in the vocalization that already underlies the translations of TargO and the Pesh has gained widespread acceptance, viz., reflecting the reading ‫ ִמ ֵשם ר ֶֹעה‬instead of MT.72 With the changed vocalization the half-verse can be shown to contain the two nouns ‫ יד‬and ‫שם‬ which are the very focus of our investigation. A third noun, ‫אבן‬, appears to be one component of the hendiadys ‫( מצבת אבן‬Gen 35:14), which often 68 69 70

71 72

Cf. Ezek 34:29 and the discussion above. See Skinner, Genesis, 529: “The section is full of obscurities.” See Driver, Genesis, 392: “The line undoubtedly expressed some thought parallel to that of clause c; but what exactly that thought was, it seems impossible now to discover.” In an addendum [xvii], Driver refers to H. Gunkel’s suspicions concerning the correctness of the text (see his claim: “Doch kann man Zweifel an der Richtigkeit des Textes nicht unterdrücken” [Gunkel, Genesis (1901 edition), 438. See further Westermann, Genesis, 269]). Ehrlich, Randglossen, 1:251. The same confusion of ‫ ֵשם‬and ‫ ָשם‬can be noted in Ezek 39:11 (see above).

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

229

serves in a break-up pattern, as in the Bethel traditions connected with the patriarch Jacob (Gen 28:18, 22; 31:45), and is also referred to there by the other component, ‫( מצבה‬Gen 31:13; 35:14, 20; cf. Isa 19:19). Admittedly, not all exegetical problems in that stich can be resolved by these observations. But they can help in gauging the intrinsic meaning of the difficult passage by identifying its main motif, the preservation of the house of Joseph. In essence the verse can be understood to say: God will protect Joseph and save his line from being “eradicated” by his enemies.73 The divine promise of protection of Joseph and his progeny is further developed in literary images of an auspicious character that introduce (and in inclusio fashion, also close) Jacob’s blessing of his son: Joseph is [like] a fruitful tree by a spring (Gen 49:22)

and May he [God] bless you with the blessings of heaven above, the blessings of the deep that lurks below, the blessings of breast and womb … They shall be on the head of Joseph … (49:25-26)

The combination of the reference to his brothers’ enmity with the motif of the divinely assured preservation of his line, epitomized in the three terms ‫יד‬, ‫ שם‬and ‫אבן‬, caps the cluster of Joseph traditions in Genesis. Again, as in a ring-composition, this same combination also introduces the cluster. The sale of Joseph into slavery (Gen 37:12-36; 39:1), by which his brothers intended effectively to dispose of him and his grandiose dreams of prominence in the kin-structure, is from the outset counterbalanced by divine protection that guarantees Joseph’s success and survival: YHWH was with Joseph and he prospered … and his master saw that YHWH was with him and was giving him success in all that he undertook. (Gen 39:2-3)74

73

74

In the setting of the patriarchal traditions, the enemies are presumably his brothers. But this understanding does not preclude a “historical” reading that interprets the “blessing” as a reference to much later situations in the history of the Northern Kingdom. See commentaries. This motif is then reemphasized in the tale of Joseph’s rise from pit to pinnacle at the Pharaoh’s court (Gen 39:20–41:46. Cf. also 1 Sam 18:28).

230

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

An echo of the fratricidal threat to Joseph and his line reverberates in a recast wording of Jacob’s blessing, in actual fact the curse of his firstborn, Reuben, who had slept with his father’s concubine Bilhah, thereby intending to claim symbolically the inheritance of his father’s authority (Gen 35:22):75 Reuben, my firstborn, … you shall not prevail; because you climbed into your father’s bed and defiled my couch (Gen 49:3-4)

That episode and the “blessing” are recaptured in the genealogical roster of Reuben’s descendants with the telling preface: The sons of Reuben,76 Israel’s firstborn, he was [in fact] the firstborn, [but] when he defiled his father's couch, his primogeniture was transferred to the sons of Joseph, and he could not retain the right of primogeniture. (1 Chr 5:1)

The apparent rivalry between Joseph and Reuben, who as firstborn represents all his brothers, is only alluded to and is nowhere spelled out in detail. In fact, it stands in striking contrast to the portrayal of Reuben as the one brother who attempted to save Joseph (Gen 37:21-22, 29-30) when the others plotted his murder (Gen 37:18-20). The glaring discrepancy which shows in the Chronicles notation amounts to an additional reflection of the fratricidal intrigue of Josephs’ brothers. They schemed to “cut off” his line. But divine intervention brought their plan to naught and safeguarded the preservation of Joseph’s posterity, metaphorically captured in the pregnant terms ‫יד‬, ‫שם‬, and ‫( אבן‬equaling ‫)מצבה‬. Another example is provided by the tradition of the Amalekites’ treacherous attack of Israel, which culminates in the injunction: ‫תמחה את זכר עמלק‬ You shall blot out the memory of Amalek. (Deut 25:19)

75

76

Cf. the episode of Absalom’s publicly sleeping on the (palace) roof with David’s concubines in an act of symbolic assumption of his father’s royal office (2 Sam 16:20-23); and Adoniah’s request of Bathsheba that David’s companion Abishag be given him in marriage, a request that Solomon interprets as an attempt on the part of his elder brother to establish a claim on the throne (1 Kgs 2:13-22). The reiteration of this phrase in v. 3a as the title of the actual genealogical roster (vv. 3b-6aα) and some appended tribal notations (vv. 6aβ-10) functions as a resumptive repetition, which marks vv. 1ab-2 as an insert. For this compositional literary technique, see Kuhl, “Wiederaufnahme,” and the discussion of this technique in Talmon, “Four Hundred Years,” above, esp. 125–126, n. 5. See earlier Talmon, “Synchroneity and Simultaneity.”

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

231

The Aramaic translation (‫ דוכרניה )דעמליק‬reflects MT. However, LXX renders ‫ זכר‬by its the Greek equivalent (ἐξαλείψεις) τὸ ὄνοµα Αµαληκ. This reading brings to mind the Hebrew phrase ‫( מחה שם‬Deut 9:14; 29:19; Ps 9:6; and 2 Kgs 14:27 [see above]), which like ‫ מחה זכר‬signifies the “cutting off” of progeny; in the instance under review, that of Amalek. Deut 25:19 echos the condemnation of Amalek in Exod 17:14-16, which caps the more elaborate version of the report of these desert marauders’ attack on Israel (Exod 17:8-13): I [YHWH] am resolved to blot out all memory of Amalek from under heaven (‫)מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק מתחת השמים‬. (Exod 17:14)

Here the Aramaic versions reflect MT: TargO ‫דוכרניה דעמלק‬, TargPs-J ‫דוכרן‬ ‫ ;עמלק‬TargN ‫ ;ד)ו(כרניה דעמלק‬LXX ἀλοιφῇ ἐξαλείψω τὸ µνηµόσυνον Αµαληκ ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν. In addition to ‫ זכר‬and ‫( מחה‬v. 14), ‫ יד‬also turns up in the same context (v. 16). Thus three focal terms that have come under scrutiny here are found in the short pericope of Exod 17:14-16. Moreover v. 15 contains a reference to an altar, ‫מזבח‬, and to a holy object or site that is not clearly defined, ‫כס יה‬ (v. 16): ‫ ויאמר כי יד על כס יה מלחמה ליהוה בעמלק‬.‫ויבן משה מזבח ויקרא שמו יהוה נסי‬ ‫מדר דר‬ And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it YHWH-nissi. And he said: “The hand upon the throne of YHWH: YHWH will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”. (Exod 17:15-16)

It appears that the exegetical difficulties that inhere in this text can partly be resolved by applying to their elucidation the above ascertained signification of ‫יד‬, ‫שם‬, and (‫ זכר)ון‬as symbol or metaphor of progeny, and the main thrust of the entire passage can be clarified. I suggest that ‫זֵ ֶכ ר‬, serving as a synonym of ‫ ֵשׁ ם‬, is used here with ‫ יד‬in a way that resembles the break-up pattern of ‫יד ושם‬. In Isa 56:5 the ‫ סריסים‬are promised an everlasting symbolic presence in the Temple precincts, ‫ונתתי‬ (‫ שם עולם אתן לו )להם‬... ‫להם בביתי ובחומֹתי יד ושם‬. In distinction, Exod 17:14-16 speaks of the eradication of Amalek’s progeny, ‫זכר‬, and the metaphorical

232

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

manifestation of the curse by a ‫ יד‬which Moses sets up on a holy artifact, ‫כס יה‬, next to the altar, ‫מזבח‬.77 Finally, I propose that the collocation ‫ נעשה לנו ֵשׁם‬in the Tower of Babel episode should be interpreted in the light of the signification “memorial,” which attaches to the noun ‫שם‬, as evinced in the foregoing discussion: Let us build for ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens and [thus] make a name for ourselves lest we be dispersed all over the earth. (Gen 11:4)

However, in the context of the Tower of Babel tradition, the phrase “make a ‫ שם‬for ourselves” rather seems to imply that humankind had resolved to erect a memorial in the shape of a tower, which can be likened to a huge ‫יד‬. Thus, they wished to prevent the loss of their “name,” lest their being scattered over the earth would result in the dissolution of kinship ties that safeguard the preservation, throughout successive generations, of a family, a nation or, for that matter, of humanity altogether. The author, like his audience, knew full well the outcome of the story from the outset. Therefore, he has the dramatis personae plan the setting up of a “memorial” as an antidote to the expected inevitable dispersion of mankind. Disregarding the parallelistic structure, and with ‫ מגדל‬and ‫ שם‬substituting for ‫יד ושם‬, the text appears to say in plain prose: Let us erect a “memorial” for ourselves so that we shall be remembered even after having been scattered over the earth. The common ideational tenor of the hendiadys ‫ יד ושם‬in the ‫סריסים‬ pericope (Isa 56:3-5), and of the break-up pattern of ‫ מגדל‬and ‫ שם‬in the in the Tower of Babel story is further accentuated by the following consideration. I propose that in that tradition, the term ‫( עיר‬Gen 11:4, 5, 8) should not be taken to signify “city,” as is generally done, but rather “sanctuary” or “holy enclosure.” The matter cannot be pursued here in detail.78 It must suffice to

77

78

Cassuto (Exodus, 206–207) surmises that the phrase ‫ כתב זאת זכרון בספר‬possibly refers to a “memorial inscription,” which Moses engraved on the altar (I would opt for the ‫ יד‬as locus of the inscription) and not to a record in the form of a book. For the prevalent explanation of the salient lexemes in this passage as significations of “a [votive] hand [engraved] on YHWH’s war standards,” see commentaries, e.g., Noth, Exodus, 143–144. Gradwohl, “Verständnis,” provides a fully documented survey of this interpretation. See further Fabry, “‫כסא‬,” 253–256. See Fisher, “Temple Quarter.”

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

233

draw attention solely to two texts in which ‫ עיר‬evidently does not connote “city”: (a) In the phrase ‫( עיר בית הבעל‬2 Kgs 10:25), the noun ‫עיר‬, which is not translated in a part of the Greek evidence, is best understood as a parallel reading that was conflated with ‫בית‬. Like ‫בית הבעל‬, also ‫ עיר הבעל‬connotes “the sanctuary of Baal.”79 (b) The connotation “sanctuary,” which attaches to ‫ עיר‬in the passages under review, evidently is also appropriate in the following texts in which ‫ עיר‬and (‫ בית )מקדש‬are employed synonymously in distant parallels. The prophetic statement concerning King Cyrus, ‫הוא יבנה עירי וגלותי ישלח‬, “he shall [re]build ‫ עירי‬and let my exiles go free” (Isa 45:13), clearly echoes the king’s own words, ascribed to him in his “edict”: “YHWH the God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he himself has charged me to build him a house, ‫( בית‬viz.,“a sanctuary”) at Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:2).80 The document reports that not only did Cyrus “let the exiles go free,” but that he also encouraged them to “go up to Jerusalem in Judah, and [re]build the house of YHWH, the God of Israel,” ‫ויעל לירושלם אשר ביהודה ויבן את בית יהוה אלהי‬ ‫( ישראל‬Ezra 1:3). There can be little doubt that in one of these interrelated passages YHWH’s Temple in Jerusalem is referred to by ‫עירי‬, whereas in the other it is designated ‫ בית‬or ‫בית יהוה‬. The (partial) synonymity of ‫ עיר‬and (‫ בית )מקדש‬prompts the conclusion that the commonality of the Tower of Babel tradition (Gen 11:1-9) and the ‫סריסים‬ pericope (Isa 56:3-5) finds expression in a triad of terms: ‫ יד ושם‬equals ‫מגדל‬ plus ‫ בביתי ובחומתי ;שם‬equals ‫ עיר‬or possibly ‫עיר ומגדל‬. The ‫ סריסים‬are promised that their ‫ יד ושם‬will be preserved in the precincts of the Jerusalem Temple; apprehensive humanity erected its ‫ מגדל‬and ‫ שם‬in their first temenos, ‫עיר‬.81 79

80

81

Cf. Gray, Kings, 562, who assigns to ‫ עיר‬the meaning “innermost recesses,” comparing it with Ugaritic ġr. See also Barr, Comparative Philology, 332, no. 245. A more appropriate translation would be “inner sanctum.” The question of the historicity of (the Hebrew version of) the “Edict” of Cyrus is irrelevant to our concern. For a defense of its reliability, see Bickerman, “Edict.” This understanding of ‫ עיר‬puts in doubt the interpretation of Gen 11:1-9 as a “first” tradition of the building of a city foundation (See, inter alia, Wallis, “Stadt”; de Pury, “Ville”); not to mention the theory that this tradition reveals an incisive criticism of urban culture introduced into Israel by King Solomon (see von Soden, “Verschlüsselte Kritik”; Seybold, “Turmbau”; de Pury, “La tour de Babel”). The understanding of ‫ עיר‬as “temple” or “sanctuary” is applicable to the Cain tradition as well (Gen 4:17-26).

234

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

VI We have come full circle. The foregoing analysis of pertinent motifs in close to fifty passages has put in full light the high appreciation that biblical society accorded to family life and the diachronous preservation of the family through generation after generation. Lack of progeny, especially of sons in whom a father’s name and memory is kept alive, is considered a calamity that needs to be remedied. A legal means for providing a substitute heir for a deceased man who died without having produced a male successor was Levirate marriage. However, this remedy was of no avail to people designated ‫סריסים‬, “eunuchs,” who because of their physical condition were altogether unable to procreate, so that their family tree was effectively “cut off.” The plight of the ‫ סריסים‬mentioned in Isa 56:3-5 was to be ameliorated by the divine promise to grant them in the precincts of the Jerusalem Temple a ‫יד ושם‬, an undying sign and symbol of their name and memory. As I have suggested, in this prophecy the term ‫ סריס‬should not be taken at face value.82 The text does not speak of “eunuchs,” as is generally maintained.83 Rather, the term ‫ סריס‬is used metaphorically to convey an expression of the existential impotence of the deportees who remained behind in Babylonia or Persia when a considerable number of their compatriots returned to their Land. Unable to join with them in the reconstitution of the new community and in rebuilding the Temple, an exiled Judean who remained behind, ‫בן הנכר‬, likened himself to a ‫סריס‬, a “withered infertile tree,” ‫עץ יבש‬, “excluded from his [God’s] people,” ‫( הבדל יבדילני יהוה מעל עמו‬Isa 56:3). The prophet comforts the steadfast among the ‫סריסים‬-like expatriates who live by the Torah, by saying that as the expatriates had lived by the Torah while still in exile, observe the Sabbath, and hold fast to his covenant, God will grant them a ‫יד ושם‬ in the Temple courts, a substitute for children, better than “sons and daughters” (Isa 56:5). Their unbroken attachment to the people of Israel and to God’s holy place will thus be guaranteed until they too, the exilic remnant, will be gathered in when God “brings home the dispersed of Israel, all that still remain to be brought back,” ‫( מקבץ נדחי ישראל עוד אקבץ עליו לנקבציו‬Isa 56:8). In biblical, as in post-biblical literature, ‫ קבץ‬serves as a technical term, which 82

83

But see, inter alia, Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 112, 229–230; Japhet, “‫ ;”יד ושם‬Tadmor, “sārîs.“ See also Robinson, “The Meaning.” Ackroyd, “‫ ;”יד‬Loretz, “Stelen und Sohnespflicht”; and pertinent publications adduced there.

[Type text]

‫יד ושם‬: A Biblical Idiomatic Phrase

235

pertains almost exclusively to the ingathering of the dispersed of Israel. The threefold employment of the term in the divine statement which concludes the Isaiah passage (56:8) proves that the addressees of the oracle are none other than the exiles in Babylon who had not joined in the return. The status of these exilic faithful may be likened to that of the inhabitants of the land who had not been in exile, but willingly joined the returnees and integrated into the new community; who “separated themselves from the peoples of the land and their uncleanness and clung to YHWH the God of Israel,” ‫מטמאת גויי הארץ אלהם לדר ֹש ליהוה אלהי ישראל‬ ֻ ‫( כל הנבדל‬Ezra 6:21). They were reunited with the ‫( זרע הקֹדש‬Ezra 9:2) and were grafted on the ‫מצבת‬, the tree trunk destined to regenerate its foliage and its branches (Isa 6:13), to become again the divinely promised “prosperous plantation” that the prophets had envisaged (Ezek 34:29). In contrast, the local population that opposed the returnees and plotted against them to prevent the restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple (Ezra 3:3; 4:4-5; Neh 2:19-20; 3:33-35; 4:1-17; 6:5-9; etc.) will be deprived of that hope. Unlike the returnees and those who had joined them, who have a stake in the land and are to become a ‫מטע ְל ֵשׁם‬, a plantation of new generations,84 and unlike the exilic faithful who were assured a ‫ יד ושם‬in the Temple, the adversaries, Sanballat and his cohorts, will have no ‫ זכרון‬in Jerusalem. Asserts Nehemiah: “The God of heaven will give us success. We, his servants, ‫עבדיו‬,85 are beginning to rebuild. But you have no claim, ‫חלק‬, or right, ‫צדקה‬, nor a memorial, ‫זכרון‬, in Jerusalem” (Neh 2:20).

84 85

Cf. CD 1:7, ‫ שורש מטעת‬... ‫ ויצמח‬and see Talmon, “Between the Bible and the Mishnah,” 48–52. Cf. Isa 56:6, “the ‫ בני הנכר‬who give their allegiance to YHWH, to minister to him … and to become his servants (‫ להיות לו לעבדים‬... ‫)לשרתו‬.”

236

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 12 ~ THE MEANING OF “LIFE” IN THE HEBREW BIBLE* I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Any inquiry into the conceptual meaning of a term or concept in the world of ancient Israelite ideas is hampered by a characteristic feature of the Hebrew Bible: This corpus of ancient Hebrew literature does not contain a systematic or even a partly systematic presentation offering a synoptic overview of the value attributed to a certain term or idea in biblical thought. Not even the rudiments of a developing philosophy of history, of a literary theory, or of a comprehensive theology can be found in biblical literature. It seems that the biblical way of thought was not to outline ideas theoretically and systematically. Rather, such ideas would be given shape through the accumulation of individual concepts expressed in various situations. The exegete who seeks to determine the ideas underlying biblical concepts of society or state, for example, must perforce to adapt to this characteristic trait. All he can do is to gather individual statements and strands of thought, which can be extracted from narrative accounts. Basing himself on this collated material, he can try to combine various, at times contradictory, elements into a mosaic which confers an overall impression of the idea under discussion. It must be taken into account from the outset that such an accumulative approach will necessarily lead to a fragmented picture, and that the final arrangement of the whole is partly subjective and will never, or seldom at best, be unanimously approved.1 All this is seems relevant to an inquiry into the place of the notion of “life” in biblical literature. However, in the present framework, it is impossible to undertake a sufficiently detailed analysis, like that presented by Lorenz Dürr in his “Die Wertung des Lebens im Alten Testament.”2 Furthermore, it should be mentioned that various stages in the development of the notion of “life”— some contemporary and parallel, and others different, even contradictory—

*

1 2

Originally published as “Die Wertung von ‘Leben’ in der hebraischen Bibel,” in Der Herr des Lebens: Interpretationen in der Ökumene, ed. H.-G. Link, M. Stohr, and U. Berger (Frankfurt: Haag & Herchen, 1985), 15–30. On this see Talmon, “Kingship.” Dürr, Die Wertung des Lebens.

238

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

might surface, due to the stratification of biblical literature. It would indeed be astonishing if this were not the case, since the Bible ultimately is perceived as an anthology of ancient Hebrew writings, which took shape over a period of approximately one thousand years. Its literature reflects the concepts of various schools of thought in ancient Israel at different times. One cannot therefore assume ab initio that it will not always be possible to reduce to a common denominator all the statements about life scattered through the books of the Bible. Suffice it to mention that concerning this question, as with many other aspects of biblical thought, the genre of wisdom literature will probably not evince the same tenor as other literary genres that can be identified in biblical writings. Thus, we have to content ourselves with sketching out some major trends that emerge from the bulk of the biblical texts, albeit with different stresses. In order to prove that we are indeed dealing with major trends, citations will be culled from a variety of books and literary strata: not only from the Prophets and Psalms, as is customary in theological reflections, but also from narratives, historical accounts, legal passages, and so on. II Let us now turn to our major concern. Even a cursory look at relevant biblical passages will lead to the conclusion that the ancient Israelite’s attitude to life was principally positive: life as such is of value, a gift from God not to be squandered. To preserve life counts as a mitzvah, and is even upgraded to a statute of law. The basic idea of life is rooted in the Creation story. God bestowed life on all creatures. However, the text differentiates clearly between the life of animals and human life.3 One is tempted to assume that the division of the account of God’s creative activity into the realms of beasts and humans aims at establishing a difference in value between animal life and human life. Tradition relates the creation of the beasts in neutral wording: water and earth begat out of themselves what were de facto “living beings,” whose entitlement to life is then retroactively confirmed de jure by God:

3

This thought is taken up in a liturgical piece in the final prayer of the Day of Atonement: “You have set off man [from other creatures] from the beginning and You have chosen him to stand [or: serve] before You.”

[Type text]

The Meaning of “Life”

239

Then God said: The water [the sea] shall bring forth4 swarming creatures, and birds shall fly above the earth in the firmament of heaven. God created the great tanninim [mythological primordial beasts] and all kinds of living creature that moves, which the water had brought forth, and every kind of winged fowl … Then God said: The earth shall bring forth all kinds of living creatures, all kinds of cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth … God created all kinds of beasts of the Earth and cattle and things that creep on the ground. (Gen 1:20-25; cf. 8:17; Lev 11:29-46)

In contrast, God, as humanity’s creator, acts directly and on his own. Thus, in the first creation account: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; man and woman (or: male and female) he created them” (Gen 1:27). The second creation account is even more tangible and vivid in presenting the human being as the direct result of God’s creativity: “The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; thus the man became a living being” (Gen 2:7; cf. Zech 12:1). Like a potter forming his jars (cf. Jer 18:1- 6), God formed man (with his hands) from a lump of soil and inspirited him with his own breath of life. No other detail of the creation is related with such physically tangible vividness. This picture displays a proximity between God and man, which no other creature shares. It was taken over into post-biblical literature from Qumran in all its concreteness,5 and even left its imprints on medieval synagogal liturgy.6 Already in biblical literature this picture is brought to bear upon the unique relationship between God and his people (see, e.g., Isa 43:1, 21; 44:2, 24; 45:11; 49:8). The special value attributed to human life is apparently also hinted at by the singular occurrence of the term ‫נשמת חיים‬, i.e. breath of life, or living

4

5

6

The Hebrew verb ‫ ץ‬-‫ ר‬-‫ ש‬here and in v. 21 is to be understood as transitive, in parallel to the verbs in vv. 11, 24. The Community Rule from Qumran (1QS 11:21-22), in Lohse, Texte, 43: “…der vom Weib geborene … seine Form[ierung] ist aus Staub … geformter Lehm … was soll der von der Hand Geformte [dir] erwidern.” Cf. Hodayot (1QHa) 1:21 (ibid., 113): “Ich bin ein Gebilde von Lehm und mit Wasser Geknetetes,” etc. Among the piyyutim recited on the eve of the Day of Atonement, there is one based on Jer. 18:6, “like clay in the potter’s hand … we are in your hand.”

240

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

soul, in the context of the creation of humanity. In contrast, the phrase ‫נפש‬ ‫ חיה‬is employed in reference to other creatures (Gen 1:20, 21, 24, 30; 2:19; 9:10, 12, 15, 16; Lev 11:10, 46; Ezek 47:9). In biblical literature, the term ‫נפש‬ may refer to a beast as well as a human, whereas ‫ נשמה‬refers only to God (2 Sam 22:16 = Ps 18:16; Isa 30:33; 42:5; Job 4:9; 32:8; 33:4; 37:10) or to human beings (see esp. Isa 2:22; 57:16; Prov 20:27; cf. Gen 7:21b-22a;7 and see further Deut 20:16; Isa 42:5; Job 27:3; 34:14; Dan 10:17; etc.). Man surpasses all other creatures, for he shares in God’s own ‫נשמה‬. He resembles God, but is still put into his place, since “in him there is only (secondary) breath (of life)” (Isa 2:22), which, moreover, “shall not abide in man for ever” (Gen 6:3). Thus, the biblical motto is: God is life, and the giver of life. He is the positive pole, opposed to the negative pole—death. This fact can explain why the prohibition against killing is introduced shortly after the creation story, embedded in the tradition about Noah, the “second Adam.” It pertains only to humanity, not to other living creatures, which are at man’s disposal (Gen 9:5-6; see 9:2-4, cf. 1:28). The prohibition serves as a correction to the killing of Abel by his brother Cain, who challenged God’s order of life established at Creation (Gen 4:1-15). One might thus state that already in the “expanded” creation story, i.e., in the combined traditions about Adam and Noah (Genesis 1–10), one may point to principles which can serve as guidelines for the inquiry into the value attached to life in the world of biblical ideas. III. “GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE” In order to become akin to God, man, too, aspires to reach eternal life. The image of the “Tree of Life,” which stood in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:9), obviously continues a conceptual motif in the Bible whose mythopoetic roots are traceable in ancient Near Eastern literature, finding expression, e.g., in the Gilgamesh epic. In the ancient Mesopotamian epical tradition, the snake robs Gilgamesh of the rejuvenating plant he has found. In the biblical narrative, the expulsion of the human beings from the Garden of Eden prevents them from “taking from the Tree of Life, eating from it, and living forever” (Gen 3:22, cf. v. 24). Eternal life is solely God’s prerogative (cf. Gen 6:3).

7

The two final words of v. 21 ‫ וכל האדם‬were originally intended as the beginning of v. 22.

[Type text]

The Meaning of “Life”

241

In contradistinction to the Mesopotamian myth, in which the snake seizes the rejuvenating plant, thus becoming its possessor, biblical tradition takes God alone to be the master of life (Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26; 2 Kgs 19:4,16; Hos 2:1; Ps 42:3; 84:3), and the only life-giving power: “For with You is the fountain of life; in Your light shall we see light” (Ps 36:10; cf. Jer 2:13; 17:13). Therefore, walking in God’s ways guarantees life (Amos 5:6, 14), imparted by God’s teaching (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 15:4). Although “eternal life” is reserved for God alone, and is withheld from humanity (Job 14:1-2, 7-14; Qoh 3:20, 21; 9:5), human beings are made to participate in God’s creative power through their ability to procreate. When Eve gives birth to Cain, her firstborn son, she declares: “I have created a man, as God”8 (Gen 4:1); since through this birth she became “the mother of all life” [or: of everything living] (Gen 3:20). Life given by God is a blessing, death a curse. Life is positive, death is negative: “Behold, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil” (Deut 30:15); “Life and death I set before you, blessing and curse” (Deut 30:19). Man must choose between them: “Behold, I have set before you the way of life, and the way of death” (Jer 21:8). However, the choice is obvious: “Choose life” (Deut 30:19, cf. Jer 8:3), because “the way of righteousness leads to life” (Prov 12:28). Therefore, the following antitheses unfold: God–life–justice stand in opposition to foreign gods–death–injustice: “Seek Me, and you will live. Do not seek Beth-El, do not come to Gilgal, do not go to Beer-Sheva … seek good, not evil, and you will live. … Hate the evil, love the good, and establish justice in the court” (Amos 5:4-6, 14, 15) Thus, death is antithetical not only to life, but also to ‫אלהים חיים‬, the “God of life” (not: “the living God”;9 see Deut 5:23; 1 Sam 17:26; Jer 10:10; 23:6; Dan 6:21, 27, etc.). Death puts an end to the earthly existence of man, thereby removing him even further from God, ‫מקור חיים‬, the fountain of “eternal life”

8

9

Einheitsübersetzung,“Ich habe einen Mann vom Herrn erworben,” fails completely in rendering the sense of the passage. A mother neither “buys” nor “acquires” sons, but bears, creates, them. This is the sense of the verb ‫ קנה‬in biblical Hebrew (see, e.g., Gen 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6; Ps 78:54; 139:13), as well as in Ugaritic. The translation “living God” (KJV) is tautological. The same holds true for other genitive constructions involving ‫חיים‬, such as ‫עץ חיים‬, ‫רוח חיים‬, ‫דרך חיים‬, ‫אֹרח חיים‬, ‫אור חיים‬, ‫ספר חיים‬ (Ps 69:29, cf. Exod 32:32; Isa 4:3; Mal 3:16; Ps 139:16; Dan 12:1, etc.)

242

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

(not: “the living fountain”; Ps 36:10, cf. Prov 10:11; 13:14; 14:27). Throughout the Bible, death is viewed as frightening and terrifying, and it is always perceived as evil, which implies that it comes upon man as a retribution for his evil deeds. This perception is illustrated by the dialogue between the prophet Isaiah and King Hezekiah, who was critically ill and close to death. Isaiah came to him and said: “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.” Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to God: “Oh Lord, remember now how I have walked my way before You in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in Your sight” (2 Kgs 20:1-3 = Isa 38:1-3; cf. Ezek 28:8 and Isa 14:4-23, esp. vv. 11, 14-15). In biblical times man knew full well that death was unavoidable, because: “where is the man who lives forever and does not see death” (Ps 89:49). His most fervent wish, though, was to live and not die. He would do everything in his power to preserve his very life. When Jacob learned that there was grain for sale in Egypt, he said to his sons: “go down thither and buy some grain for us, that we may live, and not die” (Gen 42:1-2). These words not only form a leitmotif in the traditions about Jacob and the patriarchs in general (Gen 43:8; 47:19; Deut 33:6), but they are also taken up in other strata of biblical literature (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:32). In traditions about the patriarchs, the expectation of a long life is repeatedly mentioned. Asked by Pharaoh about his age, Jacob replied that he was but 130 years old and had not reached the age of his forefathers (Gen 47:8-9). And indeed, the Bible tells us that Abraham attained the age of 175 years (Gen 25:7), and Isaac even the age of 180 years (Gen 35:28). Sarah died at 127 years old (Gen 23:1) and Ishmael was 137 years of age at his death (Gen 25:17). Job, whose life story contains features of Abraham’s, is said to have lived to 140 years after his “restitution” (Job 42:16). The priest Yehoiada lived for 130 years (2 Chr 24:15). Joseph and Joshua each reached the age of 110 (Gen 50:26; Josh 24:29). Compared with the life spans ascribed to the primordial generation, which add up to literally hundreds of years (Gen 5:11), these reduced figures suggest that they were intended by biblical tradition as indications of “real” life spans. Maximum human life expectancy is schematically set at 120 years (Gen 6:3). Moses died at exactly this “ideal” age (Deut 34:7). Whoever does not reach this age is considered to have died prematurely, and his death is perceived of as punishment: “He who dies

[Type text]

The Meaning of “Life”

243

a hundred years old is still young; and he who does not reach a hundred years is cursed” (Isa 65:20). Man wishes to experience the ideal, complete life span and to be gathered with his forefathers, “full of years, old-aged and satisfied with life” (Gen 25:8; 35:29). Biblical authors emphasize this fact in their accounts of those ancients who are seen in positive light, such as Gideon (Judg 8:32), David (1 Chr 23:1), Yehoiada (2 Chr 24:15) and Job (42:17), even if they did not die of natural causes but in an accident, as happened to Eli (1 Sam 4:18). All this holds true even though it is known that after the passing of two thirds of this “ideal” life span, i.e., after 80 years, a person will not enjoy his life as before: “Our life lasts for seventy years, or eighty at best. What exceeds it is but labor and sorrow, it is soon cut off” (Ps 90:9-10; cf. Ps 92:15; Prov 16:31; 20:29).10 As, for example in Greek and other cultures, one biblical metaphor for the life span is the “thread of life.” As long as the spinning continues, man continues to live. However, severing or cutting off the thread (of life) amounts to death. Thus, on his sickbed, King Hezekiah lamented: “In the middle of my life I have to go to the gates of the underworld, my thread of life has been cut11 … like a weaver you have finished weaving my life, he cuts me off like a woven cloth” (Isa 38:9-10, 12). Similarly, after the destruction of the Temple, all of Israel wailed: “Our bones are dried up, our thread [of life]12 is cut, we are lost” (Ezek 37:11). On the other hand, the hope promised to the individual and to the people, is expressed by the image of the perpetually woven thread: “Surely there is a future [posterity],13 the thread [of life] will not be cut off” (Prov 23:18, cf. 24:14). Knowing this saves the individual, as well as the people, from despair: “I know the (good) plans which I have made concerning you … to give you offspring and a (long) thread of descendants” (Jer 29:11), “your thread of descendants, (your) sons … shall return to their land” (Jer 31:17). Man is forbidden to end with his own hands the life which God gave him. Suicide is unknown in the biblical world, except for one single incident:

10 11

12 13

See Weinfeld, “Phases of Human Life.” KJV “I am deprived of the residue of my years” does not mirror the concrete imagery of the Hebrew. On thread, cord, and rope, see Judg 16:7-9; Ps 11:2; Job 4:21; 30:11. On ‫“ = תקוה‬thread, cord,” see Josh 2:18, 21. Thus ‫ אחרית‬is to be understood in many, if not in most, cases. See my “Latter Days,” above, 137–156.

244

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

When David did not follow Ahithophel’s advise, “he [Ahithophel] put his household in order and strangled [or: hanged] himself” (2 Sam 17:23). Even when in black despair, Job did not pray for his death (Job 1:21-22), but rather for never having being born (Job 3:1-26). Jonah would be the only negative example, which confirms the rule. An essentially minor mishap led him to wish for his death: “It is better for me to die than to live” (Jon 4:3, 8; see, by contrast, Deut 33:6). The life of which biblical authors speak is a complete life: peaceful, healthy, and happy. Thus, Hezekiah prays to the Lord: “Oh Lord … restore me to health and let me recover (to a full-fledged life of) ‫( ”שלום‬Isa 38:16-17); ‫שלום‬, peace, here means “a full-lived life.” Wisdom is seen to have a power similarly capable of granting a full life: “Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways14 are ways of pleasantness; all her paths lead to ‫( ”שלום‬Prov 3:17). The covenant which God has contracted with his people is the Covenant of Life. This is particularly made evident in YHWH’s covenant with the tribe of Levi: “My covenant was with him, (a covenant of) life and peace” (Mal 2:5). Life is in God’s hands; he provides life and may also withhold it. As Hezekiah was healed from his disease, thus God can and indeed will cause his people to recover from the calamity he has brought upon Israel because of its sins: “Come, let us return to the Lord! For he has torn [us], and he will heal us. He has wounded, and he will (also) bandage. After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his presence” (Hos 6:1-2). This is also the view of the psalmist: “We will not leave you anymore; keep us alive, and we will call upon your name” (Ps 80:19); “You will surely revive [restore] us again, that your people may rejoice in you” (Ps 85:7). Taking stock, one can say that existence per se was unconditionally approved of in the biblical world of ideas. A good, healthy, and happy life is what biblical man strives after; failure and affliction may be endured, as long as life itself is preserved. Therefore, it is understandable that the biblical authors never idealized “affliction.” They take notice that, regrettably, life also has negative aspects, but do not assign to these any positive value.

14

See above.

[Type text]

The Meaning of “Life”

245

IV. GOD’S FUNCTION AS THE SUSTAINER OF LIFE God is the source of all life and he preserves life, the life of the individual as well as that of the community. He saves man from calamities; he forestalls death from grief, malady, and enemies: “The Lord preserves [his follower], he keeps him alive … and he does not surrender him to his enemies. The Lord will sustain [or: revive] him on his sickbed” (Ps 41:3-4); “the eye of God is on those who fear him and honor him … to deliver their soul from death and to keep them alive in famine” (Ps 33:18-19). The psalmist prays to God to preserve his life and save him: “you have shown me many troubles and distresses. Revive me again, and bring me up from the underworld” (Ps 71:20). He also thanks God for his salvation: “Lord, you have brought me up from the realm of death (‫ … )שאול‬you have revived me” (Ps 30:4). Like the individual, thus also the community praises God: “You will surely revive us again, that your people may rejoice in you” (Ps 85:7). They pray: We will not leave you any more; keep us alive, and we will call upon your name” (Ps 80:19). In this context, the “name of God” is to be understood as a hypostasis for God’s function as the “sustainer of life.” Therefore, the praying man pleads: “For your sake [literally: for the sake of your name], oh Lord, keep me alive, in your mighty justice (‫)צדקתך‬15 bring me out of trouble” (Ps 143:11). The close relation to God, which is always stressed, lends a specific constitution to the life he has given, thus elevating it above bare existence. The right to live means walking with God or before him. Life should be agreeable to God. Its purpose is only fulfilled when informed by faith in God. Already in the narratives of the primordial generations preceding Israel this conception can be observed: “Enoch walked with God” (Gen 5:22); so did Noah (Gen 6:9). Therefore he was chosen for life. Such was the conduct of the forefathers. God appeared to Abraham and said to him: “Walk before me … and I will establish my covenant between me and you” (Gen 17:1-2). Abraham followed this command and could therefore expect to see the continuation of his own life in his son. Thus, he could assure Eliezer, his servant who was close to him, whom he sent out to find a wife for Isaac: “God, before whom I have walked, will … make your journey successful. 15

“Righteousness” does not fully cover the meaning here, since this translation fails to convey the entire range of meaning of the Hebrew term ‫צדקה‬. On this see Talmon, “Future Ideal Age,“ 151.

246

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

You will bring with you a wife for my son” (Gen 24:40). The patriarch Jacob can then say retrospectively: “God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, God, who has been my shepherd all my life, … who has redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the lads [the sons of Joseph]. Through them I [literally: my name] will live on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac” (Gen 48:15-16). “Walking before God” is the motto of all later biblical thinkers: “You have delivered my soul from death … that I may walk before [you] God, among the living [literally: in the light of life]” (Ps 56:14; 116:9; cf. also, e.g., Ps 26:3; 1 Sam 2:30; Zech 10:12). V. “LIVING WITH GOD” In the biblical world view, “Living with God” means “living through and by the Torah,” i.e., living according to God’s teachings, which are intended to shape human life. Keeping the precepts of the Torah is thought of as the basis of righteous living, which in itself is a precondition for securing one’s existence. Of the many passages expressing this notion, we will cite but one pericope, which combines all the propositions mentioned to this point. This is a passage from the book of Deuteronomy, the final redaction of which modern biblical scholars tend to date to a relatively late phase in the development of biblical literature. The exact age of the pericope need not bother us here. The author supplies a succinct compendium of the biblical concept of life, covering all the aspects examined so far. Translated freely the text runs as follows: “Behold, today I give you the choice between contented life [= blessing] and miserable death [= curse]. If you adhere to the precepts of your God, to which I obligate you today, to love God and to walk his ways, to keep his commandments, his statutes, and his judgments, then you will live and multiply, and your God will bless you in the land which you are entering, to possess it” (Deut 30:15-18); “Justice you shall pursue, that you may live in the land which God has given to you” (Deut 16:20; cf. 4:1; 5:16, 33; 8:1; 10:8-9; 11:31-32; 12:1; etc.). The right to live is conditioned by righteousness. This statement pertains to the life of the individual: “He who pursues righteousness and mercy finds righteousness and an honorable life” (Prov 21:21; cf. also Ezek 18:20-24; 33:10-20; Hab 2:4). The same holds true for the people as a whole, at all times,

[Type text]

The Meaning of “Life”

247

and likewise for succeeding generations. A safe life in the land promised by God to Israel is conditional on keeping his commandments, which guarantee righteousness: “You shall keep my statutes and my judgments. He who keeps them shall live by them” (Lev 18:5; Ezek 13:22; 20:11; cf. Deut 4:1; 5:33; 8:1; 11:31-32; 12:1; 30:16). In wisdom texts, this maxim is formulated in succinct proverbs: “Keep my commandments and you will live” (Prov 4:4; 7:2), “attend my words … for they bring life to him who finds them” (Prov 4:20-22; cf. 8:35). He who “walks by the statutes which ensure life, not committing iniquity, he will surely live and shall not die” (Ezek 33:15); for “the commandment is a lamp, and the teaching is light; reproof and discipline lead to life” (Prov 6:23). Therefore the sage gives the advise: “walk in the way of good men, keep to the paths of the righteous”; for he who does not keep to them “will never find the paths of life” (Prov 2:19-20), which God has shown to man (Ps 16:11). A human being can only keep God’s teachings and commandments, glorify and praise him, as long as he is alive: “I shall not die, but live; then I shall tell the works of the Lord” (Ps 118:17; cf. 56:14; 116:9; 142:6). The dead cannot do this. When man’s thread of life is cut, his prayer ceases instantly: “The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any of those who went down to [the realm of] silence. But as for us [the living], we will praise the Lord from this time forth and forever” (Ps 115:17-18); as long as “You keep us alive, we shall call upon your name” (Ps 80:19). For “the underworld cannot thank You, Death cannot praise you; those who have gone down into the grave cannot hope for your faithfulness. Only the living can thank you … let us sing and praise in the house of the Lord as long as we live” (Isa 38:18-20). This line of thought reveals the prevailing notion in biblical writings, that death is absolutely final: “The dead will not live, the departed will not rise” (Isa 26:14). Most biblical authors appear to be of the opinion that there is no continuation of life in the form of the resurrection of the dead. Thus, a human being can only prolong his existence through his offspring. In them his name lives on, even after his death. A man who did not father sons can only let his name live on through a surrogate. The firstborn son, whom his widow will conceive from his brother (Deut 25:5-6) or any other relative of his, will be given the deceased’s name and will thereby continue his existence.

248

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

In those cases in which levirate marriage did not or could not take effect, a mark or monument would be erected in lieu of flesh and blood offspring.16 Childless Absalom erected such a monument for himself (2 Sam 18:18), and a similar mark is promised by an anonymous post-exilic prophet to childless righteous ones, who have kept God’s commandments (Isa 56:3-5). Biblical man can hardly be exposed to a greater disaster than having not only his own life, but that of his offspring, his “name,” snuffed out. His enemies ask: “When will he die, and his name perish?” for “he who lays down [in the grave] shall not rise up again” (Ps 41:6, 9). The contention presented here, that the prevailing notion in biblical literature is one of final physical death, cannot even be refuted by the relatively few exceptions to it. Belief in possible revivification can indeed be traced in some miracle narratives, such as the stories of the son of the widow from Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:17-24); the honorable Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:32-37); and the anonymous dead man whose body was tossed into Elisha’s grave (2 Kgs 13:20-21). A philological-exegetical analysis suggests that the Hebrew verb ‫חיה‬, meaning “to revive” is synonymous with ‫רפא‬, “to heal,” in most of these cases: “It is I [says God] who put to death and give life; I have wounded, and I will heal” (Deut 32:39; cf. 2 Kgs 20:4, 7; Isa 38:9-21; Ps 30:4; 71:20). Explicit hints at a future resurrection of the dead are few and scattered in late strata of biblical literature, such as Isa 26:19, “Your dead will live; the corpses will rise. Those who lie in the dust will awake and rejoice”; or Dan 12:2, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” VI. CONCLUSION Biblical literature as a whole reveals a high esteem for physical life, for human existence haec et nunc. The prevailing notion is realistic. In the world of ancient Israelite ideas, life as such is explicitly assigned a positive value. Biblical man enjoys life, that is, sound and good life, which he wants to savor to the last bit. Death and affliction are evaluated negatively. They are always seen as punishment for misdeeds and as inevitable restrictions on human existence, the negative counterparts to life and happiness. Death is the final end of human existence. 16

On this see Talmon, “‫יד ושם‬,” above, 211–235.

[Type text]

The Meaning of “Life”

249

The individual can only live on in his offspring, i.e., in the amalgamation of his personality with a collective entity—family, tribe, and nation. The notion of life which the Bible promotes is just and righteous life in the society which constitutes itself in the Holy Land promised by God, oriented towards the divine teaching—the Torah.

250

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 13 ~ THE SIGNIFICATION OF ‫ שלום‬AND ITS SEMANTIC FIELD IN THE HEBREW BIBLE* The subjective is always present even in the posing of questions: different questions, different facts, different connections, different interpretations. —J. Huizinga, “Historical Conceptualization”

I. INTRODUCTION The attempt to gauge the conceptual content of ‫ שלום‬is beset by several difficulties which inhere in the biblical literature in general: 1. As set forth in the introduction to this volume, biblical literature is singularly devoid of systematic formulations of theological or ideological concepts. Some incipient conceptualization indeed comes into view in diverse components of the biblical canon,1 especially in the books of the prophets, in the Psalms, and in wisdom writings.2 But even in these components of the Hebrew Bible, conceptualization surfaces only sporadically.3 2. The conspicuous absence of conceptual systematization suggests that the biblical writers preferred to subordinate their speculative thought to factual accounts of historical events and situations. Only occasionally does the presentation transcend plain actuality. In such instances, biblical writers are wont to express their evaluation of recorded circumstances in stereotyped summaries. These summaries sometimes convey a negative assessment of the facts reported which contradicts the positive appreciation expressed in *

1

2

3

Originally published in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. C.A. Evans and S. Talmon (Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 75–115. I dedicate this essay (part of which was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Chicago, 21 November 1994) to my friend Jim Sanders—scholar and colleague—at his turning septuagenarian: ‫( עוד ינובון בשיבה‬Ps 92:15). The motto is taken from Huizinga, “Historical Conceptualization,” 301. I use the term canon for the sake of convenience; I explain my reservations about this term in “Heiliges Schrifttum,“ 45–80. Cf. also Talmon, “Canon.” The matter is well known, and need not to be pursued here. The reader is referred, inter alia, to Pedersen, Israel, for discussion of the ancient Israelites’ world of thought. See inter alia, Irwin, “The Hebrews,” 223–362.

252

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the main account, or vice versa. This feature is especially noticeable in the Books of Kings4 and in Chronicles.5 Alternatively, a redactor/editor may insert into the consecutive register of historical exposés an interpretative excursus, an incipient endeavor to extract from the historical events their essential significance, in order to integrate the sequence of facts into a conceptual framework.6 However, even when viewed in toto, these incidental summary notations, interpretative appendixes, and parenetic excurses cannot be construed as a Lehrgebäude, viz., a methodically worked-out system of any aspect of philosophy, history, or theology. An accurate assessment of the degree to which the ancient Israelites conceptualized prominent elements of the world of ideas is further impeded by the diversity of sources, literary strands, genres, etc., conjoined in the Hebrew Bible, which originated at different times and in heterogeneous strata of the Israelite society. Most components of the corpus are not internally dated, or else the credibility of dates recorded is put in doubt. Therefore, one cannot extract from them unequivocal information for tracing the progressive development in the biblical period of any concept under review. The combination of multivalence, chronological indetermination, and the only parenthetically offered, non-systematic fractions of speculative thought, prescribes the approach by which an appraisement of the signification of ‫ שלום‬in the Bible can be attempted. The commentator is called upon, as it were, to emulate the ancient Israelites’ way of thinking conceptually by association, rather than by systematization, and by conjoining disjunctive data extracted from a diversity of texts.7 By thus proceeding, one cannot expect to paint a full and detailed picture of the issue under review. Rather, the investigation is bound to produce an incomplete mosaic in which many pieces are

4

5

6 7

E.g., in the antagonistic résumés of the reigns of the kings of northern Israel: Baasha (1 Kgs 15:34–16:4 vs. 16:5-6); Omri (16:25-26 vs. 16:24, 27-28); Ahab (22:39 vs. the preceding block of accounts in 20:1-34); Jehu (2 Kgs 10:31-33 vs. 10:34-36); Jehoahaz (13:8-9 vs. 13:2-7); Jehoash (13:10-11 vs. 13:12-25; 14:9-16); Jeroboam ben Joash (14:23-24 vs. 14:25-29); Menachem ben Gadi (15:16 vs. 15:18). E.g., in comparison with the Chronicler’s account of Rehoboam’s reign (2 Chr 11:5-12; 12:13) with the appended summary (12:14). See e.g., 2 Kgs 17:7-23. For a discussion of this issue in respect to other cultures in the ancient Near East, see Frankfort et al., The Intellectual Adventure; and idem, Kingship and the Gods, esp. 337–346.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

253

missing, and in which some of the available ones do not fit in at all.8 These difficulties cause some scholars to analyze the use of the term ‫שלום‬, and to elucidate the speculative thought which it presumably encapsulates, almost exclusively within the compass of a specific component of the biblical literature—a literary stratum or a cluster of compositions ascribed to a particular source; e.g., in writings affiliated with the “Deuteronomistic school.”9 The legitimacy of these partial inquiries is beyond doubt, and their indispensability evident. However, such limited studies cannot throw light on the diverse meanings of the term ‫ שלום‬in the comprehensive biblical corpus, but can only clarify its signification in the specific component brought under scrutiny. In the ensuing analysis of the connotation or connotations of ‫שלום‬, I propose to take a synoptic or holistic approach. I aim at bringing under review all occurrences of the term in the Hebrew Scriptures, or as many as possible, so as to gauge its intrinsic signification and the range of its applications throughout the entire corpus in its transmitted forms. The synopsis indeed reveals noticeable variations in the occurrences of the term, but practically all can be integrated in a classificatory system.10 A comprehensive intertextual analysis of ‫ שלום‬brings to light what may be described as an ongoing dialogue in the biblical writings that bridges chronological gaps and crosses the boundaries of “sources,” irrespective of the presumed association of one or the other author with this or that school of thought. Idiomatic expressions, motifs, and literary patterns woven around ‫ שלום‬persisted in the biblical writers’ vocabulary throughout the ages, and linked the diverse components of the corpus in an overarching wealth of shared figures of speech.11 Therefore, as will yet be shown, an expression

8 9 10

11

Mutatis mutandis, this characterization pertains also to rabbinic literature. See, inter alia, Braulik, “Konzeption,” 29–39; Cross, “The Themes,” 274–289. There remain the open questions of whether the variegations can be traced to discrete “sources” or “schools of thought” (see above), and whether they evince synchronous variations or diachronous developments in the employment of the vocable ‫שלום‬. These issues require detailed in depth analyses which in the present context can be addressed only en passant. On this matter see, inter alia, Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation. I have discussed some such phenomena in “Desert Motif”; “Navel of the Earth”; the introduction to this volume, 3–9; “Topped Triad,” above, 77–123; and Talmon and Fields, “‫משתין בקיר ועצוב ועזוב‬,” above, 183– 210.

254

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

or a tale which centers on ‫ שלום‬can often help in the interpretation of a “distant parallel” in a different textual framework, and sometimes even in the elucidation of a textual crux. Drawing upon the phrase ‫( יגיד עליו רעו‬Job 36:33) Jewish commentators construed this method of interpretation to mean “one verse may help in ascertaining the meaning of another.” From this basic exegetical principle were derived several of the 32 rules laid down by the Galilean sage Eliezer ben Yosei: “What is said in one place may also be applied in another similar context” (rule 19); “the meaning of an expression can be clarified with the help of its employment in another passage” (rule 22); “some texts shed light on other texts” (rule 23); etc.12 The dividing lines between successive stages in a presumably diachronic development of the signification of ‫ שלום‬may at times become blurred: A late text will occasionally preserve a pristine connotation of ‫שלום‬, whereas in a supposedly early text the employment of the term may have been contaminated by subsequent modifications.13 Last but not least, the originally precise connotation of an idiomatic expression, even of a technical term, may dissipate in the course of time. Widespread employment of such a term has often a leveling impact on its initially exact signification, so much so that it can become part of a run-of-the-mill collocation.14 Such a neutralizing process is especially prone to affect “hand-me-down” terms, like ‫שלום‬, which adapt easily to a broad range of circumstances. Our investigation revolves in part around traditions which are presented as records of “historical realities.” Therefore, before going into medias res, the obvious must be emphasized: I am not concerned with assessing the factuality or non-factuality of biblical reports in which ‫ שלום‬is prominently employed, but solely with the exegetical endeavor of assessing the authors’ understanding of the signification of the term.

12 13

14

For an illustration of this exegetical method see, inter alia, Talmon, “Emendations.” As a result, the dating of texts brought under scrutiny will necessarily affect conclusions concerning the changing or developing signification of ‫שלום‬. For example, the question of whether Zech 9:10 evinces a late stage in the use of the term, but Zech 6:13; 8:10 an earlier one, will be differently answered by scholars who predate or postdate Zechariah 9–12 to 1–8. However, also the opposite development may occur when in the course of time a general vocable may become invested with a very specific meaning.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

255

15

II. OCCURRENCES OF ‫שלום‬

16

The noun ‫ שלום‬is attested 238 times in the Hebrew Bible, occurring mostly in the absolute (209), and predominantly in the naked absolute [i.e., without 17 the definite article] (116); five times with the definite article; six times with conjunctive ‫ ;ו‬twice with both the definite article and conjunctive ‫ו‬. The term is used 35 times with the preposition ‫ב־‬, 30 times with ‫ל־‬, and once with ‫מן‬. There are 13 occurrences of ‫ שלום‬in the construct, and ten with a personal pronoun. Three occurrences in the plural are contextually doubtful (Jer 13:19; Ps 55:21; 69:23), and the connection of the phrase ‫( שלמי אמוני ישראל‬2 Sam 20:19) with ‫ שלום‬is considered uncertain. Several personal, probably theophoric names, are composed with the noun 18 19 ‫שלום‬: ‫שלוּם‬, ‫שלמיה‬, ‫שלמון‬, ‫ שלומיאל‬,‫שלומית‬, ‫של)ו(מות‬, ‫שלומי‬, et sim., foremost 20 the names of David’s sons, ‫ אבשלום‬and ‫( שלמה‬see below). The city name ‫ירושלים‬, whose pre-Israelite form uru-šilimma means “city” or “foundation” dedicated to the ancient Semitic deity šulmānitu, was later reinterpreted as “City of Peace.” The qal form of denominative ‫ שלם‬connotes personal prosperity or safety (Job 9:4 and 22:21). The piʿel ‫ ַשׁ ֵלּם‬can signify “to protect” or “give peace” (Job 21 8:6). The hiphʿil of the verb ‫ שלם‬serves seven times as a technical term which defines the cessation of hostilities and the establishment of “peace,”

15

16

17

18

19 20

21

For a discussion of ‫ שלום‬šālôm with an ample apparatus of pertinent literature see Stendebach, “‫שלום‬,” 12–46, which came to my attention only after the completion of this paper. Figures are given here according to Even-Shoshan, Concordance. Slight differences in comparison with listings in other handbooks, concordances and dictionaries, arise from the fact that in some instances the etymological relation of a given word to ‫ שלום‬is uncertain (see below). However, these discrepancies do not affect the results of the ensuing analysis. ‫ ַהשלום‬in 2 Kgs 9:22b should be vocalized ‫ ֲהשלום‬, as a question, as in the first half of the verse. Cf. 9:17, 18. This nominative proper is found on seals, and in the Elephantine Papyri as the name of the son of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. The name was discovered at Hazor, inscribed on a jar from the 7th or 6th century BCE. Cf. the Assyrian royal names: šalim-aḫum, šulmānu-ašarēdu (Pope, “Šaḥr and Šalim,” 307), and the divine appellations, šulmān, šulmānitu (Albright, “Šulmân Ešmûn,” 164–169). Theophoric names containing the divine epithet šalim/salim turn up in Mari texts (see Stamm, “Hebräische Ersatznamen,” 59–79). ‫( ואשלם נחמים לו ולאבליו‬Isa 57:18) may be rendered somewhat freely: “I will give peace and (or: of) consolation, him and all who mourned for him.”

256

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

mostly in the wake of warfare (Deut 20:12; cf. also Josh 10:1,4; 11:19; 2 Sam 10:19 = 1 Chr 19:19; Prov 16:7; etc.; see below). 22 In the phrase ‫( ויבא יעקב שלם עיר שכם‬Gen 33:18), ‫ ָשׁ ֵלם‬means “safely”; and in the statement ‫( האנשים האלה שלמים הם אתנו‬34:21), “friendly” or “peaceful.” It is debatable whether the expressions ‫( גלות שלמה‬Amos 1:6, 9) and ‫הגלת יהודה‬ ‫( כלה הגלת שלומים‬Jer 13:19) signify “total deportation” or “banishment in times 23 of peace” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:5: ‫ ;וישם דמי מלחמה בשלם‬Job 15:21: ‫)בשלום שודד יבואנו‬. III. ETYMOLOGY OF ‫שלום‬ The vocable ‫ שלום‬is usually derived from the stem ‫שלם‬, found in several 24 Semitic languages in a variety of forms and applications, and as a loanword also in Egyptian šrm. In many instances, the term conveys the positive notion of “wholeness,” like Ugaritic šlm I. The denominative adjective ‫ ָשׁ ֵלם‬means “complete, unharmed,” et sim. In reference to the individual, “wholeness” spells physical and spiritual wellbeing. In reference to a collective, it indicates harmonious interpersonal and inter-group relations. In Pedersen’s words: A community … is characterized by the harmony arising, in that the whole of the community is penetrated by the blessing. This harmony the Israelite calls shālōm, the word which is usually rendered by peace. Its fundamental meaning is totality; it means the untrammelled, free growth of the soul. But this, in its turn, means the same as the harmonious community. … There is ‘totality’ in a community when there is harmony.

25

IV. TRANSLATIONS OF ‫שלום‬ The renditions of ‫( שלום‬Aramaic ‫שׁ ַלם‬, ְ Syriac ‫ )ܫܠܡܐ‬in non-Semitic target 26 languages—εἰρήνη and pax in the ancient Greek and Latin versions, and the

22 23 24 25

26

Cf. ‫ ושבתי בשלום אל בית אבי‬in Jacob’s vow to build a house of God in Bethel (Gen 28:21). For a more detailed analysis of the use of ‫ ָשׁ ֵלם‬šālēm, see now Illman, “‫שלם‬,” 93–101. See Bergsträsser, Semitic Languages, 220–221. Pedersen, Israel, 2:263–264. Cf. von Rad, Theology, 1:136: “‫ שלום‬designates the unimpairedness, the wholeness, of a relationship of communion, and so a state of harmonious equilibrium, the balancing of all claims and needs between two parties.“ In the LXX, εἰρήνη serves exclusively as a translation of ‫שלום‬. In some instances the Hebrew term is rendered by σωτήριον (Gen 41:16), σωτηρία (Gen 26:31; 28:21), ὑγιαίειν (Gen 29:6; 37:14; Josh 10:21) etc.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

257

routine translations into modern languages—peace, paix, paz, pace, Frieden etc., are but approximations, which do not accurately reflect the intrinsic 27 signification of the Hebrew term nor its connotative range. In this case, as 28 in reference to other fundamental biblical terms, such as ‫ברית‬, the adage holds true: traduttore traditore. Therefore, in the ensuing discussion, I prefer to use predominantly the original Hebrew term ‫שלום‬. V. THE RANGE OF CONNOTATIONS OF ‫שלום‬29 At this juncture I propose a classification, in rough outline, of the uses of ‫שלום‬. The system will be refined through the analysis of the distribution of the noun and the vocabulary connected with it in diverse components of the biblical corpus, which will lead us to several conclusions concerning its intrinsic signification. 1. ‫ שלום‬connotes a state of personal “well-being,” “comfort,” “prosperity,” “safety,” “ease,” sans souci, often seen as a proverbial reward for the godfearing (Ps 35:27), but denied to the sinner (Ps 38:4). The righteous can lie down at night without worry, ‫בשלום‬, fully assured that in the morning he will wake up hale and hearty, ‫( לבטח‬Ps 4:9).30 “Abundant prosperity (is given) to those who love your torah, they incur no adversity, ‫שלום רב לאהבי תורתך ואין‬ ‫( למו מכשול‬Ps 119:165);31 “for long life and years (in plenty) and prosperity will they (God’s commandments) bring you” ‫כי ארך ימים ושנות חיים ושלום יוסיפו לך‬ (Prov 3:2); “the humble shall possess the land and thrive on great prosperity,” ‫( וענוים יירשו ארץ והתענגו על רב שלום‬Ps 37:11); “You will know that all is well with your household, look around your home and find nothing amiss,” ‫וידעת‬ ‫( כי שלום אהלך ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא‬Job 5:24).32 Nature is likewise in accord with

27

28

29

30 31 32

See, inter alia, von Rad, Theology, 1:130, “The word ‫( שלום‬Gen 26: 30ff.; 1 Kgs 5:26 [v. 12]; Isa 54:10; Job 5:23), for which our word peace can only be regarded as an inadequate equivalent.” To quote again von Rad, Theology, 1:129, “’covenant’ is only a makeshift rendering of the Hebrew word [‫]שלום‬.” The diverse significations of ‫ שלום‬will be illustrated in each instance by a selection of examples. The roster can be easily amplified. No hard and fast boundaries divide the subcategories in the suggested classification. A given text often can be subsumed under more than one heading. There are also border cases which seem to evince a deliberate double entendre. For the equation ‫בטחון = שלום‬/‫בטח‬, see discussion below. Note the antithesis ‫שלום–מכשול‬. ‫ חטא‬contrasts ‫ ָשׁ ֵלם‬/‫שלום‬.

258

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the righteous: “for you have a covenant with the stones of the field, and are at one with the beasts of the field,” ‫כי עם אבני השדה בריתך וחית השדה השלמה לך‬33 (Job 5:23; cf. Hos 2:20).34 In contrast, “the wicked will have no comfort,” ‫ לרשעים‬... ‫( אין שלום‬Isa 48:22; 57:21, cf. Jer 6:14; 8:11; Ezek 13:10, 16). ‫ שלום‬signifies a situation free of danger or harm. YHWH allays Gideon’s fear that he will die after having seen an angel face to face: “Greetings (or: you are safe), be not afraid, you shall not die,” ‫( שלום לך אל תירא לא תמות‬Judg 6:23). To commemorate the vision in which God had greeted him with ‫שלום‬, Gideon built an altar which he named ‫( יהוה שלום‬6:24). In like fashion had Abraham named ‫ יהוה יראה‬the place where by divine intervention, ‫אלהים יראה לו‬ ‫( השה לעלה‬Gen 22:8), he saw the ram, ‫וירא והנה איל‬, which he sacrificed instead of his son (22:13).35 The comparison suggests that the phrase ‫ יהוה שלום‬in the Gideon tradition cannot be construed simply as an epithet of YHWH, who is thereby presented, as it were, as the “God of Peace.” The heavenly messengers likewise encouraged Daniel not to be afraid: ‫ אל‬... ‫אל תירא דניאל‬ ‫( תירא איש חמדות שלום לך‬Dan 10:12, 19). And Jonathan assured David: “I swear to God, you are safe, do not be afraid (‫( ”)כי שלום לך ואין דבר חי יהוה‬1 Sam 20:21; cf. 2 Sam 19:31).36 2. ‫ שלום‬pertains to interpersonal relations, e.g., in an inquiry concerning someone’s intentions. When the elders of Bethlehem apprehensively questioned Samuel: ‫)ה(שלם בואך‬,37 he replied: ‫שלום‬, and reassured them by adding, “I have come to sacrifice to YHWH” (1 Sam 16:4-5). Equally, when Adonijah approached Bathsheba, “she asked: ‘Do you come as a friend?’ ‘As a friend,’ he answered,” ‫( השלום באך ויאמר שלום‬1 Kgs 2:13). The short dialogue between Gehazi and Naaman in the Elisha tradition may be similarly understood:

33 34

35

36

37

Denominative hophʿal. Cf. complaints about the undeserved comfort of evildoers: “I see that the wicked prosper, ‫( ”שלום רשעים אראה‬Ps 73:3); “their homes are safe of danger, ‫( ”בתיהם שלום מפחד‬Job 21:9; cf. Deut 29:18; Jer 23:17), with ‫ פחד‬serving as an antonym of ‫שלום‬. The Hagar–Ishmael tradition (Gen 21:14-19) exhibits similar features. The angel comforts Hagar, “do not be afraid [‫]אל תיראי‬,” assuring her that Ishmael will be saved (Gen 21:17-18), although there is no mention of ‫ שלום‬in the context, nor in the conferment of a commemorative name on the place of the vision (16:13). The implied meaning of ‫ ואין דבר‬evidently is “nothing to fear.” My translation aims at highlighting the essential meaning of the Hebrew texts rather than at a literal rendition. The text should be thus amended with the ancient Versions and many manuscripts of MT.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

259

“When Naaman saw him running after him … he asked ‫השלום‬, and Gehazi replied ‫( ”שלום‬2 Kgs 5:21-22). In the episode of Jehu’s encounter with Jehoram and Jezebel, greetings with ‫ שלום‬turn up five times with somewhat different nuances of meaning: “Welcome” (2 Kgs 9:19); “How are things?” (9:17, 18a, 22a, 31); triggering three times Jehu’s brusque reply ‫מה לך ולשלום‬: “what is shalom to you?” or more bluntly, “get lost” (9:18b, 19b, thus also in 22b).38 The idiom ‫שאל לשלום‬, and similar phrases such as ‫( שלום לך‬Judg 19:20), serve as formulaic expressions of greeting in situations in which the people involved do not harbor any suspicion. At his father’s bidding (1 Sam 17:18), David went to Saul’s camp to inquire about the wellbeing of his brothers. Coming there, he greeted them or asked them “how are you?”, ‫וישאל לאחיו‬ ‫( לשלום‬1 Sam 17:22; cf. Judg 18:15; 1 Sam 10:4; 25:35; 30:21; 2 Sam 8:10 = 1 Chr 18:10; Esth 9:30; 10:3).39 I suggest that apocopated versions of ‫שאל לשלום‬, like the hapax legomenon ‫ פקד לשלום‬in the niphʿal, occur in David’s conversation with Jonathan concerning Saul’s intentions: “If your father should enquire about me (or: my whereabouts), tell him, ‘David took leave of me,’” ‫אם פקד‬ ‫( יפקדני אביך ואמרת נשאל נשאל ממני דוד‬1 Sam 20:6).40 In contrast, if someone does not greet another person with ‫שלום‬, or does not take care for that person’s ‫שלום‬, the omission discloses animosity. The psalmist complains: “For a long time I dwelt among men who hated concord. Whenever I spoke in amity, they were for discord (‫אני שלום וכי אדבר‬ ‫( ”)המה למלחמה‬Ps 120:6-7). Even worse are those “who speak civilly to their neighbors with malice in their hearts (‫( ”)דֹברי שלום עם רעיהם ורעה בלבבם‬Ps 28:3), and the apparently trustworthy, but actually treacherous friend: ‫איש שלומי‬ ‫ הגדיל עלי עקב‬... ‫אשר בטחתי בו‬, who is on the watch for a false step (Ps 41:10; cf. Jer 20:10, ‫ ;כל אנוש שלומי שמרי צלעי‬and Jer 38:22 = Obad 7). In the post-exilic period, the returners from the exile were instructed to deny ‫ שלום‬to the local population of the land, the ‫עמי הארצות‬: “never seek

38

39

40

Eisenbeis, ‫שׁלם‬, 104, defines as “slang” the use of ‫ שלום‬in the question of Jehu’s fellow officers who ask him for the reason of his secret meeting with Elisha’s emissary: ‫השלום מדוע‬ ‫( בא המשגע הזה אליך‬2 Kgs 9:11). The sense of ‫להם לשלום‬/‫ וישאל לאחיו‬is perfectly caught in the somewhat free Greek rendition of the same phrase by πῶς ἔχετε in Gen 43:27. To be understood as: ‫אם פקד יפקדני אביך ]את שלומי[ ואמרת נשאל ]שלום[ ממני‬. Further on in the tale, the vocables ‫ יפקד‬... ‫( ונפקדת‬1 Sam 20:18) connote absence.

260

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

their welfare (‫ )שלמם‬or prosperity” (Ezra 9:12; cf. Gen 37:4-5),41 just as Israel had been commanded after the exodus to shun the Ammonites and Moabites: ‫( )ו(לא תדרש)ו( שלמם וטבתם‬Deut 23:7).42 Jerusalemites accused Jeremiah of “not pursuing the people’s welfare” ‫איננו ד ֹרש לשלום לעם הזה‬,43 but rather their ruin, ‫( רעה‬Jer 38:4). The accusation echoes Jeremiah’s controversy with priests and prophets in Jerusalem who mislead the people, assuring them “all is well (‫”)שלום שלום‬, whereas he foresees impending ruin and desolation: ‫( ואין שלום‬Jer 6:14; 8:11).44 The recurrence of ‫ ואין שלום‬in Ezekiel’s argument against the false prophets who in his days proclaimed ‫שלום‬, not necessarily in a context of “war and peace” (Ezek 13:10, 16), highlights the formulaic character of these phrases, which are seemingly used as slogans or catchwords. Similarly, ‫ שלום‬occurs in a stereotypical idiom for taking leave.45 Eli told Hannah to return home without worrying, ‫לכי לשלום‬, assuring her that God would grant (LXX: + to her) her request (1 Sam 1:17; cf. Gen 44:17; Exod 4:18; 1 Sam 20:13, 42; 29:7; 2 Sam 3:21-23; 15:9, 27; 2 Kgs 4:23; 5:19). Micah’s priest sends the Danite spies on their way, wishing them Godspeed: ‫לכו לשלום‬ ‫( נכח יהוה דרככם אשר תלכו בה‬Judg 18:6). As in other instances, the mention of God is stereotypical, and does not evince the speaker’s intention to invest the greeting with a distinctive theological content (cf. Ruth 2:4). This conclusion is suggested by the occurrence of the phrase with or without the invocation of the Deity in one and the same context. Jonathan promised that he would warn David and urge him to leave in haste, if he should realize that his father Saul planned to harm him: ‫( ושלחתיך והלכת לשלום‬1 Sam 20:13), and ‫( ויאמר יהונתן לדוד לך לשלום‬20:42). But when he explained the meaning of the agreed upon sign which signals David to flee, the parallel phrase reads: “the Lord is sending you away,” ‫( כי שלחך יהוה‬20:22).

41

42 43

44

45

In these contexts, ‫ מלחמה‬and (‫ רע)ה‬are antonyms of ‫ שלום‬and (‫טוב)ה‬, as in 1 Sam 29:7; Jer 23:17; 29:11; 33:9; Ps 34:15 etc. See below. See below. Contrast Jer 29:7, “seek the welfare of the city, ‫ודרשו את שלום העיר‬, to which I have exiled you … because when she prospers, also you will fare well (‫)כי בשלומה יהיה לכם שלום‬.” The question of whether the similarly worded passages Jer 6:12-15 and 8:10-12 are both original does not need to occupy us here. Occasionally, ‫לכו לשלום‬/‫לכי‬/‫ לך‬and ‫ שאל לשלום‬complement each other, as in Exod 4:18 / 18:7; Judg 18:6 / 18:15.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

261

When ‫ שאל לשלום‬refers to a speaker (A) who asks a dialogue partner (B) for information concerning a not-present person or object (C), the phrase takes on the sense of an inquiry about the wellbeing of that person or object. The idiom turns up three times in David’s request of Uriah to give him news concerning Joab and the troops that beleaguered Rabbat Ammon, and about how the campaign was going: ‫וישאל דוד לשלום יואב ולשלום העם ולשלום המלחמה‬ (2 Sam 11:7). Again, four times, when the prophet Elisha dispatched his servant Gehazi to obtain information about the situation of the great woman of Shunem and her family, we find: “Hurry to her, and ask her ‘Are you well, is your husband well, is the boy well?’ She answered: ‘(All is/are) well’ (‫”)רוץ נא לקראתה ואמר לה השלום לך השלום לאישך השלום לילד ותאמר שלום‬ (2 Kgs 4:26; cf. 1 Kgs 2:13; 2 Kgs 5:21-22).46 The formula ‫ שאל לשלום‬sometimes takes on the sense of politely wishing someone well. David instructs the men whom he sent to Nabal the Carmelite: “Go to Nabal, greet him in my name, and say (to him) … ‘may all be well with you, may all be well with your household, and may all be well with all that is yours’ ( ‫ אתה שלום וביתך שלום‬... ‫ובאתם אל נבל ושאלתם לו בשמי לשלום ואמרתם‬ ‫( ”)וכל אשר לך שלום‬1 Sam 25:5-6).47 This connotation becomes especially noticeable in the combination of ‫ שאל לשלום‬with ‫ברך‬, e.g., in the message which the king of Hamath conveyed to David: “To’i sent his son Joram to King David to greet him and wish him well, ‫וישלח תעי את יורם בנו אל המלך דוד לשאל‬ ‫( “לו לשלום ולברכו‬2 Sam 8:10 = 1 Chr 18:10).48 A somewhat different thrust has the Psalmist’s quest: “Pray for the wellbeing of Jerusalem” ‫שאלו שלום ירושלם‬ (Ps 122:6), in contrast to Jeremiah’s rhetorical question concerning (the inhabitants of) the city: ‫מי יסור לשאל לשלם לך‬, “who will go out of his way to wish you well?” (Jer 15:5). The same sense is conferred by ‫( ענה שלום‬see below), and ‫השמיע שלום‬, as in the prophet’s words of comfort: “(How lovely on the mountains are the feet of the herald) who proclaims wellbeing (NEB: prosperity), brings good (tidings), announces deliverance,” ‫( משמיע שלום מבשר טוב משמיע ישועה‬Isa 52:7);

46

47

48

Cf. the reply of Ahaziah’s confrères to Jehu’s question, ‫ונרד לשלום בני המלך ובני הגבירה‬, which means: “We are on our way to enquire about the well-being of the king’s and the queen’s family” (2 Kgs 10:13). Due to haplography, ‫ לשאל‬was omitted before ‫לשלום‬. Cf. the similar formula in a letter from Taanach: ilānu lišʾalū šulumka šulum bītika mārīka; cf. Loewenstamm, “Ugaritic Formulas.” NEB “and congratulate him.”

262

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

echoed in Nah 2:1, ‫הנה על ההרים רגלי מבשר משמיע שלום‬. The phrase occurs in an extra-biblical application in the Lachish ostraca: ‫ישמע יהוה את אדני שמעת שלם‬ (nos. 2–3; restored in nos. 5, 9, 21); or ‫( שמעת טוב‬nos. 4, 8, cf. no. 5),49 next to the parallel epistolary formula of greeting: ‫ירא יהוה את אדני את העת הזה שלם‬ (no. 6).50 Shortened Aramaic versions of this formula are preserved in messages which Nebuchadnezzar and Darius sent to “all peoples and nations of every language living in the whole world: ‘May your prosperity increase’,” ‫( שלמכון ישגא‬Dan 3:31 [4:1]; 6:26). Similar formulae are preserved in the introits of letters, which officials in the province of Abar Nahara transmitted to the Persian kings Artachshasta and Darius respectively: ‫שלם‬ (Ezra 4: 17) and ‫( שלמא כלא‬5:7). 3. ‫ שלום‬pertaining to intra-group and inter-group relations: The cessation of internal discord or of war with an external enemy, for whatever length of time, is often termed ‫שלום‬. In most cases, the suspension of hostilities is imposed by a superior on a subordinate party, and results in a situation which does not produce active cooperation of equals (see below). A termination of internal fighting is signaled in the “Concubine of Gibeah” episode when “the whole community sent (word) to the Benjaminites at the Rock of Rimmon proclaiming ‫( ”שלום‬Judg 21:13), after their tribe had been almost totally wiped out (21:3). To ensure the continued existence of Benjamin, the tribal alliance supplied the survivors with 400 wives from the town of Jabesh Gilead whose male population had been put to the sword (21:5-12), and also permitted them to abduct an additional contingent of Shilonite maidens (21:19-23). However, these measures merely effected a situation of suspended belligerence, not a true reconciliation of the other tribes with Benjamin, as can be deduced from the opposition of certain factions, ‫בני בליעל‬, to Saul’s election as king over Israel.51 The tale of the Gibeonites illustrates a similar use of ‫ שלום‬in reference to a potential external enemy. The Gibeonites approached Joshua, asking for a compact, ‫( כרתו לנו ברית‬Josh 9:6), declaring their readiness to become Israel’s “vassals,” ‫( עבדיכם אנחנו‬9:11). Joshua and the chiefs of Israel granted them a suzerain treaty, ‫( ויעש להם יהושע שלום‬9:15), which is later referred to by

49 50 51

Also here ‫ טוב‬serves as a synonym of ‫שלום‬. KAI 1:192–197, 2:189–198. See 1 Sam 10:20-27.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

263

a denominative verb of ‫ שלום‬in the hiphʿil: ‫( השלימו ישבי גבעון את ישראל‬10:1), ‫( ונכה את גבעון כי השלימה את יהושע ואת בני ישראל‬10:4). When it subsequently transpired that the Gibeonites had acted under false pretenses, they were demoted to the status of minor cult personnel (9:16-27),52 viz., were made ‫ עבדים‬in the sense of “slaves.”53 A state of non-belligerence between non-Israelite collectives, evidently based on a suzerain–vassal treaty, can also be defined by ‫שלום‬. For example, “there was ‫ שלום‬between Jabin king of Hazor and the clan of Heber the Kenite” (Judg 4:17). But this ‫ שלום‬did not prevent Heber’s wife Jael from cunningly killing Sisera, the fugitive commander of Jabin’s army (4:18-22; 5:24-27), although a breach of peace is considered a sinful deed.54 In a different category fall the intermittent spells of suspended warfare in the period of the settlement, whenever a Judge or Savior achieved a decisive victory over one or the other enemy in a single campaign. However, the sources do not report that these sporadic successes led to the establishment of a treaty of whatever kind. It would appear that for this reason, the term ‫ שלום‬is not used in the concise notations in which such spells of tranquility between wars are recorded. Rather, they are identified by the formulaic statement “the land was at rest (‫ )ותשקט הארץ‬for forty years,” in the wake of the victorious battles fought by Othniel (Judg 3:11), Barak–Deborah (5:31) and Gideon (8:28), and for “eighty years” after Ehud vanquished the Moabites (3:30).55 The same pertains to the application of the formula in several reports in other biblical historiographies. In the days of Asa, king of Judah, “the land was at rest for ten years.” The Chronicler explicates “during those years there was no war with him for YHWH had given him security,” ‫ואין ִעמו מלחמה‬ ‫( בשנים האלה כי הניח יהוה לו‬2 Chr 14:5; cf. further Josh 11:23; 14:15; 2 Chr 20:30). VI. SYNONYMS OF ‫ שלום‬AND EXPLANATORY EXPRESSIONS A satisfactory understanding of the intrinsic connotation of ‫ שלום‬cannot be achieved by an etymological analysis alone. The identification of the root of 52

53

54 55

It is of no consequence for the ascertainment of the signification of ‫ שלום‬whether the pericope 9:16-27 is a self-contained unit or not. Different connotations attach to the term ‫ עבד‬in 9:8, 11, 24 and in 9:23 (cf. 1 Kgs 9:21-22), as in the use of ‫ נער‬in the account of Samuel’s youth (1 Sam 1:21–3:21). See Pedersen, Israel, 1–2:418. That is to say, for one or two generations.

264

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

a word does not yet disclose its inherent meaning in a given corpus of literature. As said, the signification and the scope of meanings of ‫ שלום‬can be more reliably ascertained by reviewing the use of the term intertextually and synoptically in the entire gamut of the biblical writings. In this process must be brought under consideration the entire range of vocables and explanatory expressions which fall in the semantic field of ‫ שלום‬by collating synonyms and coterminous idioms from a variety of passages. The investigation demonstrates that also those synonyms and coterminous expressions predominately connote “well-being,” or “friendship/goodwill” generally, and antonyms signify “need/exigency,” “dislike/hate.” The infrequently attested signification “peace” in contrast to “war” may indeed be a secondary development.56 A few texts from various biblical books will suffice to bear out this proposition. The psalmist implores God to proclaim ‫ שלום‬for his loyal people: ‫שלום אל‬ ‫עמו ואל חסידיו‬.57 In his prayer he enumerates the qualities of ‫שלום‬: divine deliverance (‫ )ישעו‬so that glory may dwell in our land (‫ ;)לשכן כבוד בארצנו‬true fidelity (‫ חסד ואמת‬/ ‫)צדק ושלום‬58 on earth and in heaven; prosperity (‫)הטוב‬59 and a rich yield of the fields, ‫( וארצנו תתן יבולה‬Ps 85:9-14). The nouns ‫כבוד‬, ‫חסד‬, ‫אמת‬,60 ‫צדק‬, ‫הטוב‬, ‫יבול הארץ‬, and the verb ‫שכן‬,61 are constitutive components of the vocabulary of ‫שלום‬, shared by many biblical writers. The author of Isa 32:16-18 adduces some of the above terms, such as (‫צדק)ה‬ and ‫שכן‬, and introduces additional expressions to highlight the promise of security and serenity which divinely granted ‫ שלום‬holds out for Israel: “justice and righteousness shall dwell in the desert ( ‫ושכן במדבר משפט וצדקה בכרמל‬

56

57 58 59

60

61

In a lengthy discussion of “peace,” Pedersen (Israel, 1–2:263–377) widens the signification of ‫ שלום‬beyond defensible limits, actually identifying the term with ‫ברית‬, “covenant.” Von Rad (Theology, 1:130) offers a similar approximation of ‫ ברית‬and ‫שלום‬. Possibly a hendiadys. More instances of hendiadys. For (‫ ;שלום = טוב)ה‬cf. inter alia, Deut 23:7 = Ezra 9:12 (see above); Isa 52:7; Jer 14:19; 33:9; Ps 122:8-9; further 1 Sam 20:7. ‫ אמת‬is recurrently conjoined with ‫ שלום‬in what appears to be another hendiadys, mostly in the A/B sequence ‫( שלום )ו(אמת‬inter alia, in 2 Kgs 20:19 = Isa 39:8; Jer 14:13; 33:6; Esth 9:30), but also in the inverted B/A order ‫( האמת והשלום‬Zech 8:19). Cf. the parallel conjunction of ‫שלום‬ with ‫( משפט‬Zech 8:16) and/or ‫מישרים‬/‫( מישור‬Mal 2:6), in which ‫ מישור‬equals ‫( צדק‬Ps 45:7-8). ‫ מישור‬is used in an apparent double entendre in Jer 48:20-21, ‫כי שדד מואב ומשפט בא אל ארץ המישר‬. Cf. 2 Sam 7:10 = 1 Chr 17:9 etc.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

265

‫)תשב‬,”62 and produce “tranquility and safety lasting for ever ( ‫השקט ובטח עד‬ ‫“ ;”)עולם‬then my people shall live in a haven of serenity, in secure dwellings, in rest and ease (‫( ”)וישב עמי בנוה שלום ובמשכנות מבטחים ובמנוחֹת שאננות‬Isa 32:16-18). Most prevalent is the conjunction of ‫ שלום‬with vocables connoting safety or security, pertaining either to personal “ease/welfare” or signifying “peace” in the political arena: ‫בטחון‬/(‫( בטח)ה‬Lev 26:5-6; Isa 26:3; Jer 12:5; Ezek 34:25-27; Ps 41:10); ‫( שקט‬2 Chr 14:4-5; 20:30; 23:21);63 ‫( שלוה‬combined with ‫ טוב‬in Ps 122:6-9); and ‫( מנוחה‬Deut 3:20; 12:9-10; Josh 1:15; 2 Sam 7:11; 1 Kgs 8:56).64 A dimension of peace and safety attaches to these vocables in phrases preponderantly employed in visions of the “national ideal” (see below), in which they indeed signify “peace” in antithesis to “war” (e.g., Deut 12:9-10; Zech 14:11), even when ‫ שלום‬is not mentioned in the context (Zech 14:1-15). A deficiency of ‫ שלום‬connoting “wholeness,” in the private or the public domain, is expressed in negative terms and metaphors derived from ‫ארך‬ and ‫רפא‬, which belong in the semantic field of “health”: “Why did you smite us, and there is no remedy for us, we hoped for ‫שלום‬, and there is nothing good,”65 ‫( מדוע הכיתנו ואין לנו מרפא קוה לשלום ואין טוב ולעת מרפא והנה בעתה‬Jer 14:19). The deficiency is redressed when God has mercy on the repentant sinner, gives him relief, and restores him to health: ‫דרכיו ראיתי וארפאהו ואנחהו ואשלם‬ ‫ שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב‬... ‫נחמים לו‬, “says YHWH, (so) I cured him (‫”)ורפאתיו‬ (Isa 57:18-19).66 Unlike the priests and false prophets who “lightly heal the wounds of my people (‫)וירפאו את שבר עמי על נקלה‬,”67 “proclaiming ‫שלום שלום‬ while there is no ‫( ”שלום‬Jer 6:14; 8:11; cf. Ezek 13:10, 16; Mic 3:5), God brings true healing and peace to Jerusalem and those who dwell within her: “behold, I will bring it health and healing, and I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of peace and truth ( ‫הנני מעלה לה ארכה ומרפא ורפאתים וגליתי להם‬ ‫( ”)עתרת שלום ואמת‬Jer 33:6); “Come, let us return to YHWH; for he has torn

62

63 64 65 66

67

The ‫ מדבר‬is the proverbial refuge of outlaws and evil men, like the mighty and mean Nabal who lived at Carmel in the wilderness of Maon (1 Sam 25:1-39); see Talmon, “Desert Motif.” Especially in the stereotypical idiom: ‫( ותשק)ו(ט הארץ‬see discussion above) This is implied by ‫ ואנחהו‬in Isa 57:18; cf. Deut 25:19 etc. See n. 66 below. ‫ טוב‬equals ‫שלום‬. See discussion above. The denominative verb ‫ ואנחהו‬is derived from ‫מנוחה‬, quietude/serenity, and ‫ ואשלם‬from ‫שלום‬ (see above). ‫ שבר‬is an antithesis of ‫ שלום‬in the sense of “wholeness” as well as of “peace.” Cf. Isa 15:5; 51:19; 60:18; Jer 4:20; 10:19; 14:17; 30:12; 50:22; Nah 3:19; Zeph 1:10; Lam 2:11-13; 3:47-48 etc.

266

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

us and will heal us, he has struck us and he will bind up our wounds ( ‫לכו‬ ‫( ”)ונשובה אל יהוה כי הוא טרף וירפאנו יך ויחבשנו‬Hos 6:1; cf. Mal 3:20).68 VII. THE DISTRIBUTION OF ‫ שלום‬IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE The term ‫ שלום‬turns up in all books, sources and literary strata of the Bible. The widespread employment invites speculations about the reasons for its rare presence in specific components of the biblical literature and its total absence from major sections. An analysis of the factors which presumably caused such apparent anomalies may hold out promise for a more accurate definition of the intrinsic meaning or meanings of ‫שלום‬. The use of the term in the Pentateuch is a case in point: 1. Twenty-three occurrences of ‫ שלום‬in the Pentateuch amount to no more than ca. 10 percent of the 237 mentions of the term in biblical literature, although the five books of the Torah make up approximately 25 percent of the text of the Hebrew Bible, with the Former and Latter Prophets, and the Writings constituting ca. 75 percent.69 No less conspicuous is the fact that ‫ שלום‬is not found even once in Genesis 1–11, that is to say, in the block of traditions which pertain to what may be termed the “constitutive age of humanity.” Then all the “firsts” were established, which humans encounter as individuals and in various concretizations of societal life: cosmic phenomena, discrete categories of species, birth and death, sibling rivalry, cardinal professions, differentiation of languages and peoples, etc. “Facts” and “events” set in the constitutive age are considered prototypical or etiological, and are viewed as foreshadowing or determining anthropological and social phenomena experienced in historical reality. But these themselves are not subject to the circumstances and factors which actually govern the individual’s and the nation’s life. And exactly this existential actuality is the frame of reference of ‫שלום‬. Therefore, the term could not be employed in Genesis 1–11, viz., in texts which pertain exclusively to prehistorical phenomena of the primordial constitutive age.

68

69

The antonyms and antonymous idioms of ‫שלום‬, such as inter alia, ‫חרב‬, ‫מלחמה‬, ‫אין שלום‬, ‫השקט לא יוכל‬, (‫רע)ה‬, ‫פחד‬, ‫שבר‬, ‫חטא‬, ‫מכשול‬, (‫ריב)ה‬, require an in depth discussion. Isa 59:7-9 provides a typical example. Irrespective of whether words are counted or pages in a printed edition.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

267

The remaining part of Genesis (12–50) is only marginally concerned with the realities of peoplehood. Israel’s history as a sovereign nation-state lies altogether beyond the horizon of this section, rich in genealogies and genealogical tales, such as Esau’s and Jacob’s family-trees (Gen 36; 46:5-27) and the Judah–Tamar episode (Genesis 38). These pericopes bear comparison with the lineage lists and short genealogical narratives in 1 Chronicles 1–8. The Genesis traditions are without doubt retrospectively colored by events which in later history determined the internal constitution of the Israelite society and its external relations with other ethnic-political entities in the area. For example, the “Joseph and his Brothers” cycle evidently foreshadows the primacy of the house of Joseph in the era of the monarchy. And the tension which marks the Jacob–Esau traditions projects the hatred and neverending hostilities which marked the relations between the nation-states Israel and Edom in biblical and post-biblical times.70 In order to preserve the family ambiance of the traditions collected in Genesis 12–50, ‫ שלום‬is used there only, presumably deliberately, in reference to (a) individuals and (b) interpersonal relations: (a) God promised Abraham: “You shall join your fathers in peace, and be buried in a good old age,” ‫( ואתה תבוא אל אבתיך בשלום תקבר בשיבה טובה‬Gen 15:15; cf. 2 Kgs 22:20; Isa 57:1-2; Jer 34:5).71 The fugitive Jacob hoped to return hale and hearty (‫)בשלום‬, to his father’s house (Gen 28:21; cf. 44:17; Isa 55:12). (b) ‫ שאל לשלום‬serves as a formulaic phrase in enquiries about someone’s well-being, or in expressions of polite concern for the addressee’s or a third person’s welfare:72 Jacob questioned the shepherds in Haran about Laban: “‘Is he well?’ And they answered, ‘Yes, he is well’ (‫”)השלום לו ויאמרו שלום‬ (Gen 29:6). Sending out Joseph for news about his other sons who were tending their flocks near Shechem, Jacob twice uses ‫שלום‬: “Go and see whether all is well with your brothers and the sheep ( ‫לך נא ראה את שלום אחיך‬

70

71 72

The mutual animosity permeates the several collections of “Oracles Against the Nations,” which spill over with harsh accusations leveled against Edom, and with anti-Edom proclamations (Amos 1:11-12, cf. v. 9; Joel 4:19; Ezek 25:12-14). Typical examples are Obadiah’s prophecy (cf. Jer 49:7-22), Malachi’s bitter anti-Edom oracle (Mal 1:1-5), and the cursing of Edom in the essentially anti-Babylon psalm (Ps 137:7). The identification of Edom with Babylon caused Edom to become in some rabbinic writings a sobriquet for Rome, and then also for Christianity. Cf. further Gen 37:35, and contrast 1 Kgs 2:6; 2 Chr 34:28. See the instances adduced above.

268

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

‫( ”)ואת שלום הצאן‬Gen 37:14).73 Likewise, after having greeted his brothers when they came to Egypt, ‫וישאל להם לשלום‬, Joseph asked them: “Is your old father well (‫ ”?)השלום אביכם הזקן‬And they replied: “Your servant our father is well (‫( ”)שלום לעבדך לאבינו‬Gen 43:27-28; cf. 2 Sam 18:32; 2 Kgs 5:21; Esth 2:11). Joseph signals his peaceful intentions by assuring his apprehensive brothers, ‫( שלום לכם אל תיראו‬Gen 43:23; cf. Judg 6:23; Dan 10:19). He professes a courtier’s concern for the king of Egypt by addressing him with the stereotypical greeting formula “may God take care of Pharaoh’s welfare,” ‫אלהים‬ ‫( יענה את שלום פרעה‬Gen 41:16), which does not seem to have an intrinsic religious connotation.74 As already said, in contrast to this usage, the refusal to greet someone with ‫ שלום‬spells enmity.75 Joseph’s brothers hated him so much that they would not give him the time of the day: ‫לא יכלו דברו לשלם‬ (Gen 37:4; cf. Ps 35:20). Eventually, Joseph was reconciled with them (Gen 45:1-15), as he deserved: “When the Lord is pleased with a man and his ways, he reconciles even his enemies with him (‫”)ברצות יהוה דרכי איש גם אויביו ישלם אתו‬ (Prov 16:7). (c) The borderline between interpersonal and inter-(ethnic) group relations becomes blurred in the report of Isaac’s and Abimelech’s vows not to let differences over grazing rights interfere with their mutual intentions of ‫שלום‬ (Gen 26:29, 31). In a similar situation, Abraham strove to prevent further clashes between his shepherds and Lot’s, in order to maintain friendly relations with him (Gen 13:5-7). Since a close kinsman is involved, his amicable intentions are not defined by ‫שלום‬, but rather by the negation of its antonym ‫מריבה‬/‫ריב‬: “Let there be no quarrel between you and me (‫”)אל נא תהי מריבה ביני וביניך‬ (13:7-8). 2. Similar observations pertain to occurrences of ‫ שלום‬in the Book of Exodus, especially in narratives which revolve around Moses the Israelite and Jethro the Midianite. ‫ שלום‬serves once in a formula of greeting: “Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, bowed low to him, and kissed him, and they greeted

73 74

75

Cf. 2 Sam 11:7. Cf. parallel Babylonian epistolary formulas, such as šulumka mahar Šamaš u Marduk lū dari, “your well-being may be always before Samas and Marduk” (Salonen, Gruss und Höflichkeitsformeln, esp. 31; idem, “Gruss”), or ilānu šulumka šulum bītika lišʾal: “may the deity attend to your wellbeing and the wellbeing of your house” (cf. Loewenstamm, “Ugaritic Formulas”). See discussion above.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

269

each other (‫( ”)ויצא משה לקראת חתנו וישתחו וישק לו וישאלו איש לרעהו לשלום‬Exod 18:7; cf. Judg 18:15; 19:20; 2 Sam 18:28; 1 Chr 12:19); and once in a situation of leave-taking: “Jethro said to Moses, ‘Farewell’ (‫( ”)לך לשלום‬Exod 4:18). In the third instance, the clause ‫ העם הזה על מקמו יבא בשלום‬can be rendered somewhat freely: “This people will reach its destination unharmed (or: will live in harmony)” (Exod 18:23).76 The events reported, in which Moses and Jethro act amicably as private persons, fall in the category of inter-personal relations. They precede the later inimical encounters of Israel and Midian as ethnic entities or nation-states in history (Num 25:6-18; 31:1-53; Judg 6:1–8:12).77 3. The single mention of ‫ שלום‬in Leviticus occurs in a wishful portrayal of Israel’s future situation in the land (Lev 26:3-12), proleptically reflecting the lofty visionary image of the biblical authors’ national ideal:78 “If you conform to my statutes, … if you observe my commandments and carry them out, I will give you rain at the proper time, the land shall yield its produce and the trees of the countryside their fruit … you shall eat your fill and live secure (‫)לבטח‬, in your land. I will give peace in the land,79 and you shall lie down to sleep with no one to terrify you. I will rid your land of dangerous beasts (‫)חיה רעה‬,80 and it shall not be ravaged by war. You shall put your enemies to flight and … your enemies shall fall by the sword before you” (Lev 26:3-8) Attention centers on natural phenomena, which determine the individual’s welfare, and the societal weal generally: ample and well-timed rains in the appropriate seasons, abundant crops and a surplus of agricultural produce to be enjoyed in security (‫ )לבטח‬by all Israel, a happy family life

76

77 78

79 80

The same idea seems to be implied in Ahitophel’s advice to Absalom: ‫כל העם יהיה שלום‬ (2 Sam 17:3). See below. The wishful nature of this passage is put in relief by the Deuteronomist’s realistic statement that Israel has not yet achieved that aspired state of safety and serenity: ‫כי לא באתם עד עתה‬ ‫( אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה‬Deut 12:9-10). See below. Cf. Deut 28:1-14. For an Assyrian parallel to this phrase, see Oded, “Lev. 26:6.” The inclusion of inanimate (rain, crops, etc.) and animate nature seems to derive from prophetic literature. There, it constitutes a prominent component of the prophets’ vision of a pacified universe freed from all tension, rivalry and warfare (e.g., Isa 11:6-10; Hos 2:2025; see below), which finds a parallel in Mesopotamian and Egyptian portrayals of “the world at creation.” See Gross, Weltfrieden; Schmid, Šalôm.

270

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

and population increase (Lev 26:4-6a, 9-10), in a country freed of dangerous beasts (26:6b; cf. Ezek 34:25-27).81 The two-part notation of good fortune and economic success, frames, inclusio-like, a passage which relates to Israel’s triumph over its enemies and to the cessation of war (Lev 26:6b-8), a conditio sine qua non for the establishment of peace in the political arena.82 The pericope is enveloped by references to God’s covenant with his people (Lev 26:3, 11-12), which give it a theological-credal outlook.83 The absence of any allusion to tangible facts of statehood and political sovereignty prompts the conclusion that, like the scenario of the primordial “constitutive age” (Genesis 1–11), the visionary model presented in Leviticus relates to an uncharted future era which lies beyond the historical reality and to which, as said, ‫ שלום‬intrinsically pertains. 4. An evident theological dimension attaches to the two mentions of ‫שלום‬ in the Book of Numbers. One occurs in the closing line of the public blessing, in which the priests pray for divine protection of every individual in the Israelite community:84 “May the Lord turn his face (benevolence) upon you and grant you prosperity, ‫( ”ישא יהוה פניו אליך וישם לך שלום‬Num 6:26; cf. v. 25).85 ‫ שלום‬occurs again in a self-contained pericope of a manifest sacral character (Num 25:10-15).86 Phinehas the priest had distinguished himself by killing

81

82 83

84

85

86

‫ חיה רעה‬occurs five times in priestly traditions (Lev 26:6; Ezek 5:17; 14:15, 21; 34:25), and twice in Gen 37:20, 33. See below. Schrey’s understanding of the intrinsic signification of ‫ שלום‬as “Ganzheit, Wohlsein, Heil, Teilhabe der Gemeinschaft am Segen als Vorbedingung gedeihlichen Wachstums. Es ist der Zustand, der im Bund Jahwes mit dem Volk Israel” (Schrey, “Friede,” 1133), fits admirably the employment of the term in the above passage. The text of this priestly blessing is partly preserved on an inscribed silver amulet from the second half of the 7th century BCE, discovered in a burial cave near St. Andrew’s church in Jerusalem. See Barkai, “Priestly Blessing”; Yardeni, “Priestly Blessing.” The rendition of ‫ ישם לך שלום‬by “give/grant you peace” (NEB), which seems to imply an understanding of the phrase as “life without war,” attaches an unwarranted “political” dimension to the priestly blessing (6:22-26). The Masoretes preserved Num 25:10-15 as a separate textual unit by enclosing these verses between two parashah dividers. I suggest that it was secondarily spliced into the split account of Israel’s encounter with the Midianites. The first part of that report opens in 25:6, and ends in the middle of 25:19 with a pisqâ be-ʾemṣaʿ pāsuq. After a lengthy insert (26:1–30:17),

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

271

an Israelite chief and his Midianite consort for their sin in the Baal Peor incident. As a reward, God bestowed upon Phinehas and his descendants the priesthood as an everlasting covenant: ‫הנני נתן לו את בריתי שלום והיתה לו ולזרעו‬ ‫( אחריו ברית כהנת עולם‬25:12-13).87 Against the background of the use of ‫ שלום‬in Numbers in contexts of a personal-sacral character, attention must be given to the conspicuous absence of the term from traditions concerning mundane affairs, first and foremost from the conciliatory messages which Moses sent to the kings of Edom and the Amorites requesting safe passage through their territories, and promising to refrain from any infringement of the addressees’ possessions and interests. The Israelites’ profoundly peaceful intentions are repeatedly stressed, but the term ‫ שלום‬is not brought into play:88 Moses sent envoys … to the king of Edom (the Amorite king Sihon) … ‘Grant us passage through your country. We will not trespass on field or vineyard nor drink from your wells. We will travel by the king’s highway; we will not turn off to right or left until we have crossed your territory … if we and our flocks drink your water, we will pay you for it’ (Num 20:14, 17, 19; 21:22) 5. One of the four occurrences of ‫ שלום‬in Deuteronomy conforms to the category “personal well-being” in a theological or credal setting. It relates to a person who worships foreign gods, and nevertheless believes that he will escape punishment: ‫ שלום יהיה לי‬... ‫והתברך בלבבו‬, “All will be well with me,” (Deut 29:18; cf. Jer 23:17). Another pertains to “group relations,” again in a theological rather than in a historical-political context, namely to the already mentioned prohibition against ever admitting an Ammonite or a Moabite into the congregation of Israel: ‫ לא‬... ‫לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל יהוה‬ ‫( תדרש שלמם וטבתם כל ימיך לעולם‬Deut 23:4-7 = Ezra 9:12; cf. Gen 37:4). An entirely different situation obtains in respect to the remaining two uses of the term, where ‫ שלום‬decidedly connotes “peace” in the political sphere, in contrast to “war.” In distinction from the introduction of the

87

88

the main narrative thread is picked up again in 31:1, and spun out to the end of the chapter (31:54). For a discussion of the pisqâ be-ʾemṣaʿ pāsuq, see Talmon, “Pisqah Beʾemṣaʿ Pasuq.” NEB: “covenant of security of tenure.” The passage is echoed in Mal 2:4-5, ‫שלחתי אליכם את‬ ‫ בריתי היתה אתו החיים והשלום‬... ‫המצוה הזאת להיות בריתי את לוי‬. In distinction from the parallel account in Deut 2:26. See below.

272

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

message which Moses sent to the Amorites (Num 21:22), in which, as pointed out, ‫ שלום‬does not occur, the term figures prominently in the otherwise identically worded text of his communication to Sihon, King of Heshbon (Deut 2:26-28): ‫ אל סיחון מלך חשבון דברי שלום לאמר‬... ‫ואשלח מלאכים‬ ‫אעברה בארצך בדרך בדרך אלך לא אסור ימין ושמאול אכל בכסף תשברני ואכלתי ומים בכסף‬ ‫תתן לי ושתיתי‬. Both versions report that Sihon rejected the “peaceful” overtures, and attacked Israel. In the ensuing battle the Israelites vanquished his troops and “captured all his cities” (Num 21:23-26; Deut 2:32-36). I suggest that the mention of a peace offer, ‫ דברי שלום‬in Deut 2:26, was triggered by the reference to the Israelites’ seizure of Sihon’s cities, so as to make sure that the steps taken in the war against the Amorites conform with the injunction in the Deuteronomic “war code”: ‫כי תקרב אל עיר להלחם עליה וקראת אליה לשלום והיה אם שלום תענך ופתחה לך‬ ‫והיה כל העם הנמצא בה יהיו לך למס ועבדוך ואם לא תשלים עמך ועשתה עמך‬ ‫מלחמה וצרת עליה ונתנה יהוה אלהיך בידך‬ When you advance on a city to attack it, make an offer of peace. If the city accepts the offer of ‫ שלום‬and opens its gates to you, then all the people in it shall be put to forced labor and shall serve you. If it does not make peace with you but offers battle, you shall besiege it and YHWH your God will deliver it into your hands. (Deut 20:10-13a)

The “war code” is not recorded in the book of Numbers. Therefore, its author did not feel constrained to present Moses as acting in accord with the above injunction by formally offering Sihon ‫שלום‬, before attacking and capturing his cities. The introduction of ‫ שלום‬in the Deuteronomic version of the Sihon episode, makes more conspicuous the absence of the term from the “catalogue” of prospective blessings which a faithful Israel will enjoy in the land (Deut 28:1-14),89 whereas the parallel roster in Lev 26:4-13 contains the only occurrence of ‫ שלום‬in that book (26:6). I shall yet propose an explanation of this seemingly surprising “omission” in my discussion of the biblical vision of a future era of a “world at peace” or “cosmic peace.” I propose that the above texts do not necessarily reveal the Deuteronomist’s linguistic idiosyncrasy or a particular conception of ‫ שלום‬entertained by the

89

According to von Rad, Theology, 1:229, this is the most prominent biblical illustration of Heilsmaterialismus.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

273

Deuteronomistic School.90 Rather, the use of ‫ שלום‬in these texts accords with the conditions of Israel’s existence as a nation among nations in the Land of Canaan as foreshadowed in Deuteronomy, which differed fundamentally from the situations mirrored in the tetrateuchal traditions. That later historical stage is reflected in the biblical historiographies and books which pertain to the period of the settlement and the age of the monarchy. Therefore, the merely incipient employment in Deuteronomy of ‫ שלום‬connoting “peace” in the political sphere will come into full view in the Former and Later Prophets, and in the Writings, especially in Chronicles, which contains nine out of ten occurrences of the term in the Hebrew Bible.91 The numbers of occurrences of ‫ שלום‬and of vocables derived from the semantic field of the term and the concept, differ indeed from one book and another, and from one text unit to the next. One may also perceive nuances of emphasis on this or that connotative aspect of the term, relative to the general subject matter of the specific literary unit and the context in which it is employed. But these variations do not evince divergences in the understanding of ‫ שלום‬which would warrant a separate treatment of its employment in discrete components of the Prophets or the Paralipomena. VIII. ‫ שלום‬SIGNIFYING “PEACE” Historical experience made biblical thinkers realize that ‫שלום‬, viz., the desired situation of safety and tranquility in the political arena, presupposed a preceding stage of turmoil and war.92 Their acquiescence in the interrelation of peace and war, considered deplorable but inevitable, finds an expression not only in reports of the early days of the monarchy, as Westermann maintains,93 but emerges in a wide gamut of scriptural texts, irrespective of the period to which they relate. It is succinctly captured in the pithy wisdom adage: “For everything its season … a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” ‫עת מלחמה ועת שלום‬

90

91 92 93

See Braulik (“Konzeption,” 29) who speaks of a system of statements found exclusively in the Deuteronomistic historiography and in the Chronicler’s Geschichtswerk, which depends on it. See discussion above. See, inter alia, Hanson, “War and Peace”; idem, “War, Peace and Justice.” Westermann, “Frieden.“

274

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

(Qoh 3:8).94 This viewpoint was evidently shared by other ancient Near Eastern thinkers, like the author of the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I: “Peace will not be established without war, and harmony will not be accomplished without strife.”95 This proverbial saying is seemingly echoed in the realisticpessimistic Latin aphorism: Si vis pacem para bellum. Not all instances of peace are of one cloth. Sociologists distinguish between “negative peace”—viz., a state of non-belligerence between ethnic or national entities forced upon an inferior party by a superior one, or by the victor upon the vanquished—and “positive peace,” founded on the mutual consent of equal partners, that is to say on an entente cordiale towards the pursuit of shared goals. In a discussion of the biblical concept of ‫ שלום‬in relation to history, I prefer to use the terms “imposed peace” and “contractual peace.” Most uses in the Bible of “peace” in the political arena fall in the category of “imposed peace.” This is illustrated by the peace to which a Mesopotamian power or Egypt recurrently subjected the northern kingdom of Samaria or the southern kingdom of Judah respectively, and the political submission which Israel at times imposed on neighboring states. An instructive case is the vassal treaty which Sennacherib’s envoy Rabshakeh offers Hezekiah of Judah, as a condition for averting an Assyrian attack on Jerusalem: “Enter into an agreement (evidently, of submission) with my master, the king of Assyria,” ‫( התערב נא את אדני את מלך אשור‬2 Kgs 18:23; Isa 36:8). However, when “quoting” Rabshakeh’s proposal, the writer does not refer to it as an offer of ‫ שלום‬but rather introduces the synonym ‫ברכה‬: ‫עשו אתי ברכה וצאו אלי‬ (2 Kgs 18:31; Isa 36:16).96 Further examples are the already mentioned relation-

94

95

96

Like some ancient Near Eastern documents, the Bible speaks of an annual season, or annual seasons, in which kings went customarily to war: ‫( עת צאת המלכים‬2 Sam 11:1 = 1 Chr 20:1)— viz., before or after the rainfalls—and actually were expected to do so. This expectation occasionally led an Assyrian king to report in his annals that he campaigned at the appropriate times of the year, even though it can be proven that he had stayed happily at home. Col. III, 15–16: ul iššakan salīmu balu mitḥuṣi […] ul ibbašši ṭūbtu bālu šitnunima […], cited after Oded, “Lev. 26:6,” 150. Note the synonymity of salīmu and ṭūbtu in contrast to mitḥuṣi and šitnunima, which parallels the antithesis of ‫טוב‬/‫ שלום‬versus (‫רע)ה‬/‫מלחמה‬. See the above discussion. The equivalence of ‫ שלום‬and ‫ ברכה‬is highlighted by the promise of general “welfare” which the proposed pact holds in store for the Judeans (2 Kgs 18:31-32; Isa 37:16-17), described in terms which echo the biblical visions of a future era of peace (see below). Cf. the use of ‫ברכה‬ in Abigail’s declaration of submission to David (1 Sam 25:27), in order to keep him from attacking her husband Nabal, who had callously rejected David’s peace offer (25:6-10).

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

275

ships of ‫ שלום‬between Israel and the Gibeonites, between Jabin of Hazor and the Kenites, and the intermittent suspension of hostilities between Israel and various Canaanite states in the days of the Judges. In the period of the monarchy, a tenuous peace of this sort was established in the wake of David’s victory over the coalition headed by Hadadezer, king of Aram, who had come to the assistance of the Ammonites in their war against Israel. “For three years97 there was no war between Aram and Israel” (1 Kgs 22:1). However, “in the third year,”98 ‫( ויהי בשנה השלישית‬22:2), hostilities broke out (22:4). In the summary of the battle report the denominative verb ‫השלים‬, rather than the noun ‫שלום‬, is employed.99 A similar case occurs in 2 Sam 10:18-19, “The Arameans fled before Israel … When all the vassal kings of Hadadezer saw that they had been put to flight before Israel, they made (pleaded for) peace and submitted to Israel,” ‫ ויראו‬... ‫וינס ארם מפני ישראל‬ ‫( כל המלכים עבדי הדדעזר כי נגפו לפני ישראל וישלמו את ישראל ויעבדום‬cf. the slightly different version in 1 Chr 19:19). This text presents a rather interesting picture: Having utterly routed Hadadezer (2 Sam 10:16-18), David imposed a vassal treaty on the minor coalition partners—Aram Beth-Rehob, Aram Zobah, the king of Maacah, and (the men of) Tob (2 Sam 10:6-8), who had lost the support of their champion. However, he could not impose such a treaty on the evidently much more powerful Hadadezer. The resulting situation helps in explaining the somewhat baffling notation, ‫ויהי שלום בין ישראל ובין האמרי‬, “there was peace between Israel and the Amorites” (1 Sam 7:14b), which is glaringly out of context in a report of Israel’s decisive victory over the Philistines (1 Sam 7:5-14a). A comparison suggests that just as the defeat of Hadadezer forced his allies to submit to a vassal treaty with the victorious David, the latter’s defeat of the mighty Philistines equally compelled the Amorites to submit to an “imposed ‫ ”שלום‬with Israel. In distinction, the alliance between Israel and Tyre is seemingly a singular case of “contractual peace,” based on a covenant treaty as a means for

97

98

99

A stereotypical figure. Cf., e.g., three years for the length of a siege (2 Kgs 17:5; 18:10), of the occupation of a country (2 Kgs 24:1), or of exile (2 Sam 13:38). See Talmon, “Topped Triad,” above, 77–123. Meaning most probably after the third, viz., in the fourth year. The 3+1 pattern is another biblical motif. See Talmon, “Topped Triad,” above, 80–87. See discussion above, 255–256; and cf. 1 Kgs 22:45, ‫וישלם יהושפט עם מלך ישראל‬.

276

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

promoting a gainful state of affairs for both partners (1 Kgs 5:15-25): “There was ‫ של)ו(ם‬between Hiram and Solomon and they established a ‫( ”ברית‬5:26).100 IX. THE BIBLICAL CONCEPTION OF POSITIVE ‫שלום‬ Now we can bring under consideration the biblical conception of “positive peace.” The foregoing investigation has shown that the term ‫ שלום‬relates preponderantly to a variety of events and situations in the private and the public domain, and that only in a comparatively small number of occurrences recorded in the Bible, the term connotes “peace” between peoples or nations in the political arena. It is my thesis that the reality-oriented thrust which inheres in ‫ שלום‬also informs the biblical writers’ visions of a future era, fervently aspired to, of unlimited “positive peace.” This national ideal finds expression in a model of three concentric circles in which the term ‫ שלום‬and its semantic field are pivotal: Israel at peace internally; externally, among all nations in a “world at peace,” in a “pacified universe.” I am fully aware of the supreme creedal content of these visions. Nevertheless, I intend to highlight the restorative underpinning of their utopian make-up, that is to say, the basic historical realism which pervades them,101 and the persuasive factuality of their formulations.102 In the world of biblical Israel, as in other ancient cultures, the spheres of the sacred and the secular are one. The distinction between civis dei and civis terrae, which will emerge in medieval times, lies far beyond their conceptual horizon. The biblical authors’ acquiescence in the correlation of war and peace in the human world is reflected in their acceptance of contrastive anthropomorphic characteristics attributed to Israel’s God. On the one hand, YHWH 100

101

102

Von Rad, Theology, 1:130, defines such conditions as follows: “The relationship guaranteed by a covenant is commonly designated the word ‫( שלום‬Gen 26:30ff.; 1 Kgs 5:26 [v. 12]; Isa 54:10; Job 5:23), for which our word peace can only be regarded as an inadequate equivalent. ‫ שלום‬designates the unimpairedness, the wholeness, of a relationship of communion, and so a state of harmonious equilibrium, the balancing of all claims and needs between two parties.” The claim of Eisenbeis (‫שׁלם‬, 156) that most mentions of ‫ שלום‬evince a theological meaning is unfounded. Scholars who wish to make the biblical visions of a future world the kingpin of a modern peace ideology fail to take note of the restorative, reality-oriented thrust of these visions. See, e.g., Kegler, “Prophetisches Reden,“ 15–58. A more balanced view is presented by Luz, “Friedenshandeln,” 195–214.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

277

is recurrently portrayed as “a hero who leads in battle,” ‫( איש מלחמה‬MT Exod 15:3) or ‫( גבור מלחמה‬SP). The synonymous terms ‫ איש‬and ‫ גבור‬were evidently combined in Isa 42:13: ‫( יהוה כגבור יצא כאיש מלחמות יעיר קנאה‬cf. Judg 4:14; 1 Sam 8:20; 2 Sam 5:24 = 1 Chr 14:15; Ps 68:8),103 YHWH who annihilates foes and enemies: ‫( להשבית אויב ומתנקם‬Ps 8:3 et sim.). Again, “The Lord is a mighty warrior, a champion in war,” ‫( יהוה עזוז וגבור יהוה גבור מלחמה‬Ps 24:8). On the other hand, YHWH is praised for ending wars and abolishing warfare: ‫משבית מלחמות עד קצה הארץ קשת ישבר וקצץ חנית עגלות ישרף באש‬, “He terminates wars (from end) to end of the earth, he snaps the bow and breaks the spear, burns (war-)wagons (NEB: shields) in the fire,”104 (Ps 46:10; cf. Hos 1:5; Zech 9:10; etc.).105 In conjunction, these attributes evince divine omnipotence: “Fearsome authority rests with him who (also) establishes peace in heaven,” ‫( המשל ופחד ִעמו עֹשה שלום במרומיו‬Job 25:2);106 from the days of Creation, “I am God, there is no other, I bring forth the light and create darkness, fashion peace, and create adversity,” ‫( עשה שלום ובורא רע‬Isa 45:6-7). ‫רע‬, equivalent to ‫מלחמה‬, serves here, as in other texts, and also in ancient Near Eastern writings, as an antonym of ‫ שלום‬and ‫טוב‬. In history, the Janus-like duality of war and peace found its most persuasive realization in the era of the “united monarchy”: The successful military commander David personifies the image of the divine warrior on the earthly plane. In contrast, Solomon, the inexperienced youngster (‫)ואנכי נער קטן‬,107 who professes that he never saw war in his life (‫—לא אדע צאת ובא‬1 Kgs 3:7),108 is

103

104 105

106 107

108

The common verb ‫יצא‬, serves at times as a technical military term; e.g., in the idiom ‫בעת צאת‬ ‫המלכים‬, “the season when kings take the field” (2 Sam 11:1 = 1 Chr 20:1; see above, n. 94), especially in conjunction with the equally common verb ‫( בוא‬e.g., Num 27:17; 1 Kgs 20:39; 1 Chr 14:8; 2 Chr 1:10; 20:17; 28:9). All the tribes of Israel submitted to David’s rule, because he had (already) been in command of the army in Saul’s days; ‫)ה(מוציא והמבי)א( את ישראל‬, may be a formal title (2 Sam 5:2 = 1 Chr 11:2). In view of this usage, I suggest that the phrase ‫( וליוצא ולבא אין שלום מן הצר‬Zech 8:10), be translated “The man at arms never had respite from (the pursuit of) the enemy.” ‫ שבת‬and ‫ שבר‬are coterminous in this context (cf. Ezek 30:10). LXX introduce this notion also in Exod 15:3 by translating ‫ יהוה איש )גבור( מלחמה‬as κύριος συντρίβων πολέµους. For the antithesis of ‫ שלום‬and ‫ פחד‬as ‫מלחמה‬, see n. 34 above. In this context, ‫קטון‬/‫ נער קטן‬may actually connotate “crown prince” (see 1 Kgs 11:17); cf. 1 Chr 22:5, ‫ויאמר דויד שלמה בני נער ורך‬. For this technical connotation of ‫צאת ובא‬, see above, nn. 94 and 103.

278

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

presented aphoristically as the “man of peace,” ‫איש שלום‬. He embodies on earth the attribute of YHWH who establishes ‫ שלום‬in the upper spheres.109 The Chronicler evidently considered Solomon’s admitted lack of experience in warfare a deficiency which needed to be remedied. In his version of Solomon’s night vision, the young king implores God: ‫עתה חכמה ומדע תן לי‬ ‫ואצאה לפני העם הזה ואבואה כי מי ישפט את עמך הזה הגדול‬, “Give me now wisdom and knowledge that I may lead this people (in battle), because who (else) could govern this great people of yours” (2 Chr 1:10).110 Biblical literati conceived of the idealized combined reigns of David and Solomon as the prototype on which they modeled their visionary image of a future era in which Israel would again enjoy ‫שלום‬, untold success and prosperity. Their depictions of the shining future age reflect the glorious Vorzeit of the united monarchy, and not an “Edenic Urzeit.”111 An instructive example is the Chronicler’s panegyric on the Solomonic era of peace which capped David’s turbulent reign. He significantly employs there next to ‫שלום‬ the interpretative synonyms ‫ מנוחה‬and ‫ שקט‬which fall in its wider semantic field:112 You (David, said the Lord) have shed much blood in my sight and waged great wars; for this reason you shall not build a house in honor of my name. But you will have a son (‫)הנה בן נולד לך‬, who shall be a man

109

110

111

112

It is of interest to note that Moses and Aaron sometimes are similarly characterized in rabbinic literature. The midrash (Exod. Rab. 5:10 ad Exod 4:27; Tanh. Exod. §28 ad 4:47 etc.) interprets the phrase ‫ וישק לו‬... ‫ ויפגשהו‬in the episode of Aaron’s meeting with Moses (Exod 4:27), in the light of Ps 85:11: ‫חסד ואמת נפגשו צדק ושלום נשקו‬. Moses represents severity and strict abidance by the law. To him the saying applies: ‫( צדקת יהוה עשה זה משה‬Deut 33:21). Aaron is viewed as the proverbial pursuer of peace: ‫( שלום זה אהרון‬cf. Mal 2:4-6; Ps 34:15). But at the same time, the brothers complement each other and speak with one voice: ‫שניהם‬ ‫( יצאו בקול אחד‬Midr. Sam. 9:1). The wording echoes the people’s demand of Samuel to give them a king: “We want a king over us ... to govern us (‫)ושפטנו‬, to lead us out to war (‫ )ויצא לפנינו‬and fight our battles (‫ונלחם‬ ‫( ”)את מלחמתנו‬1 Sam 8:19-20; cf. 8:5-6). See e.g., von Rad, Theology, 2:170 (in reference to Isaiah 11): “The third part (vss. 6-8), which agrees with traditional concepts, tells of the paradisial peace which is to accompany the reign of this anointed one, and to bring order even into the world of nature and to resolve its conflicts.” Y. Kaufmann rightly rejects the Eden theory, which appears to derive from Virgil’s Aeneid. See discussion above.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

279

of serenity (‫ ;)איש מנוחה‬I will give him rest (‫)והנחותי לו‬, from all his enemies around; his name shall be ‫( שלמה‬viz., “man of peace”) and I will grant peace and tranquility (‫)שלום ושקט‬, to Israel in his days … he shall be my son and I will be a father to him (‫)והוא יהיה לי לבן ואני לו לאב‬, and I will establish the throne of his sovereignty (‫)כסא מלכותו‬, over Israel for ever (‫)על ישראל עד עולם‬. (1 Chr 22:8-10)113

Never before Solomon’s days nor after did Israel experience such peace and safety: For till now you have not attained the serenity, ‫מנוחה‬, in the patrimony (‫)נחלה‬, which YHWH your God is giving you. But when you cross the Jordan, and settle in the land … he will grant you tranquility (‫)והניח לכם‬ from all your enemies around, and you will live in security (‫)וישבתם בטח‬. (Deut 12:9-10)114

The promise was only realized when God destroyed all of David’s enemies, established his people (in the land) to dwell in it, without ever being disturbed again, and without ever again being oppressed as before (2 Sam 7:9-10).115 The effect of the Chronicler’s praise of the Solomonic era is enhanced by the conjunction of his prospective appraisal with the retrospective summary of Solomon’s reign, which the author of Kings offers. In the days of the pax salomonica there came to fruition all the promises which God had made to his people, from the days of the patriarchs to the establishment of the monarchy: The people of Judah and Israel were countless as the sands of the sea (shore); they ate and drank and were joyful. Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the river Euphrates to Philistia and as far as the frontier of Egypt; they paid tribute and were subject to him (‫)ועבדים את שלמה‬, all his life

113

114 115

The passage has no exact analogy in the parallel traditions in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Kgs 3:6-9; 8:15-26. Note, though, that after the execution of Joab at the hands of Benaiahu, in revenge of the murders of Amasa and Abner, the author of the Book of Kings puts in Solomon’s mouth a plea for everlasting peace: ‫ולדוד ולזרעו ולביתו ולכסאו יהיה שלום עד עולם מעם יהוה‬, “May David and his descendants, his house and his throne, enjoy perpetual peace from YHWH” (1 Kgs 2:33). ‫ מנוחה‬and ‫ ישב בטח‬are prominent functions of ‫( שלום‬see discussion above and below). The phrase ‫ )ולא יסיפו בני עולה( לענותו‬echoes the tradition of Israel’s serfdom in Egypt (cf. Exod 1:11, 12).

280

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

… For he held sway over all (the lands) beyond the river (Euphrates), ‫עבר הנהר‬, from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings of ‫עבר הנהר‬, and he had ‫ שלום‬all around him. Judah and Israel lived securely (‫)לבטח‬, everyone under his own vine and fig-tree, from Dan to Beersheba, all through Solomon’s days (1 Kgs 4:20–5:1-5; LXX 4:20-25; 2 Chr 9:26) The hyperbolical description of the grandeur of the Davidic–Solomonic commonwealth, becomes the supreme expression of the biblical authors’ historical aspirations. This vocabulary is their literary stock in trade and not, as was said previously, the phraseology of the Garden of Eden tradition— neither in the Genesis version (Genesis 2–3) nor in that of Ezekiel (Ezek 28:11-19). The authors or tradents injected that vocabulary retrospectively into the wordings of the conditional divine promise, outlined in various records pertaining to Israel’s pre-Canaanite history, in which the ideal course of Israel’s progress in the Land is proleptically charted (see e.g., Lev 26:3-12 and Deut 12:9-10).116 They projected that verbal picture into their visionary depictions of a radiant era of “peace.” The divinely determined turning point in time (not the End of Time), termed ‫קץ‬, ‫ יום יהוה‬et sim., is expected to be realized within the framework of history, not in metahistory, not in the lifetime of the present generation, but always in “days to come” (‫)אחרית הימים‬, viz., the days of the next or the next but one generation.117 The deferred realization of the hoped for ideal age opens the door for the interweaving of an eschatological, utopian strand into the basically restorative character of positive šālom:118 Biblical Israel’s hope is the memory of an embellished historical past translated into the future. The envisaged restoration of the pax salomonica in “the days to come” is probably the most important aspect of the understanding of peace in biblical literature. The progressive expansion of the semantic field of ‫ שלום‬outlined above, and the concurrent enrichment of the pertinent vocabulary, enabled biblical authors to describe that blissful future era of peace by having recourse to the synonyms and explanatory phraseology of ‫שלום‬, without necessarily employing the term itself. 116 117

118

See discussion above. For this interpretation of the pregnant terms, see Talmon, “Eschatology and History,” 165–177; and “Latter Days,” above, 137–156. See Talmon, “Messianic Expectations,” 202–224.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

281

In the context of the envisaged restoration of the pax salomonica, the biblical idea of ‫ שלום‬links up with two differently accentuated portrayals of the future with which it tends to become fused. A close analysis of the relevant texts suggests that on the one hand, we can still discern a vision which centers on an “Anointed” who will arise and ring in the eon of eternal peace; and on the other hand there is a “Diffuse–Redemption–Hope,” which does not revolve around a single central figure.119 In consequence, the range of texts which should be brought under scrutiny in an analysis of the concept of ‫ שלום‬widens beyond what can be achieved in the present context.120 I shall restrict my ensuing observations to the consideration of only a few illustrative examples. As noted above, the notion of the future era of peace can be presented in a model of three ever-widening concentric circles: (1) Israel at peace; (2) the world at peace; and (3) cosmic peace.121 1. Attention centers on the portrayal of Israel internally at peace, enjoying prosperity and well-being, not threatened by external enemies and ruled by a Davidic scion, as in the era of the united monarchy: first and foremost in Solomon’s days. Fathers and sons will be reconciled when the prophet Elijah arises to announce the new era: ‫( והשיב לב אבות על בנים ולב בנים על אבותם‬Mal 3:23-24). Judah and Ephraim will be reunited and again become one “Israel” (Mic 5:2 etc.). Peaceful relations and concord will prevail among the leaders of the community, i.e., the royal scion of David’s line and the high priest, ‫ועצת שלום‬ ‫( תהיה בין שניהם‬Zech 6:13); and the whole people will be affected, ‫משפט שלום‬ ‫( שפטו בשעריכם‬Zech 8:16). Then, “in this place will I grant prosperity,” ‫ובמקום‬ ‫( הזה אתן שלום‬Hag 2:9), says YHWH. “Each one shall dwell under his own vine, and under his own fig-tree, unafraid,” ‫וישבו איש תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו ואין מחריד‬ (Mic 4:4-5), as in Solomon’s days.122 The conception of the era of the united monarchy as the idealized Vorzeit shows most clearly in visions of a future ruler who is to arise in Israel, such

119 120

121 122

See Talmon, “Future Ideal Age,” 140–164. The issue is brought under discussion in a series of articles by Luz, Kegler, Lampe, and Hoffmann in Luz et al., Eschatologie und Friedenshandeln. See Perlitt, “Israel und die Völker,“ 17–64. The short Micah passage is an almost verbal reprise of 1 Kgs 5:5. It remains an open question whether the vision applies exclusively to Israelites or also to members of other nations.

282

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

as are ascribed to Isaiah and Micah, of the first generation of “missionary” prophets. Through the use of the history-laden term ‫שלום‬, the authors of these pronouncements foresee the reconstitution, in an appreciably near future, of the pax salomonica, in which culminated the era of the united monarchy: For a boy was born for us, a son given to us (‫)כי ילד ילד לנו בן נתן לנו‬, the (symbol of) dominion will be on his shoulder (‫)ותהי המשרה על שכמו‬, his name shall be (‫)ויקרא שמו‬123 “wonderful advisor,”124 “divine warrior,”125 eternal father” (‫)אב עד‬,126 “prince of peace” (‫)שר שלום‬.127 He shall enlarge the dominion, and (make) boundless the peace (‫)ולשלום אין קץ‬,128 (bestowed) on David’s throne and his kingdom … with justice and righteous power (‫)במשפט ובצדקה‬,129 for now and evermore (‫)מעתה ועד עולם‬. (Isa 9:5-6; cf. 1 Kgs 2:33; 1 Chr 22:9-10). Then a shoot shall grow from the stock of Jesse, and a branch shall sprout from his roots.130 The spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding … counsel and valor (‫ )גבורה‬of knowledge and awe of YHWH … He shall not judge by what he sees nor decide by what he hears … He shall strike the ruthless with the scourge of his mouth, and with the breath (word) of his mouth he shall slay the wicked … On that day (the sprout out of) the root of Jesse shall be set up as a signal to the peoples, the nations shall rally to it, and its (place) of rest (or: serenity, ‫ )מנחתו‬will be glory. (Isa 11:1-5, 10).

The essence of these oracles and the similar vocabulary leave little doubt that the wording echoes Isaiah’s pronouncement in Isa 7:14-20. There he proclaims that the unidentified pregnant ‫ עלמה‬in Hezekiah’s entourage, correctly understood by many commentators as “the queen,” will bear 123 124 125 126

127

128 129

130

Read possibly ‫וְ יִ ָקּ ֵרא שמו‬. The epithet fits the “wise” Solomon perfectly. An epithet of King David. Possibly an allusion to the divine promise concerning Solomon: ‫הוא יהיה לי לבן ואני לו לאב‬ (1 Chr 22:10). A word play on the name of ‫שלמה‬, the prototypical ‫איש מנוחה‬, in whose days Israel lived in ‫( שלום ושקט‬1 Chr 22:9-10), and who achieved ‫ שלום‬all around him (1 Kgs 5:4). Cf. 1 Kgs 5:1, 4. ‫צדק‬, and similarly ‫)מ(שפט‬, often connote the power to dispense justice. This is one more distinctive trait which the author of Kings ascribes to Solomon (1 Kgs 3:4-15, 16-28; 5:9-14; 10:1-13). Cf. Zech 3:8; 6:12.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

283

a son, ‫הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן‬, who is to be given the comforting name “Immanuel.” In the days of that son, viz., of the future king, the present danger will be averted from Judah, and the people will enjoy serenity and prosperity (7:21-25; cf. 60:16-18).131 The faculties attributed to the future ruler, in whose reign Israel will enjoy ‫ מנֻ חה‬and ‫כבוד‬, again prove that the prophet patterned his image after that of the wise, just, and peace-loving Solomon. The ascription of valor, ‫( גבורה‬Isa 11:2), to the self-confessed inexperienced youngster, who never saw war in his life, ‫( ואנכי נער קטן לא אדע צאת ובא‬1 Kgs 3:7),132 is seemingly out of place. But it is possibly intended to invest the “shoot” also with David’s most charac-teristic quality, and to thus bestow upon his future reign the past glory of the united monarchy. The major motifs employed in the above texts also surface in Micah’s announcement of the rise of a future ruler of David’s line: You, Bethlehem Ephratah … out of you shall come forth a ruler over Israel (‫)מושל בישראל‬,133 one whose roots reach far back in the past, in days gone by. (The Lord) will appoint him,134 when she who is in labor

131

132 133

134

When in such a prophecy terms are employed which have a less explicit chronological implication than ‫ילד‬, ‫בן‬, ‫הרה‬, and the term ‫ שלום‬is missing, the omission possibly signals the recognition that a larger hiatus than that of one generation separates the historical present from the hoped for era of restoration. Cf. 1 Chr 22:5, ‫( ויאמר דויד שלמה בני נער ורך‬and discussion above). ‫ מושל‬parallels ‫( מלך‬Ps 105:20). It is a royal attribute of God, King of the universe (Ps 59:14; 66:7; 103:19; Job 25:2; 1 Chr 29:12), which recurrently designates rulers of the Davidic dynasty (Jer 22:30 = 33:26; Zech 6:13; 2 Chr 7:18), first and foremost Solomon (1 Kgs 5:1; 2 Chr 9:26). The term also refers to foreign kings (Daniel 11 passim, etc.). In the psalm which bears the superscription “David’s last words” (2 Sam 23:1-7), the psalter twice applies the expression to himself: “the Rock of Israel spoke of me: ‘Just ruler of mankind, ruler in the fear of God,’ ‫( ”מושל באדם צדיק מושל יראת אלהים‬23:3). It is plausible that the author of David’s autobiographical song, preserved in 11QPsa XXVIII = Psalm 151A (see DJD 4, 49, 54–60) took his cue from here, when he has David relate: “my father appointed me … shepherd over his flock (‫( ”)וישימני רועה לצונו‬line 3); and God “appointed me leader of his people and ruler over his covenanters (‫( ”)וישימני נגיד לעמו ומושל בבני בריתו‬line 12). ‫ שים‬is coterminous with ‫נתן‬. Both verbs interchange with ‫ המליך‬in the sense of to appoint a king or ruler, as in the tale of Saul’s election (1 Sam 8:5, 6, 22; 10:19; 12:1; cf. Deut 17:14-15 etc.). See my discussion in “Synonymous Readings.” For the technical connotation “appoint as king” of the common verb ‫נתן‬, cf. 1 Sam 8:6 and 12:13 with 8:5, 22; 12:12-14. Read ‫ יתנו‬for MT’s ‫יתנם‬. I assume that ‫ נו‬was misread as final ‫ם‬

284

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

gives birth … and the best of135 his brothers will rejoin Israel. He will rise up and lead (them), ‫ועמד ורעה‬,136 in the strength of YHWH, in the majesty of the name of YHWH his God, and they will live (in safety),137 for now (his power) shall reach to the end of the world. And this shall be peace, ‫( והיה זה שלום‬5:1-4).138

The basic concept which permeates the above passages appears to be captured in the partly identical and partly paraphrastic phraseology of the opening and the closing lines of the famous Zechariah oracle: “Rejoice, rejoice, daughter of Zion, shout aloud, daughter of Jerusalem, for your king is coming to you, a righteous savior (‫)צדיק ונושע‬,139 humble, and riding on an ass, on a foal of a she-ass140 … he will announce peace to the nations.” In this oracle, the vision of a future era of peace is significantly enhanced by God’s promise to protect the king’s achievements and keep the land safe from enemies:141 “He shall banish chariots from Ephraim and war-horses from Jerusalem, the warrior’s bow shall be banished” (9:9-10a), thus guaranteeing that the king’s rule shall indeed extend “from sea to sea,142 and from the River (Euphrates) to the ends of the earth” (Zech 9:9-10). The depiction of the future ruler as ‫צדיק ונושע‬, whose realm shall expand from the river

135 136

137 138

139

140

141

142

(cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 22:4 and 22:5), while the ‫ נ‬was still retained. Textual variants involving a final ‫ ם‬which resulted from a misread ligature of ‫ נו‬were collated by Weiss, “Ligatures,” 188–194. A fair number of similar “mistakes” can be added to the ones listed there. For this understanding of ‫יתר‬, cf. e.g., Gen 49:3; Num 31:32 and Jer 27:19. The shepherd motif is recurrently applied to David and his line (see e.g., 2 Sam 5:2; 7:7 = 1 Chr 17:6; Ps 78:71). This is the contextually implied connotation of ‫( ישב‬see above). The felicitous NEB rendition of this somewhat opaque phrase, “and he (lit. “this one”) shall be a man of peace,” points to the title ‫( שר שלום‬Isa 9:5) and to Solomon’s epithet ‫איש מנוחה‬ (1 Chr 22:9). Cf. further ‫( איש שלום‬Ps 37:37). The apparently passive participle ‫ נושע‬has in fact the active connotation “savior.” It was correctly rendered in the LXX as δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός. Possibly due to a lapsus calami involving an interchange of ‫ מ‬with ‫נ‬, an original ‫ מוש)י(ע‬became ‫נושע‬. Riding on one of these animals is a sign of distinction and rank: ‫( חמור‬Gen 22:3; Josh 15:18 = Judg 1:14; 1 Sam 25:20, 23, 42; 2 Sam 17:23; 1 Kgs 2:40; 13:13, 23, 27); ‫ חמור‬parallel to ‫סוס‬ (2 Kgs 7:10; Prov 26:3); ‫( אתון‬Num 22:21-33; Judg 5:10; 1 Sam 9:3; 2 Kgs 4:22-24); ‫( עיר‬Judg 10:4; 12:14). Cf. Ps 29:11, “YHWH will give strength to his people, YHWH will bless his people with peace”; 147:12-14 etc. In historical terms, ‫ מים עד ים‬meant from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

285

(Euphrates) to the end of the world (‫)מנהר עד אפסי ארץ‬,143 who will proclaim ‫ שלום‬to the nations, is again an embellished reflection of Solomon’s rule “from the Euphrates to the borders of Egypt (‫”)מן הנהר ארץ פלשתים ועד גבול מצרים‬ (1 Kgs 5:1, 4; cf. Ps 72:8), including the land of the Philistines. The biblical authors’ admiration of the pax salomonica finds its supreme expression in Psalm 72,144 in which the psalter extols the greatness of a king who is the son of a king: ‫( אלהים משפטיך למלך תן וצדקתך לבן מלך‬72:1). He evidently refers to Solomon, the first son who inherited the throne in dynastic succession.145 In this panegyric, the phrases ‫( שלום לעם‬72:3) and ‫( רֹב שלום‬72:7) figure prominently. It may be viewed as a summa summarum of all praiseworthy characteristics which biblical authors ascribe to David and Solomon, the total of all achievements which they saw realized in the era of the united monarchy—success, fame, and safety in the political arena (72:8-11, 17); law and justice, ‫ צדק‬and ‫( משפט‬72:1-4, 12-14); overall prosperity (72:6, 15-16).146 The psalm reads like a collocation of terms, idioms and explanatory expressions which fall in the semantic field of ‫ שלום‬and characterize the pax salomonica. 2. In most texts quoted, the envisaged era of peace is geographically and conceptually limited. It pertains basically to Israel, a people isolated from others: ‫עם לבדד ישכן ובגוים לא יתחשב‬, “a people that dwells alone, that has not made itself one with the nations” (Num 23:9); ‫וישכן ישראל בטח בדד עין יעקב אל‬ ‫ארץ דגן ותירוש‬, “living in security, by them-selves, in a land of corn and wine” (Deut 33:28; cf. Zech 14:10-11). But the repeated mentions of ‫שלום לגוים‬ reveal a progressive expansion, culminating in the vision of universal peace which embraces “all/many (‫ )רבים‬peoples” (Isa 2:2-3; Mic 4:1-2).147 Israel remains center stage, but is now perceived as “a nation among nations.” In the “days to come (‫)באחרית הימים‬,” (the) nations will stream to Jerusalem, from which divine instruction issues, to be taught the ways of the God of Jacob, and walk in his paths. YHWH is presented as the supreme judge. All nations, near and far (‫)מרחוק‬, will abide by his arbitration, so that “nation 143 144

145 146 147

Cf. Mic 5:3, ‫עתה יגדל עד אפסי ארץ‬. This psalm closes the second part of the Book of Psalms, ‫( כלו תפלות דוד בן ישי‬72:20), which tradition divides into five compendia (another Pentateuch). The first two contain most of the songs ascribed to David. Saul’s intention to establish a dynasty was foiled by David. Cf. Isa 32:1-8, 15-20. The Micah text reads ‫עמים‬, the Isaiah version ‫כל הגוים‬. ‫ רבים‬can mean “many” or “great.”

286

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

shall not lift (anymore) sword against nation, nor ever again train for war.” Destructive weaponry shall become obsolete, and shall be turned into productive tools, ploughshares and pruning knives, symbols of abundant harvests and prosperity (Isa 2:3-4; Mic 4:2-3). The conjunction of war and peace, traditionally considered a constant and inevitable phenomenon of history, will be categorically disjoined in the future eon:148 Warfare as such will cease in a world of unlimited peace. However, nota bene, the historyladen term ‫ שלום‬is never used in any of these texts. In a concluding line of the Isaiah version, which concomitantly links this passage with the ensuing pericope, Israel is accorded a special position in respect to other nations also in the age to come: ‫בית יעקב לכו ונלכה באור יהוה‬, “O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of YHWH” (Isa 2:5). In Micah this verse is missing. But its sense is even more forcefully expressed in a parallel summary line: “All peoples shall walk each in the name of his god, but we shall walk in the name of YHWH our God for ever and ever” (Mic 4:5). The individuality and intrinsic separateness of nations, established by the Creator in the primordial constitutive age and acted out in history, is reaffirmed and projected into the glorious future age. The resulting restorative thrust, presumably intended to impress the stamp of reality on the utopian vision, which conjures up the memory of Solomon’s days, is further underscored by the introduction of a central ‫ שלום‬motif: “each one shall dwell under his own vine, under his own fig-tree undisturbed” (Mic 4:4). But in contrast to the days of the “historical” pax salomonica, when welfare and security had been granted to Israel alone— ‫וישב יהודה וישראל לבטח איש תחת גפנו‬ ‫( ותחת תאנתו מדן ועד באר שבע‬1 Kgs 5:5)—the envisaged future serenity and prosperity is seen as enfolding “all peoples.” The recurrent use of the terms ‫ )כל( העמים‬and ‫)כל( הגוים‬, which by definition imply divisiveness, rather than the employment of more inclusive designations, like ‫ )כל( בני האדם‬or ‫)כל( בני איש‬, prompts the suggestion that the apparent “universality” of the above texts encompasses in fact only the peoples and states in an area which lay within the ancient Israelites’ intellectual grasp, viz., the nations of the ancient Near East. In literary terms, the peoples involved

148

In Zech 14:16, the “going up” of the nations to Jerusalem is yet presented as an annual pilgrimage of only “the remnant of all peoples, ‫כל הנותר מכל הגוים הבאים על ירושלם‬,” who had survived the preceding war of cataclysmic dimensions (14:1-14).

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

287

are identified in the clusters of Oracles Against the Nations, incorporated in the books of the three “great prophets”: Isaiah (13:1–19:23; 20:3–24:23); Jeremiah (46:1–51:58);149 Ezekiel (25:1–32:32); and some of the “Twelve,” foremost Amos (1:2–2:3; cf. Joel 4:1-17 etc.). The envisaged abolition of war will make room for the constitution of a commmunitas communitatum in which these nations will be united, their separate individualities unimpaired, “each one walking in the ways of its god” (Mic 4:5). As said, Israel is accorded a special place in this blueprint. “The world,” viz., the community of small nations, will be led by an imperial triad, constituted of Israel, Egypt and Assyria: “When that day comes Israel shall be a triad with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing (‫ )ברכה‬amidst the world” (Isa 19:24). Also in this instance, ‫ ברכה‬substitutes for ‫שלום‬. Accordingly, I would render the phrase, ‫ביום ההוא יהיה ישראל שלישיה למצרים ולאשור ברכה בקרב הארץ‬, as “on that day the triad Israel, Egypt and Assyria150 will be (a beacon or a guarantor of) peace in the world.” The statement again reflects the pax salomonica, the only period in history when the Bible presents Israel as being on an equal footing with Egypt; when “Solomon allied himself to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, by marry-ing his daughter,” and bringing her “to the City of David” (1 Kgs 3:1; 9:24). 3. The biblical concept of ‫ שלום‬also entails hope for cosmic peace. The apex of biblical Israel’s hope for peace is reached in prophetic visions which transcend the horizon of human experience. The added dimension comes into full view in the prophecies of Second (or Third) Isaiah. Jerusalem and Israel remain center stage, with everyone enjoying a good life in safety, as in Solomon’s time: “People shall build houses and live to inhabit them, plant vineyards and eat their fruit. … They shall not toil in vain or raise children for misfortune” (Isa 65:21-23).151 The reconstituted creation will pale anything humanity had ever known before (65:17). No one will die before his life has run its full course (65:20). “Weeping and cries for help shall never again be heard” (65:19). Even the animal world will exist without tension and discord:

149

150 151

In the LXX, the cluster comes after the notation: “all that is written in this book, all that Jeremiah has prophesied against these peoples” (25:13). MT has there a mere summary of oracles (25:15-31) which possibly serves as a custos. In the context, Assyria stands for a symbolic, not a historical value. Cf. Hos 2:20-25.

288

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

“Wolf and lamb shall feed together, lion shall eat straw like cattle, and the snake shall eat dust” (65:25; cf. Gen 3:14). This last line reads like a concise summary of the more elaborate depiction of peace in the animal world in Isa 11:6-9, “Wolf shall live with sheep, leopard lie down with a kid; calf and (full grown) lion shall graze152 together, and a little child shall lead them; cow and bear shall forage together, (together) their young shall lie down; lion shall eat straw like cattle; an infant shall play over the hole of a snake, and a toddler153 put his hand into a viper’s nest.” In these visions of cosmic peace, the crucial term ‫ שלום‬is never employed, nor any characteristic phrase and motif which fall in its semantic field, just as this vocabulary is missing in Genesis 1–11. This absence confers upon the visions of cosmic peace a mythical-eschatological aura. We seem to have come full circle: Like the constitutive primordial age, the visionary future age similarly cannot be described using the terminology of ‫שלום‬, whose true Sitz im Leben is the reality of this world, the reality of situations experienced in history. But, says Martin Buber:154 ‘Eschatological’ hope—in Israel, the ‘historical people par excellence’ (Tillich), but not in Israel alone—is first always historical hope; it becomes eschatologized only through growing historical disillusionment. In this process faith seizes upon the future as the unconditioned turning point of history, then as the unconditioned overcoming of history. From this point of vantage it can be explained that the eschatologization of those actual-historical ideas includes their mythicization … Myth is the spontaneous and legitimate language of expecting, as of remembering, faith. But it is not its substance … The genuine eschatological life of faith is—in the great labour-pains of historical experience—born from the genuine historical life of faith.

In the above vision of cosmic peace in Isa 11:6-9, two factors still provide the expected linkage with history: The pericope is wedged in between two oracles pertaining to the “shoot,” the future king from the house of Jesse (Isa

152 153 154

Read ‫ימראו‬, instead of the MT’s ‫ומריא‬. 1QIsaa reads ‫ומרי‬. Literally: a weaned child (‫)גמול‬. Buber, “Preface,” 14.

[Type text]

The Signification of ‫ שלום‬and Its Semantic Field

289

11:1-5, 10-16). Hereby, the memory of David is invoked. And the proverbial quality of the description brings to the reader’s mind the presentation of the just, peace-loving, and wise Solomon as the author of three thousand proverbs: “He discoursed of trees … of beasts and birds, of reptiles and fishes” (1 Kgs 5:13-14). In the last count, the restorative national ideal, the future reconstitution of an Israelite polity patterned after the united monarchy and the pax salomonica, also inspired the biblical authors’ utopian-mythic visions of an ideal future age.155

155

I wish to express thanks to my assistant, Jonathan Ben-Dov, for his help in the preparation of the final version of this essay.

290

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 14 ~ THE SIGNIFICATION OF JERUSALEM IN BIBLICAL THOUGHT* I Jewish tradition prescribes that a householder who whitewashes the walls of a room should leave one corner unpainted, so that whenever he enters his home he will be reminded that nothing can or should be without blemish as long as Jerusalem has not been rebuilt in its ancient glory. Custom enjoins a housewife who lays a festive table to visibly display a piece of crockery or cutlery of inferior quality, to bring to her guests’ attention the notion of the incompleteness of Jerusalem. At the height of the wedding ceremony, a bridegroom will break a glass in a symbolic act recalling the Judean exiles’ complaint of bygone days: By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion … If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither (away), let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth … if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy. (Ps 137:1-6)

Here the question arises, which characteristics and which special features have accorded Jerusalem this unique position in the collective memory of the Jewish people—in fact in the memory of humans all over the universe, wherever the Hebrew Bible spread. “Historical facts” reported in biblical and post-biblical literature certainly played a role in the process, and must be brought under consideration. However, they do not suffice to answer the question to satisfaction. Rather, the decisive factors in the elevation of Jerusalem to a status unequalled by any other city in the Western World are the symbolic value and the religious and social concepts with which the city became invested in the wake of its conquest by King David, irrespective of whether the biblical traditions accurately mirror history or are embellished by fancy. What matters in the last count are the reverberations over centuries, nay, over millennia, of those ancient reports, which were and still are an inspiration for faith systems and creative thought, for literature and the arts, in a world that has made the Bible a keystone of its culture.

*

Originally published in Jewish Art, 23–24: The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art (1997–1998), 1–12.

292

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

II I propose to delineate in swift strokes the early past of Jerusalem, as it can be ascertained from extra-biblical sources. Historically, Jerusalem preceded the “people of Israel.” Finds of potsherds prove that the site on which the city was built, foremost a quarter known by the designation “the Ophel,” had been settled since the early Bronze or even the Chalcolithic age. Burial grounds of the third and the early second millennium BCE, and caves showing signs of inhabitation, have been unearthed in the area. Epigraphic evidence from the second millennium provides further information about a local, sedentary population. “Execration texts” of the nineteenth century BCE, that is potsherds from Egypt inscribed with curses against the Pharaoh’s enemies, make reference to a “governor of Rushalimum,” the Egyptian version of “Jerusalem.” The name also turns up in similar texts of the sixteenth century BCE. Among documents of the fourteenth century BCE from El-Amarna in Egypt,1 one letter, attributed to a ruler of “Urushalim” by the name of AbduḪeba, entreats the Pharaoh, his suzerain, to dispatch to him “archers and fifty men as a garrison to guard the land” against a horde of ʿApiru,2 who threaten to assault his city.3 However, these disconnected bits of information do not add up to a meaningful account of Jerusalem’s ancient past. Only four centuries later, with David’s conquest of the city in ca. 1000 BCE, did Jerusalem enter the stage of recorded history. David hailed from the tribe of Judah, which had led a rather secluded existence in the southern plains of Canaan, isolated from the other tribes in the central and northern parts of the country by a chain of Canaanite strongholds which had withstood the invading Israelites. Foremost among them was the city-state of Jerusalem. Although surpassed by other political entities in regard to the size of its territory and population, political strength and economic wealth, in the early stage of the Israelites’ conquest of parts of Canaan, Jerusalem headed an alliance of southern Canaanite city-states (Josh 10:1-5), and was a target of focal importance for anyone who aimed to gain control over the southern and central reaches of the country. David realized that he must establish a foothold in the center of the country, in order to

1 2 3

See Albright, “Amarna Letters,” 487–498 (EA 280–290). See Greenberg, Ḫab/piru, for the questionable equation of the ʿApiru with the early Hebrews. Albright, “Amarna Letters,” 488 (EA 289).

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

293

consolidate from there his rule over the Hebrew tribes, and to stem the advance inland of the Philistines who invaded Canaan from the sea; in the days of his predecessor, King Saul, the Philistines had made significant inroads into the territory held by the Israelites. The capture of Jerusalem was the turning point in David’s career. From here he began to lay the foundations of an empire which was to encompass most of the smaller states in the great land expanse between Egypt and Mesopotamia—Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, the Aramean kingdoms, and Phoenicia. The capture of Jerusalem, at that time named Jebus (Judg 19:10-12), proved to be an arduous task. Perched on a mountain ridge, surrounded by valleys and enfolded by hills (Ps 125:2), the city controlled important junctions of main highways which provided access to the hill region of Judah and Samaria, and connected the upper regions of the country with the fertile Judean lowlands. David’s army was inexperienced in laying siege to walled cities of that magnitude. His troops were not equipped with the catapults and battering rams without which the seemingly impregnable fortifications could not be breached, so as to take the strongholds by frontal attacks. He had to have recourse to other measures in order to get inside the battlements. Led by Joab, the supreme commander of David’s troops, some of his men gained access to the city by way of a subterranean shaft, preserved to this day, through which the city received its water supply from the perennial Gihon spring in the Siloam valley (2 Sam 5:6-8; 1 Chr 11:4-6). Once inside the walls, the attackers opened the gates for the main force to enter the fortress and complete the conquest. The pride and strength of the city, the excellent water system which assured it of an adequate water supply even under siege, became the cause of its downfall. David captured Jerusalem from the local Jebusites who were not of indigenous Canaanite stock, but rather were foreign invaders, probably of Hittite descent. These historical circumstances may be reflected in the words of the prophet Ezekiel, who castigated Jerusalem for her ways of life which were sinful like those of the onetime local population whom Israel had overcome: “Canaan is the land of your ancestry and there you were born; an Amorite was your father and a Hittite your mother” (Ezek 16:3). With the capture of Jerusalem, the last barrier fell that separated Judah from Benjamin and the other Israelite tribes. The way was open for the unification of all Israel. David acquired from the Jebusite King Arawnah the

294

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

latter’s threshing floor there to build an altar which was destined to become the core of the future Jerusalem Temple (2 Sam 24:18-25; 1 Chr 21:18–22:1). This transaction obviously was meant to symbolize the personal conjunction of David and his house with the city that came to be considered a crown possession. Jerusalem did not have any previous historical Israelite connection, and therefore was an almost natural choice to become the capital of the realm. This choice did not evoke partisan rivalry, as the preference of one of the prominent tribal capital cities, foremost Hebron of Judah or Shechem of Ephraim, would have done. At the same time, Jerusalem symbolized the transition from peoplehood to nationhood, from tribal confederation to statehood. The very name “Jerusalem” became synonymous with “Land of Israel” and “Kingdom of Israel.” The transformation in the geopolitical setup of Israel entailed the creation of a nationwide organizational structure centered in Jerusalem, which could efficiently supervise the military, economic, legal, and administrative affairs of the realm (2 Sam 8:15-18; 20:23-26; 1 Kgs 4:1-19). The royal court emerged as the hub of a network of agencies which handed down to the populace the king’s juridical decisions and supervised the levying of taxes and the recruitment of the citizenry for military and corvée duties. Because of the lack of Israelite experts in public administration, as in the employment of newly introduced weaponry and military techniques, David, with his son and successor Solomon, attracted to the court experienced non-Israelite advisers and military men.4 It is of significance that some high officials in the king’s cabinet bear names such as Shawsha or Shisha (1 Kgs 4:3) which point to their alien ethnic extraction. Likewise, in biblical sources pertaining to the matter, ranking officers in David’s army are expressly identified as foreigners, among them Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11:3-15; 23:39 = 1 Chr 11:41); Ittai the Gathite, probably a Philistine, who commanded a contingent of six hundred of his fellow countrymen (2 Sam 15:19-22); and Zelek the Ammonite (1 Sam 23:37 = 1 Chr 11:39). The courtiers and their families constituted the nucleus of a substratum of foreigners in the population of the capital, which was reinforced by other groups in the royal entourage. For political reasons, David, and even more

4

See Mazar, “King David’s Scribe,” 126–138; idem, “Military Elite,” 83–103, and pertinent literature adduced there.

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

295

so his son Solomon, are reported to have entered into marriages with the royal houses of neighboring nations: Edom, Moab, Ammon, Geshur, Maʿacah in Transjordan, Tyre, Heth, and even Egypt (2 Sam 3:3; 1 Kgs 3:1; 11:1). The foreign wives and their retinues caused a considerable increase in the number of aliens who resided in Jerusalem, and to a large measure became integrated in the Israelite majority. The resulting symbiosis affected the social and cultural life of the capital in the early days of the monarchy, and presumably put its stamp on life in the city under later Davidic rulers. The Israelite population was brought into direct contact with the achievements of other peoples, not only in the realms of technology, architecture, military organization, and administration, but also in literature, theology, and cultic mores. This situation led to the absorption of unfamiliar modes of thought and behavior into traditional Israelite culture. Jerusalem was not only the capital of Israel, but also became the metropolis of a realm which spanned the entire extent of the area between Egypt and Mesopotamia. The cultures of Canaan, Mesopotamia, and Egypt provided models of government and socio-political ideologies focused on the image of the king, which buttressed the standing of the nascent monarchic regime.5 Tradition ascribes to David the composition of songs and psalms (Amos 6:5; Neh 12:36), along with the consolidation of the Temple liturgy in which the Davidic dynasty and Jerusalem are focal themes, so much so that he became Israel’s proverbial singer (2 Sam 23:1; cf. 1 Sam 16:14-23). His achievement as a musician and bard are extolled in an extra-canonical autobiographical Hebrew psalm (11QPsa XXVIII 3-12): A Hallelujah of David the Son of Jesse (1) Smaller was I than my brothers and the youngest of the sons of my father, So he made me shepherd of his flock and ruler over his kids. (2) My hands have made an instrument and my fingers a lyre: And (so) have I rendered glory to the Lord, thought I, within my soul. (3) The mountains do not witness to him, nor do the hills proclaim: The trees have cherished my words and the flock my works. (4) For who can proclaim and who can bespeak and who can recount the deeds of the Lord? Everything has God seen, everything has he heard and he has heeded.

5

See Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem”; Talmon, “Kingship and Ideology,” esp. 29–31.

296

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

(5) He sent his prophet to anoint me. Samuel to make me great: My brothers went out to meet him, handsome of figure and appearance. (6) Though they were tall of stature and handsome by their hair, The Lord God chose them not. (7) But he sent and took me from behind the flock and anointed me with holy oil. And he made me leader to his people and ruler over the sons of his covenant.6

Again, in David’s Compositions (col. XXVII): And David, the son of Jesse, was wise and a light like the light of the sun, and literate, and discerning and perfect in all his ways before God and men. And the Lord gave him a discerning and enlightened spirit. And he wrote 3,600 psalms: and songs to sing before the altar over the whole-burnt perpetual offering every day, for all the days of the year, three hundred and sixty-four; and for the offering of the Sabbaths, fifty-two songs; and for the offering of the New Moons and for all the Solemn Assemblies and for the Day of Atonement, thirty songs. And all the songs that he spoke were four hundred and forty-six, and songs for making music over the stricken, four. And the total was four thousand and fifty. All these he composed through prophecy which was given him from before the Most High.7

Biblical sources present Solomon as a prolific composer of proverbs and songs on animate beings and nonanimate objects, in the vein of the pragmatic-educational “wisdom” widely practiced in the ancient Near East (1 Kgs 5:12-13). His accomplishments outshone those of the famous wise men of the East and of Egypt (1 Kgs 5:9-11). “All kings of the earth” were deeply impressed by him (5:14), foremost the Queen of Sheba in the Arabian Peninsula. She came to check out his praise, and returned to her country fully convinced of his outstanding achievements (10:1-10). Tradition accredits Solomon with the authorship of the wisdom books of Proverbs (Prov 1:1; 25:1), Ecclesiastes (Qoh 1:1), and the Song of Songs (Cant 1:1).

6

7

Translation by Sanders (DJD 4:54–64). While Jewish “normative” traditions present David as the author/compiler of the biblical Book of Psalms which contains 150 compositions, the Qumran scroll credits him with 4,050. See also Talmon, “Psalm 151.” Ibid., 91–93.

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

297

III In this section, I present a necessarily compressed discussion of the signification of Jerusalem in biblical thought, beginning by adducing straightforward statistics. The name Jerusalem occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures some 750 times, the designation “Zion” about 180 times. There are several hundred more occurrences of diverse appellations of the city, such as Shalem, Jebus, Mount Moriah, The City, City of David, City of Judah, Temple Mount, Holy City, Ariel, and others. Altogether one counts about 2,000 mentions of Jerusalem in the Hebrew Scriptures. This figure stands no comparison with the number of references to the city in sources of the late Second Temple period, the scrolls and scroll fragments from the Qumran caves in the Judean Desert, or the New Testament. Similar conclusions may be drawn from a comparison with diverse appellations in early rabbinic writings. The statistical imbalance becomes especially apparent when one takes in account that by sheer bulk the collection of 24 books which constitute the biblical canon, is heavily outweighed by the aforementioned later compendia of Hebrew writings. It is readily admitted that statistics do not necessarily convey a reliable impression of the relative importance of the words counted in a given corpus of literature. However, the quantitative check can reveal qualitative values. A wide variety of terms and expressions are employed with only one signification, but can also serve as vehicles which carry sentiments and ideas derived by diverse cognitive associations from that basic meaning. Such collocations are frequently tangible indicators of the centrality of the sentiments and ideas to which they give expression, and which imbued the authors of the works under review. At the same time, the quantitative preponderance of a given expression evidences the qualitative importance of such terms and idioms in the conceptual universe of the audience to whom the authors address themselves. This is certainly true in reference to the name Jerusalem and other appellations of the city in the Hebrew Scriptures. It can easily be shown that in this instance quantity spells significance. The word count reveals the centrality of Jerusalem in the conceptual universe of biblical Israel, and the thoughts and impressions which it evoked in the minds of the biblical authors and their audiences alike. However, the Bible is not a “book” in the common sense of the word; rather, to quote Martin Buber, the term “biblia”

298

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

defines “a book of books”8—viz., an anthology of ancient Hebrew writings which evolved over a span of one thousand years. Therefore one cannot stop at basing the argument on general all-embracing statistics, but must further attempt to specify how these mentions of Jerusalem are distributed among the several and varied components of the Hebrew Bible, among diverse major literary genres or strata, and among individual books. I shall now essay to show that the distinctive distribution of references to Jerusalem in the books of the Hebrew Bible tallies with the focal contents and meaning of “Jerusalem” as a theme or motif in the conceptual universe of biblical Israel. The results of this breakdown have a bearing on the diversified development of “Jerusalem” as a concept in post-biblical literatures. Some differences in the evaluation and employment of the motif of Jerusalem in Jewish thought can be shown to have arisen from the different measure of importance attributed to diverse literary strata of the Hebrew Bible in discrete theologies of mainstream Judaism and other, less prominent socioreligious configurations of post-biblical Israel, such as the Samaritans and the “Community of the Renewed Covenant.”9 It cannot cause surprise that there are only two possible references to Jerusalem in the Pentateuch, and not more than about a dozen in the books of Joshua and Judges. These books present the history of Israel in a period in which Jerusalem had not yet achieved its later centrality. For other reasons, mentions of Jerusalem are altogether absent from the Wisdom writings Job and Proverbs, as also from the book of Esther, and are few and far between in Ecclesiastes. This rarity or total absence cannot be explained by the historical and chronological settings within which these writings were presumably authored. Rather, this rarity should be attributed to the marked anthropocentric nature of wisdom literature, in distinction from the ethnocentric character of other literary genres of the Bible.10 Jerusalem is first and foremost a historical phenomenon, preponderantly connected with the progress of biblical Israel in history. Non-historical wisdom teaching has little use for Jerusalem, either as the name of a historical entity nor as the embodiment of a concept. 8

9

10

Buber, “People Today,” 4: “’The Bible,’ i.e., biblia, i.e., “books“: such is the name of a book that is a book of books.” By this designation the author-members refer to their community whose identity remains under discussion. See Talmon, “Renewed Covenant.” The same holds true of the Book of Esther. See Talmon, “Wisdom in Esther.”

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

299

Mentions of Jerusalem are heavily clustered in the official court or Temple historiographies—Samuel, Kings, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles; and in the prophetic books, which pertain, to a great extent, to events and situations reported in the historiographies. Mentions of Jerusalem are especially numerous in liturgical songs collated in the Book of Psalms, which at least in part were most probably commissioned by the royal house, and according to tradition were instituted for recitation at the divine service in the Temple by King David and his son and successor Solomon. IV I propose now to summarize in short what Jerusalem stands for in the Bible. The very name indicates that the city was initially built as a “foundation of [or: for the deity] Shalem,” known as Shalmon/Shulmanu in Assyrian sources. The theophoric character of the name Jerusalem, which is composed of the noun uru = “city” or “foundation” and the name of a divinity, suggests that the nomen loci Shalem, in the well-known biblical report of the meeting of Melchisedek, the royal priest of Shalem, with the Patriarch Abraham (Gen 14:18-20), can be identified with Jerusalem/Zion, the future Holy City of Israel. Their synonymity is also suggested by their employment in parallelismus membrorum in Psalm 76:3, “In Shalem is his tent [or tabernacle], and his dwelling place in Zion.” A popular etymology equated the theophoric component, Šālem, with Hebrew šālom. The equation paved the way for the elevation of Jerusalem to the proverbial City of Peace, which found a most stirring expression in the post-exilic Psalm 122, where the figure of speech “peace of Jerusalem” serves as the key phrase. In the New Testament, Šālem and šālom are expressly identified (Heb 7:1-2). There, the episode of Abraham’s meeting with Melchisedek is paraphrased as follows: This Melchisedek, king of Shalem, priest of God Most High, met Abraham (when) returning from the rout of the kings, and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tithe of everything as his portion. His name in the first place means “king of righteousness,” and then king of Salem, that is “king of peace.”

Alas, this popular etymology, which has clearly discernible roots in antiquity, has no linguistic or historical basis. In actual history, Jerusalem seldom ceased from being a city of bloodshed and war. It will suffice to quote just two passages which exemplify the internal strife that repeatedly

300

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

rent the city’s population. One is from the book of Kings where it is said that “Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from end to end” (2 Kgs 21:16); the other is taken from the Gospel of Matthew (23:29-30): Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites! You build up the tombs of the prophets and embellish the monuments of the saints, and say, “if we had been alive in our fathers’ time, we should never have taken part with them in the murder of the prophets.”

There is no need to enumerate the abundant references to wars about and around Jerusalem from the days of its conquest by David (2 Sam 5:4-9) to the battles in which late biblical eschatological prophecies see it embroiled— e.g., in Ezekiel’s Gog of Magog vision (Ezek 38–39); in the last chapter of Zechariah (Zech 14); in the second part of the book of Daniel (Dan 7–12; see esp. 9:14-27); and in the War Scroll from Qumran where the ultimate “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness” is described. The pre-Israelite temple-city Uru-Šalimmu, ruled by the priest-king Melchisedek, who officiated at the shrine of El Elyon, God Most High, was “Israelized,” as it were, through a double association with Abraham: both through the patriarch’s meeting with Melchisedek; and by its identification as the hieros logos of Isaac’s sacrifice on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22), which from days of old had been associated with Shalem–Jerusalem (2 Chr 3:1). The above two traditions which link Abraham with Shalem–Jerusalem, in all probability mirror concepts from monarchic times which were retrojected into the days of the forefathers, as is the case with many other patriarchal traditions. This retrojection becomes apparent in the presentation of the patriarchs in the biblical narratives, many of which are saturated with royal themes and symbols.11 Thus, Abraham is portrayed dealing exclusively with kings and rulers. And it can hardly be a coincidence that the two main cities in which he appears, Jerusalem (Genesis 14 and 22) and Hebron (Genesis 23), will serve in succession as the metropolis of King David’s realm (2 Sam 5:1-5). Abraham persists in his request to buy from Ephron the Hittite a burial place for his wife Sarah in Hebron, rather than getting it for free from him. Thus the “resident alien,” attains de jure the right to own land, usually

11

See Mazar, “Historical Background.”

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

301

granted only to bona fide citizens (Gen 23:1-20).12 Similarly, David rejects the offer of Arawnah, probably the Jebusite king of Jerusalem, to give him his threshing-floor in order to set up there an altar to YHWH; he insists on buying the property and the animals for sacrifice at their full value (2 Sam 24:18-25; 1 Chr 21:18-26). In these two cities God establishes his “foundation covenants” with his people—with Abraham in Hebron (Gen 15:18), and with David in Jerusalem (Ps 89; cf. also 2 Sam 7:1-3). The similarity between David’s acquisition of the threshing floor and Abraham’s acquisition of the Machpelah Cave (Genesis 23) becomes evident, especially if Arawnah of Jebus and Ephron of Hebron were, in fact, Hittite kings of those two cities. The parallelism seemingly reveals an intention to bring to light a historical resemblance between the patriarch Abraham and King David, the former as the founding father of the people of Israel, the latter as the creator of the nation. The twofold association of Abraham with Jerusalem, set, on the one hand, in the political context arising out of his war against the five foreign kings who fight the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and their satellites (Gen 14:1-17), and on the other, in the religious context of the patriarch building an alter on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22), projects the twofold signification of the city in the Davidic kingdom. As has been said, Jerusalem was initially inhabited by indigenous Canaanites. Later the city was ruled by another ethnic group, the Jebusites (Judg 19:10-12). In both stages Jerusalem served as the locus of a foreign cult (Genesis 14; 2 Sam 24:18-25). After the conquest by David (2 Sam 5:6-9), Jerusalem became the religious and political pivot of Israel. When David made Jerusalem the metropolis of his empire, a city which had no previous affiliation with any of the Israelite tribes whom he had set out to weld into one nation, he created an unprecedented unifying political center for the tribal league. By building in Jerusalem the Temple dedicated to Israel’s God (according to the tradition preserved in 1 Chronicles 15–16; 22), or at least laying the foundations for the building operations, which were to be carried out or completed by his son Solomon (according to the version in 1 Kings 6–8), David made Jerusalem the cornerstone of the religious and cultic unification of Israel (Ps 132:13-14). He memorialized this achieve-ment by calling the acropolis of Jerusalem by his own name: “David

12

See Speiser, Genesis, 171–173.

302

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

captured the stronghold Zion … took up his residence in the stronghold, and called it ‘city of David’” (2 Sam 5:7-9). After the conquest, David and his dynasty took over the local emblems of sovereignty and assumed the royal epithets of Melchisedek, the priest-king of Shalem. The appropriation finds a somewhat veiled expression in Ps 110 in a Hebrew phrase which evades an accurate translation. The psalmist addresses himself to a typical or rather prototypical king of the Davidic dynasty: “The Lord has sworn and will not go back on it. You are priest forever after the order of Melchisedek” ‫( נשבע יהוה ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק‬Ps 110:4). In King David’s days, Jerusalem became the most significant symbol of the transition from peoplehood to nationhood and to statehood. But the city was never totally and exclusively identified with this new socio-political phenomenon. Therefore, when the united kingdom of Israel broke apart after Solomon’s death (ca. 900 BCE), and later, when the Kingdom of Judah fell to the Babylonians (in 586 BCE), Jerusalem did not lose its importance and symbolic value for the Jewish people. The essential meaning of the city, which already in antiquity had undergone a decisive transformation, could be readily readjusted to intrinsically different historical situations, without losing the prestige and symbolic signification attached to it since David’s days. In the period of the united kingdom under the rule of David and Solomon, Israel had experienced a never-equaled prominence of political glory, economic achievement, and cultic splendor. At that time, Jerusalem, the capital of the realm, became a source of well-being and success, a beacon of hope for all future generations. Late biblical and post-biblical Judaism made the idealized image of that historical Jerusalem the cornerstone of their expectations of a national and religious renaissance. They perceived in it the prototype of the New Jerusalem, the pivot around which revolved their latter-days aspirations.13 V Analysis of the biblical historiographical writings brings to light concepts which are rooted in the biblical society and its historical actuality. When scanning the books of the Prophets and the Psalms to extract from them a conceptual picture of Jerusalem it becomes apparent that this picture does

13

See Porteous, “Jerusalem-Zion”; Williams, Jerusalem.

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

303

not necessarily reflect socio-political realities. Rather, it often shows the impact of a spiritual and ideological glorification, freed from the limitations of factuality. It is possible, even probable, that in these strata of the biblical literature the idealized image of historical Jerusalem blended with the ancient Near Eastern mythic motif of the “City on the Mountain,” of which not only literary but also pictorial representations have come down to us. The geographical elevation of a city whose acropolis invariably is occupied by a sanctuary, is conceived as symbolizing its closeness to heaven (Ps 121:1-2), whence arises its claim to a status of holiness. The Tower of Babel tradition (Genesis 11) may be considered a variation on this basic theme. Whatever is done or said on the pinnacles of the world is witnessed to by the earth and the heavens (Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2).14 The ever-recurring emphasis on the mountainous character of Jerusalem and its surroundings, which is indeed anchored in geographical reality, is obviously meant to confer on it the idealization which inheres in the “City on the Mountain” motif by means of the historicization of a myth (see, e.g., Isa 40:9; Ps 125:1-2). The depiction of the Temple as standing on the highest mountain in the area, even in the universe (Isa 2:1-3 = Mic 4:1-2), and as the tallest edifice in the city, which later tradition will not allow to be topped by any other building, further highlights the similarity with Canaanite, especially Ugaritic, and Mesopotamian motifs.15 The mythic elements become exceedingly prominent in prophetic and psalmodic literature. A telling example may be found in Ps 68, in which the poet puts on record a controversy between the personified mountains which had been previously chosen by God and which are superseded by Mount Zion: The mountain of Bashan is a towering mountain16 (indeed), a mountain of (many) peaks is Bashan’s mountain. But, O mountains of (many)

14

15

16

Cf. Jotham’s fable, delivered from the top of Mount Gerizim in the hearing of the citizens of Shechem (Judg 9:6-20), and King Abijah of Judah’s denunciation of the rebellious northern tribes from the summit of Mt. Zemaraim (2 Chr 13:4-12). See Clifford, Cosmic Mountain; von Rad, “Die Stadt”; Talmon, “‫הר‬, ‫ ;”גבעה‬and pertinent literature adduced there. Literally: “a mountain of God.”

304

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

peaks, why turn in envy17 toward the mountain where God delights to dwell, where YHWH will reside forever? (Ps 68:16-17)18

Although Mount Sinai is not explicitly included among the “envious mountains,” reference to it may be found in the ensuing verse. The evidently faulty Hebrew text, ‫( אדני בם סיני‬68:18) should be corrected to read, ‫אדני בא מסיני‬, as in Deut 33:2, “YHWH has come from Sinai.”19 This seems to imply that also Mount Sinai is counted with the rejected mountains which were supplanted by Mount Zion. In non-historiographical strata of the biblical literature, national-religious imagination often soars high above any consideration of reality. This phenomenon can be best observed in the Book of Psalms, and the books of the Prophets. It appears that the dehistoricization serves later generations as a launching pad for the ideological elevation of terrestrial Jerusalem to the celestial plane. Vice versa, ‫ירושלים של מעלה‬, “heavenly Jerusalem,” is conceived as an exalted and sublimated likeness of the earthly city, ‫ירושלים של מטה‬. Celestial Jerusalem is perceived in an infinitely refined radiant vision, which though bears an only remote resemblance to the terrestrial city. However, even at their peak, the visions of celestial Jerusalem articulated by Jewish thinkers and mystics never lost touch with down-to-earth factuality. A definite strain of this-worldliness, which seems to permeate normative Jewish religious thought in all its ramifications, effectively checked the tendency which ran wild among Jewish fringe groups to paint a picture of heavenly Jerusalem totally untrammelled by the realities of the historical city. “Normative Judaism”20 was altogether less concerned with the metahistorical “heavenly Jerusalem” than with the “New Jerusalem,” which was to mark the historical future, which restorative eschatology portrayed predominantly as an improved edition of the historical city of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jerusalem symbolizes the civilization- and cultivation-centered ideology of biblical Israel. The predominantly urban structure and life 17 18

19

20

Literally: “skip,” cf. the similar picture in Ps 114:4, 6; 29:6. Cf. “For YHWH has chosen Zion and desired it for his abode: ‘This is my resting-place forever’” (Ps 132:13-14). It may further be suggested that the syntactically difficult word ‫בקדש‬, “in holiness,” which closes the verse, hints at the previously mentioned mountain which God has chosen as his abode forever, viz., the Jerusalem Temple Mount. The term was introduced by Moore, Judaism.

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

305

conditions of Jerusalem of the post-conquest (of Canaan) period represent the opposite pole to the amorphous pre-conquest desert culture. The monarchical, regime with Jerusalem as its focus, is set off favorably against the “democratic anarchy” of the period of the Judges.21 Mount Zion is in many respects viewed as the counterfoil to Mount Sinai in the Desert. Mount Sinai and the Sinaitic covenant represent indeed the beginning of Israel’s transformation into a free people, but also retain residues of Israel’s bondage in Egypt, in respect to religion, ethics, and political self-rule. Mount Zion, and the covenant which God established there with David, signify Israel’s sovereignty in full bloom, both in civil and in cultic life.22 The symbolic opposition of Mount Zion, the center of cultured, cultivated and civilized life, to Mount Sinai, which spells primitive nomadism, is alluded to in the Epistle to the Galatians 4:22-26, It is written there (in the Law) that Abraham had two sons, one by his slave and the other by the freeborn wife. The slavewoman’s son was born in the course of nature, but the freewoman’s (Sarah) through [God’s] promise. This is an allegory. The two women stand for the two covenants. The one bearing children into slavery is the covenant that comes from Mount Sinai: that is Hagar. Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, and it represents Jerusalem of today. … But the [heavenly] Jerusalem above [is the free-woman], she is our mother.

The writer started out by showing correctly that Mount Zion in Jerusalem stands in opposition to Mount Sinai in the desert. But in the next verse he supplants the contemporary Zion-Jerusalem, which is as terrestrial as is Mount Sinai by a heavenly Jerusalem, going beyond Jewish allegorical exegesis at any time. 21 22

See Talmon, “Kingship and Ideology.” I stress this point because I feel that the concept of a “desert ideal” in some quarters has played havoc with Bible exegesis and biblical studies. The latent nativism of the late nineteenth century brought about a rather astonishing predilection for the “desert” which is completely opposed to what the Bible advocates in reality. This trend in Christian theology at the turn of the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, rooted in a modern nativism and a latent romanticism, attempted to recapture the presumed positive essence of a surmised biblical “nomadic ideal,” which clashed sharply with the city-oriented culture of modern Jewry. This contrast, which is based on wrong assumptions with regard to biblical literature, appears to have triggered a negative attitude of some Christian exegetes toward Jews and Judaism of their time. See my discussion of this issue in “Desert Motif.”

306

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Since Jerusalem symbolizes orderly civilized life, the downfall of the city produces societal chaos (Isa 3:1-7). The conquest of the Jerusalem by a foreign power reduces the structured Israelite society to pre-state anarchy. For biblical authors, especially the Prophets, the destruction of Holy City spells cosmic upheaval. VI The basic realism of the portrayal of Jerusalem in the Hebrew Bible is further illustrated by reports of historical circumstances which less fact-minded writers might well have suppressed. As has been said, biblical traditions make it unhesitatingly clear that Jerusalem was not Israel’s heritage of old;23 that before David’s days it had been inhabited by foreigners, and that foreigners were settled in the city also at the height of its occupation by the Israelites; that it had harbored, and continued to harbor, foreign cults also in the days of David’s successors—Solomon, Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah. One is almost inclined to suspect that biblical historiographers intentionally underscored the fact that the city had always had a mixed population, knit into one societal network, without making light of individual or group identities. As noted, the text reports that the Jebusites, from whom David had captured the city, were permitted to continue living there unmolested, side by side with the Israelite populace; and that the royal court was replete with foreign warriors, like the Karatites, and Palatites (2 Sam 8:18) and others. Advisers of foreign extraction rose to prominence in the administrative hierarchy of the realm, some even attaining the rank of ministers under David and Solomon. These foreigners became in fact a main pillar of support of the Davidic dynasty. It appears that the resulting population mix furthered a seemingly liberal attitude concerning the admittance of individuals and groups of ethnic foreigners into the Jerusalem society and the cult. The manifold marital links of the tribe of Judah, especially the Davidic house, with non-Israelites, 23

A poetic attempt to root Israel’s claim to its land in hoary antiquity may be preserved in the Song of Moses: “When the Most High parceled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the numbers of the children of Israel” (Deut 32:8). The ancient versions and a fragment of a Deuteronomy scroll from Qumran (4Q44 = 4QDeutq) read “the sons of God” for “the children of Israel.” See Skehan, “Song of Moses.”

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

307

are amply preserved in biblical traditions. Suffice it to mention Tamar the Canaanite who bore two sons to Judah, the eponym of the tribe (Genesis 38; Ruth 4:12); Ruth the Moabite, the ancestress of David (Ruth 4:18-22);24 David’s sister Abigail, married to Jether the Ishmaelite, whose son Amasa rose to prominence in David’s army (1 Chr 2:17; cf. 2 Sam 17:25);25 and Absalom’s mother, Maacah, a princess of Geshur in Trans-Jordan (2 Sam 3:3). There is ample support for the suggestion that even Zadok the high priest and his line, who officiated at the Jerusalem Temple, stemmed from the indigenous population of Canaan, and were originally affiliated with the local shrine at Gibeon (1 Chr 16:39);26 or for the suggestion that he was a Jebusite priest,27 perhaps even the former priest-king of Jerusalem.28 At the same time, biblical authors foresaw a future purge of Jerusalem from all foreign elements that had polluted the city with pagan worship and disreputable mores (see, e.g., Isa 52:1). In the days to come, Jerusalem is to be inhabited exclusively by citizens of pure Israelite stock, who worship only the God of Israel in his Temple. This “exclusionist” tendency seemingly balances the inclusive trend which prevailed in pre-exilic Israel. Both attitudes reflect a realistic concern, viz., the endeavor to cope with actual situations and problems experienced in history. Royalist Israel of the First Temple period, represented by the metropolis Jerusalem, had seen itself saddled with a substantial minority of foreigners. Its rulers could not conceive of a better way of handling this situation than by absorbing these foreigners in the Israelite society. The post-exilic community of returnees from the Babylonian exile in the fifth and sixth centuries BCE, a mere remnant of the once vigorous nation of monarchic times, heavily outnumbered by the local population(s) which they encountered, were forced to segregate themselves from the “peoples of the land” in order to maintain their particular identity. Jerusalem,

24

25

26 27

28

The ready admission of Ruth into the people of Israel as the matriarch of the Davidic dynasty flies in the face of the adjuration “No Ammonite or Moabite, even down to the tenth generation, shall become a member of the assembly of the Lord” (Deut 23:4; cf. Neh 13:1). The Hebrew text (2 Sam 17:25) exhibits the evidently “emended” reading “Israelite,” ‫יתרה‬ ‫הישראלי‬. LXX retained the original version “Ishmaelite,” Ισµαη/ελιτης. See, inter alia, Auerbach, “Sadokiten,” 327–328. See Rowley, “Zadok and Nehushtan,” 114–141; idem, “Melchizedek and Zadok,” 461–472; Hauer, “Who was Zadok?” 89–94; Rosenberg, “The God Ṣedeq,” 167–170; et al. Bentzen, “Mitteilungen.”

308

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

purified and holy, became the quintessential expression of an ideology which shrank from any contact with the local population that had not gone through the purifying experience of the exile (Mal 2:11-12; Ezra 4:1-3; 9:1–10:44; Neh 9:1-2, etc.). Prophets had castigated Jerusalem, its kings and inhabitants, because “They strike hands with the children of strangers” (Isa 2:6), and held up separation from other nations as the only way of safeguarding the metropolis and the people of Israel from internal dissolution and impending disaster. Alliances with foreigners and with foreign rulers spelled catastrophe (Isa 7:4-9). At the same time, prophets and foremost post-exilic prophets conceived of Jerusalem as the center of an organized communitas communitatis, a worldwide council of nations. In the days to come, Mount Zion, which stands for the city of Jerusalem, is to become the goal of pilgrims, who will stream to it from all nations (Isa 2:1-3; Mic 4:1-2; Isa 60:1-11): “At that time, they will call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem” (Jer 3:17). Punishment will be meted out to all families of the earth who will not go up unto Jerusalem to worship the King YHWH, the Lord of hosts (Isa 60:12; Zech 14:17). One is inclined to see here an expression of the significance of Jerusalem at its very peak. The city is raised from the status of the capital of the Israelite kingdom to that of the metropolis of the inhabited world—which actually means of the ancient Near East, since the historical and political horizon of the biblical authors extended no further than approximately Cyprus in the west, Mesopotamia in the northeast, Egypt in the south, and Phoenicia in the north. This perception of the inhabited world encompasses predominantly the nations that had been included in the Davidic empire or had been connected with it, one way or another. Expectations for the latter days remain rooted in historical realities. I stressed the presence of foreigners in Jerusalem in biblical times, and their integration in the social, political, and cultic life and institutions of the Israelite inhabitants, because this fact may help in explaining two seemingly contradictory tendencies which can be traced in practically all strata of biblical literature, with the pendulum swinging now in one direction, now in the other. Jerusalem was the hub of the nation, so much so that to all intents and purposes the city was identified with Israel as a whole. Its very name became synonymous with that of the realm at large. It may be said

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

309

that the pronouncements that encapsulate the attitude of the metropolis towards foreigners in fact give expression to concepts concerning this issue which were entertained in biblical times by Israel generally. VII At this juncture, I propose to bring under consideration aspects of the conception of Jerusalem as the metropolis of the inhabited world. The vision first and foremost holds out promise for every Israelite, whether living in the Land or in a foreign country, as implied, inter alia, in the Isaiah passage which speaks of “those abroad,” ‫בן הנכר‬, and the “infertile,” ‫( סריס‬Isa 56:1-8). I propose that the text does not refer to proselytes, as is generally assumed. Rather it aims at Jews who live outside the Land, persist in their allegiance to the God of Israel, follow his precepts and keep the Sabbath, ‫כל שמר שבת‬ ‫( מחללו ומחזיקים בבריתי‬56:6). They are promised a share in Jerusalem and the Temple.29 Somewhat freely translated the text reads: “I will establish a memorial30 for them in my house and within my walls, better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, never to be erased (viz., annihilated)” (56:5). Beyond that, the Temple of Jerusalem will become a place of worship for every human being: “For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations” (56:7). This idea comes into full view in the public prayer at the dedication ceremony of the First Temple, which in the Book of Kings is ascribed to King Solomon: The foreigner too, the man who does not belong to thy people Israel, but has come from a distant land because of thy fame—for men shall hear of thy great fame and thy strong hand and outstretched arm— when he comes and prays towards this house, hear in heaven thy dwelling and respond to the call which the foreigner makes to thee. (1 Kgs 8:41-43 = 2 Chr 6:32-33).

The glorious portrayal of the future Jerusalem, and the appeal of the Temple to all humanity have fired the imagination of the faithful, Jew and non-Jew, who have perceived in this noble image of the Holy City the apex of biblical Israel’s spiritual achievements.31 29 30 31

1QIsaa ‫להם‬, presumably reflects an ancient reading ‫)אתן( למו‬. For this interpretation of the collocation ‫ יד ושם‬see my “‫יד ושם‬,” above, 211–235. See Causse, “Nouvelle Jérusalem.”

310

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

However, also in the lofty portrait of the latter days, Jerusalem remains earthbound. Prophets like Jeremiah describe that ideal city in an almost disturbing realistic fashion: Behold the days come, says the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananel unto the gate of the corner, and the measuring line shall yet go out straight onward until the hill Gareb, and shall turn about after Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the Lord; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever (Jer 31:38-40).

This portrayal of the future Jerusalem could well have been conceived by a town planner. It certainly was written by an author who knew the historical Jerusalem and could wish for nothing better than having it restored in the future to its fullest past extent. The latter-days city is envisaged as being built within the territorial boundaries of historical earthly Jerusalem, as in the days of the biblical monarchy. Jeremiah’s words throw some light upon yet another salient aspect of the ideological signification and veneration of Jerusalem in the Jewish tradition. The city in its entire circumference is held to be holy. While other religions pinned their pious reverence for Jerusalem on chosen sites and particular topoi connected with specific events in their Heilsgeschichte, Judaism sanctified the city in its entire circumference, and in doing so has kept alive the signal significance which attaches to it in the Hebrew Bible as a reality and as a symbol. In history, strife and bloodshed always have been a precursor of peace in the historical city. These realities reverberate in the description of the future Jerusalem. The renewal in it of God’s covenant with his people will be preceded by great tribulations. The peace which is expected to reign in latter days will be preceded by a war of cosmic dimensions, by tumultuous battles against inimical nations, who are destined be annihilated in the valley of Jehoshaphat, the valley of divine judgment (see, e.g., Joel 4:9-17; Zech 14:1-20). Then Jerusalem will again become the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Into it will be gathered the dispersed of Israel. There they will find solace and comfort (Isa 56:1-8; 60:1-22; Joel 3:5; 4:1 etc.). Also in the picture of latter-day Jerusalem, a Davidic king and his entourage figure prominently in the utopian portrayal. At that time, if righteousness should prevail in Jerusalem,

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

311

“there shall enter in by the gates of this house, kings sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, he, and his servants, and his people” (Jer 22:4; 23:5-6; cf. 17:24-26). The vision remains earthbound. This thrice-repeated text evidently inspired the mediaeval artist of a woodcut in the Venice Haggadah (1629), who portrayed the Messiah, scion of the Davidic dynasty, entering Jerusalem on horseback, with a trumpeter or shofarblower announcing his arrival, and a multitude of people approaching the octagonal wall of the city from all sides.32 VIII The fervent expectation of biblical writers to see Jerusalem rebuilt in its ancient glory reverberates in a poem, designated “Apostrophe to Zion,” composed by an unnamed psalmist before the turn of the era. The poem is included in a partially preserved Psalms scroll,33 which was discovered among the Qumran manuscript finds. The excerpted text reads as follows: I remember thee for blessing, O Zion; with all my might have I loved thee. May thy memory be blessed for ever! Great is thy hope, O Zion, that peace and thy longed-for salvation will come. Generation after generation will dwell in thee and generations of saints will be thy splendor— Those who yearn for the day of thy salvation that they may rejoice in the greatness of thy glory. On (the) abundance of thy glory they are nourished and in thy splendid squares will they toddle … Thy sons will rejoice in thy midst and thy precious ones will be united with thee. How they have hoped for thy salvation, thy pure ones have mourned for thee. Hope for thee does not perish, O Zion, nor is hope in thee forgotten. …

32

33

Contrast the description of the same scene in Zech 9:9-10, which comes to the fore in Christian messianic visions anticipating the second coming of Christ: “Rejoice, rejoice, daughter of Zion, shout aloud, daughter of Jerusalem; for see, your king is coming to you, his cause won [=his victory gained] humble and mounted on an ass, on a foal, the young of a she-ass. He [lit.: I] shall banish chariots from Ephraim and war-horses from Jerusalem; the warrior’s bow shall be banished…” Translation by Sanders (DJD 4:85–89).

312

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Be exalted, and spread wide, O Zion; praise the Most High, thy savior: let my soul be glad in thy glory.

As noted, the “Apostrophe to Zion” is known from a literary work preserved in the scrolls collection of the pre-Christian “Community of the Renewed Covenant” of Qumran. It cannot be decided for certain whether this psalm-like composition was written by a member of that dissident community, or whether it is a piece of poetry which at the time was current in Judaism generally. In any case, the “Apostrophe” does evidence that in the waning Second Temple period, Jews of diverse socio-religious persuasions held in common the veneration of Jerusalem, and shared in the hope for the restoration of the city. Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the hope for a future restoration of Jerusalem became a vade mecum of Jewry. This is strikingly illustrated by an archaeological discovery of modern times. Excavators of the Temple area laid bare a short inscription in Hebrew characters incised in one of the huge dressed stones of the Western Wall, embedded in a layer which until then had been hidden under the rubble accumulated over the centuries. The inscription consists of the first part of a verse in the last chapter of the book of Isaiah: [‫וראיתם ושש לבכם ועצמות]יכ[ם כדשא ]תפרחנה‬, “And you shall see and your heart shall rejoice and their (or: your) bones shall flourish like tender grass” (Isa 66:14). These words refer back to the preceding verse, which ends on the promise: “And ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem” (66:13). Here a remark on the dating of the inscription is in order, as far as it can be ascertained. Archaeologists date the stratum in which it was discovered to the 4th century CE, to the days of the Emperor Julian (the Apostate), who is known for his liberal attitude towards non-Christian religions, and for his zeal in restoring places of non-Christian worship. In this context also the Jewish Temple of Jerusalem was given a new lease on life, albeit for only a very short period. Despite its pitiful brevity, the inscription reveals the sentiments of Jewry at the time. A pious mason, who worked at reconstructing the Temple wall or redressing its stones, evidently conceived of his labor as a sign of the impending fulfillment of Isaiah’s vision. We may safely assume that his work was commissioned, or at least sanctioned, by the Jewish authorities. No less than the biblically based expectations of a future renaissance that find expression in the codified rabbinic literature

[Type text]

The Signification of Jerusalem in Biblical Thought

313

and later writings, this solitary stone inscription, buried in the ruins of the defunct Temple, gives witness to the burning hope for an imminent restitution of Jerusalem as a renewed center of worship and national sovereignty, a source of rejoicing and well-being. It is highly significant that Jews of Julian’s day could find no more adequate means of expressing this complex hope, both historical and metahistorical, than by quoting a phrase coined by a biblical prophet of the post-exilic restoration period. The prophet’s words were indeed understood as a motto, and the inscription was intended to bring to the mind of all who saw it the wider literary context in which those words are set in the prophet’s oracle. There they are preceded by a vivid description of the rebuilt city of Jerusalem, again a “metropolis” in the truest sense of the word, a “mother” to the cities and villages surrounding it, and to the people living within its confines: Rejoice with Jerusalem and exult in her, all you who love her; share her joy with all your heart, all you who mourn over her. … For thus says the Lord: I will send peace flowing over her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a stream in flood. … As a mother comforts her son, so will I myself comfort you, and you shall find comfort in Jerusalem. (Isa 66:10-13)

314

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 15 ~ “EXILE” AND “RESTORATION” IN THE CONCEPTUAL WORLD OF ANCIENT JUDAISM* I “Exile” and “Restoration” are interrelated concepts that pertain to two contrastive historical phenomena, like movement and counter-movement. They are not the particular experience of specific individuals or societies in singular, unparalleled historical situations. Rather, they belong in the realm of universal human experience. In the present paper I intend first to explore concisely the social, historical, and religious, in short, the existential dimensions of these concepts generally, and then to refer specifically to their application in the history of the Jewish people in the early Second Temple period. The term “Exile” denotes the forced removal of individuals or groups of people from their homeland. The corresponding Greek terms ἀποικία or µετοικία quite accurately express the resulting condition of being “away from home.” In biblical Hebrew the state of being in exile is defined by ‫גולה‬ or ‫גלות‬, derived from ‫ ה‬-‫ ל‬-‫ג‬, which originally means, to “strip” or “remove” (cf. Ezek 12:3-7). ‫ גולה‬describes not only the body of expatriates who had been thus forced to leave their homeland, but also alludes to the Land itself, partly denuded of its inhabitants through war and expulsion: “Your land shall be divided up with a measuring line … and Israel shall surely be deported from their land (‫( ”)וישראל גֹלה יגלה מעל אדמתו‬Amos 7:17). Deportation violently severs the natural bonds of the banished and their land, rips apart physical and spiritual, emotional and cultural ties, engenders a break with the tried and true, an alienatio mentis, and entails a forced transfer into the gaping void of the unknown. Together with the loss of the familiar landscape, displaced people are prone to deprivation of inherited values, such as their mother tongue and time-honored manners and customs. The individual experiences expatriation as an event of personal rather than historical significance, which often throws him or her into existential despair. A community incurs exile in the wake of the upheaval caused by war and defeat. The deportation of considerable contingents of inhabitants

*

Originally published in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. J.M. Scott (JSJ Supp. 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 107–146.

318

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

from their land effects dispersion, the very antithesis of the past societal, historical, geographical and communal cohesion. In this way, then, the phenomenon of Diaspora comes into being, as experienced by a collective entity—family, tribe, community, or nation. Diaspora life spells a fragmented existence, a life of dependence on and marginalization in the dominant society that is prone to maintain an inimical stance to the enclaves of strangers in its midst: “Among those nations you will find no peace, no rest for the sole of your feet” (Deut 28:65). Forced expatriation creates a ghetto situation, which arises in part from the imposed separation of the exiles from the surrounding society, but in part also from a self-imposed segregation. A Diaspora community that endeavors to keep alive and enforce its particular identity will be put on the defensive vis-à-vis its immediate environment. An unfamiliar language, uncommon names, peculiar beliefs, an unconformable lifestyle, outlandish clothes, different tastes and body odors, make a Diaspora community appear an extraneous, even suspect element in the new surroundings. But at the same time, these particularities safeguard the identity of a Diaspora. It is of interest to note that in recounting the ways by which the Israelites succeeded in preserving their ethnic and religious distinctiveness in the long period of their serfdom in Egypt, and which, therefore, made them worthy of deliverance from bondage, an often-quoted midrash pointedly puts this fact at the top of the list of reasons which safeguarded the Israelites’ survival as an ethnic and cultural entity that “they did not change their names or their language.”1 In most instances, dispersion is viewed as having resulted from the impact of adverse political, economic, and socio-religious factors. Since resistance to forced transfer for the most part proves to be futile, the expatriates nolens volens resign themselves to the unfamiliar situation. Submitting to external pressure and adjusting to reality, individually and as a collective, exiles also tend to give up internal resistance, often transforming the negative characteristics of dispersion into positive aspects of a structured community existence in Diaspora. This is how many ancient, medieval, and modern peoples have experienced Diaspora—Arameans (cf. Amos 1:5; 9:7) and Phoenicians, Greeks and Hellenes in the Near and Middle East; Greeks and Armenians in Eastern

1

See, inter alia, Midr. Ps., 114, (ed. S. Buber, 472); Pesiq. Rab Kah., 6 (ed. B. Mandelbaum, 1:182).

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

319

Europe; Indians and Chinese in the Far East; expatriates from England in Australia and South Africa. A Diaspora may come about not only through compulsory displacement, but also through voluntary migration. Overpopulation, drought, and famine, economic hardship or entrepreneurial interests, religious schisms, even an adventurous desire for knowledge, can impel a component of a national or ethnic collective to emigrate and relocate in another country. The resettlement of deportees in their new abode may bring about the establishment of semiindependent enclaves in the alien environment. Such Diaspora communities tend to form voluntarily distinct social and political entities. The thus achieved new standing provides a sense of security and mitigates the exiles’ feeling of being strangers, mere µέτοικοι, in their foreign abode. As time passes, this development is bound to lead to a weakening of their historical and emotional links with the homeland. A Diaspora community may then establish itself as a colony, and eventually can acquire an independent political status. Life in a strange country and among foreign people, which in the past was seen to spell alienation from the familiar and the acclaimed, now can come to be conceived as leading to a broadening of intellectual horizons, and to receptivity for novel beliefs and ideas. Compared with the different experiences in an often more advanced, and at times also more open society, the former life in one’s native land, indeed more protected but in many respects also more restricted, can appear in retrospect to have been narrow and stifling. When the bitter experience of dispersion is ameliorated in this fashion, an intrinsically unique value is often conferred upon the deportees’ life, which may become invested with a sense of mission. Diaspora then comes to be seen as the soil in which the expatriates’ transplanted faith can experience an improved and richer growth. In such instances, a Diaspora community may conceive of itself as being sent to become a “light to the nations,” a symbolic watchword derived from a biblical matrix (Isa 42:6; 49:6). This was the case with Alexandrian Jewry in the last centuries BCE,2 albeit without a concomitant engagement in missionary activity among the Gentiles. In contrast, nascent Christianity pursued a vigorous missionary

2

See Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel, 8:9–156; idem, Babylonian Captivity, 199–202, cf. 57–58.

320

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

purpose when it transcended the boundaries of its native Palestine to propagate its teaching in the wide reaches of the Roman Empire.3 As long as Diaspora life is perceived as bearing in itself the stamp of enforced expatriation, the hope of a return to the homeland is kept alive, with an implicit demand upon the exiles that they realize this return through their personal conduct. The return can become attainable through a change for the better of the previously adverse political situation. Then every individual deportee will be called upon to take hold of the favorable moment, to actively intervene in the course of history, and by his or her return further the restoration of the body politic which war and banishment had undone. II. “EXILE” AND “RESTORATION” IN THE BIBLICAL WORLD OF THOUGHT

Conceptually, sociologically and historically, the Jewish experience belongs in this general framework, but transcends it, insofar as Israel never viewed Exile, Diaspora and Restoration as exclusively determined by political and/or economic circumstances. The cycle was always seen in a metaphysical context. The deportation of a part of the nation to the countries of victorious enemies was given a deeper meaning by the interpretation of the dismal event as divine punishment for the transgressions of the individual and the collective. The actual experience of exile and restoration in history thus was elevated to an essentially new level of meaning, because biblical thought conceives of God as revealing himself to his people in history. Deportation came to be understood not only as a physical uprooting from the homeland, of the individual as of the collective, but also as entailing remoteness from God. Biblical faith locates the most prominent anchor point of YHWH in his Temple in Jerusalem, the very heart of the Holy Land. Therefore, expatriation was seen to result not alone in a physically—historically and socially— marginalized existence, but also in a theologically marginalized one (cf. Ps 42–43). Exile for a people is “nicht bloß aus seinem Lande und Zusammenhange, sondern auch aus seiner Aufgabe verbannt.”4 Dispersion always entails the danger of losing contact with the center, the essential core of faith

3 4

F. Heer, “Exil,” offers a concise and impressive overview of the existential experience of exile. Buber, Heilige Weg, 51–52.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

321

and nationhood. Deportation not only disrupts the unity of family and community, and tears apart the bond of the deported with their Land, but it also dissolves the solidarity of YHWH and his people. The anguish of exile afflicts the entire nation. The suffering can only be healed by a return to the Land, ‫שיבה‬, and a concomitant return to God, ‫תשובה‬. In “return” coalesce “Völkliches und Menschliches, Befreiungsverlangen und Erlösungssehnsucht, das Streben nach dem eigenen Lande und das Streben nach der wahren Gemeinschaft.”5 Israel’s intrinsic attachment to the Land is reflected in Hebrew linguistic usage. Departure from the Land is defined ‫ירידה‬, derived from the stem ‫ד‬-‫ר‬-‫י‬, which signifies “descent” or “decline.” Return to the Land conversely is designated ‫עליה‬, “ascent,” irrespective of the actual geographical conditions involved in the movement. In this context, the notions of upwards and downwards transcend their spatial signification and take on an existential, even an ontic dimension. One notion gives expression to the deep sense of degradation experienced through banishment from the Land, the other to the exaltation which inheres in the return to the Land. “Deportation” and “restoration” signify the negative and the positive pole in Israel’s relation to the Land. Diaspora is seen as a span of time which strains away from the negative pole of dispersion and is linearly pointed toward the space-determined positive pole of restoration. The time-determined phases of exile are bound to space only by the yearning for a return to the concreteness of the Land, “in days to come,” ‫באחרית הימים‬,6 at some variously determined future point of time in history. As long as the “time-determined” periphery of the Diaspora community remains bound up with the “spacedetermined” center by the ray of hope of restoration, even if an immediate return to the Land is not in sight, the Diaspora can withstand the danger of personal desolation and collective dissolution brought on by the centrifugal impact of exile. An excessive weakening of the expectation of restoration, with the concomitant shift from space to time in the historical experience of Judaism—from a historical bond with the Land to a mere spiritual attachment, from an exclusive particularity to an inclusive universalism—has led to the decline, and in some instances to the disintegration, of Diaspora communities. 5 6

Buber, Heilige Weg, 72. See my discussion of the meaning of the phrase ‫ אחרית הימים‬in “Latter Days,” above, 137–156, esp. 150–156.

322

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

However, in the thoughts and sentiments of the Jewish people, the spark of yearning for the Promised Land has never been never extinguished. To quote F.W. Marquardt: “Grundsätzlich gibt es auch für den Welt-Juden einen bewußten oder heimlichen Zug zum Land, die Welt ist ihm seelisch oder geistig die ‘Fremde,’ und das Heimatlose des ‘jüdischen Geistes‘ … enthält ein letztes Wissen um die Heimat anderswo.”7 The present framework does not allow for a comprehensive and fully adequate investigation of the impact of exile and restoration on ancient Israel. Therefore, I propose to concentrate my remarks on two phenomena which in my view decisively affected the socio-religious profile of Israel in the transition from the age of the monarchy, through exile and Diaspora to the age of restoration: (1) the fundamental change in the status of three major institutions of the biblical society—kingship, priesthood, and prophecy; (2) the conversion of the structure of biblical society from territorial “monocentricity” in the First Temple period to “multicentricity” in the Age of Restoration. I further propose to distill information on these processes first and foremost from the biblical writings, which reflect the authors’ appreciation of the transformations to which the Israelite society of that time was subjected. The Hebrew Bible contains captivating accounts of events, of both a factual and a belief-tempered, visionary nature. The biblical authors are justly praised for their amazingly nuanced and dramatic narrative style. They describe historical circumstances and divine interventions in history in ways that make them come alive. The texts impress the reader through the comprehensive synthesis of faith and history, of faith acted out in history, rather than through a systematic investigation of ideas and theories which underlie the total picture. Events, situations and visions are reported as they happened or as the narrator believes them to have happened. Occasionally interpreted, these events or visions are seldom or never analyzed. Biblical authors seem to cling to what they consider to be factual. They seem to shy away from abstractions and theories which are an indispensable condition of speculative systematic thought. Hence, the modern scholar’s quest for methodical, philosophical thought has no counterpart in the biblical writings.8 7 8

Marquardt, Die Juden, 62–63. See my comments on this aspect of the biblical literature, inter alia, in “‫ הר‬and ‫מדבר‬,” above, 55–75, esp. 55–57; and “‫שלום‬,” above, 251–289, esp. 251–254.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

323

In addition, the books of the Bible are not arranged in a chronological sequence, and do not necessarily reflect successive stages in the development of the ancient Hebrews’ world of ideas. Any attempt to trace the intrinsic development of a concept therefore can only produce a partially accurate reconstruction, whose reliability depends on the investigator’s ability to convince his audience rather than on the recovery of an intellectual process which actually unfolded in biblical times. The results of such an investigation often mirror the scholar’s world of ideas rather than the biblical authors’ conceptual universe. This brings us to the crux of the matter under discussion. In the history of biblical as well as of post-biblical Israel, Diaspora and restoration were recurrently experienced as historical facts. Just as perceptions of “Land” and “people” are characterized by their tangibility, “Diaspora” and “restoration” are comprehended from experienced reality. The transfer of these phenomena to the plane of a preponderantly ideonic abstract interpretation took place above all in Christian theology, as well as in some philosophical systems in Judaism that have been inclined to conceptualization and systematization. It appears that in certain strata of the biblical literature, Israel’s bond with the Land was intrinsically conceived as a “return,” long before expatriation and dispersion became historical realities, as is suggested by a close reading of pertinent traditions. Here are some cases in point. On the surface, the divine commandment to Abraham, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you” (Gen 12:1), does not seem to contain any notion of an implied “return” to the Land, neither by theme nor by vocabulary. However, this text should not be viewed in isolation. Rather, it must be interpreted in connection with other references to the people of Israel and the Land. Poetical passages in the Hebrew Bible reflect the idea that the Land was divinely promised to Israel at Creation, and became Israel’s inheritance for eternity, ‫אחזת עולם‬ ֻ (Gen 13:15; 17:8; Exod 32:13; Lev 25:34; Ezek 37:25 ; Joel 4:20; cf. also Judg 2:1; Hos 2:20-25; etc.). The Song of Moses extols the notion that “when the Most High divided the nations, when he dispersed all humanity [after the Tower of Babel incident; Gen 10:32; 11:8-9], he established the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of Israel,”9 and determined Israel’s inalienable 9

For our present concern it is immaterial whether the MT reading ‫ בני ישראל‬is original or whether it is a theologically motivated emendation of the reading (‫בני אל)ים‬, which underlies

324

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

right to “the Land,” i.e., God’s own land (Deut 32:7-9; cf. Exod 15:13, 17; see also Jub 8:10–9:15). Viewed from this perspective, Abraham’s sojourn in Aram Naharaim is not conceived as the original state of affairs. Rather, it is implicitly presented as an intermission between the original bestowal of the Land to Israel in hoary antiquity, and Abraham’s return there after a chronologically unspecified and theologically unexplained “intermission” of quasiexile in Ur of the Chaldeans. The cycle “Land–Exile–Restoration,” which is to determine Israel’s progress in history, is present here in concept before it became reality. It should be noted that in the above narratives Israel’s absence from the Land is reported as a plain historical fact, and is not viewed as divine punishment for the people’s transgressions. This understanding of events also becomes manifest in the account of Israel’s slavery in Egypt. The sojourn in Egypt is not presented as retribution for Israel’s failings, either in the basic account in the Book of Exodus or in the numerous references, reminiscences and allusions in other biblical writings—with the exception of the book of Ezekiel.10 The events are recorded as matters of fact, without the recriminations which are adduced in the explanations of other instances of Israel’s misfortunes.11 The period of serfdom in Egypt is proleptically referred to in Genesis 15, where the establishment of YHWH’s covenant with Abraham is recorded; viz., when Israel’s historical fate was not yet subjected to the doctrine of “sin and punishment.” In that passage, the promise of the Land, “to your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen 15:18), is directly preceded, without any explanation, by the announcement of Israel’s future enslavement in Egypt: “Know for certain that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and shall be oppressed for four hundred years;12 but I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterwards they shall come out with great possessions” (Gen 15:13-14). This phrase manifestly

10 11 12

the Greek rendition ἀγγέλων θεοῦ, and is preserved in a Qumran fragment of Deuteronomy. See Skehan, “Song of Moses.” See below. Cf., e.g., Judges 2; 2 Kings 17. For my explanation of this phrase see “Four Hundred Years,” above, 125–136.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

325

alludes to a passage in the exodus from Egypt tradition:13 “[the Israelites] had asked the Egyptians for jewelry of silver and gold, and for clothing; and the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. … The Israelites journeyed from Ramses … [with] livestock in great numbers, both flocks and herds” (Exod 12:35-38; cf. 11:2, 3; similar motifs and turns of expression are present in Ezra 1:4-6 in the description of the return from the Babylonian captivity). Through the linkage of Israel’s serfdom in Egypt with the divine bestowal of the Land in the constitutive covenant which God established with the Patriarch, the cycle of Exile–Diaspora–Restoration becomes an archetype, which is to determine Israel’s future progress in history (cf. Deut 28:68). It is important to note that only in later strata of the biblical literature is Israel’s slavery in Egypt interpreted as punishment for the people’s offenses. It appears that the prophet Ezekiel, who was active before and during the time of the Babylonian exile, was the first biblical writer who presented a new reading of the “Israel in Egypt” tradition by innovating the charge that the Israelites had served foreign gods in Egypt: “They rebelled against me … their abominations they did not cast away and did not forsake the idols of Egypt.” Therefore, they deserved to be destroyed: “I resolved to pour out my wrath and exhaust my fury on them in Egypt” (Ezek 20:8). The seemingly unwarranted enslavement in Egypt, which may have given rise to a questioning of YHWH’s acts in history, was thus brought into line with the basic terms of his covenant with Israel. Ezekiel’s reinterpretation of the “serfdom in Egypt” tradition thus resolves a question of theodicy: disaster and exile always result directly from the people’s sins. For the prophet, as for his contemporaries, and for biblical Israel altogether, corporate sinfulness unavoidably engenders corporate punishment. Therefore, disaster which befalls the nation or individuals is seen as proof of prior transgressions (cf., e.g., the book of Job). This axiom applies to Israel’s exile in Egypt, as well as to the exile of Samaria and Judah in the age of the monarchy: “In the wilderness I swore to them that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them in (foreign) countries, because they had disobeyed my laws, rejected my statutes and profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were set on their ancestors’ idols” (Ezek 20:23-24).

13

For a discussion of this allusion, see Marquis, Literary Allusions, 246.

326

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

In the book of Ezekiel the deliverance from Egyptian bondage and the trek to Canaan is viewed as an archetypal symbol of every return to the Land, rather than as the one-time prelude to Israel’s taking possession of the Land; in this context, the desert wanderings are understood as a refining process, a route de passage.14 Through the employment of terms and motifs borrowed from the exodus tradition, the envisaged return of the deported Judeans from the Babylonian exile is similarly presented as a historical renaissance: God again will lead forth his people from dispersion among the nations, “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” (Ezek 20:34, cf. Exod 6:6; Deut 4:34; 7:19; Ps 136:10-12, etc.), and will bring them back to the Land (Jer 3:14-18; 16:14-15; 29:10-19; chapter 33 passim; 50:4-20; Ezek 11:14-24; 36:7-12 etc.). After a period of catharsis (Ezek 20:41), which Deutero-Isaiah also locates in the desert (Isa 40:1-4; 41:17-20; 43:16-21; Ps 85; 126 etc., cf. Hos 2:16-17), Israel will serve YHWH “in safety” (Ezek 38–39 passim, esp. 38:8, 11; 39:26-29), as in the glorious days of David and Solomon (1 Kgs 5:5; Mic 4:10-12; cf. also 2 Sam 7:10-11). These oracles of comfort foresee another completion of the cyclical course of Exile–Diaspora–Restoration when the dispersed return to the land which God had promised to give to their ancestors (Isa 56:1-8;15 Ezek 20:42). The traditions which commemorate Israel’s return to the Land act as a counter-movement to the exiles in Babylonia and Egypt respectively, and frame biblical history like an inclusio, actually preceded by an episode set in the days of the Patriarchs. Israel’s history as a nation begins with God’s command to Abraham, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you” (Gen 12:1). The land at that time was still called “(the land of) Canaan,” not yet “the Land of Israel,” as it will be designated after the establishment of the monarchy (1 Sam 13:19), at the apex of a process of “Israelization” which extended over several centuries. The call to Abraham, which initiated the Hebrews’ history, appears to be the first stroke of a magna carta through which the de facto possession of the Land is given a theological underpinning and a de jure basis. The last line of this hypothetical magna carta may be seen in the conclusion of 2 Chronicles. In the Jewish tradition, the book of Chronicles closes the Hebrew Bible, and

14 15

See Talmon, “Desert Motif.” On these verses see my “‫יד ושם‬,” above, 211–235.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

327

is conceived as a “Deutero-Biblia.”16 Chronicles recapitulates the history of Israel from Adam (1 Chr 1:1) to the fall of the kingdom of Judah, winding up with a lament-like account of the Babylonians’ capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple (2 Chr 36:17-20). An added note presents the Judeans’ return to the land as the realization of Jeremiah’s prophecy that the restoration would come about after a preceding exile of seventy years (36:21). This note is followed by a short passage (36:22-23), quoted word by word at the beginning of the book of Ezra (Ezra 1:1-3b) as the first part of the edict issued by the Persian king Cyrus.17 In the first year of that king’s rule YHWH “stirred up” his spirit so that he permitted, in fact encouraged, the exiles in the Persian Empire, to return to their homeland: Thus speaks Cyrus king of Persia: YHWH the God of heaven … has charged me to build for him a house in Jerusalem. Whoever among you of all his people (is ready to do so) may his God be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem … and rebuild the house of YHWH, the God of Israel … in Jerusalem. (Ezra 1:2-3)

Cyrus challenges the exiles in Babylonia to return to Jerusalem, the city that stands for the Land of Israel, which YHWH had promised to give to his people. This time, the call to “go up” is not addressed to an individual, Abraham, who indeed represents the nation, but rather to the entire exilic community; and the call is not proclaimed by God, but conveyed through the Persian king Cyrus, “his anointed” (Isa 45:1). Thus, the very last word of the Hebrew Bible—‫ויעל‬, “let him go up”—echoes God’s first command to Abraham “go … to the land that I will show you” (Gen 12:1). The bracketing of Israel’s history in this ring composition highlights a Leitmotif which prevails in the biblical literature, and a central idea in the conceptual world of Judaism: the affliction of exile can never be final, but must be recurrently cured through restoration. It was inconceivable to allow 16

17

For this characterization of the book see Talmon, “Chronicles,” esp. 371. Jerome (Prologus Galeatus) designates the book a “chronicon totius divinae historiae.” Bickerman, “Edict,” convincingly argued that this piece should not be viewed as a fabricated Hebrew version of the Aramaic original in Ezra 6:3-5, produced by the editor of the book of Ezra. Rather, the Aramaic version was to be transmitted in writing to the Persian officials in the province of Yehud, whereas the Hebrew one was to be announced orally by “town– criers” to the Judean exiles in Persia, as stated in Ezra 1:1, “Cyrus king of Persia issued a proclamation throughout his kingdom, both by word of mouth and in writing.”

328

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the biblical era to end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the people of Judah (2 Chr 36:20). History must remain open-ended, leaving room for a renaissance, for a new beginning in the Land. It may be said that a distinguishing mark of the biblical universe of thought is the expectation for an imminent return from the Diaspora to the Land.18 At every time of deportation the seed for repatriation is sown. Every instance of dissolution of Israel’s body politic generates the hope of its regeneration.19 The glorified “golden age” of David and Solomon, when “Judah and Israel lived in safety, everyone under his vine and fig tree from Dan to Beersheba” (1 Kgs 5:5),20 becomes the matrix for an idealized portrayal of a future reconstitution of the realm (Mic 4:4; cf. also Ezek 38–39), within its former boundaries, with its socio-political institutions and apparatus restored. To be sure, the application of this emphatically restorative vision to the post-exilic period entailed the danger of imposing upon the totally changed Judean politeia of the age of restoration expectations and conceptions elicited from the bygone age of the monarchy. III. “EXILE” AND “DIASPORA” IN THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF BIBLICAL ISRAEL Exile and Diaspora first became a reality for biblical Israel in 722 BCE. In the wake of the Assyrian conquest of Samaria, the Northern Kingdom was phased out, after a period of sovereign political existence of about 180 years. Not satisfied with exacting tribute and taxes from its defeated enemies, the Assyrians applied to conquered Samaria their innovative tactic of deporting 18

19

20

The persistence of the conjunction of exile and return in post-biblical, medieval, and later stages of Jewish history is traced by Gilbert, Exile and Return. Martin Buber succinctly captured the essence of this fundamental idea in a letter written to Mahatma Gandhi in 1939: “Dispersion is bearable: it can even be purposeful, if somewhere there is ingathering, a growing home centre, a piece of earth wherein one is in the midst of an ingathering and not in dispersion and from whence the spirit of ingathering may work its way out to all the places of the dispersion. When there is this, there is also a striving, common life, the life of a community which dares to live today because it hopes to live tomorrow. But when this growing centre, this increasing process of ingathering is lacking, dispersion becomes dismemberment. On this criterion the question of our Jewish destiny is indissolubly bound up with the possibility of ingathering and this in Palestine.” (Buber and Magnes, Letters, 7). Cf. Talmon, “Typen,“ esp. 578–580.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

329

contingents of the population, mainly members of the upper stratum of society who could stir up a revolt, and resettling them in other regions of their vast empire (2 Kgs 17:6; 18:11; 1 Chr 5:26). It stands to reason that, like the Babylonians after their conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BCE (2 Kgs 24:14-16; see below), the Assyrians left in Samaria a leaderless population, οἱ πολλοί, that would be unable to mount effective resistance to the foreign overlord. On account of the small size of their community and their second-class status, the Ephraimite expatriates were unable to organize any resistance to their captors. Under duress, they adjusted to the difficult situation of life in exile. Neither biblical nor extra-biblical sources attest to the emergence of an Ephraimite exilic community in Assyria, marked by identifiable cultural characteristics which set it apart from the surrounding foreign society, and which differentiated the faith system of its members from that of their compatriots in the homeland who had escaped banishment. This passivity was further deepened by the fact that, at least according to the biblical sources, the Ephraimite Diaspora never developed an expectation of return to the Land. It may be said that the lack of hope for a restoration, on the spiritual horizon of both the deportees and those who remained in the land, was a primary cause of the disappearance of the ten tribes from the stage of history. Lacking the spiritual stamina for successful resistance to assimilation to the surrounding society, both in the Diaspora and in the homeland, the population of the former Northern Kingdom fell prey to a process of internal dissolution, which culminated in its final eclipse not long after the fall of Samaria.21 In consequence, the Ephraimite Diaspora in Assyria has no part in the post-exilic restitution of a new politeia in the Land, with some possible exceptions.22 At this juncture attention must be given to an Israelite colony which emerged in Egypt, numerically the smallest and historically the least significant community of expatriates. Papyri found at Elephantine in Lower Egypt provide surprisingly detailed information over a period of ca. forty years, from about 420–380 BCE, concerning a garrison of Jewish soldiers stationed there and at Syene (Aswan).23 References in some documents to earlier historical events give reason to assume that the roots of this settlement 21 22 23

Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration. See below. See Cowley, Aramaic Papyri; Meyer, Papyrusfund; Porten, Archives.

330

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

preceded the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 BCE.24 It is quite possible that the colony was founded by Judean fugitives as early as the first half of the sixth century after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 42–44), or possibly by Ephraimite expatriates in the late seventh century after the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians.25 The Elephantine papyri offer valuable insights into the internal structure of the colony and the religious outlook of its members.26 These documents show that already before the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 BCE, viz., a few decades after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the local Israelites had built for themselves a temple dedicated to YHW, located next to a shrine of the Egyptian deity Khnum, with Pharaonic authorization and subsequent Persian confirmation.27 The texts prove that other deities were worshipped in that sanctuary alongside YHW, and that his name was fused with the names of pagan gods. Moreover, the documents do not contain any indication that the members of this military colony entertained any hope of a return to the Land of Israel. They adjusted to the permanence of life in the foreign country, were soon absorbed in the Egyptian population, and became a withered branch of the people of Israel. In addition, the circumstance must be taken into account that when in 538 BCE Cyrus I issued a proclamation to the exiles “throughout his kingdom” (Ezra 1:1), Egypt had not yet been brought under Persian rule. As a result, his edict did not affect the Jews of Elephantine, who therefore had no share in the re-establishment of the Judean returnees’ community in the Land.

24

25

26 27

Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, letter no. 30. It has been suggested that the colony might have been founded by soldiers whom King Manasseh of Judah supplied to Assurbanipal in his war against Pharaoh Psammettich I (663–609 BCE). An early presence of Israelites in Egypt is perhaps suggested by Isa 11:11; an even more likely allusion is a passage which refers to “five towns in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan and swearing (allegiance) to YHWH Sabaoth,” and to “an altar (dedicated) to YHWH in the midst of the land of Egypt,” at which sacrifices and offerings are made to YHWH (Isa 19:18-22). See Vincent, Religion. See Porten et al., Elephantine Papyri, 18; Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel, 8:450-451.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

331

IV. THE JUDEANS’ EXPERIENCE OF EXILE, DIASPORA, AND RESTORATION Some 150 years after the Assyrians’ conquest of the Northern Kingdom, the Babylonians conquered the Southern Kingdom. Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple razed to the ground, and political sovereignty brought to an end (Ps 74; Lamentations).28 In an instant, the pillars which had supported the socio-religious faith system of Israel for almost half a millennium, collapsed.29 The dissolution of the realm radically impacted all aspects of national and religious life and all strata of society. Some of the striking effects of the crisis on the history and life of the citizenry of Judah can be briefly summarized, foremost the changes which affected the central societal agencies of the Israelite body politic—priesthood, monarchy, and prophecy. A. The Fate of the Priesthood and the Prophecy The sacking of the Jerusalem Temple, the most significant sphere of the priests’ predominance in the cultic domain, did not impair their institutional charisma, passed on from father to son.30 Nor did it weaken the attachment of the Judean citizenry to the sanctuary and the sacrificial service; on the contrary, they held on to the hope that the Temple would soon be rebuilt and the temporarily suspended sacrificial worship would again be performed by the priests. The priesthood seemingly weathered the débâcle unscathed, and in the age of restoration would resume its preferential standing in the post-exilic community. In contrast, in the wake of these fateful events, kingship and prophecy suffered a significant decline in their social institutional status. The failure of the last Davidic rulers to withstand the enemy, to save Jerusalem and to preserve national sovereignty—at first in 597 BCE, in the days of Jehoiachin, and then in 586 BCE, in the days of Zedekiah—severely undermined the status of the monarchy. The Babylonians appointed Gedaliah ben Aḫiqam governor of the province of Judah, a scion of the Shaphan family that for generations had given high-ranking officials to the Davidic court.31 The appointment of Gedaliah was a demonstrative departure from the policy of 28 29 30 31

See, inter alia, Gottwald, Studies. See Talmon, “Kingship and Ideology”; idem, “Jewish Sectarianism,” esp. 176–179. See Weber, Ancient Judaism, 294, 395–397, etc. See Ward, “Shaphan”; Ahituv, “Shaphan.”

332

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach, who had accorded royal status to the captive Jehoiachin, as suggested by the contents of tablets found in the cellars of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace in Babylon32 (2 Kgs 25:27-30; cf. Jer 52:31-34).33 Members of the Davidic house were quick to perceive in the installment as head of the province of a man who was not of Davidic descent a threat to a future restitution of the monarchy, and conspired to nip this danger in the bud by murdering Gedaliah (Jer 41:1-3). However, many Judeans, and with them the prophet Jeremiah, acquiesced in the appointment of a “commoner” to this high office. By thus signaling their readiness to accept a non-monarchic form of government, they created a precedent which was to have a sequel in the age of restoration. After the last Davidic pretender, Zerubbabel,34 disappeared from the public scene, none of his descendants (cf. 1 Chr 3:19-20) assumed office after him.35 The returnees then readily submitted to the leadership of Nehemiah, another commoner appointed governor of the province of Yehud by a foreign king, Artaxerxes of Persia (see below). Prophets, too, had failed in their primary mission. In distinction from soothsayers, whose reliability was considered proven if events which they prognosticate unfailingly came about, the prophets’ task was achieved if what they had foreseen did not materialize. Their pronouncements by definition were conditional. Their messages always contained an element of choice: “If you do this, this will happen; but if you do that, then …” They threatened that YHWH would bring doom and destruction upon the people if they persisted in their misconduct, always with the expectation that

32

33

34

35

See, inter alia, Wiseman, Chaldean Kings, 32–35, 72–73; Albright, “King Jehoiachin”; Weidner, “Jojachin.” In the first stage of the Return, the Persian kings emulated this policy. Thus, Cyrus delivered the Temple vessels to Sheshbazzar, ‫( הנשיא ליהודה‬Ezra 1:7-8), and Darius I recognized Jehoiachin’s grandson Zerubbabel (1 Chr 3:17-18) as the head of the returnees’ community. The relation of Zerubbabel to Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:7-11; 5:13-15) remains a vexing problem. An excellent discussion of the issue is provided by Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel.” See further, Demsky, “Double Names.” Haggai’s (Hag 2:20-23) and Zechariah’s presentations of Zerubbabel as the incumbent king in the line of David (Zech 4:6-10; 6:9-15) was called into question by Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel. His proposition that these oracles have a messianic rather than a historic thrust is unconvincing. See Rothstein, Genealogie; Liver, House of David.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

333

through their warnings their compatriots would repent, and that disaster would thus be averted. Hence, when a prophet’s fateful pronouncements did come to pass, a rather perplexing situation arose. On the one hand, the divine origin of his call thus was irrefutably revealed. However, on the other hand, his audience could interpret the fulfillment of his doom oracles not only as proof that he had failed in his primary responsibility of averting the disaster, but also as proving the inefficacy of YHWH who had not prevented it.36 Some of Jeremiah’s contemporaries drew exactly this conclusion. When his warnings had come true, thus demonstrating the authenticity of his mission, they flagrantly continued to reject his counsel. Fearing the Babylonians’ revenge for the murder of Gedaliah, and in defiance of Jeremiah’s advice to remain in the Land, these Judeans fled to Egypt, and dragged the prophet with them (Jeremiah 43–44). At a time when all that he had predicted came to pass, they flagrantly disavowed the prophet, and also the God of Israel who had sent him: As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of YHWH, we are not going to listen to you. Instead, we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the Queen of Heaven37 [Astarte] and pour out libations to her. … [For] from the time we stopped making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have perished by the sword and by famine. (Jer 44:15-18)

The taunts of the Judean expatriates show that Jeremiah had achieved exactly the opposite of what he had set out to achieve. At the end of his career he was faced with the abnegation by his compatriots of all he had advocated, and with a proclaimed acceptance of paganism. His exit from the scene after this confrontation with the Judean emigrants in Egypt, 36

37

Jonah is the only divinely appointed biblical prophet who failed to grasp the intrinsic task of his mission—namely, to prevail upon the sinful inhabitants of Nineveh to repent. In fact, when they did show penitence, and their city was saved, Jonah complained that his prestige as a prophet had been jeopardized. His story proves by a negative example the basic conditional nature of true biblical prophecy. The reading ‫למ ֶל ֶכת השמים‬ ְ is evidently intended to gloss over the pagan overtones of the original reading, ‫למ ְל ַכּת השמים‬. ַ Letters found at Elephantine which are addressed to Arameans, prove that in Persian times neighbors of the Judean soldiers’ colony indeed worshiped the “Queen of Heaven.”

334

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

leaving the termination of his life history untold, and his book without a proper ending, cannot be explained as being due to the lack of information on his fate. Rather, his enigmatic eclipse heralds the waning in the Second Temple period of prophecy as it had developed in the age of the monarchy. B. The Fate of the Population of Judah The conquerors deported a sizable segment of the Judean citizenry to Babylonia, foremost members of the upper strata of society, leaving behind “the weakest of the people,” ‫ דלת הארץ‬or ‫יתר ההמון‬, “to be vinedressers and farmers” (2 Kgs 25:11-12; Jer 39:10; 40:9-12). Only these contingents of Israelites would appear on the scene in the age of restoration. At that time the community of returning exiles would play the major role in the shaping of the profile of the reconstituted politeia of Israel, in bitter collision with the mixed local population, the ‫עם הארץ‬, composed of Judeans and Ephraimites who had escaped deportation by the Babylonians and Assyrians respectively, with the added component of foreigners whom the victorious enemies had settled in the former Israelite territory (2 Kgs 17:24-34). B.1. The Remnant in the Land War, hunger and plagues decimated the population of Judah. Deportation robbed it of its leading citizens. However, the societal infrastructure remained basically intact.38 The remnant in the Land suffered economic hardship and oppression at the hands of the conquerors (Jeremiah 40–41), but their lifestyle did not change essentially. Farmers and vine growers continued to cultivate their holdings and reaped the fruits of their labor (cf. Jer 41:7-8).39 Biblical texts give reason to assume that a rudimentary ritual service was maintained or soon reinstated on the site of the destroyed Temple of Jerusalem, to which inhabitants of the defunct kingdom of Samaria were also attracted (Jer 41:4-5; Ezra 4:2; 2 Chr 30:1-6). However, at the same time, the agricultural population persisted in adhering to the Canaanite syncretism which had developed in Israel since the settlement in Canaan, through the

38

39

The point is forcefully argued by Barstad, Myth. See also Talmon, “Jewish Sectarianism,” 186–193. Marquard, Die Juden, 63: “Die einfachen Leute von Palästina sorgten dafür, daß die Geschichte Israels nicht nur Geschichte des Exils war, sondern auch Geschichte Israels im Land.”

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

335

infusion of indigenous polytheistic beliefs and cultic customs into biblical monotheistic faith (Jer 44:15-18). B.2. The Judean Diaspora in Babylonia The composition and character of the Diaspora community in Babylonia/ Persia differed fundamentally from the peasant society in the Land of Israel, and from the Jewish military colony in Egypt. There were certainly exiles in Babylonia who successfully integrated into the dominant society—like the House of Murashu, whose business archive was discovered at ancient Nippur40—and in the process cut their ties with the Land. An illustration of their conduct of life may be found in the book of Esther, which rightly has been identified as typical Diaspora literature.41 The upper stratum of this exilic community is marked by a self–centered mentality. There is no mention in the book of an attachment to the Land of Israel or a hope of restoration, no reference to the history of Israel,42 no sign of adherence to the biblical commandments. Mordecai, Esther, and presumably also the privileged among their compatriots, revel at the table of Ahasuerus without concern for biblical dietary injunctions (Esth 1:3-9; 2:18).43 In contrast, Daniel and his friends meticulously observe biblical food taboos and subsist on a frugal diet of seeds and water, rather than partaking of the king’s provision of unclean meat and wine (Dan 1:5-16). Esther, Mordecai’s foster child, with his permission became the wife of a heathen king, a fact which the author of the tale reports in great detail, and without censure. A completely different portrayal is presented in other biblical accounts, which pertain to another component of the Diaspora community that adamantly refused to accept as final life away from the Land (Ps 137).44 This attitude is clearly reflected in a letter of admonition which Jeremiah dispatched to “the

40

41

42

43 44

Hilprecht and Clay, Business Documents I; idem, Business Documents II; idem, Publications; Cogan, “Life in the Diaspora”; idem, Personal Names. Humphreys, “Life Style”; Talmon, “Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles,” esp. 353–355; idem, “Wisdom in Esther.” The only exception is the biographical note concerning Mordecai’s forebears who had been among the Judeans exiled with King Jeconiah/Joiachin in 597 BCE (Esth 2:5-6). Contrast Judith 10:5; 12:1-2. See Ephʿal, “Western Minorities” (esp. 80–81); Zadok, “The Nippur Region”; idem, The Jews in Babylonia.

336

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Diaspora elders, the priests and prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadrezzar had deported” in 597 BCE, together with King Jeconiah/Jehoiachin: “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Marry wives and beget sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters; and you may increase there and not dwindle.45 Seek the welfare of the city to which I have deported you, and pray to YHWH on its behalf, for on its welfare your welfare will depend” (Jer 29:1-7). The message throws light on the state of suspense in which the exiles lived. Encouraged by the pronouncement of “false prophets” (Jer 27:14-18; 28:15; 29:8-32) that the return to the Land was imminent (28:2–4,11), they refused to sink roots in the foreign soil, to the extent of refraining from establishing families, building houses and cultivating orchards, all of which symbolize permanence. Rather, with their bags packed, so to speak, they kept them-selves ready for departure at any moment. Jeremiah shared their view. He never put into question the promise of a return to the Land: “When a full seventy years has passed … I will take up your cause and fulfill the promise of good things I made you, by bringing you back to this place … I will restore your fortunes and gather you again from all the nations and all the places to which I have banished you … and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile” (Jer 29:10-14; cf. 3:11-18; 16:14-15; 23:1-8; 50:18-20). However, foreseeing an exile of seventy years (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10; Zech 1:12; 7:5; Dan 9:2; 2 Chr 36:21), viz., of about three generations, he admonished the Diaspora community to establish a quasi-normal life so as to safeguard the survival of the community until the hour for the return would come. This advice does not evince a Diaspora-affirming philosophy, as sometimes is claimed. Rather, it must be appreciated against the background of Jeremiah’s allegiance to the Land, which he proclaimed in his prophecies, and his rejection of Nebuchadnezzar’s and his general Nebuzaradan’s invitation to join the deportees, come to Babylon, and live there in safety (Jer 39:11; 40:1-6). In distinction from the Jewish colony in Elephantine, the Babylonian Diaspora never considered building a local sanctuary to fill the void in their religious and cultic life after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. The

45

Another allusion to the “exile” in Egypt (cf. Exod 1:7-12 etc.).

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

337

conjecture that the institution of the synagogue has its roots in the Diaspora is without proof. While there are mentions in the book of Ezekiel of gatherings in Babylonia at which the prophet addressed his compatriots (Ezek 3:10-16; 11:14-25 etc.), none contains a reference to cultic rites or ceremonies, such as communal prayer.46 The reason for the exiles’ abstinence from fashioning new forms of worship was their expectation of an impending return to their Land in their own days, and the restitution of the traditional sacrificial service in the rebuilt Temple, an expectation which the prophet shared (Ezek 11:16-20; 36:8-12; 37:11-14; 38:8-12; 39:25-29; 40–48 etc.). In sum, it can be said that the Judeans in the Babylonian Diaspora were caught in an existential tension of the expected, yet unrealized, hope for a return to their Land in a foreseeable future. Towards this end they fervently guarded their particular identity, which would give them the strength to seize the opportunity of return at a given point in history. The Diaspora lived in the self–imposed containment of a quasi-messianic “ghetto,” and left it up to the surrounding society to take care of the routine demands which the life of a sovereign nation places upon its citizens. This turning away from the world around them induced an introspection and an enhanced consciousness of the inherent values of the biblical faith. Their circumstances nourished a particular piety, unimpaired by the inevitable impact of the ever-changing demands of mundane life upon the strict observance of the immutable divine law. The intensified Torah devotion did not remain tied to the distinct circumstances of Diaspora existence. Rather, in the age of restoration it would come into full bloom in the covenant renewal of YHWH with his people (Ezra 9–10; Neh 9–11), and become the axis around which the life of the individual and the community revolved. In the returnees’ universe of thought merged a worldly-wise realism, tied to the concreteness of the Land of Israel, with a messianic-styled faith, rooted in the age of the monarchy and perfected through the Torah–based Diaspora experience.47

46 47

Talmon, “Institutionalized Prayer.” See Talmon, “Concepts.”

338

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

V. MULTICENTRICITY VERSUS MONOCENTRICITY48 In addition to the drastically changed status of kingship, priesthood, and prophecy, another factor must be brought under scrutiny, which severely affected Israel after Samaria and Judah had fallen to the Assyrians and the Babylonians respectively. In the wake of the deportation of considerable contingents of their citizens there arose, as stated, diverse settlements of Ephraimites and Judeans in the Land of Israel and abroad that developed different interpretations of their common heritage. The geographical compactness of “all Israel” dissolved, and likewise the intrinsic cohesion, which in past history had ameliorated political tensions between the two Israelite kingdoms. Multicentricity supplanted the former monocentricity; multiformity replaced an inherent uniformity; heterogeneity superseded homogeneity rooted in shared traditions. In distinction from the Samarian Diaspora in Assyria and from the military colony in Egypt, both of which faded away, the deportation of contingents of Judeans in 597 and 586 BCE (2 Kgs 25; cf. Jer 39:1-10; 52:1-16, and especially 52:24-30) resulted, as said, in the forced or voluntary establishment of closely knit communities, e.g., in Tel-Abib on the river Kebar (Ezek 3:15, cf. 1:3), and Casiphia, a locality which appears to have been settled predominantly by Levites (Ezra 8:17). Of special interest in this respect are groups of returnees to the Land of Israel whose lineage was in doubt because they “could not remember their father’s family (names) nor prove that they were of Israelite descent.” Their being Israelites was solely suggested by the fact that they hailed from the otherwise unknown Babylonian localities Tel–Melaḥ, Tel–Ḥarša, Kerub, Adan/Adon and Immer, which may have been mostly or exclusively inhabited by exiles (Ezra 2:59; Neh 7:61). These returnees might have been descendants of Judeans whom the Babylonians had exiled before the capture of Jerusalem in 597 and 586 BCE, or of Ephraimites whom the Assyrians deported after the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE. These expatriates would have lived in the Diaspora for an appreciably longer time than the majority of the returnees, and therefore would have been especially prone to losing information about their ancestry.49 48 49

See Talmon, “Jewish Sectarianism,” 176–186. It has been suggested that they were proselytes who joined the returnees. See commentaries ad loc., e.g Myers, Ezra–Nehemiah. These camp-followers may be likened to the “mixed company of strangers,” ‫( ערב רב‬Exod 12:38) or “the rabble,” ‫אספסף‬ ֻ (Num 11:4) that joined

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

339

The plurality of communities in the Land of Israel and abroad was a phenomenon which biblical Israel had never before experienced. In the period of the monarchy, the nation indeed had been divided into two political entities—Judah and Ephraim. However, as I have said, until the fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Assyrians and the Southern to the Babylonians, the life of the people of Israel was marked by a persuasive geographical compactness, and a fundamental cultural and religious uniformity of the two entities. The emergence of several self-contained entities in the wake of deportation and emigration necessitated the reexamination and reaffirmation of established values in the realm of faith and socio-political outlook. The problem became especially acute after the return of appreciably large contingents of Judeans to the Land of Israel. At that time, the quite different developments to which the repatriated exiles, on the one hand, and the local population that had never left the Land, on the other, had been subjected, inevitably led to acrimonious confrontations, reported in Ezra– Nehemiah and alluded to in the books of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. These transformative processes decisively shaped the constitution of the “people of Israel” in the age of restoration. VI. THE AGE OF RESTORATION50 The fragmentariness of the biblical sources, and the paucity of extra-biblical evidence, has caused the views of scholars on the course of events in the age of restoration diverge considerably, so much so that Torrey questions the very historicity of the “Return.”51 In contrast, the reflections presented above presuppose that the books of Ezra–Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and to some extent the book of Malachi in conjunction with these, reflect rather accurately the course of internal events pertaining to the restitution of the post-exilic res publica. The concepts which reverberate in the literature of the period reveal the returnees’ resolve to base their politeia on an adaptation of the societal structures of the monarchic era, at times interwoven with an

50 51

the Israelites for the exodus from Egypt. They are possibly denoted by the phrase “all those of mixed blood,” ‫כל ערב‬, who in Nehemiah’s days “were separated from Israel” (Neh 13:3). Ephʿal, “Syria–Palestine”; idem, “Changes.” See Torrey, Composition and Historical Value. A concise summary of the discussion may be found in Talmon, “Ezra–Nehemiah,” below, 355–377, esp. 355–357.

340

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

innovative interpretation of traditional values.52 It is this symbiosis of conservation and innovation which shaped the physiognomy of their res publica.53 The former political separation in the monarchic era between the Southern and Northern Kingdoms then turned into a predominantly religious discord between the community of the Judean returnees, among them presumably also some Ephraimites who had joined them (see below), and their opponents, who had never experienced life in exile, i.e., “the people of the land” (Ezra 4:4), who are decried as “enemies of Judah and Benjamin” (4:1). This fundamental change shows in the reversed signification of key concepts and terms. In the pre-exilic period, the semantic field of ‫ גולה‬had a radically negative connotation, whereas “the Land (of Israel)” and everything connected with it was invested with an intrinsically positive content (see above). In the age of Restoration, these terms are subjected to a contextual conversion. The exiles of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; 10:9; Neh 11:2-9 etc.), and members of the tribe of Levi (Ezra 2:36-41, 70 = Neh 7:39–45, 72; Ezra 6:19-22; Neh 8:9-11; 10:29; 11:10-30 etc.), who return from the captivity, ‫( השבים מהגולה‬Ezra 6:21; cf. Ps 126:1; 14:7 = 53:7) or ‫( העֹלים משבי הגולה‬Ezra 2:1; Neh 7:6), present themselves as the only true “seed of Israel,” ‫( זרע הקֹדש‬Ezra 9:2): as “the divine congregation,” ‫( קהל האלהים‬Neh 13:1) that had experienced life in exile.54 They ostentatiously refer to themselves by the epithets ‫הגולה‬ (Ezra 1:11; 9:4; 10:6; Neh 7:6), ‫( בני הגולה‬Ezra 4:1; 6:19,20; 8:35; 10:7-8, 16), ‫( בני גלותא‬6:16), and ‫( קהל הגולה‬10:8, cf. 2:64 = Neh 7:66; Neh 5:13; 8:2, 17), using these epithets as honorific appellations, and thereby setting themselves off against the “people of the land,” the ‫ עם הארץ‬or ‫עמי הארצות‬/‫( גויי‬Ezra 3:2-3; 4:4; 6:21; 9:1,2,11; Neh 6:1; 9:30; 10:29-32 cf. 6:16). This segment of the local population was predominantly comprised of former citizens of defunct Samaria who are accused of indulging in “abominations” (Ezra 9:11, cf. 9:14), along with a sprinkling of Judeans who had not been exposed to the purifying experience of the exile. Some of these Judeans also “separated

52

53 54

Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel, 8:291–293, discerned in the literature of the period vestiges of hermeneutical techniques which later inform the rabbinic sages’ interpretations of biblical texts. Cf. also Seeligmann, “Midraschexegese.” See Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration; idem, Continuity, esp. 20–25; Thomas, “Sixth Century.” The authors of the Damascus Document and other Covenanters’ writings from Qumran apply these and similar epithets to their community (see below).

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

341

themselves from the people of the land and their uncleanness” (Ezra 6:21). In the days of Nehemiah, they show their willingness to join the “holy seed,” whose salvation the prophet Isaiah had foreseen (Isa 6:13), by warning the returnees “ten times” of the evil designs of their enemies (Neh 4:5-8 = LXX 2 Esdr 4:6).55 In reports pertaining to the age of restoration, members of the returnees’ community are accused of intermarrying with ‫ עמי הארצות‬and with blending into their society (Ezra 9:1-2; Neh 13:4-30). It should be noted that the accusations of connubium with the local population are raised only in texts which relate to the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 7–10; Neh 9:2; 13:1-3, 23-30), and never in reference to the early phase of restoration reported in the “Book of Zerubbabel” (Ezra 1–6).56 Likewise, while there is no mention of “mixed marriages” in the books of Haggai and Zechariah, who prophesied in the days of Zerubbabel, this issue is a matter of grave concern to the prophet Malachi who is mostly dated to c. 400 BCE, viz., to the waning phase of the period of restoration.57 A synopsis of the available sources leads to the identification of three stages in the age of restoration: 1. The era of Zerubbabel (520–515 BCE), in which the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak and the prophets Haggai and Zechariah were also active. 2. The era of Ezra and Nehemiah which, according to the biblical tradition extended from Ezra’s return in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:7), viz., 458 BCE to about 420, to the end of Nehemiah’s second term of office, which began in the thirty-third year of that king’s reign (Neh 13:6-7), viz., in 432 BCE. 3. The intervening period of close to sixty years (515–458 BCE) is not documented in the biblical sources. Allusions in the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah give reason to assume that in this span of time the returnees’ res publica, initiated by Zerubbabel, to a large degree disintegrated (Hag 1:7-14; 2:2-9; Zech 1:16-17; Ezra 6:14-15 etc.).

55 56 57

This appears to be the sense of the truncated text. For this designation of the first six chapters of the book of Ezra, see Talmon, “Books and Men.” See Talmon, “Ezra–Nehemiah,” below, 371–372.

342

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

A. The Era of Zerubbabel58 Biblical historical and prophetic accounts (Hag passim; Zech 4) make it clear that Zerubbabel, a scion of the Davidic dynasty (1 Chr 3:19), played the central role in the first major stage of the age of Restoration (Ezra 2:2; 3:8; 4:2-3; 5:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1, 47). The exact beginning of this phase cannot be established with certainty, because the reports do not explicate the date of Zerubbabel’s return to the Land of Israel at the head of a considerable contingent of exiles (Ezra 2:1-65 = Neh 7:6-67). The event most probably occurred before 530 BCE, the last year of Cyrus’ reign. It is unlikely that his successor Cambyses, who presumably was unsympathetic to the Judeans, would have permitted the return to their homeland of such a large number of expatriates. The era of Zerubbabel ends with his unexplained disappearance from the scene after the dedication of the rebuilt Temple on the 3rd of Adar in year six of the reign of Darius I (Ezra 6:15), viz., in 516/515 BCE. A.1. Already in the initial stage of the Restoration, there reemerged the triad of pivotal public leaders of the monarchic period—king, priest, and prophet, although in a changed constellation. In the era of the monarchy, the prophets, invested with Amtscharisma, had been in opposition to the mostly allied kings and priests; whereas in the restored Judean body politic, the personal-charisma-bearing prophets Haggai and Zechariah join hands with the royal scion Zerubbabel against the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak. The pre-exilic prophets had looked askance at the sacrificial worship conducted by the priests, whom they found lacking in moral commitment and obedience to the divine commandments, Haggai and Zechariah adopted a decidedly positive attitude toward the Temple and saw in its restitution the capstone of the restoration (Hag 1:7–2:9; 2:15-23; Zech 1:12-17; 2:14-17; 8:1-23). Haggai castigated his fellows for being slow in the rebuilding of the 58

I hope yet to reexamine in a separate publication the proposition that the name ‫זרבבל‬ reflects the Hebrew appellation ‫זרע בבל‬, and was meant to commemorate the fact that its bearer had been born in Babylon; and that the foreign, possibly theophoric name Sheshbazzar was the official court–name of the same individual. See S. Japhet’s concise discussion of the issue (“Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel”). The name Sheshbazzar bears comparison, inter alia, with the name Esther, which most probably was given to Mordecai’s adoptive daughter Hadassah (Esth 2:7) at the court of Ahasuerus, and the Babylonian names given to Daniel and his three compatriots at the court of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 1:6-7).

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

343

House of God: “Is it time for you to live comfortably in your own houses, while this [YHWH’s] house lies in ruins?” (Hag 1:4). He decried their slackness as the reason for the misfortunes which had befallen them—drought, blighted crops, failure of the harvest (1:6, 10-11); and he promised overenthusiastically that from “this day,” viz., the day of the laying of the Temple’s foundation, their lot would take a turn for the better, and YHWH would bless their labor and their land (Hag 2:15, 18-19). A.2. In the monarchic period, the prophets had perpetually criticized the kings’ handling of the affairs of the realm. In contrast, Haggai and Zechariah are in full accord with Zerubbabel who, as has been said, was of royal descent, irrespective of whether he was the son of Shealtiel (Haggai passim; Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1) or Pedaiah;59 in David’s genealogy the names of both men are recorded among those of King Jehoiachin’s sons (1 Chr 3:16-19). His royal status was fully recognized by the post-exilic historiographers (Ezra 2:2 = Neh 7:7), and was reaffirmed in prophetic pronouncements and visions (Hag 2:20-23; Zech 3, esp. 3:10; 4:1-14; 6:9-14),60 in which “olives” and “olive branches” transparently symbolize a king’s anointment. Moreover, in the book of Haggai (Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21), and in an official Aramaic missive ascribed to Darius I (Ezra 6:7), Zerubbabel is called ‫פחה‬ (1 Esdr 6:26 adds τὸν παῖδα τοῦ κυρίου Ζοροβαβελ). He is also known by the honorific title ‫( התרשתא‬Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65, 69).61 These designations suggest that in recognition of his royal descent, the Persian rulers appointed him governor of the province of Yehud. This postulate gains further support if the hypothesis can be upheld that Zerubbabel is but another name of Sheshbazzar, ‫הנשיא ליהודה‬, whom Cyrus had put in charge of the province, ‫( )ל(ששבצר שמה די פחה שמה‬Ezra 5:14),62 and to whom the king’s treasurer Mithredath handed over the holy vessels, which the Babylonians had carried away, in order to return them to the Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:7-11; 5:14-15). 59

60

61 62

The question of the name of Zerubbabel’s father needs to be addressed in connection with the identification of Sheshbazzar. Note that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah confer upon Zerubbabel the Hoheitstitel ‫עבד‬ and ‫( צמח‬Hag 2:23; Zech 3:8; 6:12; cf. Jer 23:5; 33:15; 1 Esdr 6:26), which in the biblical tradition recurrently signify the election of David and his line (Hag 2:23, cf. 1 Sam 16:8-10; 2 Sam 6:21; 1 Kgs 8:16 = 2 Chr 6:6; 1 Kgs 11:34; 1 Chr 29:1 etc.). Nehemiah likewise is called ‫( פחה‬Neh 5:14, 18; 12:26) and ‫( תרשתא‬8:9; 10:2). See below. See above, n. 33.

344

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

A.3. The biblical sources bear witness to the paramount importance in the restoration period of priesthood, Temple and sacrificial service in the faith system of the repatriates, and the resulting prominence of the cultic personnel in the reconstituted community. The book of Ezra reports that, after having settled in their towns, the returnees assembled in Jerusalem on the seventh month,63 restored the altar on the site of the destroyed sanctuary (Ezra 3:1-3), and started preparations for the rebuilding of the Temple (3:8–4:5; 5:6; cf. Haggai passim; Zech 2:1–4:14; 6:9–8:23).64 Further, the three somewhat differing versions of the roster of repatriates (Ezra 2; Nehemiah 7; 1 Esdras 5) attest to the surprisingly large contingent of over 4000 priests and several hundred Levites, singers, and gatekeepers, who together made up 10–14% of the of the first wave of exiles returning with Zerubbabel. This echelon of cultic personnel assured the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak of a paramount standing in the community. In the book of Haggai, Zerubbabel and Joshua are recurrently mentioned together, always with their full titles— Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel the governor of Yehud, ‫פחת יהודה‬, and Joshua son of Jehozadak the high priest ‫( הכהן הגדול‬Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4)—which thereby stresses their joint leadership. Some of Zechariah’s oracles make it fully apparent that there soon developed a power struggle between the two leaders (Zech 3:1-8). The contention was seemingly resolved through a division of the spheres of competence: Zerubbabel was to take charge of the mundane affairs of the res publica, including the supervision of the rebuilding of the Temple (Zech 4:8-9; 6:12), whereas the high priest was to administer the Temple, and have control of its courts (3:6-8). This balanced arrangement differs fundamentally from the inferior position of the priesthood vis-à-vis the kings in the age of the monarchy. At that time, the royal ruler was not only in charge of the secular affairs of the realm, but also exercised close supervision of Temple affairs (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 12:5-17 = 2 Chr 24:4-14; 2 Kgs 22–23 = 2 Chr 34–35; 2 Chr 17:7-9; 26:16-19; 29–31; 33:15-16), and could

63

64

These events presumably occurred in the first year of the return, since the following text refers to “the second year after their return to the house of God in Jerusalem, in the second month” (Ezra 3:8). There is no need to go here into the question of whether these operations began soon after Zerubbabel’s arrival in Jerusalem; or were discontinued because of interventions by the local population (Ezra 3:3), and resumed in the reign of Darius I; or whether the rebuilding of the Temple only was initiated in 520 BCE.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

345

even appoint or depose the high priest at will (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; cf. 2 Chr 24:20-22). The parity of Zerubbabel’s and Joshua’s positions in the returnees’ community highlights the increase of prestige and power of the priestly hierarchy, and the concomitant decrease of the standing of the monarchy in the wake of the débâcle of 586 BCE, to which I already have drawn attention. The de facto parity is given a quasi-constitutional underpinning in Zechariah’s visions of “two olives (or: olive trees)” (Zech 4:3, 11), and “two olive sprays” (4:12). This imagery represents “the two men consecrated with oil, ‫בני היצהר‬, who attend the Lord of all the earth” (4:14), an evident reference to the anointment of both king and high priest (Exod 29:7; 40:13, 15; Num 3:3; 35:25 etc.). In distinction from the monocephalic structure of the state of Judah in the era of the monarchy, the renewed Judean politeia is to be bicephalic. This concept is explicated in the divine instruction to the prophet to “put a crown on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest” (Zech 6:11), and in the ensuing reference to Zerubbabel, “the Branch who will shoot up … will assume royal dignity, will be seated on his throne and govern, with a priest at his right side” (vv. 12-13). The passage winds up with the expectation that “concord (‫ )עצת שלום‬shall prevail between them” (6:13; cf. Jer 33:17-22).65 It cannot be ascertained whether Zechariah’s plan of a bicephalic government was realized in the returnees’ politeia. However, it was adopted by the Community of the Renewed Covenant as the blueprint of Israel’s envisioned future res publica. B. The Era of Ezra and Nehemiah Biblical sources do not offer any explicit information on the span of time of approximately sixty years between the ending of the epoch of Zerubbabel and the onset of the era of Ezra and Nehemiah (516–454 BCE), which remains a tabula rasa to a large degree. However, as I have said, it appears that in this period the returnees’ community underwent a profound decline, which is vividly described in the words of the messengers who came from the Land 65

I assume that the somewhat difficult Zechariah text originally spoke of a crown and a throne accorded severally to both Zerubbabel and Joshua as insignia of their complementary governmental functions. It was thus correctly understood, inter alia, in Gen. Rab. 97 on Zech 4:7-23 (ed. Theodor–Albeck, 1212); Num. Rab. 14:13 (p. 63a) on Num 7:84; Sifra (Torat Kohanim) on Lev 7:34 (ed. Weiss, 40a); ʾAbot R. Nat. 34 (ed. Schechter, 100–101).

346

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

of Israel to meet with Nehemiah in Susa, the capital of the Persian realm: “Those who remained of the (community of returnees from the) captivity … are facing great trouble and reproach; the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, its gates destroyed by fire” (Neh 1:1-3). The return of Ezra and Nehemiah66 ushered in an entirely new phase in the history of the age of restoration. This phase is marked by a radical change in the standing of monarchy, priesthood, and prophecy and in their interaction in the post-exilic community. B.1. The book(s) of Ezra and Nehemiah are replete with the names of individual priests, and with rosters of priestly families, Levites, and other groups of cultic personnel (Neh 11:15-23; 12:1-26), who regularly fulfilled their traditional services in the Temple (Ezra 8:24-35), and received their allotted shares of tithes, sacrifices, etc. (Neh 10:33-40; 12:47; 13:30-31). They also took part in mundane affairs of the community, such as the reconstruction of the city wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3:1, 20-22, 28-29), and its inauguration ceremonies (12:27-46). Some texts mention a succession of high priests (12:10-11) who took office after Zerubbabel’s contemporary Joshua son of Jehozadak. Joshua’s son Joiakim was active in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (12:26), and so was his grandson Eliashib (3:20; 13:4), who allied himself with Tobiah the Ammonite, one of Nehemiah’s antagonists (2:10; ch. 6 passim; 13:4-8). A grandson of Eliashib married a daughter of Sanballat (13:28), Nehemiah’s archenemy. In all the episodes reported, the cultic personnel, including the high priests, play a subsidiary role, even in the public reading of the Law during the seven days of the Sukkoth festival, a religious event par excellence (Nehemiah 8–9). The Levites officiate as a sort of aides-decamp to Ezra and Nehemiah, who are unmis-takably center stage (8:7). None of the high priests could ever vie with Ezra over the leadership of the community, and even less so with Nehemiah, or aspire to a division of spheres of authority with them, like Joshua could in the days of Zerubbabel. In the latter part of the age of restoration, the high priests were evidently relegated to the traditional position of cultic functionaries, which they had occupied in the era of the monarchy.

66

The sequence and the exact dates of their arrivals remain under scholarly discussion. I have suggested that the traditional order be upheld, as long as no decisive argument for a reversal can be adduced. See Talmon, “Books and Men,” esp. 324–328.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

347

B.2. Zerubbabel was not succeeded by any of his direct descendants, although the names of five generations of his offspring are registered in the roster of David’s genealogy (1 Chr 3:19-24). Nehemiah’s assertion that he and his men never “drew on the governor’s allowance of food, from the day of his appointment as ‫ פחה‬in the land of Judah” (Neh 5:14-15), unlike “the governors who preceded him and had laid a heavy burden on the people,” cannot refer to Zerubbabel. It must be aimed at governors who were in charge of the province in the undocumented interval of some sixty years between the days of Zerubbabel and Ezra. Nachman Avigad identified the name of one such official on two bullae of unknown provenance, which he confidently dated to the late sixth century BCE.67 One bears the inscription ‫לאלנתן פחה‬, the other the legend ‫יהד לשלמית אמת אלנתן‬. He concluded that ‫אמה‬ serves here as a term of court etiquette, and identified the owner of the bulla with Zerubbabel’s daughter Shelomit (1 Chr 3:19) who was married to Elnathan, her father’s successor (515–?). Several stamped jar fragments found at Ramat Rachel, which can be dated to the first half of the fifth century, help in partly completing the picture.68 One group bears the impression ‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫( יהוד‬about 490–?), the other reads ‫( לאחזי פחוא‬c. 470–?). Both were evidently made with seals belonging to two governors. These three names impressed on the jar handles are not mentioned in David’s genealogy, which seems to suggest that none was of the Davidic line. Since their terms of office coincided with the lifetimes of three successive generations of Zerubbabel’s descendants (1 Chr 3:19-22), it is reasonable to conclude that after him the Persian overlords charged commoners of distinction with the government of the province, much as the Babylonians had commissioned Gedaliah. Champions of the Davidic dynasty had counteracted Gedaliah’s appointment. And if Nehemiah’s negative appreciation of his predecessors mirrors historical facts, Zerubbabel’s successors may also have encountered antagonism, although for different reasons. However, the acceptance of Gedaliah in the post-Destruction days by most Judeans had created a precedent which paved Nehemiah’s way in the age of restoration. His memoirs give reason to believe that the post-exilic community acclaimed his leadership without reserve, although he was not a “shoot grown from the stock of Jesse” (Isa 11:1), 67 68

Avigad, Discovery; Cf. Talmon, “Books and Men,” 325–327. Avigad, “New Class.”

348

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

and a foreign king, Artaxerxes I, had put him in office. His unrivaled supreme authority in every sphere of public life marks the nadir in the standing of the monarchy, which had begun its decline in the wake of the Babylonians’ conquest of Judah. B.3. In the historiographical accounts pertaining to the era of Ezra and Nehemiah no prophet plays a role, in contradistinction to the intensive involvement of Haggai and Zechariah in the affairs of the Judean res publica in Zerubbabel’s time. The solitary mention of “the prophetess Noadiah and all the other prophets,” who joined forces with Nehemiah’s archenemies Tobiah and Sanballat, proves the point (Neh 6:14).69 True or genuine prophecy, which in the age of the monarchy had been a major force in the Israelite society, and in the days of Jeremiah had experienced an acute setback, lapsed into total eclipse in Nehemiah’s days, at the height of the age of restoration. This development is brought into full light in the book of the prophet Malachi, who presumably was active several generations after Haggai and Zechariah. In what appears to be an appendix to the book, the writer gives expression to his conviction that with Malachi biblical prophecy had come to an end. A renaissance is foreseen to occur in an undefined historical future: “I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day comes. He will reconcile fathers to sons and sons to fathers” (Mal 3:23-24). I propose to interpret this pronouncement as an indirect divine promise of Israel’s future restoration in the Land, which had been inaugurated by the return of the echelon of exiles led by Zerubbabel (Ezra 2; Neh 7:6-67), but came to a halt after about a century with the termination of Nehemiah’s governorship. The vision of the new prophet who is to arise was to be realized in the figure of Elijah (redivivus?)—not Moses, the founding father of Israelite prophecy (Deut 18:18). Elijah was presumably cast in the role of rejuvenator of prophecy because his entire career had been inseparably bound up with the Land of Israel, whereas Moses had seen it only from afar, but never entered it (Deut 32:48-52).

69

The reference proves that claims to prophecy were still entertained at the time. However, neither by the returnees, nor in later Jewish traditions, were Noadiah and her like considered genuine prophets.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

349

Some features of the Elijah tales clearly echo elements of Mosaic traditions, such as the ascription to both of revelations at Horeb (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 19:1-14 with Deut 1:6; chs. 4–5). However, significant dissimilarities appear to reflect a different attitude toward the type of inspiration which rested upon them. In all biblical accounts Elijah is exclusively presented as a prophet,70 whereas Moses fulfills the double function of prophet and legislator, with the latter task actually predominating. This difference is highlighted in the conclusion of the book of Malachi, in which the envisaged rise of Elijah the prophet is prefaced by a poignant reference to Moses the lawgiver: “Remember the Law of Moses my servant, the rules and precepts which I bade him deliver to all Israel at Horeb” (Mal 3:22). The “Law” and the “Lawgiver” here are seen as filling the void between the termination of prophecy with the last biblical prophet Malachi, and its anticipated revival in the figure of Elijah.71 VII. THE IMPACT OF THE AGE OF RESTORATION ON THE WORLD OF IDEAS OF EARLY RABBINIC JUDAISM72

The transformative processes outlined above opened the door, to a large degree, for the internal socio-religious diversification of Judaism at the height of the Second Temple period. The incipient substitution of interpretation for inspiration, which characterized the biblical world of thought in the late stages of the age of restoration, became a distinctive feature of the conceptual universe of the sages in Hellenistic-Roman times.73 Statements in rabbinic literature, formulated centuries later, lead to the conclusion that the age of restoration indeed constituted a turning point in the evaluation of prophecy, and of its place in the world of ideas of post-exilic Judaism. The termination of prophecy signaled a fundamental and radical revolution in the ways in which YHWH 70

71

72

73

In later Jewish tradition, he is also portrayed as high priest, ‫כהנה רבה‬. See Molin, “Elijahu”; Collins, “Teacher and Messiah,” esp. 204–210. At the height of the Second Temple period this appendix to the book of Malachi will give the spiritual impulse to the founders of the “Community of the Renewed Covenant,” to present ‫—מורה הצדק‬the “Teacher of Righteousness” or the “Legitimate Teacher”—the Moses-like leader of their community, as the exclusively legitimate, prophetically inspired teacher and lawgiver (see below). This stage in the ideonic development of Judaism is now often designated “Middle Judaism,” to differentiate it from the ensuing stage of “Late Judaism.” See Talmon, “Between the Bible and the Mishnah,” esp. 21–28

350

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

made his commandments known to Israel, and this was not merely a change caused solely by adverse historical circumstances. In the past, the divine message had been transmitted to Israel through the words of inspired individuals, the prophets, whose authenticity and reliability rested on their assertion that God had revealed himself to them, a claim which could not be proven. At times, a prophet’s message was at variance with proclamations of other harbingers of the divine word (Deuteronomy 13), whom the biblical authors repudiate as “false prophets” (1 Kgs 13:18; Jer 5:31; 14:14; ch. 23; Ezek 13 etc.), because they “prophesy out of their own hearts” (Ezek 13:2; cf. Deut 18:20, 22 etc.). The prophets’ audiences lacked means for judging the veracity of their pronounce-ments: “How shall we recognize a word that God has not spoken?” (Deut 18:21). The problem was especially acute when the people were faced with contradictory statements, as, for example, in Jeremiah’s direct confrontation with Hananiah ben Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon (Jeremiah 28; cf., inter alia, chs. 23; 29; Ezekiel 13; 1 Kgs 13:11-32). This disconcerting uncertainty presumably caused post-exilic Jewry to search for objectively provable ways and means to discern the reliability of a message presented as deriving from divine revelation. The quest led to a rejection of personal inspiration, and found concise expression in a pithy saying from early mishnaic times: “After the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, (prophetic) inspiration was taken from Israel.”74 In a fifth- or sixth-century-CE version, in which Dan 8:21 is interpreted as a reference to Alexander the Great, this dictum is further developed by an added comment: “Until his (Alexander’s) time the prophets prophesied under (divine) inspiration; (but) henceforth incline your ear and listen to the teaching of the sages.”75 Prophetic inspiration is to be replaced by the rational interpretation given over by expert teachers trained in the explication of the divine law (b. Bab. Meṣ. 59b). The sages’ mode of interpretation was based on an ever increasing and finely honed set of rules, which could be studied and examined by everyone. Rabbi Akiba is a striking example.

74

75

See t. Sot. 13:2 (ed. Lieberman, 230–231); cf. b. Yoma 9b; b. Sota 48b; b. Sanh. 11a; cf. also b. B. Bat. 12b. See also Urbach, “Prophecy”; Greenspahn, “Prophecy.” S. Olam Rab. 30 (ed. Milikowsky, 439). In the Sibylline Oracles 1:450, a “cessation of prophets” (or: prophecy) is mentioned preceding references to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the exile of the Hebrews (1:451–466). Cf. 1 Macc 9:27; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.8, 40–41.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

351

Through diligent study the lowly shepherd became the leading sage of his generation, and the master of generations of disciples. The above rabbinic sayings, and others like them, evince an acute awareness of a profound crisis in the thought of “normative Judaism”76 in the early mishnaic period: that is, the recognition that the biblical period had come to an end. 77 In the latter stage of the age of restoration and in post-restoration times, the conceptual universe of Judaism was imbued with different beliefs and maxims. The interpretation of the divine commandments, which had been the prerogative of inspired individuals, now became institutionalized and democratized to a high degree. The transformation outlined above brought about an internal diversification in the Judaism of the last centuries BCE and the first century CE. The mainstream community developed and refined the ‘objective’, or institutionalized interpretation of the law. As a result, it became fundamentally divided from factions that persisted in the reliance on personal inspiration, such as the Community of the Renewed Covenant, whose writings, or rather some of whose writings, were discovered in the Qumran caves.78 VIII. THE VISION OF THE AGE OF RESTORATION IN THE CONCEPTUAL UNIVERSE OF THE “COMMUNITY OF THE RENEWED COVENANT” In the restricted framework of this essay, the Covenanters’ conception of Israel’s reconstituted res publica in the age of restoration can only be outlined in some swift strokes. The members of the ‫ יחד‬manifestly conceived of their community as the only legitimate representative of biblical Israel, the latest link in the chain of generations which had snapped when Judah and Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (CD 1:3-5): When they deserted him in their treachery, he hid his face from Israel and from his sanctuary, and gave them up to the sword. However,

76

77

78

Moore, Judaism, 1:3, identified by this term mainstream Judaism in contrast to secessionist movements. Greenspahn, “Prophecy,” 42, states correctly that “the rabbinic teaching on this subject does not reflect a general consensus.” See Stone, “Judaism”; Talmon, “Jewish Sectarianism”; idem, “Bedeutung,” esp. 129–134; 146–147; idem, “Dead Sea Scrolls, “ esp. 128–30, 135–142.

352

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

recalling the covenant with the first ones,79 he left a remnant of Israel and did not give them up to (total) destruction (cf. Ezra 9:8, 13, 15; Neh 9:31, ‫)לא ֲע ִשׂ ָיתם כלה‬.

The Covenanters unhesitatingly cast themselves in the role of the first returnees from the exile. They appropriated the honorific title “holy seed,” ‫זרע הקֹדש‬, which in Ezra 9:2 applies to the returnees in Ezra’s days—by identifying themselves as the “seed of Israel,” ‫( זרע ישראל‬Neh 9:2; CD 12:22) and “the men of holiness,” ‫( אנשי הקודש‬1QS 5:13, 18; 8:17, 24; 9:8, etc.); and by presenting their community as the ‫ עצת הקודש‬or ‫( עדת הקודש‬1QS 2:25; 5:20). With them YHWH had renewed his covenant, the ‫ברית חדשה‬, as Jeremiah had foretold (Jer 31:31): And at the present time,80 three hundred and ninety years after giving them into the hand of Nebudchadnezzar, king of Babylon,81 he turned his attention to them and caused to grow out of Israel and Aaron a root of planting, to inherit his land and grow fat in the goodness of his soil. (CD 1:5-8)

In the Covenanters’ vision of the age of restoration, the structure of Israel’s politeia conformed to the bicephalic system proposed by Zechariah: the “root growing out of Israel” stands for “the (royal) shoot out of the stock of Jesse” (Isa 11:1); “the root growing out of Aaron” evidently symbolizes the high priest. Together they are expected to govern the people in concord,82 like the anointed high priest Joshua ben Jehozadak and Zerubbabel, the anointed of Israel. When this vision did not materialize at the divinely ordained juncture in history, the Covenanters were for twenty years like the blind who grope their way.83 Then and there God raised the “Teacher of Righteousness” to guide the perplexed in his ways (CD 1:9-11). With the

79 80 81

82

83

The righteous ancestors of Israel. I propose to read here ‫ ובקץ אחרון‬instead of ‫ובקץ חרון‬, “at the end of wrath.” In Ezekiel’s symbolic act, the figure of 390 years pertains to the period of Israel’s misfortunes (Ezek 4:4-5). The ending of this span of time, for the author of the Damascus Covenant, signals the beginning of a period of divine grace. Cf. the complementary functions of “the Priest” and the “[Messi]ah of Israel” at the banquet ‫( באחרית הימים‬1QSa 2:11-22). The figure of twenty years also derives from Ezekiel’s symbolic act. It is one half of the forty years, the schematic lifetime of one generation, which in Ezek 4:6 delimits the period of punishment meted out to Judah. See Talmon, “Between the Bible and the Mishnah,” 48–51.

[Type text]

“Exile” and “Restoration”

353

arrival on the scene of the “Teacher,” to whom the Covenanters’ foundation documents ascribe prophetic inspiration (1QpHab 7:4-5; cf. 2:8-9, etc.),84 the triad of kingship, priesthood, and prophecy, which in the age of the monarchy was the prop of Israelite society, was reconstituted, for the present and for the future, “when there will arise again a prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (1QS 9:11). IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS The division between the rabbinic rationalist ideology, and the Covenanters’ “prophetically inspired” beliefs assumes special importance in reference to the issue under scrutiny since, as I have argued, the roots of both systems indeed reach down into the post-exilic period.85 The foregoing reflections call for a revision of the rather depreciative assessment of the “age of restoration,” in modern scholarship, in comparison with the profound appreciation of the great intellectual and theological achievements of the era of biblical prophecy, on the one hand, and of nascent Christianity, on the other hand.

84 85

See Jeremias, Lehrer. Talmon, “Qumran Studies,” esp. 14–18.

354

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 16 ~ EZRA–NEHEMIAH: HISTORIOGRAPHY OR THEOLOGY?* I The question of the value of Ezra–Nehemiah as a historical source for assessing the history of Israel in the restoration period cannot yet be regarded as settled.1 In the past decades it was indeed brought under scrutiny with increasing intensity. In the continuing process of interpretation one can discern a shift of emphasis from a depreciation of the biblical account as historically useless in its entirety towards a more balanced critique of the historical reliability of certain components in the overall picture, in the course of events reported. This development becomes exceedingly evident by comparing recent evaluations with the judgment, which C.C. Torrey, in line with other exegetes, had passed on Ezra–Nehemiah as a work of historiography at the end of the twentieth century.2 In the wake of famous forerunners such as Bertheau, Kosters, Schrader, and above all, Wellhausen, Torrey summarized his research on Ezra–Nehemiah as follows: … [A]side from the greater part of Neh 1–6 the book has no value whatever, as history. It may have served a useful purpose in his own day … But his work, whatever else may be said of it, certainly throws no light on the history of the Jews in the Persian period.3

Torrey completely trivialized even the Aramaic documents, or at least parts of them:

*

1

2

3

Originally published as “Esra–Nehemia: Historiographie oder Theologie?,” in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch, ed. D.R. Daniels et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 329–356. The history of research and the status quaestionis are satisfactorily documented in recent commentaries. I will therefore limit my references to a minimum. Cf. Myers, Ezra–Nehemiah; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah “Introduction,” “Main Bibliography”; Cohn Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, esp. 11–36, 193–204. Rendtorff, Introduction, 277–283, offers a concise overview. See further: Talmon, “Books and Men,” 317–328. Torrey, Composition and Historical Value, 65.

356

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

The document [viz., Ezra 4:7–23—S.T] … was in any case a piece of narrative. … As it now reads, it is of no possible use to anybody.4

Of the book of Ezra altogether, he cannot but say: The story of Ezra … is the best exemplification … of his [viz., the Chronicler’s—S.T.] own qualities as a writer of fiction and his idea of the history of Israel.5

This radical rejection of the Chronicler, the black sheep of modern biblical studies, culminates in Torrey’s dictum that “no fact of O.T. criticism is more firmly established than this: that the Chronicler, as a historian, is thoroughly untrustworthy.”6 Since the Chronicler is regarded as the author of Ezra– Nehemiah—an attribution to be disputed in the following—the verdict also invalidates this work as a historical source. In contradistinction, the estimation of Ezra–Nehemiah’s historical value in recent literature differs from this account, irrespective of whether a scholar assigns this work to the Chronicler or rejects such attribution. P.R. Ackroyd’s assessment of the first substantial block of traditions, Ezra 1–6, exemplifies this prevailing, more nuanced approach to Ezra–Nehemiah. As will be shown, this block of traditions should be regarded as a self-contained constituent of the book, and is best referred to as the “Zerubbabel source” (ZS). Ackroyd, too, emphasizes that ZS—like Ezra–Nehemiah generally—is characterized by ideological constructions and theological considerations. But his awareness of the existence of such traits which are not strictly historical does not cause him to radically deny the historical value of the piece the way Torrey did: Ezra 1–6 has to be used, but with a full recognition of the problems of its use as a source for the historical and ideological reconstruction. This passage is of importance both because it evidently contains documentary materials of primary significance and also because it presents a coherent— though historically incomplete—picture of restoration. In this latter feature it belongs more with the study of the ideology of exile and restoration than with strict history.7

4 5 6 7

Ibid., 6. Ibid., 57. Ibid., 52. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 16.

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

357

Almost a century after Torrey, A.H.J. Gunneweg similarly considers the Ezra–Nehemiah Complex (ENC) to be not a “precisely dated history” but rather a work in which the author’s “theological concept of history” comes to light. The author is concerned with “legitimizing” the repatriates’ selfconception “in terms of the theology of history,” according to which they are the only legitimate heirs of pre-exilic Israel. But, unlike Torrey, Gunneweg states that the Nehemiah Memorandum—whatever its exact boundaries and detailed assess-ment—is an authentic source. The same holds true for the collection of Aramaic deeds, even given that the documents contained therein “have a Jewish tinge.”8 It is thus safe to say that Ezra–Nehemiah (ENC) provides the modern commentator and historian with the most relevant sources on which to base the reconstruction of the historical course of events in the important restoration period. This is true despite the reservations pertaining to the historical substance of ENC and in spite of the recommendation to use its account cum grano salis. Without taking these sources into consideration the said historical period remains a tabula rasa to us, even when marshalling all the extra-biblical historical evidence—inscriptions, archaeological discoveries, and Persian reports. II The assumption that Ezra–Nehemiah is to be seen as an integral part of the Chronicler’s historiography was rejected inter alia by W. de Wette, E. König and M.H. Segal.9 Their arguments have since been taken up and further buttressed by S. Japhet.10 A detailed analysis of the linguistic and stylistic features characterizing ENC as against the language and style of the book of Chronicles suggests that these two works were not composed by one and the same author or by a single redactor. H.G.M. Williamson accepted the proposition that the ENC on the one hand and Chronicles on the other were composed by different authors. He tried to underpin this proposition by identifying contradictions in content between the two works.11 8 9 10 11

Gunneweg, Interpretation, 146–161. Cf. references in Talmon, “Books and Men.” Japhet, “Common Authorship.” Williamson, Israel; idem, Ezra–Nehemiah.

358

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

The scholarly community at first endorsed the “two authors” hypothesis, but soon critique was voiced. First and foremost, fault was found with the fact that the different layers in the Chronicler’s work—his own text, sources quoted, and additions—had not been examined separately, and that the distinction between ENC and Chronicles, which was resting on linguistic criteria, was not sound. Most linguistic differences can be differently explained. It is noticeable that the Chronicler reproduces or imitates his sources12 which is not the case in ENC; that certain terms, e.g. ‫קטר‬, are found exclusively in Chronicles, since they pertain to pre-exilic phenomena like the incense altar, which was no longer in use in the post-exilic period. By contrast, other terms like, e.g., ‫“ מדינה‬province,” are found exclusively in ENC, since they were relevant only in post-exilic times. “The few still remaining linguistic differences are so marginal that they carry almost no weight compared to the well known similarities noticed already by S.R. Driver.”13 III Anticipating the objection that the “two authors” hypothesis does not adequately take into account the literary complexity of ENC, F.M. Cross conceived a theory of three successive stages in the development of the Chronicler’s historiography, presumably authored by Ezra, as W.F. Albright had already assumed in the wake of A. von Honacker. The style of the Nehemiah memoirs differs clearly from the style of the Chronicles–Ezra block of text, to which it was subsequently attached. The diversity of elements in the literary garb of the Chronicler’s work, according to Cross, offers a satisfactory explanation of the stylistic and linguistic differences between the Nehemiah memoirs (NM) and Chronicles on the one hand, and their similarities on the other hand.14

12 13 14

Gunneweg, Interpretation, 147–149. Ibid. See also, Cazelles, “Review” of Williamson, Israel; Mosis, Untersuchungen, esp. 214 n. 23. Cross, “Reconstruction”; cf. Goldingay, “The Chronicler,” 99: “probably Chronicles–Ezra– Nehemiah is the end product of several stages of development rather than one man’s creation.”

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

359

IV The problems remain undecided. The pendulum keeps swinging between the proposition that Ezra–Nehemiah as a whole is to be seen as an integral part of the Chronicler’s historiography, and the “two authors” hypothesis. Since the analysis of language, style, and content has not led to an unequivocal decision, I propose to approach the problem from the specific angle of historiography in order to conclude whether in this respect the account of Ezra–Nehemiah is distinctively set off from Chronicles or whether both share the same characteristics. Furthermore, it is to be expected that the identification of Ezra–Nehemiah’s historiographical characteristics can help to clarify the historical reliability of the work. V I deem it appropriate to extend the scope of the investigation so as to bring also the books of Daniel and Esther under scrutiny.15 Most manuscripts and editions of the Hebrew Bible preserve a tradition according to which these four books constitute the “historiographical finale” of the Paralipomena, and therefore of the biblical canon as a whole. It is beyond doubt that Daniel and Esther were composed after Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles and that they can by no means be attributed to the author or authors of these works. But the historiographical character which Jewish tradition ascribes to these works offers a safe enough basis for including them in the proposed comparison,16 although each is marked by its own particular historiographical focus. VI The Chronicler presents his audience with a retrospective synopsis of the period of the monarchies. He covers the range from the final phase of Saul’s kingdom (1 Chr 10) to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE (2 Chr 36:19). Thus, the last historical event which he mentions occurred some two centuries before his own days. To this sketch of the era of the monarchies, almost exclusively tailored to fit the historical fortunes of Judah 15

16

The necessary inquiry into the book of Esther needs to be made in a separate investigation. For the present see my study, “Wisdom in Esther.” Cf. Talmon, “Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles.”

360

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

and the Davidic dynasty, he prefixed a concise overview of the history of Israel and of humankind in hoary antiquity. This panoramic overview is presented in the form of an assemblage of genealogies—an entirely different literary genre from the body of his work. The book of Chronicles as a whole offers an account of Israel’s history “from A to Z,” from Adam to Zedekiah, parallel in range to the first two major parts of the Hebrew canon, the Pentateuch and the Prophets, from Genesis to Kings. Chronicles therefore rightly can be called ‫ = משנה מקרא‬Deutero-Biblia;17 and following Jerome’s lead in the Prologus Galeatus, Chronicon totius divinae historiae. Subsequently to its original composition, two notes were attached to the work (2 Chr 36:20-21 and 22-23),18 carrying on the description of events into the early Persian period, to the days of Cyrus the Great. This short reference has parallels in certain genealogical lists which extend into the post-exilic restoration period (e.g., 1 Chr 3:10-24; 5:3-26; 9:31-34 = Neh 11). The hiatus between the latest events mentioned at the end of Chronicles and the Chronicler’s own days thus shrinks to approximately 150 years. All this does not change the fact that the Chronicler wrote “retrospective history.” He is as detached from the reported events as is his audience. It is probably due to this circumstance that he refers to some twenty sources from which he had elicited his information.19 Some of these sources are also mentioned in the book of Kings, while others are not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. The first category of the referred to documents encompasses, inter alia: ‫( ספר מלכי ישראל‬in 1 Chr 9:1; 2 Chr 20:34; cf. 1 Kgs 14:19; 15:31, etc.) and ‫( ספר המלכים ליהודה וישראל‬in 2 Chr 16:11; cf. 35:27; 1 Kgs 14:29; 15:7 etc.). The second category contains ‫( ספר דברי הימים למלך דויד‬in 1 Chr 27:24 [LXX]; cf. 1 Kgs 11:41 ‫( דברי עזיהו ;)ספר דברי שלמה‬2 Chr 26:22); and especially historical episodes attributed to prophetic authors known from biblical accounts of the early monarchies: Samuel, Nathan, Gad (1 Chr 29:29), Ahijah from Shiloh (2 Chr 9:29), Shemaiah (2 Chr 12:15; cf. 1 Kgs 12:22), Jehu ben Hanani (2 Chr 20:34; cf. 19:2; 1 Kgs 16:1-12), the otherwise unknown seer or prophet Iddo 17 18 19

Ibid., 371. Cf. Talmon, “Books and Men,” 318. These works are conveniently listed in Leiman, Canonization, 17–19; Talmon, “Heiliges Schrifttum,“ 54–58.

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

361

(2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:22)—not to be confused with the prophet Zechariah’s ancestor—and an anonymous treatise of prophecy entitled ‫( דברי חוזי‬2 Chr 33:19).20 But even with the help of these ancient sources it was impossible to bridge the time gap between the reported events and the times of the much later Chronicler and his contemporaries. The Chronicler’s audience had no way to verify the wide-ranging historical overview and the unfolding report of particular occurrences recorded, either on the basis of their own knowledge, or, and even less so, on the basis of their on experience. The lack of control mechanisms freed the Chronicler from the restraints which an informed public imposes upon a rapporteur. An almost infinite freedom of the reporter thus allowed him to adapt the choice of historical data known to him and their sequence in history to his theological views and historiographical understanding. VII The complement to the retrospective thrust of Chronicles is present in the book of Daniel, which in its canonical form is made up of two linguistically distinct parts: An introductory (Dan 1:1–2:4a) and a concluding passage (Dan 8–12) in Hebrew frame a compound Aramaic centerpiece (Dan 2:4b– 6:29 and 7:1-28). This structure resembles the composition of the canonical book of Ezra, in which an Aramaic core, made up of two units (Ezra 4:7–6:18 and 7:12-26), is framed by two Hebrew components (Ezra 1:1–4:6 and 7:27– 10:44).21 In addition, the first part of the book of Daniel, which comprises court stories about Daniel and his companions (Dan 1–6), by its narrative style is set off from the second (Dan 7–12), in which Daniel is shown four dreams and visions of earthshaking events that are to precede Israel’s divinely predestined ultimate redemption, ‫לקץ הימין‬, at an undefined, indeed indeterminable future time (Dan 12:13).22 20

21

22

It cannot be ascertained whether the said documents really were at the Chronicler’s disposal and accessible to his contemporaries or whether the reference to no longer attainable sources served the Chronicler to “prove” the veracity of his historical account by inspiring confidence in his sources; cf. Talmon, “Chronicles,” 367–368. On the combination of Hebrew and Aramaic passages, cf. Snell, “Aramaic”; Talmon, “Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles,” 343. On this understanding of ‫ קץ‬see Talmon, “‫קץ‬.”

362

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

One must assume that in the minds of the biblical authors’ audience, and in particular the audience of the redactor of the “Writings” (Paralipomena), the Daniel traditions in their entirety were informed by the historical overview presented in Chronicles. The author of the Book of Daniel dates the initial accounts and dreams in the days of the last Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1–4) and Belshazzar (Daniel 5 and 7–8). Thus, these units overlap chrono-logically with the last account at the end of Chronicles (2 Chr 36:5-20) which reports Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Judah in 597 BCE and his conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. The events reported in Daniel 6 and 9–11 are already set in the Persian period. An otherwise unknown king Darius the Mede is mentioned in Dan 6:1. He is said to have ruled the Chaldean kingdom, apparently as a successor of Belshazzar and predecessor of Cyrus (Dan 6:29). The at best doubtful historicity of this Darius need not concern us here. The point is that the author of Daniel mentions him to cover the transition period between the Babylonian and the Persian empires. With the mention of Cyrus the Great (Dan 10:1) the account certainly shifts to the framework of the Persian empire; so also in the historiographical note attached to Chronicles (2 Chr 36:20-23), the references to Cyrus the king of Persia, ‫כורש מלך פרס‬, and the mention of the Persian Empire, ‫מלכות פרס‬, mark that same shift. The book of Daniel thus continues the report from this juncture until ‫קץ הימין‬, i.e., to a time span in the remote future beyond the unfathomable horizon of human experience. VIII A synoptic examination of the retrospective historical overview in Chronicles, and the forward-looking, quasi-historical vision of times to come, which ends the book of Daniel, shows that the account of the restoration period between the ending of Chronicles and the beginning of Daniel is not amply covered in the Paralipomena. The final notation in 2 Chr 36:20-23 does not provide an adequate record of this important time span. Moreover, the narratives, dreams, and visions in the book of Daniel are tailored throughout to cover events which affected Diaspora Jewry, and to Babylonian and Persian court affairs. The period of the return from the exile is in no way addressed.

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

363

IX This gap in the comprehensive account of Israel’s history, from Creation to the visionary, future turning point in history, is partly filled in by the detailed report on the flow of events in the restoration period found in Ezra– Nehemiah (ENC). The books of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (1–8), and in some respects also the book of Esther, fill in the historical picture. In these works, especially in ENC, historiography is conceived solely as concerning contemporary history (Zeitgeschichte). The point of departure of the account is the juncture of events at which the history of Israel (Judah), on the one hand, and that of the burgeoning Persian Empire, on the other hand, first converge. According to the biblical report, the return from the Babylonian exile was initiated by the edict of Cyrus which, however, is mentioned in Chronicles only in the epilogue (2 Chr 36:22-23). In distinction, Cyrus is the only Persian ruler who features prominently in the book of Daniel (ch. 10). Also the unspecified terminus of the historical account in ENC definitely falls in the times of the Persian Empire, in contrast to the futuristic vision with which the book of Daniel ends. The ancient transmitter of the Paralipomena presumably had a specific aim in mind in arranging in their present canonical order the books of Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles, which differ so markedly in their manner of reporting the flow of historical events. He composed a large-scale picture of Israel’s perils and experiences in the course of world history by combining the retrospective reports of the Chronicler, with the futuristic visions of the book of Daniel, with the account of particular contemporary events spelled out in ENC. X In principle, it is not feasible to adduce the entirely different outlook of ENC and Chronicles as a decisive argument for the question of whether these books were penned by one and the same or by different authors. They could indeed be ascribed to one single author who drafted differently distinct blueprints. However, a comparison of the historiographical characteristics of ENC and Chronicles reveals profound differences which rather suggest that these books were written by different authors. First and foremost, it should be noted that unlike the Chronicler, the author of ENC never refers to ancient sources which were available to him by simply mentioning their titles. Inasmuch as sources are drawn upon in

364

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

ENC, they are contemporary documents quoted in extenso. It will suffice to mention the inventory of Temple vessels which the Babylonians had plundered, and which the Persian king Cyrus returned (Ezra 1:9-11; 8:26-27); the comprehensive roster of returnees (Ezra 2 = Neh 7:6-72; Ezra 8:1-14); or the particularized catalogues of priests and Levites (Neh 12:1-26); registers of named signatures to the ‫אמנה‬document (Neh 10:1-28); and the account of obligations to which the community members subscribed (10:29-30). Other typical examples are the verbatim quotation of the Cyrus edict in Aramaic (Ezra 6:3-5), along with its Hebrew version (1:2-4),23 which—interestingly enough—is also quoted verbatim in a short appendix to Chronicles (2 Chr 36:22-23); the Darius edict (Ezra 6:6-12); Artaxerxes’ letter (4:17-22); the message addressed to the Persian officials in the province with the sweeping passé partout, which Cyrus is said to have issued to the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel (7:11-26); various letters of complaint against the returnees, which the local Persian administration in the province transmitted to the court (4:7-16; 5:6-17). Only once is a document title quoted: ‫ספר היחש העולים‬ ‫בראשונה‬, “the register of the first returnees” (Neh 7:5). In Ezra–Nehemiah there are but a few references to past historical events, and these almost always concern the final phase of the monarchical period. The list of Temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had brought to Babylonia (Ezra 1:7-11) is closely connected with the exile of the Judeans after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE (2 Kgs 25:8-17 = Jer 52:12-23; 2 Chr 36:18-19; 1 Esdr 1:51; cf. 2 Kgs 24:13; 2 Chr 36:7; 1 Esdr 1:39). These events again are mentioned in the inquiry sent by the authorities of the province ‫ עבר נהרה‬to the Persian court asking whether the returnees indeed were permitted to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple (Ezra 5:6-18). Another allusion to late pre-exilic times is embedded in the “warning” issued by the Persian administration against the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and its walls. This claimed that the rebuilding would inevitably lead to the returnees’ refusal to pay to the royal court “taxes, tribute, or toll,” and that, like their forefathers, they would revolt against imperial suzerainty (the reason why the Babylonians had destroyed the city in the first place [Ezra 4:11-22]). 23

I concur with E. Bickerman in the assumption that both versions are authentic but were addressed to different audiences: on the one hand, to the Persian provincial authorities in ‫עבר נהרה‬, and the other hand to the Jewish exiles in Persia. Cf. Bickerman, “Edict.”

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

365

Inasmuch as incidents and facts of Israel’s early history are mentioned in ENC, they are not intended to supply historical information as is the case in Chronicles. Rather, they are mentioned because of the similarity between contemporary circumstances and past experiences; thus, such incidents perpetuate the relevance of the past for the present. A case in point is the reference to the public offices initiated by David and Solomon in the report of the reorganization of the Temple service by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah (Neh 12:45). A similar case is the recurring designation of some Temple personnel as “the sons of Solomon’s servants” (Ezra 2:55, 58; Neh 7:57, 60; 11:3), those whose forefathers, according to tradition had been enslaved by Solomon (1 Kgs 9:20-21 = 2 Chr 8:7-8); as well as the mention of the ‫נתינים‬, ”Temple servants” (Ezra 2:43-54, 70 = Neh 7:46-56, 72), whose appointment as “assistants” to the Levites is ascribed to David (Ezra 8:20). The ‫ נתינים‬bear almost exclusively non-Israelite names. They presumably were descendants of the Gibeonites whom Joshua had sentenced to corvée service “at the altar of YHWH to this day“ (Josh 9:27).24 B.S. Childs proposed that the formulaic expression ‫ עד היום הזה‬is to be understood as the assertion of an eyewitness that a given situation was still prevailing in his days.25 I tend to presume that the formula in Josh 9:27 originated with a post-exilic redactor of the Gibeonites episode, who was acquainted with the situation recorded in the roster of returnees. A similar instance is the description of the inhabitants of the former Northern Kingdom in the “lions episode” (2 Kgs 17:24-41) as syncretists of foreign origin, who “to this day” (17:34, 41; cf. 17:23) adhere to their mixed polytheistic cult. The contemporary background of this obviously secondary interpolation is presumably to be sought in the confrontation of the returnees with remnants of the Northern Kingdom who wanted to take part in the foundation of the Temple (Ezra 4:1-3). A post-exilic redactor of the book of Kings aimed at preventing the petitioners, called ‫צרי יהודה ובנימין‬, from participating in the rebuilding of the Temple. Basing himself on “an ancient source,” he introduced them to his co-believers as people of foreign origin whom the Assyrians had settled in the territory of the former Northern 24

25

Associating the ‫ נתינים‬with the Gibeonites is hypothetical, but plausible; cf. Haran, “Gibeonites”; idem, “ ‫ ;” נתינים‬Levine, “Netînîm”; idem, “Later Sources.” Childs, “Until this Day.”

366

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Kingdom and who were clinging to their heathen cults ‫עד היום הזה‬, “until this day,” in spite of their assertion that they serve the God of the returnees and sacrifice to him, ‫( כי ככם נדרוש לאלהיכם ולו אנחנו זבחים‬Ezra 4:2).26 Historical reminiscences not intended as simple reports, but rather used as paradigms of contemporary relevance, should be similarly judged. The allusion to Solomon’s matrimonial policy in a concluding passage of the Nehemiah memoirs (Neh 13:26) is a typical example of historical facts put to contemporary use. The author refers to the criticism passed on Solomon in the book of Kings, that the numerous foreign wives whom he married in addition to Pharaoh’s daughter, seduced him to worship their foreign gods (1 Kgs 11:1-10). This sinful deed is then said to have caused the partition of his kingdom (11:11-13). In contradistinction to the account in Kings (the respective passage is not included in Chronicles) in which the sin of marrying non-Israelite women is ascribed only to Solomon, the author of NM expands the charge and adduces it as an example and a warning to members of the returnees’ community, who had similarly married “women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab,” and thereby trespassed YHWH’s commandments (Neh 13:23-27). The author of the book of Nehemiah is not concerned with reporting historical facts of Solomon’s life, like the redactors of the book of Kings, and Chronicles would have been, had they included this matter in their reports. Rather, the author of ENC uses the reference to Solomon as a paradigm for his accusation that many members of his own community had entered into such forbidden mixed marriages (cf. Ezra 9–10; Neh 10:29-31; 13:1-3, 23-27). The historiographical idiosyncrasy displayed in ENC in comparison with Chronicles suggests that these works are to be assigned to different authors or editors. This conclusion can be supported by pinpointing aspects in Ezra–Nehemiah’s concept of history which reveal socio-historical ideas that are not shared by the Chronicler. Concomitantly, the examination of these characteristics will contribute to answering the question of whether the ENC account can be defined as historiography in the intrinsic sense of the word, or rather as a theological construct.

26

The qere variant ‫ ולא‬most probably did not arise from a lapsus calami, but rather from an intentional misrepresentation of the petitioners’ request. See Talmon, “Überlieferungen,” esp. 138–145; idem, “Polemics and Apology,” 134–144, esp. 141–144.

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

367

XI In order to assess the ENC account as history or theology I offer as test cases two major issues: (a) the already mentioned matter of the intermarriage of returnees and local women, ‫( נשים נכריות מעמי הארץ‬Ezra 10 passim); and (b) the concept of the desired social and political order featured in ENC as well as in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. A close analysis of the role accorded to these problematic issues in ENC helps in clarifying the disputed authenticity of the pertinent information preserved in this source. XII Before giving attention to the issue of connubium, it should be noted that as far as the matter is brought up at all in Chronicles, intermarriage is not outright condemned.27 Children begotten in such mixed marriages, seem to be unconditionally regarded as Israelites. This is evidenced by remarks pertaining to this matter in the genealogies which the Chronicler prefixed to his report. He recorded cases of intermarriage between Israelites and foreigners in the early history without any criticism (1 Chr 2:3, 34-35; 4:18; 7:14; and further, 4:22; 8:8). Especially noteworthy is the casual report of the marriage of David’s sister Abigail with Jether the Ishmaelite (1 Chr 2:16-17) who is introduced in the parallel record preserved in 2 Sam 17:25, nota bene, as Jithra the Israelite. Solomon’s marriage with “one of Pharaoh’s daughters” is reported in 2 Chr 8:11, as in 1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8, with some reservation, but sine ira. The Chronicler’s more liberal attitude is revealed by his omission of the note in the book of Kings concerning Solomon’s foreign wives, among them Pharaoh’s daughter, who are said to have seduced him to embrace heathen worship. According to Kings, Solomon, and indeed the house of David altogether, were punished for this by the disruption of the Israelite kingdom (1 Kgs 11:1-13). As has been said, it is precisely this condemnation of Solomon on account of his marriages with “foreign wives” which is placed before the returnees as a condemnatory example and a warning (Neh 13:26). The radically different attitudes towards intermarriage reflected on the one hand in ENC, and on the other hand in Chronicles—condemnation in

27

Cf. Japhet, Ideology, 346–351.

368

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

the former, acquiescence in the latter—is construed by supporters of the “two authors” hypothesis as proof of their assumption that the two works should be ascribed to different authors. It is indeed impossible to invalidate this argument in light of the Chronicler’s rigorous attitude, which comes to the fore in his unfailingly severe judgment on every kind of apostasy and every deviation from the precepts of the Torah.28 The discrepancy between ENC and Chronicles in the matter of intermarriage becomes even more striking upon an examination of the varying significance accorded to the phenomenon in different components of the canonical book of Ezra–Nehemiah. On the one hand, there is the report of the early part of the restoration period (536–516/5 BCE) preserved in ZS; and on the other hand, the ENC, where the history of a later part of the restoration period is recorded, i.e., from Ezra’s return in the year 454 BCE (Ezra 7:1, 8) to the end of Nehemiah’s activities circa 420 BCE (according to the biblical tradition). Surprisingly, the striking agreement of ZS with Chronicles, and the palpable discrepancy between these two accounts and ENC, have not been given adequate attention in the scholarly discussion of the issue of intermarriage in Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. The matter has not been raised in reference to the ZS or to Chronicles, although it is accorded a pivotal position in the ENC account. The absence of references to the problem in ZS supports the already mentioned hypothesis that the seemingly independent source Ezra 1–6—in itself a composite document—was prefixed to the historical account of Ezra–Nehemiah at some later point in time. The fact that the Ezra memoirs (Ezra 7–10) were tied to ZS by the prevalent linking formula ‫(ואחר הדברים האלה‬Ezra 7:1) backs up this assumption.29 XIII The varying attitudes to intermarriage that surface in distinctive components of the book of Ezra–Nehemiah, which, as has been said, depicts two successive

28 29

Cf. Braun, “Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,” 55–59; idem, “Solomonic Apologetic.” In parenthesis it can be said that the presumed original independence of ZS provides a satisfactory explanation of the repetition of the list of returnees in Ezra 2, with some divergences in the parallel version in Nehemiah 7. At first, the list was included in two independent documents. The problem of repetition only arose when ZS and ENC were combined to form one work.

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

369

stages in the restoration period, suggest the conclusion that the work as a whole in its canonical form indeed offers reliable insights into socio-historical processes that affected the returnees’ community over the course of more than a century. It is fully understandable that connubium with local women was not an issue for the returning exiles in the early stage of their resettlement. The socio-religious development of their community in Babylon had decisively alienated them from the population in the Land whom the conquerors had not expatriated. The first contingents of returning Judeans obviously regarded any form of symbiosis with the indigenous inhabitants of that Land as anathema. They insisted on living separately from them. This is indeed the impression which the biblical accounts convey. The returnees conceived of themselves as the only legitimate remnant of pre-exilic Israel, the (righteous) “tenth,” ‫עשריה‬, “the holy seed,” ‫( זרע קדש‬Isa 6:11-13), whose future reimplantation in their homeland the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah had foretold. Isaiah had used the name ‫ שאר ישוב‬which he gave to his son (Isa 7:3; cf. 6:13, ‫ )ושבה‬as a symbol of the divinely promise of restoration. The returnees applied these oracles of consolation solely to their community, claiming for themselves, and only for themselves, the honorific epithets ‫( זרע הקדש‬Ezra 9:2), ‫( זרע ישראל‬Neh 9:2), ‫( הפליטה אשר נשארו‬Neh 1:2; cf. Ezra 9:8, 13, 15), ‫( הנשארים אשר נשארו‬Neh 1:3) etc., which evidently hearken back to succinct phrases in the above passages from the book of Isaiah.30 In order to preserve the purity and holiness of the “remnant” that had remained unpolluted, the returnees felt compelled to distance themselves from the inhabitants of the Land, ‫( והבדלו מעמי הארץ‬Ezra 10:11). Only those who unequivocally set themselves off “from the impurity of the people of the land,” ‫( וכל הנבדל מטמאת גוי הארץ‬Ezra 6:21; cf. Neh 9:2; 10:29; 13:3), were recognized as full members of the returnees’ community. Whoever did not conform to this principle forsook his membership in the erstwhile exilic community, ‫( והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה‬Ezra 10:8). It is important to note that all these texts are part of ENC. They mirror a situation which emerged in a later stage of the restoration. The widespread 30

A comparison with distinctive terms and phrases in the Qumran scrolls reveals that Yaḥad authors applied the same epithets to their own community. Cf. Talmon, “Between the Bible and the Mishnah,” esp. 48–52.

370

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

intermarriage of male members of the returnees’ community with “foreign,” i.e., “local,” women, which probably resulted from the often experienced shortage of females in a society in the process of relocation, demanded countermeasures, which Ezra and Nehemiah indeed enacted. The tendency to dissociate themselves from the from the Landbevölkerung surfaces in ZS in the clash with the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1-3) when the returning exiles first began to renovate the Temple in the second year of their return (ca. 520 BCE), viz., close to the termination of Zerubbabel’s activity. It should be noted that the leaders of the returnees declined the “adversaries” petition to participate in the reconstruction of the Temple, ostensibly for political and not religious reasons. They claimed that since the Persian authorities granted permission only to themselves to rebuilt the Temple, the inhabitants of the Land were implicitly excluded (Ezra 4:3):31 ‫לא לכם ולנו לבנות בית לאלהינו‬ ‫כי אנחנו יחד נבנה ליהוה אלהי ישראל‬ ‫כאשר צונו המלך כורש מלך פרס‬ The distinctive terms ‫הבדל‬, ‫טמא‬, ‫טהור‬, coupled with ear ‫גויי הארצות‬/‫עמי‬, employ edin ENC to highlight the tension between the ‫ בני הגולה‬or ‫השבים מן‬ ‫ הגולה‬on the one hand and the local population on the other hand. But they first occur in ZS only in the final passage of the description of the Feast of Passover (Ezra 6:19-22a). Participation in this cultic festival was limited to the ‫ בני הגולה‬or ‫ השבים מהגולה‬who had undergone purification rituals in preparation for it, ‫( הטהרו‬Ezra 6:20), and to a group of otherwise not identified people, who also “had separated themselves from the impurity of the people of the land, joining themselves with the returnees to seek YHWH, the God of Israel,” ‫( כל הנבדל מטמאת גוי הארץ אלהם לדרש ליהוה אלהי ישראל‬Ezra 6:21).32 This event can be dated to the year 516 BCE, following upon the dedication of the restored Temple (Ezra 6:16-18). Therefore, it must have occurred either during the last days of Zerubbabel’s reign or shortly after he made his exit from the stage of history.33 31 32

33

There is no mention here of the problem of intermarriage. It should be stressed that also in this respect the Chronicler’s attitude is clearly distinguishable from that of the author of ENC. Non-Israelites are not summarily excluded from participation in the Israelite cult. There is no need to address here the question of why Zerubbabel is not mentioned in either

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

371

Structural-literary analysis suggests that the account of the Passover celebration (Ezra 6:19-22a) be viewed as an originally independent literary unit spliced into the account of the Temple dedication (Ezra 6:16-18 and 6:22b).34 The tendentious terminology, here used for the first time in ZS, leads to the surmise, which requires further elaboration, that this episode fits ENC ideologically and linguistically. In any case, an increased tendency of separation from the local inhabitants is discernible in the Passover episode, some twenty years after the initial repatriation of exiles. This can be explained by presuming that the growing disposition of returnees to marry local women caused the leaders of the emerging community to progressively introduce harsher counter measures. The inimical stance of the local population was another reason why, in the days of Zerubbabel—viz., at the beginning of the restoration period— intermarriage of returnees with local women was not causing concern, or at least was not seen as a burning problem. The author of ZS never fails to point out vehemently that the Landbevoelkerung opposed the newcomers, and impeded the rebuilding of the Temple by hostile interventions (Ezra 3:2-3; 4:4-6). It follows that at that time the preconditions for connubium on a large scale did not trouble either side. Therefore, the silence of ZS in the matter of intermarriage presumably reflects the actual situation in Zerubbabel’s days, which was radically different by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. XIV Evidence from the books of the contemporary prophets Haggai, Zechariah (Zech 1–8) and Malachi supports this evaluation. The visions and oracles of

34

of these traditions (Ezra 6:14-18 and 6:19-22) nor in the preceding report of the exchange of letters between Tattenai, the Persian governor of ‫עבר נהרא‬, the province Beyond-Euphrates, and Darius I (5:3–6:13). The ending of the account (Ezra 6:18) in which the Temple dedication is resumed after a break (6:22b): “for YHWH had made them joyful and turned the heart of the king of Assyria (i.e., Syria or Persia) to them, to support them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel” (cf. 6:14b). The double mention of “joy,” which characterizes these incidents, ties the account of the Temple dedication to the Passover unit: ‫ויעשו חג מצות שבעת ימים בשמחה‬ (Ezra 6:22a) and ‫( כי שמחם יהוה והסב לב מלך אשור עליהם לחזק ידיהם במלאכת בית האלהים‬6:22b). For the structuring technique of “resumptive repetition” employed here, cf., e.g., Wiener, Composition; Kuhl, “Wiederaufnahme”; Talmon, “Synchroneity and Simultaneity.”

372

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Haggai and Zechariah 1–6 are dated to the years 520–515 BCE, viz., to the final phase of Zerubbabel’s reign. As in ZS, the issue of intermarriage is not mentioned in them. In contrast, the book of the later prophet Malachi, probably written around 400 BCE towards the end of the restoration period, contains a perspicuous allusion to forbidden marriage with “foreign women”: “Judah is faithless, and abominable things are done in Israel and in Jerusalem; Judah has violated the holiness of Israel and Jerusalem; Judah has profaned the holiness of YHWH by loving and marrying daughters of a foreign god,” ‫( בת אל נכר‬NEB, Mal 2:11). This text echoes the polemic in Ezra–Nehemiah against returnees who had taken “wives from among the people of the land,”35 ‫( נשים נכריות מעמי הארץ‬Ezra 10:2, 17, 44; cf. 9:2; Neh 10:31; 13:23-25). A comparison of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 with the book of Malachi thus reveals the same discrepancy concerning the issue of intermarriage which surfaces in a comparison of ZS with ENC. The independent prophetic writings offer proof of the reliability of the historical account which attests to the processes and developments in the matter of intermarriage preserved in Ezra–Nehemiah, from the start of the return to the end of Zerubbabel’s times, and again from the first days of Ezra to Nehemiah’s final days in office. XV An analysis of the different concepts of the desirable structure of state and society which emerge from Ezra–Nehemiah as against Chronicles yields similar results. The same holds true for the development of these ideas which comes to the fore in a comparison of ZS with ENC. The Chronicler stands firmly by the Davidic monarchy, which he regards as the only viable form of statehood. The Davidic dynasty is rooted in the history of Israel, and derives its everlasting legitimacy from historical experience and divine promise. The essence of the seer Nathan’s prophecy is the centerpiece of Chronicles. The foreseen form of government is that of a single (royal) head of state. The anointed Davidic ruler is an absolute monarch, who heads the pyramid-like social order and does not share his absolute power with any representative of any other social, political, or cultic office and function. Priests, courtiers and magistrates, military leaders, and heads 35

Japhet, Ideology, 265 n. 223 mentions this fact in passing without addressing the issues discussed here.

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

373

of families and clans are all without reservation subordinate to the king. It should be stressed that in Chronicles, as in the book of Kings, even the high priest is always assigned a rank secondary to that of the king. All this holds true not alone for past history, but as the foundation of a future political order, on which Israel’s historical restitution should and will rest forever, without any need for change or reformation.36 XVI The returnees’ res publica in the early restoration period is based on a fundamentally different socio-political concept—the new model is one of dual leadership.37 Two leading personalities of equal rank head the returning community: Zerubbabel, the scion of the house of David, and Joshua, the Aaronide high priest. It is significant that in accounts of important events the biblical text mentions Zerubbabel and Joshua side by side, before all other dignitaries, (Ezra 2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:3; 5:2). That Zerubbabel’s name is mostly given first does not necessarily point to a difference of rank, but rather to the “political” character of the occurrences reported. In reference to purely cultic affairs like the restoration of the altar, it is indeed Joshua who is mentioned before Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2). The books of the contemporary prophets Haggai and Zechariah contain additional information on this system of dual authority. Haggai’s oracles, which are dated to the second regnal year of Darius I, are addressed to Zerubbabel and Joshua (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 20) and presume the same dual system, with the scion of David and the high priest leading the politeia together. It seems, though, that their cooperation was fraught with tension. This is made evident in the portrayal of a court scene in which Joshua is introduced clad in “filthy garments” (Zech 3:3), with the accuser, ‫השטן‬, standing at his right (Zech 3:1). The trial ends with the acquittal of the priest. He is freed from his guilt in a symbolic act: The ministering angel orders his attendants to strip him of his filthy garment and to enrobe him in festal raiments and put a clean turban on his head, viz., to clothe him in the vestments of his office (Zech 3:4-5). The acquittal of the high priest is conditional on his abiding by “God’s order,” ruling his “house” and “administering the front courts” (3:7). 36 37

Japhet, ibid., 493–504. Cf. Talmon, “Messiah,” 290–300.

374

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

The priest’s authority is thus limited to the Temple and the cultic service, whereas Zerubbabel, “the scion” of the House of David, is to wield his worldly power next to him (Zech 3:8-9; 4:6-10). The division of power in praxi between the Davidic scion and the priest is underpinned de jure in other visions of Zechariah. The “two olive trees” (Zech 4:3-6; LXX δύο ἐλαῖαι), shown to the prophet in a night vision (4:1), and the “two olive branches next to the two golden pipes, through which the golden oil empties,” are “the two anointed ones, who stand before [or: serve]38 the Lord of the whole earth” (4:12-14) and govern the Land (or: the earth) together on his behalf. This line of thought is further developed in another oracle. Notwithstanding some uncertainties in the Hebrew text, I am inclined to understand the pericope of Zech 6:9-15 as referring to two crowns and two thrones. One crown is reserved for the Davidic scion, “seated and reigning on his throne”; the other one is for “the priest on his throne.” Complete harmony “and concord shall prevail between them” (6:13). The reconciliation is not only foreseen to affect the historical figures of Zerubbabel and Joshua, but to pertain to the secular and religious authorities altogether. The reconciliation encompasses all Israel (Zech 8:9-13) and all nations of the world (8:20-23). The “peaceful agreement,” ‫עצת שלום‬, between the royal scion and the priest (6:13) is described in phrases and portrayed in symbols which are either borrowed directly from earlier prophetic visions of universal peace (cf. Zech 1:14-17; 2:8-9, 14-17; 3:10; 8:1-5, 20-23; with Isa 2:2-5 = Mic 4:1-5; Jer 31:10-13; 33:6-11, etc.) or else reflect the idealized age of the pax salomonica (1 Kgs 5:5). The prophet presents a political manifesto, putting forward a system of government which is to be valid in Israel for all times, well beyond the contemporary situation. For Zechariah and Haggai, like the author of ZS

38

(‫ עמד )לפני‬has the meaning “to be in the service of.” This phrase occurs in a considerable number of biblical passages (Gen 41:46; Num 16:9; 27:21; Deut 10:8; 17:12; 18:5, 7; Judg 3:19; 20:28; 1 Sam 16:21, 22; 1 Kgs 17:1; 18:15; 22:21; 2 Kgs 3:14; 5:16, 25; Isa 66:22; Jer 15:19; 35:19; 52:12; Ezek 44:15; Hab 2:1; Zech 3:4, 7; 2 Chr 3:13; 5:12, 14; 7:6; 9:7; 19:5, 8), frequently pertinent to the cultic sphere. Interestingly, the name of Joshua the high priest is also missing from the accounts of the Temple dedication (Ezra 6:14-18) and the Passover festival (6:19-22), as well as in the preceding description of Tattenai’s intervention (5:3–6:13), in all of which Zerubbabel is not mentioned either (but cf. LXXA on 1 Esdr 6:26).

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

375

and his contemporaries, the dual leadership system of government replaces the traditional single-leader model of the monarchical period, to which the Chronicler adheres. XVII Let me stress once again that these differences between the books of Haggai and Zechariah on the one hand, and Chronicles on the other hand, do not arise from different historical circumstances to which they were responding, but rather stem from ideological considerations which are not rooted in history. This becomes evident inter alia in writings from Qumran, which exhibit the vision of a future time, ‫אחרית הימים‬, in which “two anointed ones” are expected to arise, a priestly ‫ משיח‬or ‫ משוח‬from the House of Aaron, and a secular one from (the royal house) of David or Israel, ‫משיחי אהרן וישראל‬ (cf. 1QS 9:10-11; CD 12:22-23; 14:18-19; 19:9-11; etc.). The members of the Qumran Yaḥad who conceived of their community and of themselves as the first post-exilic generation of pre-exilic Israel, borrowed the image of the two messiahs from Zechariah, one of the last biblical prophets, and accepted it as the basic principle of Israel’s politeia in the world to come. In light of the ideological difference between the prominent principle of the autocratic royal rule of the Davidic dynasty, pervasively advocated in Chronicles, on the one hand, and the dualistic system, in which a Davidic and an Aaronide “Anointed” share power, which is favored by the author of ZS and the contemporary prophets, on the other hand, the scales are decidedly weighted in favor of the “two authors” hypothesis. XVIII It remains to be shown that the dual-leadership structure of social rule features prominently in ENC, the major component of the book of Ezra– Nehemiah; albeit this concept has become slightly modified under the impact of developments in domestic affairs which affected the returnees’ community in the period between the days of Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. The dual leadership system emerges in ENC with what may be defined a “democratizing” modification. The author emphatically stressed the cooperation of Ezra and Nehemiah, neither of whom is presented or alluded to as “anointed.” At the same time, the account of their public actions points to a sharing of authority and competence similar to the division of power

376

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

and leadership between Zerubbabel and Joshua. Ezra is introduced as stemming from the sons of Aaron (Ezra 7:1-5). He does not fulfill specific cultic functions. Nevertheless, his activities are clearly limited to the religioussocietal sphere. In contrast, Nehemiah is described as a high-ranking official at the Persian court (Neh 2:1), whom the Persian king Artaxerxes then appointed governor, ‫פחה‬, of the province Yehud (Neh 5:14, 15, 18; 12:26). In the Aramaic components of ZS this title is assigned to Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:14), who is mentioned in the preceding Hebrew text as “prince [or: ruler] of Judah,” ‫( הנשיא ליהודה‬Ezra 1:8). With no Davidic successor to Zerubbabel on the scene,39 Nehemiah takes the place of the “scion,” next to Ezra, his partner of priestly descent, who does not fulfill any specified cultic function. Judging by the role he played, Nehemiah can be regarded as a successor to Gedaliah ben Aḫiqam, whom the Babylonians had appointed as governor of Judah in lieu of a “scion” from the House of David (2 Kgs 25:22-26; Jer 39:11; 40:5–41:6). The retention in ENC of the dual-leadership model, indeed with significant modifications in reaction to changed historical circumstances, may offer an explanation of the surprising incorporation of the pericope describing the “reading of the Torah” and the Feast of Tabernacles into the Nehemiah memoirs (Neh 7:72–8:18), though they seem to suit the Ezra traditions much better. Furthermore, the mention of “the Governor Nehemiah,” ‫נחמיה הוא‬ ‫התרשתא‬, next to “Ezra the Priest-Scribe,” ‫( עזרא הכהן הספר‬Neh 8:9), might well reflect the redactor’s intention to present the dual-leadership model as being in force even in the late restoration period. XIX The persistence of this dual model of governance, notwithstanding the profound changes which affected the model over the course of the restoration period, from the times of Zerubbabel and Joshua to the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, justifies the acceptance of the biblical Ezra–Nehemiah complex as “historiography,” at least in respect to the internal development of the Israelite community. The account does not always provide precisely dated records, and at times even preserves contradictory information. However, its

39

On this cf. Liver, House of David, 195; Talmon, “Books and Men,” 327–328.

[Type text]

Ezra–Nehemiah: Historiography or Theology?

377

basic historicity still is covered by Huizinga’s definition of the term “history”: “History is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past.”40

40

Huizinga, “Definition,” 9.

378

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 17 ~ THE “GOOD SAMARITAN”—A “GOOD ISRAELITE”?* I The “Good Samaritan” has become a household phrase in all cultures to which the Gospel has spread. In its fame it is “equaled only by the Parable of the Prodigal Son.”1 The pivotal figure of Luke’s parable symbolizes fellowfeeling and a readiness to come to the succor of the ailing and the destitute. Whoever shows compassion with the needy and the infirm earns the honorific title “Good Samaritan.” Hospitals are named after him, and in his name charitable societies elicit donations for helping the sick and the poor. The main features of the famous parable in the Gospel of Luke (10:25-37),2 from which springs that symbol of humaneness and benevolence, can be outlined in a few swift strokes:3 A lawyer, νοµικός, probably the Greek rendition of the Hebrew ‫חכם‬, sage, put Jesus to the test, ἐκπειπάξον αὐτοῦ,4 by posing the question: “Teacher, what am I to do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied by asking his interrogator: “What is written in the Law, ‫ ?תורה‬How do you read (interpret) it?” Telescoping two verses from the Pentateuch, the questioner answered to Jesus’ satisfaction: “You must (shall) love the Lord your God5 with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might, and with all your mind (Deut 6:5); and you must (shall) love your neighbor as yourself“ (Lev 19:18). However, to the lawyer’s ensuing query: “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus does not respond directly.6 Rather, he phrases his response *

1 2

3 4

5 6

Originally published in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern”? Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser yum 70. Geburtstag, ed. I. Kottsieper et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 472–485. Montgomery, Samaritans, 160–161. It is immaterial for my ensuing arguments whether or not this short pericope can be designated “parable” from the form-critical point of view. See Fitzmyer, Luke, 883–885. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 585, discusses the parable under “Beispielerzählungen,” and also uses recurrently the term “Geschichte.“ The Gospel text is quoted here in Fitzmyer’s translation. Cf. Gen 22:1; Deut 6:16; 8:2, et al., where the same Greek verb translates Hebrew ‫= נסה‬ “submit to a test.” Cf. Deut 11:1. The Talmud (b. Šabb. 31a) portrays a similar vignette of a man who stubbornly “tried” the great teachers Hillel and Shammai with a series of questions. Whereas Hillel answered

380

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

in the form of a parabolic story, as teachers and preachers are wont to do: A man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho was set upon by robbers. They stripped him of his belongings, beat him up, and left him lying half dead at the wayside. A priest, ‫כהן‬, came down that same road. When he espied the wounded man, he passed by on the other side, as did a Levite who chanced upon that place. But a “Samaritan who was on a journey” was moved to pity when he saw the robbers’ victim. He attended to him and bandaged his wounds. Then, seating him on his own donkey, he brought him to an inn;7 he provided for his immediate needs and promised the innkeeper to reimburse him lavishly, on his return, for whatever he would spend on catering to the wounded man. “Which of these three,” asked Jesus, “seems to you to have been neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” The lawyer answered: “The one who showed him kindness.”8 Thereupon Jesus advised him: “Go and do the same yourself” (10:37). The priest and the Levite, whose calling and status should have taught them to love their neighbors and assist them in their woes, blatantly disregarded the obligations of their status. It fell to a “Samaritan,” Σαµαρίτης,9 a man without learning, to demonstrate true abidance by the teachings of the Law, and to set an example for lawyers, sages, priests, and Levites, and for all who heard or read the parable. “It is obvious,” says Gerhardsson, “that the parable of the Good Samaritan censures the religious leaders of the people.”10 “A good pagan would have served as an example, but the Samaritan was nearer home, while the motive of religious disgust … could only come into play if an Israelite were the hero.”11 In the moral downgrading of the religious personnel a prominent trend in the Gospels comes to the fore: the opposition to the religious establishment of the Jewish community, and the concomitant preference for the simple folk, whom the

7 8

9

10 11

patiently, Shammai lost his temper and drove the man away. To this day, the site on which the inn presumably stood is pointed out to pilgrims and tourists. Masson, “Parable,” 180: “Their (the priest’s and the Levite’s) callousness is self-evident, and when they are contrasted with the kindhearted and unselfish-spirited Samaritan, the lawyer has no other choice than to pass condemnation on them.” In extra-canonical writings they are sometimes ridiculed as “fools” (Sir 50:25-26; T.Levi 7:2), and probably also in the NT. See Montgomery’s brief remarks on John 8:48 and Matt 5:22 in Samaritans, 154–155. Gerhardsson, “The Good Samaritan,” 11. Montgomery, Samaritans, 161.

[Type text]

The “Good Samaritan”—A “Good Israelite”?

381

Evangelists strove hard to bring into their fold.12 On the face of it, the message of this pericope appears to be quite explicit. However, on closer analysis it poses nagging questions, which indeed did not escape the attention of exegetes.13 Listing here all the queries and diverse solutions suggested would be carrying coals to Newcastle.14 It should, however, be pointed out that the lawyer’s question about “eternal life” has obvious Christian overtones,15 whereas Jesus’ reply reveals a seemingly Jewish (Pharisaic) frame of mind by leading the questioner to the recognition that the answer may be found in the Law. However, viewed in context, the scriptures which the lawyer quotes in his response do not reflect at all on “eternal life.”16 Rather, they present the love of one’s neighbor, and the love of God, as preconditions for enjoying a long and successful life on earth, in the land of Israel, ‫למען תאריכ)ון( ימים על האדמה‬. This motif is especially prominent in Deuteronomy (4:26, 40; 5:16 = Exod 20:12; Deut 5:30[33]; 6:2; 11:9; 17:20; 22:7; 25:15; 32:47), and surfaces also in other biblical books (Josh 24:31 = Judg 2:7; 1 Kgs 3:14; Isa 53:10; Prov 28:16). In contrast, a disregard for the love of God by transgressing his command-ments is bound to result in a shortening of the life span granted to humans, and in reference to Israel, in the loss of the land which he bestowed to his people (Deut 4:26; 30:18).17 Indeed, in the concluding line of the dialogue, Jesus promises the lawyer that if he abides by these tenets he “will live,” ζήσῃ (Luke 10:28), but not that he will inherit eternal life, ζώῃν αἰώνιων. The evident discrepancy between question and answer induces the assumption that the author of the Gospel probably adapted to his needs

12

13 14

15 16

17

Johnson, Luke, 173, rightly emphasizes that: “The point of the story is not a contrast between ‘Jews’ and ‘Samaritans’ to the advantage of the latter, but a contrast between those who were established and recognized as part of the people and those who were not,” that is to say, all non-Jews, irrespective of their religious or national affiliation. This interpretation stands in need of revision. See Gerhardsson, “The Good Samaritan,” 3–9; and further, Crossan, “The Good Samaritan.” Fitzmyer, Luke, and Johnson, Luke, provide helpful surveys of the history of the exegesis and the present state of the art. See John 3:15-16; Luke 18:18-30; Acts 13:46-48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22-23: Gal 6:8; Jude 1:12; et al. Johnson, Luke, 172, rightly remarks: “The combination of terms (‘inherit eternal life ‘) does not occur in Torah.” Funk, “The Old Testament in Parable,” 255, skirts the issue: “The parable would appear to be a midrash on the second part of the commandment.” Cf. Qoh 7:15; 8:13.

382

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

a known Jewish aphorism, which originally may have had a different ideational thrust, as Montefiore correctly presumed: “The story must have existed, therefore, apart from the question, and the connection of 30–37 with 25–28 by means of 29 must be due to Luke. In other words, the story was not said for the first time by Jesus in answer to the question in 29.”18 Scholars have drawn attention to the probability that the parable reflects pivotal features of the biblical account of the war of King Pekach of Samaria against Ahaz of Judah, in which Jerusalem and Jericho play a prominent role. The Samarians had captured many Judeans in the wake of their raid on Jerusalem (2 Chr 28:6-8). But the prophet Oded prevailed upon them to free the captives and return them to their homeland (28:9-11). Thereupon some explicitly named Samarians “took the captives … clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, poured oil over them, seated the feeble ones on asses, and brought them to Jericho, the city of palm trees” (2 Chr 28:12-15).19 The similarity is indeed striking. However, the chronological setting suggests that Luke’s parable probably echoes rabbinic literary motifs and conventions,20 no less than biblical prototypes.21 II I shall now turn to a consideration of the parable, which is the main concern of this essay. I propose to bolster an understanding of this text which already was suggested in the past, but is deemed farfetched by Fitzmyer and other modern interpreters,22 namely that it does not revolve at all upon a “good Samaritan,” as is the prevalent interpretation, but rather upon a “good Israelite.”23 This thesis can be buttressed by bringing under scrutiny aspects of a literary nature on one hand and pivotal matters of content on the other. It has been pointed out that since “the Parable occurs only in Luke and not in the Marcan and Matthean versions of the incident,” this “may mean

18 19

20 21

22 23

See Montefiore, “Luke,” 345. See Wilkinson, “Oded,” 94, and Furness, “Fresh Light,” 182, who develop comments by T.W. Manson and G.W.H. Lampe. See below. Gerhardsson, Samaritan, takes the biblical motif of the shepherd, ‫רועה‬, to be at the basis of the parable, mispronounced or midrashically reinterpreted as ‫ר ַע‬,ֵ “neighbor.” See Fitzmyer, Luke, 887; Montefiore, Luke; and Abrahams, “Good Samaritan,” 34–37. Halévy, “Sens et origine.”

[Type text]

The “Good Samaritan”—A “Good Israelite”?

383

that we should not stress as original the connexion between the Parable and the lawyer’s questions.”24 Literary considerations indeed prove their conjunction be rather tenuous.25 It appears that v. 37b: “So Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do the same yourself,’” is a resumptive repetition of the ending of the dialogue in v. 28:26 “Jesus then said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; do this and you shall live.’” In both instances, the concluding remark is preceded by a reference to the biblical commandment to love one’s neighbor. The bracketing out achieved by the two complementary components of a resumptive repetition (vv. 28 and 37) proves the parable (v. 29-37a) to be an originally independent unit, which the author spliced in27 between the lawyer episode (10:25-28) and the story of Martha and Mary (10:38-42).28 Accordingly, a treatment of the “Parable of the Good Samaritan,” separated from the introductory episode involving the lawyer, is fully justified. The parable seemingly displays a penchant for triadic structure, a prominent feature of Hebrew biblical literature.29 The prominent occurrence of this phenomenon in Luke has been singled out,30 but it is entirely absent from the dialogue that frames the parable. The priest and the Levite may be seen as two components of a triad, which the “rescuer” completes. Now, the commonest and most predictable complement of “priest” and “Levite,” ‫כהן‬ 24

25 26

27

28

29 30

Bowman, “The Parable,” 153. In contrast, Funk, “Old Testament in Parable,” 258, asserts: “the pericope, Luke 10,25-37, was a unity from the first.” However, at the same time he deems it “methodologically sound to follow Gerhardsson in considering the parable initially in and of itself” (ibid., p. 259). See also Binder, “Gleichnis.“ See Kuhl, “Wiederaufnahme,” and the discussion of this technique in Talmon, “Four Hundred Years,” above, 125–126, esp. n. 5. Wiener, Kuhl and others view the resumptive repetition solely as a redactional technique, whereas I have endeavored to show that it also could have profitably served the biblical authors as a structuring pattern, as it is in fact used by later medieval interpreters. See Talmon, “Synchroneity and Simultaneity.” Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 596, concurs with this analysis, explaining that with the help of this insert, Luke aimed to underpin the Christian message of the pericope: “Ich sehe keine andere Möglichkeit, die mangelhafte ‘Logik der Rede’ zu erklären, als so, dass die Geschichte 30–35 aus einem andren Zusammenhange von Lc erst hierhergeschoben worden ist, weil er die Perikope von dem Doppelgebot in der ihm überlieferten Form zu arm an spezifisch christlichem Gehalte fand.“ See my essay, “Topped Triad,” above, 77–123. See Sparks, “Partiality.”

384

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

and ‫לוי‬, is evidently ‫ישראל‬, the traditional designation for run-of-the-mill Israelites who had no standing in the cultic hierarchy. The standard subdivision of the ancient Jewish society into ‫כהן‬, ‫לוי‬, ‫ישראל‬, with which Luke’s contemporary audience was certainly well-acquainted, pervades late biblical literature. It turns up prominently in the post-exilic roster of returnees from the Babylonian exile (Ezra 2:1-69 = Neh 7:7-71), which are structured in conformity with this three-tier system. This triad finds a most conspicuous mention in the summary line of the roster, which also serves as a prolepsis of the ensuing episodes (Ezra 2:70–3:1 = Neh 7:72), and shows that the comprehensive unit ‫( כל העם‬Ezra 3:1b = Neh 8:1) is comprised of the categories ‫הכהנים‬, ‫( הלוים‬with their subdivisions), and ‫בני ישראל‬/‫( כל‬Ezra 2:70; 3:la = Neh 7:72; Ezra 7:7).31 The division of the people of Israel into three socio-religious strata prevailed in mainstream Judaism in the Second Temple period, and was also embraced by dissident factions. It played an important role in the structure of the “Community of the Renewed Covenant” whose members stored (some of) their literary works in the Qumran caves in the desert of Judah. We can content ourselves with adducing only a few illustrations of this normative structure. The three-tiered division was utilized in the induction rites of novices, described in the Community Rule and the Manual of Discipline (1QS 1:18–2:23); this ceremony implements the blessing and curse ceremony described in Deut 27–28 and echoed in Josh 8:30–35 (see especially Deut 27:9 and Josh 8:33). The same structure obtains in the members’ seating arrangement for communal gatherings (CD 14:3-5). The system surfaces in an inverted sequence in the description of the battle order of the “Sons of Light” in their future war against the “Sons of Darkness,” as “Israel, Levi and Aaron” (1QM 2:1-9 and passim; cf. Ezra 1:5). To this day, the triad ‫כהן‬, ‫לוי‬, ‫ ישראל‬has a symbolic function in the Jewish ritual, and plays a tangible role in the life of the Samaritan community. The prerogatives of priests, and to a lesser degree of Levites, are strictly adhered to. Their observance affects noticeably all aspects of a member’s life, as well as the constitution of the community. The smallness of the Samaritan 31

Cf. further 1 Kgs 8:4-5; Ezra 10:5, 18-25; Neh 11:20; 2 Chr 30:27. See also Deut 18:1; 27:9; Josh 3:3; Neh 10:1: ‫כהנינו‬, ‫לְ וִ יֵ נוּ‬, ‫שרינו‬, et al. There prevails a tendency in modern scholarship to regard this classification, especially the solidification of the Levitical stratum, as a late innovation. However, the roots of the system probably reach down into the First Temple period.

[Type text]

The “Good Samaritan”—A “Good Israelite”?

385

community severely curbs a member’s choice of a mate. Priests and Levites refrain from marrying coreligionists who descend from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh of the “lay” house of Joseph. All religious functions, foremost the celebration of the Passover sacrifice, are the exclusive domain of the cultic personnel. Priests and Levites are the chosen leaders, the guardians of tradition and lore, to whom even learned laymen will defer. The above considerations make it apparent that, as Halévy has rightly argued,32 the merciful rescuer of the waylaid man was in fact an Israelite, a member of the third constituent component of the standard triad ‫כהן‬, ‫לוי‬, ‫ישראל‬. I further submit that the author of the parable structured his account in conformity with a biblical literary convention, which I have termed the “topped triad.” In this pattern, a trio of humans, living beings, inanimate objects, or time units, serves as the counterfoil for a fourth, intrinsically akin to the three, but set off from them, mostly for the better, and occasionally for the worse.33 Typical examples of this literary device are the tales of Job and his friends, of Daniel and his three companions,34 of Jacob’s son Judah who outranks his older brothers Reuben, Simon, and Levi (Gen 29:32-34), as David is destined ultimately to surpass his explicitly named three older brothers (1 Sam 16:69; 17:13).35 However, the application of the “topped triad” in the parable of The Good Samaritan is marred by an internal incongruity. In conformity with the characteristics of the pattern, the dramatis personae of the basic threesome all fall into one and the same category: the priest and the Levite are identified as Jews by their titles36 whereas the robbers’ victim is presented as a Jew 32 33 34 35

36

“Sens et origine.” See my discussion of the “Topped Triad,” above, 77–123. See Talmon, “Daniel.” The other four sons of Jesse remain unnamed (1 Sam 16:10; 17:12), although they too preceded David, who was the youngest (ibid., 16:11; 17:14; cf. Ps 151A in 11QPsa). This goes obviously also for the lawyer of the dialogue. Matt 22:34-40 explicitly designates him as a Pharisee, and Mark 12:28-34 as a scribe. It is therefore possible to construe another triad—lawyer, priest, Levi—which the “rescuer” tops. See Binder, Gleichnis, 177: “Lukas sah den fragenden Schriftgelehrten in einer Linie mit dem Priester und dem Leviten des Gleichnisses, die das Gebot der Nächstenliebe nicht erfüllten. Als so Gekennzeichneter konnte der νοµικός selbstverständlich keine echte Frage stellen.” The victim would then be an object of the story, not a dramatis persona.

386

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

only by implication.37 However, the presentation of a distinct outsider, a Samaritan, as the “topper,” disagrees with the intrinsic principles of the pattern. Further, if the “topper” of the triad, the praiseworthy rescuer of the robbers’ victim, were indeed one of the Samaritans who are at times depicted as enemies of the Jews,38 we would have expected the author to have the lawyer identify him as “the Samaritan,” rather than as “the one who treated him with mercy” (Luke 10:37); we might have expected him to accentuate this dynamic by explicitly identifying the victim as a Jew, rather than referring to him by the colorless phrase ἀνθρωπός τις, “a certain man” (10:30). Moreover, it would have been more pertinent had the author made the point d’appuie of the parable, a biblical injunction which demands that even an enemy should be treated with kindness, such as: “do not rejoice over your enemy’s downfall” (Prov 24:17), but come to his help (Exod 23:5); “feed him when he is hungry” (Prov 25:21), and above all, “do not hate your brother in your heart” (Lev 19:17),39 rather than the adjacent commandment which speaks of the love of one’s neighbor (19:18). The foregoing discussion of some literary features of the parable strongly suggests that like the basic triad—priest, Levite, victim—the “topper,” too, was not a Samaritan, but rather an Israelite, a simple Jew, who proved himself to be more observant of the Law than the cult functionaries.40 III The above-suggested interpretation of the parable can be buttressed by bringing into play further arguments of a different nature. a. The episode is enclosed in an account of Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51–19:27).41 Coming from Chorazin, Capernaum and Lake

37

38

39 40

41

This is often overlooked. Johnson, Luke, 175, speaks without qualification of the “traveling Judean.” The appreciation of the Samaritans in the Jewish tradition changes according to the actual relations of the two groups in history in history. See Montgomery’s compressed survey in Samaritans, 165–195; Cf. Talmon, “Biblische Überlieferungen.“ Cf. Luke 6:27, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” I can see no valid basis for C. Daniel’s allegorical interpretation of the parable, which presumes that the robbers (“brigands”) stand for the Zealots, the priest and the Levite for the Sadducees, the lawyer for the Pharisees, and the victim for the Essenes. See Daniel, “Esséniens.” Likewise the preceding dialogue.

[Type text]

The “Good Samaritan”—A “Good Israelite”?

387

Genezareth (10:13-15), his party must have crossed the Samaritan enclave,42 which stretched from Shunem in the North to Bethel in the South, with the city of Shechem-Nablus as its focal point.43 The passage which precedes the pericope under review reports indeed that the inhabitants of a Samaritan village refused to give lodgings to Jesus and his disciples (9:51-55). Thereupon they proceeded to another village (9:56); which, however, is not explicitly identified as a Samaritan settlement.44 These episodes are appropriately located in the “Samaritan enclave,” predominantly in the vicinity of Shechem, as are all Gospel traditions in which Samaritans play a role. On his way to Jerusalem, Jesus passed through a “certain village” in Samaria, evidently a Samaritan settlement, where he healed ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). The earlier account of the cleansing of a leper (5:12-16) also concerns a Samaritan. It is evidently set in the same area, sandwiched in between reports of events which occurred in Capernaum and at Lake Genessaret (5:1-11) in the north of the country, and a series of episodes in which Jesus confronts Pharisees and Scribes from Judah and Jerusalem, to the south of Samaria (5:17-26 etc.). The Johannine tale of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman is located at the spring of Sychar near Shechem (John 4:5-42), which in Samaritan tradition is named Jacob’s Well. In that same region are also acted out the episodes concerning the sorcerer Simon Magus, whose Samaritan connection is beyond doubt (Acts 8:5-25). Matt 10:5-6 relates that Jesus instructed the Twelve: “Do not take the road to Gentile lands, and do not enter any Samaritan town, but go to the lost sheep of Israe1.” This wording appears to imply that the Samaritan townships were concentrated in a circumscribed area, as was indeed the case. Recent surveys and excavations of several sites in Samaria have brought to light ruins of a surprisingly large number of Samaritan sites,

42

43

44

The same pertains to the journey in the opposite direction. Leaving Judea on his return to the Galilee, Jesus ”needed” to go through Samaria (John 4:3-4). In rabbinic literature, this expanse is sometimes termed ‫מטלית כותים‬, “the parcel of the Cutheans.” The designation of the Samaritans as Cutheans derives from a biblical tradition which tells of the implantation of foreigners in the northern territory in the wake of the Assyrian conquest of Samaria, among them “people from Cutha” (2 Kgs 17:24-41). The story of the mission of the seventy(-two) (10:1-12; 17–24) may have a similar background.

388

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

public buildings, and extensive burial grounds.45 These prove that the area was more densely settled by a much larger Samaritan population than scholars had assumed. b. The parable of the Good Samaritan is the only exception. The account involves a diversion from Jesus’ itinerary, and a surprising shift of scene from Samaria to the slopes of the Judean hills towards the Dead Sea. One would not expect “a despised Samaritan, himself most at risk in this dangerous no man’s land of deserted territory,”46 to frequently travel the road which leads from Jerusalem to Jericho, as the story implies. There is no indication that at the turn of the era, Samaritans were settled in this area. The distribution map of Samaritan oil lamps found in Palestine is most heavily dotted in the northern part of the country, from Tel Qasilah in the south-west, situated on the Mediterranean shore near modern Tel-Aviv, to modern Nahariya in the northwest, Beth-Shean in the northeast and Tell enNasbeh in the southeast. In contrast, the map is conspicuously blank in the entire area to the south and southeast of Jerusalem.47 Against this background, it is surprising that the rescuer in the parable was evidently well known to the presumably Jewish innkeeper. The latter accepted without questioning the rescuer’s promise to reimburse him on his return (from where?)48 for taking care of the robbers’ victim.49 In those days, Samaritans would rather stick to their own enclave than cross Jewish territory, just as Jews preferred to avoid journeying through Samaritan territory.50 45

46 47

48

49

50

The excavations are directed by Y. Magen, whose Ph.D. thesis provides a complete overview. See, inter alia, Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania, Gerizim, 1–41. Johnson, Luke, 175. See Sussmann, “Oil Lamps,” 86, fig. 10. We should, however, point out that recent archaeological finds evince a Samaritan presence in the region between Jerusalem and Jericho in the Byzantine period. See Magen, “Qedumin”; idem, “Ritual Baths”; idem, “Samaritan Sarcophagi”; Magen, Misgav and Tsefania, Gerizim. Bishop, “People,” 4: “As for the Samaritan, it has never been proved whether he was on his way home to Samaria, as has been thought from “when I come again,” i.e., on the next expedition to Transjordan; or whether he was off to Transjordan on business and would be back again with this completed.” Bruce, Synoptic Gospels, 544: “he expects to return to the place on his business, a regular customer at that inn.” Apud Bishop, “People,” 4, n. 8. Montgomery, Samaritans, 160, remarks: “The Jews naturally took the eastern route (via

[Type text]

The “Good Samaritan”—A “Good Israelite”?

389

c. In contrast, it is exceedingly convincing to find Jews habitually traversing this area. Priests, Levites, and Israelites would be traveling to Jerusalem from their various towns, in particular when it was the turn of their “watch” to serve in the Temple, in accordance with the established rotation system: The early prophets made the rule of twenty-four watches (‫)משמרות‬, and for each watch there was a delegation (‫)מעמד‬, in Jerusalem, made up of priests, Levites and Israelites. When the time for a watch came to go up to Jerusalem, its priests and Levites go up with it to Jerusalem. And Israelites who belong to that watch gather together in their towns and study the story of the works of creation. (m. Taʿan 4:2)51

Parallel rabbinic traditions more specifically state that only those Israelites in the watch “who were unable to go up to Jerusalem,”52 or lived too far away from the city, stayed back and gathered in their towns (m. Bikk. 3:2 etc.). The participation of all three classes in the Temple ritual was actually considered a precondition for the proper execution of the sacrifice: “Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The absence of the priests, Levites and Israelites is a bar to the [offering of] the sacrifices” (b. Taʿan. 27a).53 Again: Why were the ‫ מעמדות‬instituted? Because it is said, “command the children of Israel and say unto them: My food which is presented unto me.” How can a man’s offering be brought [on the altar] and he is not present? [Therefore] the earlier prophets instituted twenty-four ‫משמרות‬. Each ‫ משמר‬was represented [at the Temple] in Jerusalem by its own ‫ מעמד‬of priests, Levites and Israelites. (b. Taʿan. 27a)

In reference to the priestly watches’ routine, Jericho had a very special standing: Our Rabbis have taught: “There were twenty-four ‫ משמרות‬in Palestine and twelve in Jericho.” [You say] there were [also] twelve in Jericho, then there were actually far more [than twenty-four].54 It (the text) must therefore be understood to mean that twelve of them [of the

51 52 53 54

Peraea) to avoid the unpleasantness of the journey through Samaria.” Neusner, Mishnah, 313. See t. Taʿan. 3:3 (ed. Zuckermandel, 219). Cf. y. Taʿan. 4:2 19b. I quote the Talmud in the Soncino translation. The number given in 1 Chr 24:7-18.

390

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

twenty-four] were in Jericho. When the time came for the ‫ משמר‬to go up [to Jerusalem] one half of the ‫ משמר‬went up from [their homes] in Palestine to Jerusalem and the other half went up to Jericho in order to provide their brethren in Jerusalem with water and food. (b. Taʿan. 27a)

These traditions imply that in Second Temple times a steady stream of priests, Levites, and Israelites must have been making their way from Jericho to Jerusalem and vice versa.55 d. Some discrepancies in the parable have been highlighted by J. Breech: “There is one aspect of this parable, however, which makes it different from all the core parables of Jesus. This is the only parable which includes place names (Jerusalem, Jericho) or the identification of characters by cultural code (Samaritan, priest, Levite).” Breech then proposes a “rewritten” neutral version of the tale, so as to remedy the departures from the norm: “all of these features are secondary Christian additions, … the story told by Jesus was about a man who was going down the road, not specifically the road from Jerusalem to Jericho,” and was set upon by robbers, and “by chance a man was going down that road, and (when) he saw him (the wounded victim), he passed by on the other side. So likewise did a second man, when he came to the place and saw him, he passed by on the other side. But a third man, as he journeyed, came to where he was etc.”56 I fully concur with the thesis that in its present form the pericope is a secondary mise en scène of an earlier tradition, but the drastic “rewriting” suggested by Breech is not needed for a presumed restoration of its pristine form. As already said, the incongruities fall away if one posits that the story originally revolved around a kindhearted “rescuer” who was not a Samaritan but rather an Israelite. Traveling to Jericho from Jerusalem and planning to return there, he came upon a wounded man, presumably another Israelite/ Jew who, like himself, had taken the same road. The learned ‫ כהן‬and the Levite, when they passed, had turned their back on their suffering “neighbor.” But the simple ‫ישראל‬, who passed there a little later, unsparingly helped the poor man, abiding by the injunction of the Law: ‫ואהבת לרעך כמוך‬, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The ignorant, run-of-the-mill Israelite

55

56

Rabbinic pronouncements concerning (‫ משמר)ות‬and (‫ מעמד)ות‬are conveniently registered in Kasowsky, Thesaurus Talmudis. Breech, Silence, 158–169.

[Type text]

The “Good Samaritan”—A “Good Israelite”?

391

set an example for the status-conscious representatives of the religious establishment. How can we explain the introduction of a Samaritan into the Lukan version of the parable, in place of the posited original reading, “Israelite”? The substitution could be understood to evince the author’s or a transmitter’s inimical attitude toward the Jews of his day. But it might have resulted from a mistranslation or misinterpretation of the Hebrew term ‫ישראל‬.57 The epithet Ισραήλ is applied in the Gospels to the Jewish community as a whole as well as to individuals. Jews are often designated Ιουδαῖοι.58 This designation never pertains to Samaritans. In fact, “the Samaritans usurp for themselves the theocratic name of Israel”59 from the day of the schism which severed them from Judaism,60 so much so that at the turn of the era, the name Ισραήλ, ‫ישראל‬, could be taken to equal “Samaritan,” whether intentionally or due to linguistic routine. The foregoing discussion supports the thesis proposed at the outset: A close analysis of the parable in Luke 10:30-37 strongly suggests that the praiseworthy hero of the story was not a “good Samaritan,” but rather a “good Israelite/Jew.”

57 58 59 60

See Sanders, “From Isaiah,” 104. One may count over one hundred and ninety-five mentions of the term. Montgomery, Samaritans, 318. This final separation has been diversely dated.

392

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

~ 18 ~ WAS THE BOOK OF ESTHER KNOWN AT QUMRAN?* I It is common knowledge that all books of the Hebrew Bible are represented in the hoard of scrolls and scroll fragments found in the caves of Qumran,1 with the exception of the Book of Esther.2 Furthermore, non-canonical works from Qumran frequently contain quotations from, or allusions to biblical texts.3 The extensive practice of citation is highly characteristic of the Covenanters, who sought also thereby to identify their community the true remnant of biblical Israel. The members of the Yaḥad regarded themselves as the righteous “tenth part” of God’s people, ‫עשׂריה‬ ִ ; the “holy seed,” ‫זרע קדש‬, whose return to the Land, ‫שאר ישוב‬, the prophet Isaiah had envisaged (Isa 6:13; 10:21-22). They claimed that YHWH had renewed with them the covenant which had been renounced when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (CD 1:1-8).4 Therefore, it causes surprise that not one explicit quotation from the book of Esther has been identified to date in the Covenanters’ literature, among hundreds of citations from the Scriptures.5 Various explanations for this phenomenon have been offered, none fully satisfactory. Some scholars suggest that the members of “The Renewed

* 1

2

3

4 5

Originally published in DSD 2 (1995), 249–267. It is estimated that the assemblage comprises approximately 900 scrolls, of which ca. 30% are copies of biblical books. To be precise, no fragment of the Book of Nehemiah has been identified, either. Its presence among the Qumran finds is only indirectly evidenced, if one assumes that at that time it was already joined with the Book of Ezra. Three small fragments of one single manuscript (4Q117) of Ezra (chs. 4–6) are indeed extant at Qumran. See Ulrich, “Ezra and Qoheleth,” 139–142. Noteworthy are the remnants of two compositions containing characteristic examples of this practice: Florilegium (4Q174), DJD 5:53–57; and Testimonia (4Q175), ibid., 57–60. The matter has been discussed in many publications. See, e.g., Goshen-Gottstein, “Bible Quotations”; Carmignac, “Poèmes du Serviteur”; idem, “Fils de Lumière”; Fitzmyer, “Old Testament Quotations”; Baumgarten, “A ‘Scriptural’ Citation”; Dimant, “Torah Quotations”; Greenstein, “Misquotations of Scripture”; Brin, “Explicit Quotations”; Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas.” See Talmon, “Between the Bible and the Mishnah.” But see below.

394

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

Covenant,”6 ‫( באי הברית החדשה‬CD 6:19; cf. 8:21; cf. 1QpHab 2:3),7 that is, of the ‫( ברית היחד‬1QS 8:16-17), held pacifist views, and therefore rejected the Book of Esther because of the belligerent and vindictive character of the Purim episode related in it. Others presume that the Yaḥad did not accept the book because the name of God is not mentioned in it, indicating a lack of faith.8 Again, others maintain that during the formative period of the community, the second and first centuries BCE, the Book of Esther was not yet regarded as “defiling the hands”; that is to say, it had not yet attained “canonical” status.9 A fourth opinion states that the non-existence of copies or parts of manuscripts of this fairly short book among the Qumran finds is merely coincidental, and that copies or at least fragments may still turn up. At any rate, nothing can he learned from its absence regarding the question of whether, at the end of the Second Temple period, the book was or was not included in the “canon of scriptures” nor about its status among the books which the ‫ יחד‬community sanctified.10 In the early l960s, J. Finkel sought to prove that the author of the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen)11 was familiar with the Book of Esther, although no vestige of it had been discovered among the Qumran finds.12 Finkel listed several phrases and figures of speech which, in his opinion, prove that in the report of the episode of Sarah and Abraham at the court of Pharaoh in Egypt, the author of 1QapGen drew upon the description of the fate of Esther and Mordecai at the court of Ahasuerus king of Persia, transmitted in the biblical book.13 The borrowing implies that the author was familiar with the

6

7

8 9 10 11 12 13

I have recurrently proposed to thus translate the designation(s) by which the Covenanters refer to their community: ‫( באי הברית החדשה‬CD 6:19), ‫( אשר באו בברית החדשה‬8:21; cf 8:1, 21), or apocopated ‫( באי )ה(ברית‬CD 2:2; 9:2-3; 13:14; 20:25; cf. 1QS 5:20; 10:10), ‫( ברית היחד‬1QS 3:11-12; 8:16-17; 1QM 17:3 [restored]). See Talmon, “Renewed Covenant.” In scores of occurrences in Qumran writings, the term ‫ הברית‬by itself signifies the community. Similarly, the verb ‫ בוא‬frequently signifies, in various constructions, “to join the community.” See Talmon, “Wisdom in Esther,” 255–290. See below. Moore, Esther, 21–25, provides a concise summary of the various opinions. Avigad and Yadin, Genesis Apocryphon. See Finkel, “The Author.” Finkel (ibid., 169) attempts to demonstrate “that this author was familiar with the Book of Esther (either with or without the midrash additions), and that similar to the Rabbis, and exegetes and commentators who followed them, he too connected the episode of Pharaoh

[Type text]

Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?

395

Masoretic text, and that “it is also possible that he used a version which was available to the Greek translator, or a proximate Hebrew or Aramaic source.”14 Several features of content and language on which Finkel based his hypothesis are noteworthy: 1. The panegyric on Sarah’s beauty (1QapGen 20:6-7): ‫וכל בתולן וכלאן די יעלון‬ ‫לגנון לא ישפרן מנהא ועל כל נשין שופר שפרה ועליא שופרהא לעלא מן כולהן‬, “and all maidens and all brides that enter under the wedding canopy are not fairer than she. And above all women is she lovely and higher in her beauty than that of them all,” resembles the praise of Esther in the biblical book: “The king loved Esther more than all the other women, and she won his grace and favor more than all the virgins” (2:17).15 2. Finkel argues that the passage: [...] ‫וימא לי מלכא במומה די לא‬, “and the king swore to me with an oath that cannot [be changed, or: voided]” (1QapGen 20:30) is reminiscent of Esth 8:8, “for an edict that has been written in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s signet may not be revoked.”16 3. Finkel realized that his examples of presumed literary dependence of 1QapGen on Esther do not constitute decisive proof for the validity of his hypothesis. Accordingly, he ended his discussion with “a most definite proof,”17 from a passage which states that Pharaoh gave Abraham a present before sending him on his way, namely, “a wide garment (?) and much clothing of fine linen and purple,” ‫ויהב לה מלכ]א מ[ הב]א? ש[גיא ולבוש שגי די בוץ וארגואן‬ (1QapGen 20:31). The expression ‫ בוץ וארגואן‬is the Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew collocation ‫בוץ וארגמן‬, which occurs in Esther in a similar context, the description of the ministerial garments with which King Ahasuerus honored Mordecai the Jew: ‫ומרדכי יצא מלפני המלך בלבוש מלכות תכלת וחור ועטרת זהב גדולה‬ ‫ותכריך בוץ וארגמן‬, “Mordecai left the king’s presence in royal robes of blue and white, with a magnificent crown of gold and a mantle of fine linen and purple wool” (Esth 8:15; Targ. Esth I: ‫ ;בוץ וארגוון‬see below). However, the weakness of Finkel’s hypothesis lies in the fact that most proofs which he

14

15 16 17

and Sarah with that of Ahasuerus and Esther.” Ibid., 170. For the possibility that the author of 1QapGen knew an Aramaic version of Esther, see below. Ibid., 169. Ibid., 179. Ibid., 178–179.

396

Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible

[Type text]

adduces constitute only indirect evidence. Moreover, all are drawn from the Genesis Apocryphon, which contains no distinguishing characteristics attesting to its being part of the Yaḥad’s unique literature.18 Consequently, the one direct quotation of ‫ בוץ וארגואן‬does not suffice to establish his claim that the Masoretic Book of Esther was indeed known to the members of the community. II Scholarly discussion of this matter was renewed in the wake of J.T. Milik’s publication of six clusters of fragments which he labeled 4QprEsth ara–f,19 and in which he claimed to see remains of an Aramaic prototype of “models,” ‘archetypes,’ or ‘sources’ of traditions underlying the various Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and even Armenian versions of Esther.20 Like Finkel, Milik, too, supports his theory by adducing items of narrative-literary similarity common to 18 19

20

See, e.g., Lehmann, “1Q Genesis Apocryphon,” 249. See Milik, “Les Modèles.” Starcky, “Le travail,” 66, had already announced the existence of these fragments about twenty-five years before their publication by Milik. The English translation of 4QprEsth ar quotations in the present essay are courtesy of George Brooke. [Most of these fragments have since been officially published by É. Puech under the unifying siglum 4Q550 in DJD 37:1–45. Milik’s confusing notation of the fragments corresponds to the following DJD numbering: Milik, Proto-Esther Puech, 4Q550 4QPrEstha = frg. 1 4QPrEsthb = frg. 2 4QPrEsthc = frg. 4 4QPrEsthd frg. 1 -iv = frgs. 5+5a frg. 1 -ii = frgs. 6+6a+6b+6c frg. 1 -i = frgs. 7+7a frg. 2 = frg. 9 frg. 3 = frg. 7+7a frg. 4 = frg. 10 frg. 5 = frg. 3 4QPrEsthe frg. 1 = frg. 8 frg. 2 = frg. 4a 4QPrEsthf = 4Q583 or 4QProphecye ar] Milik, “Les Modèles,” 321: “S’agissant effectivement, à notre avis, de ‘modèles,’ d’’archétypes,’ de ‘sources,’ de ‘proto-Esther,’ des versions du livre d’Esther conservées en Hébreu, Grec, Latin (et jusqu’à un passage en Armenien).”

[Type text]

Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?

397

4QprEsth ar and Esther: 1. The description of the honor bestowed upon the queen: ‫בלבוש] מלכותא‬ ֗ ‫[ כליל דה]בא על רי[ ֯שה‬..., “in the wardrobe […] coronet of go[ld…] on her [h]ead” (4QprEsth ard 1 -ii 2-3);21 cf. ‫וישם כתר מלכות בראשה‬, “He put a royal crown on her head”(Esth 2:17). 2. The particulars of the evil that will befall the villain: ‫באישתה תאבה על‬ ‫]ריש[ה‬, “his wickedness will return on his own [head]” (4QprEsth ard 1 -i 6).22 Milik compares this text with the passages: ‫ישוב מחשבתו הרעה אשר חשב על‬ ‫היהודים על ראשו‬, “Let the evil plot, which he devised against the Jews, recoil on his own head” (Esth 9:25); and ‫ויתלו את המן על העץ אשר הכין למרדכי‬, “they impaled Haman on the stake which he had put up for Mordecai” (Esth 7:10). 3. ‫ ס[ ֯פ ֗רי אב]ו[הי ֯ה ֯תקריו‬... ‫אע]ירה אלהא‬ ֯ ‫[עי֯ ן בה בש>ע